Mr. Jessop, I have sympathy with your view of where the balance should lie, but I am bloody certain that the actions of South Yorkshire and Thames Valley Police are outrageous.
Leave aside the corrupt leaking of information for a moment (even though it was in itself probably a criminal offence), How would you feel if your local force asked in the national news papers for people with allegations against you to come forward, even though they had never interviewed you for any offence, let alone been arrested you. The conduct of South Yorkshire police is scandalous, possibly unlawful, and probably corrupt (if they didn't leak it Thames Valley did).
Agree about the leaking of this (and as I said the other day, Jim Davidson had something interesting to say on the radio about his own experience of this).
It was interesting the way the investigation into Rolf Harris was reported by the BBC as "a man of xxx age living in yyy has been arrested" for weeks (despite Harris's name being on t'Internet), whilst Jim Davidson's name was reported with something approaching glee immediately.
At least, I hope I remembered that correctly ...
Of course, Davidson was innocent (the case did not even go to trial and was investigated by two different forces). Harris was not.
It stank of the media protecting their own in the case of Harris. Exactly the sort of behaviour that led to these sorts of problems in the first place.
On a matter of note: have either police force publicly asked for people to come forward wrt the latest case? I haven't been following the case that closely.
It seems to me in these recent sex offence cases, the more pious and do goody the suspects image, the more guilty they are, and vice versa
I'm not sure what your evidence base is for the assertion unless you're making assumptions about a recent event.
Oooh!!!
Savile -tireless charity worker friend of the royal family Hall - Jovial childrens BBC tv presenter Harris - a combination of the two
Davidson - widely disliked right wing un PC blue comic Starr - ditto Ken Barlow - talked of as weird nutter
Big night for Yes in Scotland then. Looks like it's going to be very tight indeed. As I said earlier this week, the total confidence of the Yrs side in victory must be based on something solid. It's inexplicable otherwise. I just don't believe in that level of self-delusion. It seems to me more certain than ever that the UK will soon be an ex-country.
It's looking increasingly likely UKIP will poll at least 10% next year.
Unlikely to happen, but what if UKIP polled 30% next year?
Would that mean: 1. The sitting government calling in the police and and army to arrest every elected UKIP MP. 2. Mass suicides by PB Lab/LIB/Con supporters. 3. Bankruptcies on all those who bet on a Labour or Coalition government. 4. Mass demonstrations by the Left trying to prevent a UKIP led government forming. 5. Mass demonstrations by the Right trying to prevent a UKIP led government forming. 6. MSM calling on the country to quash the election results. 7. A UKIP led government is formed.
Big night for Yes in Scotland then. Looks like it's going to be very tight indeed. As I said earlier this week, the total confidence of the Yrs side in victory must be based on something solid. It's inexplicable otherwise. I just don't believe in that level of self-delusion. It seems to me more certain than ever that the UK will soon be an ex-country.
I don't think it will be all that close. My current prediction would be Yes 45%, No 55%.
It's looking increasingly likely UKIP will poll at least 10% next year.
Unlikely to happen, but what if UKIP polled 30% next year?
Would that mean: 1. The sitting government calling in the police and and army to arrest every elected UKIP MP. 2. Mass suicides by PB Lab/LIB/Con supporters. 3. Bankruptcies on all those who bet on a Labour or Coalition government. 4. Mass demonstrations by the Left trying to prevent a UKIP led government forming. 5. Mass demonstrations by the Right trying to prevent a UKIP led government forming. 6. MSM calling on the country to quash the election results. 7. A UKIP led government is formed.
I love the bits where he talks about the UKs military prowess, you know those capabilities he is determined to cut even further. Then there is the great section when he says the police are going to act against people promoting Islamist views in the UK. Its comedy gold stuff.
When most people laugh at Cameron and start to pity him, as HurstLama does, then you know that the end is nigh for the establishment.
Big night for Yes in Scotland then. Looks like it's going to be very tight indeed. As I said earlier this week, the total confidence of the Yrs side in victory must be based on something solid. It's inexplicable otherwise. I just don't believe in that level of self-delusion. It seems to me more certain than ever that the UK will soon be an ex-country.
There are some very attractive odds on offer if you're that "certain" of a YES vote.
If anyone wants to bet UKIP to get no seats with 21% of the vote I will sell my flat and have the lot on at EVS that they get at least one
Well in 1983, the Alliance polled 25%, and got 23 seats, and that was with the benefit of having incumbents in many seats.
FPTP screws smaller parties.
Yes, but who's saying UKIP are going to get anything close to 23 seats?
Your example proves UKIP will not be winning anything close to the number of seats that are proportional to their voteshare, that's true. But 8-10 seats is very possible on the sort of polling numbers they currently have.
Diane James a couple of months ago was talking about 60 UKIP MPs at the next General Election
Some people even said she was the "sensible" side of UKIP.
Big night for Yes in Scotland then. Looks like it's going to be very tight indeed. As I said earlier this week, the total confidence of the Yrs side in victory must be based on something solid. It's inexplicable otherwise. I just don't believe in that level of self-delusion. It seems to me more certain than ever that the UK will soon be an ex-country.
There are some very attractive odds on offer if you're that "certain" of a YES vote.
Big night for Yes in Scotland then. Looks like it's going to be very tight indeed. As I said earlier this week, the total confidence of the Yrs side in victory must be based on something solid. It's inexplicable otherwise. I just don't believe in that level of self-delusion. It seems to me more certain than ever that the UK will soon be an ex-country.
There are some very attractive odds on offer if you're that "certain" of a YES vote.
Big night for Yes in Scotland then. Looks like it's going to be very tight indeed. As I said earlier this week, the total confidence of the Yrs side in victory must be based on something solid. It's inexplicable otherwise. I just don't believe in that level of self-delusion. It seems to me more certain than ever that the UK will soon be an ex-country.
There are some very attractive odds on offer if you're that "certain" of a YES vote.
I am thinking the same. It may be time to have a little flutter. It's going to be very, very tight. And the Yes side is motivated in a way that is unlike anything else I can ever recall in British politics. They truly believe they are on the edge of victory.
I love the bits where he talks about the UKs military prowess, you know those capabilities he is determined to cut even further.
It does make one wonder at what point our politicians will all be able to admit, even the PM, that we simply cannot do or even contribute to most things militarily. There has to be a tipping point where it is just not credible to even pretend anymore.
Even if having the capacity to take action is a good thing, politicians simply admitting that as the public do not want to pay for what it costs to be so prepared (especially given the joke that is defence procurement and budgeting), and that therefore they will stop talking up our capabilities, would be refreshing. We're not a no-power state by any means, but even with reduced expectations we are still well below where most people probably think we are, militarily, and for most people we still spend far too much on defence.
I love the bits where he talks about the UKs military prowess, you know those capabilities he is determined to cut even further. Then there is the great section when he says the police are going to act against people promoting Islamist views in the UK. Its comedy gold stuff.
We send huge sums on our defence budget. We have a large equipment budget. We are building carriers and buying planes which would make the interventions of which you suddenly crave easier. We are already spending money to replace Trident.
Big night for Yes in Scotland then. Looks like it's going to be very tight indeed. As I said earlier this week, the total confidence of the Yrs side in victory must be based on something solid. It's inexplicable otherwise. I just don't believe in that level of self-delusion. It seems to me more certain than ever that the UK will soon be an ex-country.
There are some very attractive odds on offer if you're that "certain" of a YES vote.
I am thinking the same. It may be time to have a little flutter. It's going to be very, very tight. And the Yes side is motivated in a way that is unlike anything else I can ever recall in British politics. They truly believe they are on the edge of victory.
So do the 60% or thereabouts who intend to vote NO!
I love the bits where he talks about the UKs military prowess, you know those capabilities he is determined to cut even further. Then there is the great section when he says the police are going to act against people promoting Islamist views in the UK. Its comedy gold stuff.
When most people laugh at Cameron and start to pity him, as HurstLama does, then you know that the end is nigh for the establishment.
Be fair, Mr K, I have said for years that I thought Cameron was a grubby little PR spiv, so I am not voicing anything new. It is just that the gap between what Cameron says and what is actually happening is so marvellously illustrated in that article in the Telegraph. The gap is so wide I wonder if he can really believe what he says himself.
Big night for Yes in Scotland then. Looks like it's going to be very tight indeed. As I said earlier this week, the total confidence of the Yrs side in victory must be based on something solid. It's inexplicable otherwise. I just don't believe in that level of self-delusion. It seems to me more certain than ever that the UK will soon be an ex-country.
There are some very attractive odds on offer if you're that "certain" of a YES vote.
I am thinking the same. It may be time to have a little flutter. It's going to be very, very tight. And the Yes side is motivated in a way that is unlike anything else I can ever recall in British politics. They truly believe they are on the edge of victory.
I think you'd be wasting your money.
It's so easy to get carried away in an election campaign.
Big night for Yes in Scotland then. Looks like it's going to be very tight indeed. As I said earlier this week, the total confidence of the Yrs side in victory must be based on something solid. It's inexplicable otherwise. I just don't believe in that level of self-delusion. It seems to me more certain than ever that the UK will soon be an ex-country.
I do believe in that level of self delusion - peoples' willingness to ignore what seem obvious facts in favour of their preferred position is, I think, almost limitless (and makes me wonder where my own fact blindness probably lies - but the level of confidence exuded by yes is pretty darn disciplined if in fact it was not fully believed. I've grown more optimistic in the past month or so, but I have thought they would have the most motivated support and positive message, and hence would win the day in the end. I hope I am wrong.
It's looking increasingly likely UKIP will poll at least 10% next year.
Unlikely to happen, but what if UKIP polled 30% next year?
Would that mean: 1. The sitting government calling in the police and and army to arrest every elected UKIP MP. 2. Mass suicides by PB Lab/LIB/Con supporters. 3. Bankruptcies on all those who bet on a Labour or Coalition government. 4. Mass demonstrations by the Left trying to prevent a UKIP led government forming. 5. Mass demonstrations by the Right trying to prevent a UKIP led government forming. 6. MSM calling on the country to quash the election results. 7. A UKIP led government is formed.
Big night for Yes in Scotland then. Looks like it's going to be very tight indeed. As I said earlier this week, the total confidence of the Yrs side in victory must be based on something solid. It's inexplicable otherwise. I just don't believe in that level of self-delusion. It seems to me more certain than ever that the UK will soon be an ex-country.
There are some very attractive odds on offer if you're that "certain" of a YES vote.
I am thinking the same. It may be time to have a little flutter. It's going to be very, very tight. And the Yes side is motivated in a way that is unlike anything else I can ever recall in British politics. They truly believe they are on the edge of victory.
So do the 60% or thereabouts who intend to vote NO!
ICM is the gold standard. ICM is showing a narrowing gap. It's all about the Big Mo. Yes has it. If all that is holding Scots back is fear of the unknown then we are all better off with a Yes anyway. The Scots want out, the English aren't that bothered. It'll be a messy divorce, but it will be better than a loveless marriage. It's a shame, but that's the reality. We've grown apart.
It looks as if The Sunday Times is intent on sitting on its GE VI poll until the early hours, on which basis it's the wooden hill to Bedfordshire for me.
The policy - however stupid it may be - would seem to have been around since 2007, so not due to any plausible recent events, and bibles have been removed (allegedly to reception) as hotels are refurbished. Strange that comments have only just been aroused. Apparently rooms no longer have drawers, so its a money saving operation dressed up around supposed diversity. This excuse is of course quite pathetic.
Big night for Yes in Scotland then. Looks like it's going to be very tight indeed. As I said earlier this week, the total confidence of the Yrs side in victory must be based on something solid. It's inexplicable otherwise. I just don't believe in that level of self-delusion. It seems to me more certain than ever that the UK will soon be an ex-country.
I do believe in that level of self delusion - peoples' willingness to ignore what seem obvious facts in favour of their preferred position is, I think, almost limitless (and makes me wonder where my own fact blindness probably lies - but the level of confidence exuded by yes is pretty darn disciplined if in fact it was not fully believed. I've grown more optimistic in the past month or so, but I have thought they would have the most motivated support and positive message, and hence would win the day in the end. I hope I am wrong.
If the Scots vote Yes it'll be best for all of us. The only reason they'd vote no is because of (undoubtedly justified) worries about short term economic hardship. But that's no basis for on-going Union. They'll be happier on their own once they've got through the tough beginning, on a day to day basis it'll make no practical difference to us; just the political class, which will find itself emasculated internationally - probably no bad thing.
Big night for Yes in Scotland then. Looks like it's going to be very tight indeed. As I said earlier this week, the total confidence of the Yrs side in victory must be based on something solid. It's inexplicable otherwise. I just don't believe in that level of self-delusion. It seems to me more certain than ever that the UK will soon be an ex-country.
There are some very attractive odds on offer if you're that "certain" of a YES vote.
I am thinking the same. It may be time to have a little flutter. It's going to be very, very tight. And the Yes side is motivated in a way that is unlike anything else I can ever recall in British politics. They truly believe they are on the edge of victory.
So do the 60% or thereabouts who intend to vote NO!
ICM is the gold standard. ICM is showing a narrowing gap. It's all about the Big Mo. Yes has it. If all that is holding Scots back is fear of the unknown then we are all better off with a Yes anyway. The Scots want out, the English aren't that bothered. It'll be a messy divorce, but it will be better than a loveless marriage. It's a shame, but that's the reality. We've grown apart.
I don't think it will be remotely close, but don't let me dissuade you from putting your money down.
Big night for Yes in Scotland then. Looks like it's going to be very tight indeed. As I said earlier this week, the total confidence of the Yrs side in victory must be based on something solid. It's inexplicable otherwise. I just don't believe in that level of self-delusion. It seems to me more certain than ever that the UK will soon be an ex-country.
I do believe in that level of self delusion - peoples' willingness to ignore what seem obvious facts in favour of their preferred position is, I think, almost limitless (and makes me wonder where my own fact blindness probably lies - but the level of confidence exuded by yes is pretty darn disciplined if in fact it was not fully believed. I've grown more optimistic in the past month or so, but I have thought they would have the most motivated support and positive message, and hence would win the day in the end. I hope I am wrong.
If the Scots vote Yes it'll be best for all of us. The only reason they'd vote no is because of (undoubtedly justified) worries about short term economic hardship. But that's no basis for on-going Union. They'll be happier on their own once they've got through the tough beginning, on a day to day basis it'll make no practical difference to us; just the political class, which will find itself emasculated internationally - probably no bad thing.
I agree, Mr. Observer, the union is dead. The sooner the divorce takes place the better for both sides.
Where I disagree is on the likely result of the referendum. I think the Scots are going to bottle it. I hope I am wrong but I think "No" will win and the grief will go on for years and years.
Why is David Cameron expected to have developed an effective plan to tackle the spread of violent Islamic extremism from Iraq to Nigeria? He's the Prime Minister of Britain, which is nowhere near either Iraq or Nigeria.
Occasionally there are violent Islamic extremists in Britain and it would be his job to deal with them, but they generally tackle themselves by things like setting fire to their own van and crashing it into a concrete bollard outside an airport then getting the shit kicked out of them by off-duty baggage handlers.
Why should the fact that foreign Christians being murdered as opposed to foreign atheists or Hindus, or indeed some alternative Muslim sect, make any difference? The object should be the same in all cases. Was there something peculiarly immoral about about us killing fellow Christians in WW1 and WW2. I presume that when Irish Christians kill each other that this confuses the bishops so much that it precludes them writing letters to Prime Ministers. It has to be said that the Archbishop of Canterbury failed to write a stiff letter to the Pope when his christians were being blown up by the latter's catholics.
Big night for Yes in Scotland then. Looks like it's going to be very tight indeed. As I said earlier this week, the total confidence of the Yrs side in victory must be based on something solid. It's inexplicable otherwise. I just don't believe in that level of self-delusion. It seems to me more certain than ever that the UK will soon be an ex-country.
I do believe in that level of self delusion - peoples' willingness to ignore what seem obvious facts in favour of their preferred position is, I think, almost limitless (and makes me wonder where my own fact blindness probably lies - but the level of confidence exuded by yes is pretty darn disciplined if in fact it was not fully believed. I've grown more optimistic in the past month or so, but I have thought they would have the most motivated support and positive message, and hence would win the day in the end. I hope I am wrong.
If the Scots vote Yes it'll be best for all of us. The only reason they'd vote no is because of (undoubtedly justified) worries about short term economic hardship. But that's no basis for on-going Union. They'll be happier on their own once they've got through the tough beginning, on a day to day basis it'll make no practical difference to us; just the political class, which will find itself emasculated internationally - probably no bad thing.
There may be some practical differences, difficulties will no doubt occur as these sorts of national separations are fiendishly complicated, but I would generally agree it will probably be minimal, at least once the dust settles. For my part, my enthusiasm for continued Union is purely emotional, and I'm just saddened that, whatever the outcome in a month, for so many it holds no practical or emotional significance anymore, and even for many who will vote No it will end up being practicalities alone which sway them, and in any case on the basis of furthering emphasising the growing separation between all the Home nations, I'm becoming more supportive of some form of Federal system as pretty much the only way to keep things together while also, one hopes, making keeping things together attractive to as many as possible.
Big night for Yes in Scotland then. Looks like it's going to be very tight indeed. As I said earlier this week, the total confidence of the Yrs side in victory must be based on something solid. It's inexplicable otherwise. I just don't believe in that level of self-delusion. It seems to me more certain than ever that the UK will soon be an ex-country.
There are some very attractive odds on offer if you're that "certain" of a YES vote.
I am thinking the same. It may be time to have a little flutter. It's going to be very, very tight. And the Yes side is motivated in a way that is unlike anything else I can ever recall in British politics. They truly believe they are on the edge of victory.
So do the 60% or thereabouts who intend to vote NO!
ICM is the gold standard. ICM is showing a narrowing gap. It's all about the Big Mo. Yes has it. If all that is holding Scots back is fear of the unknown then we are all better off with a Yes anyway. The Scots want out, the English aren't that bothered. It'll be a messy divorce, but it will be better than a loveless marriage. It's a shame, but that's the reality. We've grown apart.
Surely, the message from polling is that things have been static for months?
Big night for Yes in Scotland then. Looks like it's going to be very tight indeed. As I said earlier this week, the total confidence of the Yrs side in victory must be based on something solid. It's inexplicable otherwise. I just don't believe in that level of self-delusion. It seems to me more certain than ever that the UK will soon be an ex-country.
There are some very attractive odds on offer if you're that "certain" of a YES vote.
I am thinking the same. It may be time to have a little flutter. It's going to be very, very tight. And the Yes side is motivated in a way that is unlike anything else I can ever recall in British politics. They truly believe they are on the edge of victory.
So do the 60% or thereabouts who intend to vote NO!
ICM is the gold standard. ICM is showing a narrowing gap. It's all about the Big Mo. Yes has it. If all that is holding Scots back is fear of the unknown then we are all better off with a Yes anyway. The Scots want out, the English aren't that bothered. It'll be a messy divorce, but it will be better than a loveless marriage. It's a shame, but that's the reality. We've grown apart.
Surely, the message from polling is that things have been static for months?
So thats UKIP poll 21 and Labour gain 85 seats. There's clever isn't it? But really isn't this company just giving opinion polling a bad name?
Your idea of a good polling company is the one which gives Tories the best result !
Where do you draw that conclusion. 1. I point out that even a big vote for UKIP only succeeds in giving a resounding result to a Europhile Labour Party and denies us a referendum (which I would welcome). How very clever of UKIP. 2. I draw attention to this pollsters a) flip flopping of its own results and b) the fact that it is way out of line with other polls. Where does that leave ones faith?
Admitedly I used a bit of cryptic shorthand to point this out in order to save typing time. Hey ho.
Cameron is only offering a referendum because UKIP are doing so well, that's the whole point. He doesn't want one and would never have offered one had it not been out of desperation.
Cameron is offering a referendum because he wants to reform the EU. He does not believe, and has stated so, in ever closer union. he believes that the creation of the Euro requires a different relationship with the EU. Again as stated by him.
Your remarks are pure supposition based on nothing.
None of this takes away from the fact that the very existence of UKIP is quite likely to guarantee the perpetuation of what they claim to be opposed to. But its increasingly clear that UKIP exists to peddle extreme right wing policies of which the EU is only a starter for 10. You have to be pretty naive to think that UKIP is about the EU these days.
Big night for Yes in Scotland then. Looks like it's going to be very tight indeed. As I said earlier this week, the total confidence of the Yrs side in victory must be based on something solid. It's inexplicable otherwise. I just don't believe in that level of self-delusion. It seems to me more certain than ever that the UK will soon be an ex-country.
I do believe in that level of self delusion - peoples' willingness to ignore what seem obvious facts in favour of their preferred position is, I think, almost limitless (and makes me wonder where my own fact blindness probably lies - but the level of confidence exuded by yes is pretty darn disciplined if in fact it was not fully believed. I've grown more optimistic in the past month or so, but I have thought they would have the most motivated support and positive message, and hence would win the day in the end. I hope I am wrong.
If the Scots vote Yes it'll be best for all of us. The only reason they'd vote no is because of (undoubtedly justified) worries about short term economic hardship. But that's no basis for on-going Union. They'll be happier on their own once they've got through the tough beginning, on a day to day basis it'll make no practical difference to us; just the political class, which will find itself emasculated internationally - probably no bad thing.
There may be some practical differences, difficulties will no doubt occur as these sorts of national separations are fiendishly complicated, but I would generally agree it will probably be minimal, at least once the dust settles. For my part, my enthusiasm for continued Union is purely emotional, and I'm just saddened that, whatever the outcome in a month, for so many it holds no practical or emotional significance anymore, and even for many who will vote No it will end up being practicalities alone which sway them, and in any case on the basis of furthering emphasising the growing separation between all the Home nations, I'm becoming more supportive of some form of Federal system as pretty much the only way to keep things together while also, one hopes, making keeping things together attractive to as many as possible.
I completely agree. It's a shame, but it is what it is. The Scots want out. And given that it's best for all concerned that Yes wins. Preserving the union because of worries over currency would be absurd. Scotland will get through the hard part and develop into just another independent country. Not a basket case, not a social democratic nirvana.
Can anyone point me to sources that describe how the party at constituency level plans and executes their GOTV campaign, what techniques are used to get someone to vote by post or in person and whether the plan flexes on the day based on what's happening...
Any help appreciated, cynical comments on voting fraud not required!
No sources. I can tell you how it works (simplified) and you can believe it or not.
The problem with Labour voters is 1) they are a bit slack about voting especially at mid-term type elections and 2) when they are annoyed at Labour they'll still say they support them but stay at home and not vote.
old way: step 1) knock on door and ask if support labour step 2) if yes mark address on bit of paper step 3) election day look at bit of paper, knock up and ask if voted yet
net result: one day of nagging to offset the slackness
new improved postal voting way: step 1) knock on door and ask if support labour step 2) if yes mark address on bit of paper *and* try and persuade them to get a postal vote step 3) come election time go out knocking up those with postal votes *after the postal votes have been sent out* and ask if they've sent it him yet, want help filling them in, want someone to post it for them etc. Keep doing it till election day.
net result: weeks of nagging to offset the slackness
If it was just that I wouldn't be bothered personally but it also partially counters the silent rebellion effect.
(edit: so postal votes are more important the more unpopular Labour are with their voters.)
This is separate both from the fraud aspect - important but overplayed imo - and the bit that looks like fraud but is actually just a side effect of how some ethnic groups self-organize which leads to 100% turnout from those groups.
All tolled a pretty big deal with the first bit being more important overall and the second bit more important in some areas.
That's accurate for both the major parties with the exception that we (and I'm sure the Tories) have explicit instructions, repeatedly emphasised, not to "help fill them in". It's illegal. The party recommends we have nothing to do with posting them either, though if someone desperately wanted to post the letter and explicitly asked, I expect people would.
The main difference between the parties is that the Tories have lots of money and no canvassers and Labour has lots of canvassers and no money (I exaggerate slightly in both cases, and Newark was a Tory exception). So nearly all routine canvassing is done by phone by the Tories and on foot by us. As phone records are incomplete that's a problem for the Tories. They have however done better than us at getting people to sign up for PVs, with a very slick operation from Birmingham.
True, but it is a problem that needs addressing that so many definitely do want out and many others are apparently convinced not to be out on cold hard practicalities alone. That's not encouraging moving forward even in the event of a No vote. I wonder if the increased powers will be enough to settle the issue, and how much thought has gone into other options for the rest of the nations.
True, but it is a problem that needs addressing that so many definitely do want out and many others are apparently convinced not to be out on cold hard practicalities alone. That's not encouraging moving forward even in the event of a No vote. I wonder if the increased powers will be enough to settle the issue, and how much thought has gone into other options for the rest of the nations.
I think a constitutional settlement is required for the entire UK.
I commented on this site a few years ago to say that SNP would win Glasgow East. SNP won Glasgow East. I also predicted SNP would win a majority in 2011... All I can say is put aside you politics, think about winning, and pile money onto a Yes vote. You will not gets these odds again.
And given that it's best for all concerned that Yes wins.
Not if more people want to vote No
/blockquote>
It depends on why they're voting No.
Don't get me wrong - I would like a No win and I think the SNP is telling a bucket-full of fibs, but I guess that's the thing: the fibs are so transparent and the assertions so outlandish, but still Yrs creeps towards victory. Scots aren't fools, so in embracing yes despite the fundamental dishonesty of the SNP leadership's campaign, they are clearly looking beyond the practicalities to something more important to them: they just don't want to be part of the UK anymore. Obviously, I hope to be proved spectacularly wrong, just as I was with Romney in 2012, but I just can't see it.
The policy - however stupid it may be - would seem to have been around since 2007, so not due to any plausible recent events, and bibles have been removed (allegedly to reception) as hotels are refurbished. Strange that comments have only just been aroused. Apparently rooms no longer have drawers, so its a money saving operation dressed up around supposed diversity. This excuse is of course quite pathetic.
Travelodge's decision would be the same even if we had (God forbid) a ukip government. It is a money saving exercise. The chain has a scruffy ambience and has been losing out badly to Premier Inn.
FWIW I think debate victories wear off, as we saw with the Cleggasm, so the No team shouldn't assume that Darling's sealed the deal. Still think No will win, but not by a gigantic margin.
Big night for Yes in Scotland then. Looks like it's going to be very tight indeed. As I said earlier this week, the total confidence of the Yrs side in victory must be based on something solid. It's inexplicable otherwise. I just don't believe in that level of self-delusion. It seems to me more certain than ever that the UK will soon be an ex-country.
There are some very attractive odds on offer if you're that "certain" of a YES vote.
I am thinking the same. It may be time to have a little flutter. It's going to be very, very tight. And the Yes side is motivated in a way that is unlike anything else I can ever recall in British politics. They truly believe they are on the edge of victory.
So do the 60% or thereabouts who intend to vote NO!
Can anyone point me to sources that describe how the party at constituency level plans and executes their GOTV campaign, what techniques are used to get someone to vote by post or in person and whether the plan flexes on the day based on what's happening...
Any help appreciated, cynical comments on voting fraud not required!
No sources. I can tell you how it works (simplified) and you can believe it or not.
The problem with Labour voters is 1) they are a bit slack about voting especially at mid-term type elections and 2) when they are annoyed at Labour they'll still say they support them but stay at home and not vote.
old way: step 1) knock on door and ask if support labour step 2) if yes mark address on bit of paper step 3) election day look at bit of paper, knock up and ask if voted yet
That's accurate for both the major parties with the exception that we (and I'm sure the Tories) have explicit instructions, repeatedly emphasised, not to "help fill them in". It's illegal. The party recommends we have nothing to do with posting them either, though if someone desperately wanted to post the letter and explicitly asked, I expect people would.
The main difference between the parties is that the Tories have lots of money and no canvassers and Labour has lots of canvassers and no money (I exaggerate slightly in both cases, and Newark was a Tory exception). So nearly all routine canvassing is done by phone by the Tories and on foot by us. As phone records are incomplete that's a problem for the Tories. They have however done better than us at getting people to sign up for PVs, with a very slick operation from Birmingham.
Many many years ago I was a Presiding Officer (the 1975 Referendum IIRC!) and I watched a husband go into the booth with his wife and supervise where she put her X.
I decided good race relations took precedence over the letter of electoral law, but I'm still glad it only happened once in my parish. It is of course contrary to some strands of Islam to regard women as adults...
Comments
Savile -tireless charity worker friend of the royal family
Hall - Jovial childrens BBC tv presenter
Harris - a combination of the two
Davidson - widely disliked right wing un PC blue comic
Starr - ditto
Ken Barlow - talked of as weird nutter
Black Swan is Max Clifford to be fair
Would that mean:
1. The sitting government calling in the police and and army to arrest every elected UKIP MP.
2. Mass suicides by PB Lab/LIB/Con supporters.
3. Bankruptcies on all those who bet on a Labour or Coalition government.
4. Mass demonstrations by the Left trying to prevent a UKIP led government forming.
5. Mass demonstrations by the Right trying to prevent a UKIP led government forming.
6. MSM calling on the country to quash the election results.
7. A UKIP led government is formed.
"The Prime Minister says he fears the struggle will last “the rest of my political lifetime”.
Even if having the capacity to take action is a good thing, politicians simply admitting that as the public do not want to pay for what it costs to be so prepared (especially given the joke that is defence procurement and budgeting), and that therefore they will stop talking up our capabilities, would be refreshing. We're not a no-power state by any means, but even with reduced expectations we are still well below where most people probably think we are, militarily, and for most people we still spend far too much on defence.
We are already spending money to replace Trident.
It's so easy to get carried away in an election campaign.
Could have been a typo?
“the rest of my political lifeline”?
Goodnight all.
Where I disagree is on the likely result of the referendum. I think the Scots are going to bottle it. I hope I am wrong but I think "No" will win and the grief will go on for years and years.
Was there something peculiarly immoral about about us killing fellow Christians in WW1 and WW2. I presume that when Irish Christians kill each other that this confuses the bishops so much that it precludes them writing letters to Prime Ministers. It has to be said that the Archbishop of Canterbury failed to write a stiff letter to the Pope when his christians were being blown up by the latter's catholics.
Not long to wait now.
Your remarks are pure supposition based on nothing.
None of this takes away from the fact that the very existence of UKIP is quite likely to guarantee the perpetuation of what they claim to be opposed to. But its increasingly clear that UKIP exists to peddle extreme right wing policies of which the EU is only a starter for 10. You have to be pretty naive to think that UKIP is about the EU these days.
The main difference between the parties is that the Tories have lots of money and no canvassers and Labour has lots of canvassers and no money (I exaggerate slightly in both cases, and Newark was a Tory exception). So nearly all routine canvassing is done by phone by the Tories and on foot by us. As phone records are incomplete that's a problem for the Tories. They have however done better than us at getting people to sign up for PVs, with a very slick operation from Birmingham.
I wrote a blog!
http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/you-dont-have-to-be-hypocritical-coward.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/16/ukip-muslim-ismail-patel-quits_n_5684006.html
I decided good race relations took precedence over the letter of electoral law, but I'm still glad it only happened once in my parish. It is of course contrary to some strands of Islam to regard women as adults...