politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Survation poll on the policy announcementsin Ed’s speech

JackW said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

JackW said:

another_richard said:

JackW said:

@Socrates & @another_richard

Perhaps you both might consider toning it down before you make unsubstantiated and/or libellous allegations that will get Mike into severe trouble.

Posh Tory says lets do nothing. Its just a 'wwc up north' issue to you isn't it Jack.

Perhaps you could point out anything Socrates or I have written which is factually incorrect.

Caution I urged and in the next breath you've libelled me. What a fool you are.

Since when did "posh" or "Tory" become libellous, Jack? You sound very grumpy this morning.

I plead guilty to the first and am innocent of the second.

As for grumpy, not at all but I can advise you that Mike would be more than "grumpy" to receive further correspondence from m'learned friends !!

PBers need to exercise a moment of caution before publishing their comments. PB isn't some cosy fireside chat between friends but a widely respected open forum that rightly draws extensive attention and accordingly is open to the full rigour of the libel laws.

Mike's wallet is on the line and we should all remember that.

philiph said:

8 Increase apprenticeships 49.9

Well, yes, who could be against this? Extraordinary that 50.1% think it is a bad idea.

___Bobajob___ said:

BJO

Extra Votes 4 Ed's Labour?

anotherDave said:

NickPalmer said:

... What is unusual is a very low Lab->UKIP conversion (down to 6% of the 2010 Lab vote), which is one of the objectives of the conference - we're trying to bring back the "nobody cares about us, we might as well vote UKIP" vote

So the general 'mood' of the Labour conference is terror? That Labour's base will vote UKIP in 2015?

anotherDave said:

NickPalmer said:

... What is unusual is a very low Lab->UKIP conversion (down to 6% of the 2010 Lab vote), which is one of the objectives of the conference - we're trying to bring back the "nobody cares about us, we might as well vote UKIP" vote

So the general 'mood' of the Labour conference is terror? That Labour's base will vote UKIP in 2015?

NickPalmer said:

anotherDave said:

NickPalmer said:

... What is unusual is a very low Lab->UKIP conversion (down to 6% of the 2010 Lab vote), which is one of the objectives of the conference - we're trying to bring back the "nobody cares about us, we might as well vote UKIP" vote

So the general 'mood' of the Labour conference is terror? That Labour's base will vote UKIP in 2015?

Lol - no. We're reasonably confident of the base ( basically 29% Lab + 6% Red Liberals). But it would be better to get a few more points from others, and given the scarcity of don't knows, the softest area looks the section of the UKIP vote which is not issue-driven but simply fed up.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jessop, isn't a focus on Rotherham justified, given the huge scale of the crimes involved, the prolonged period of time over which they occurred, and the rank incompetence of local agencies?

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jessop, isn't a focus on Rotherham justified, given the huge scale of the crimes involved, the prolonged period of time over which they occurred, and the rank incompetence of local agencies?

Alistair said:

Labour General Election voters have shown they are perfectly happy to vote SNP at Holyrood and then go back to voting Labour at the General Election. This may well have been repeated in the Referendum - some core Labour voters said "Yes" but will mark an X next to the red rosette come the General Election.

isam said:

Ed should've put this idea in his speech!

Quite interesting to see how/if this works.

Daily Mail Online (@MailOnline)
24/09/2014 09:03
Richard Branson: Give everyone unlimited holidays from work dailym.ai/1sXc28B

OblitusSumMe said:

Many people will never forget Neil "Awwwright!" Kinnock, Hague's baseball cap, the "something of the night" about Michael Howard, the "Quiet Man" IDS, or "I saved the world" Gordon BeanBrown.

It did seem that Ed Miliband might be most remembered for not being called David, but the leader who much of the country mistook for his brother may have trumped that image by forgetting the passages in his speech that dealt with the deficit and immigration. No doubt the dog ate his notes.

Ridicule is surely fatal for any politician. Today Miliband's career teeters on the brink. The mocking Cameron received over the airbrushed posters never quite reached the critical mass necessary to prevent him becoming PM. I fear for Miliband that the Press are going to be more keen on remembering his forgetfulness. Oh dear.

hamiltonace said:

Post referendum reflections from a No campaigner.

1. The election was closer than we thought and the SNP blew it. In Kinnock fashion Salmond's attitude in the last 2 weeks wound up enough people to ensure a massive turnout by his opponents.

2. Labour's election team need new leadership. They were frankly hopeless in Scotland. If this carries onto the general election they may well lose it.

3. Facebook elections are hear to stay. Much of this campaign was fought on Facebook. People were targeted, pushed and harangued with a big impact on the young vote. My son who is both of strong mind and a No supporter was hit with a torrent of abuse for suggesting that some of Salmond's ideas were not well thought out. Many of his friends in Glasgow who were not convinced about the Yes campaign just stayed at home. In Glasgow and Dundee some of the lower turnouts may have been caused by this.

4. SNP took a gamble and deserted some of its old supporters to pick up the Labour voters. This will reshape the party. No longer is their core vote rural but instead the inner city poor.

5. The Tory decline in Scotland has probably reached the bottom. Ruth Davidson was impressive and the Tories are regaining strength in the countryside and the wealthy suburbs.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Ajob, why is one parliament suitable for Scotland, but not England?

Nobody proposed Lowland, Highland and Island Parliaments, or a Glasgow Parliament and an Edinburgh Parliament. If one parliament is good enough for Scotland, it's good enough for England.

___Bobajob___ said:

isam said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Many people will never forget Neil "Awwwright!" Kinnock, Hague's baseball cap, the "something of the night" about Michael Howard, the "Quiet Man" IDS, or "I saved the world" Gordon BeanBrown.

It did seem that Ed Miliband might be most remembered for not being called David, but the leader who much of the country mistook for his brother may have trumped that image by forgetting the passages in his speech that dealt with the deficit and immigration. No doubt the dog ate his notes.

Ridicule is surely fatal for any politician. Today Miliband's career teeters on the brink. The mocking Cameron received over the airbrushed posters never quite reached the critical mass necessary to prevent him becoming PM. I fear for Miliband that the Press are going to be more keen on remembering his forgetfulness. Oh dear.

I thought this cleared it up nicely. A bit of straight talking always helps

‘You can have politicians reading out a speech, but I think you’ve got to change the way politics works. I think people want people to come along and tell them what they think, and that’s what I did yesterday. I’m sure I would do it differently. You know, if I did the speech again today I’d do it differently.’

Yes. Fair play. Kinda neutralises the issue.

foxinsoxuk said:

hamiltonace said:

Post referendum reflections from a No campaigner.

1. The election was closer than we thought and the SNP blew it. In Kinnock fashion Salmond's attitude in the last 2 weeks wound up enough people to ensure a massive turnout by his opponents.

2. Labour's election team need new leadership. They were frankly hopeless in Scotland. If this carries onto the general election they may well lose it.

3. Facebook elections are hear to stay. Much of this campaign was fought on Facebook. People were targeted, pushed and harangued with a big impact on the young vote. My son who is both of strong mind and a No supporter was hit with a torrent of abuse for suggesting that some of Salmond's ideas were not well thought out. Many of his friends in Glasgow who were not convinced about the Yes campaign just stayed at home. In Glasgow and Dundee some of the lower turnouts may have been caused by this.

4. SNP took a gamble and deserted some of its old supporters to pick up the Labour voters. This will reshape the party. No longer is their core vote rural but instead the inner city poor.

5. The Tory decline in Scotland has probably reached the bottom. Ruth Davidson was impressive and the Tories are regaining strength in the countryside and the wealthy suburbs.

Th reported doubling of SNP membership over the last week or so will have interesting effects, as most will be ex SLAB in places like Glasgow. It should see off the Tartan Tories tag, but what is gained from Labour may well be lost elsewhere...

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Ajob, duplicates? If the power is devolved to Scotland why can't it be devolved to England?

Mr. Dave, I want England to have equality with Scotland. If Scottish devolution is good and super and lovely and we should have more of it, what's wrong with that for England? Why is Scottish devolution great and English devolution horrid? It's an utterly inconsistent and indefensible position to hold.

Mr. Away, you're quite right.

Imagine a Northumbrian (for argument's sake) Parliament. It would get lower spend per head than London. But its people would be poorer. They might well complain about this.

Then imagine a London Parliament. They would be a net exporter of taxes, to places like Northumbria, but instead of gratitude they'd get complaints.

Both would have a legitimate case. Congratulations, balkanisers of England, you've just institutionalised division and discord.

And that's without considering that England is one land. It is not the property or plaything of today's political pygmy's to cut into little political fiefdoms. Why is one parliament essential for Scotland but not good enough for England?

___Bobajob___ said:

state_go_away said:

___Bobajob___ said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Ajob, why is one parliament suitable for Scotland, but not England?

Nobody proposed Lowland, Highland and Island Parliaments, or a Glasgow Parliament and an Edinburgh Parliament. If one parliament is good enough for Scotland, it's good enough for England.

What would be the purpose of such a parliament? You appear to favour it because you somehow believe it will balance the books. As I say, better to devolve to city units a la London where it is needed rather than create a whole layer of government that duplicates Westminster.

The trouble with regions and devolving power to cities is that you will get a lot more bitching and whining and competing for funds. One English parliament (or EV4EL) will not divide into countless squabbles for cash

The Gtr London model has worked extremely well. Why not extend it to Gtr Manchester, Gtr Newcastle - do away with parochial in fighting among tiny little council areas?

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, do you think there's a realistic prospect of UKIP actually beating Labour in that by-election?

Sean_F said:

Socrates said:

anotherDave said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

anotherDave said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

As to Rotherham, no one is going to emerge from the sordid business with a shred of credit. Not least because none of us know when a child becomes an adult. And we don't know because the answer varies from one person to another, always has, always will.

The age of consent is 16. That's the law.

I know that. What makes you think I don't? It can change. Indeed, for gays it's changed frequently. Please explain what it is you are trying to tell me, and why you are bothering.

Because your "none of us know when a child becomes an adult. " remark suggests ambiguity. There is none. 16 is the legal age of consent.

The report mentioned police/social services saying there was nothing they could do, because the girls consented. That they were making a lifestyle choice. That is clearly false, to consent they must be over 16.

Amazingly, some of our police don't seem to know that. There was one case of a 12 year old girl who was judged to be in consensual sexual relationships with five men in their 20s.

Sex between an adult and a child aged under 13 is legally rape, in every circumstances. Sex with a 13-16 year old may be rape, or a lesser offence of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, if the Defendant can show consent.

Arguments that 11-13 year olds were "consenting" to sex with adults should never have arisen.

Itajai said:

Socrates said:

___Bobajob___ said:

@JackW

PB is at its absolute worst when discussing complex child abuse cases. Ill-informed people making I intemperate, unguarded and sometimes libellous comments about a desperately sensitive subject they know too little about.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing indeed.

There's a clear effort by those on the left to use every excuse they can to try to clamp down on people raising awareness on this issue. It's almost like there's a massive vested interest in keeping the facts suppressed. The discussions here about child abuse are no more ill-informed, intemperate or unguarded than those about economics, or foreign policy, or a dozen other issues.

Of course there is. Connect the dots:
Labour-political correctness-ethnic minorities-child abuse

SouthamObserver said:

Very interesting talking to my Mum about her embrace of UKIP last night. For her it's not about immigration per se, or about the EU; instead, it's about culture. The straw that broke the camel's back is something that is currently unfolding at my sister's old school:

http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/camden_school_for_girls_bans_muslim_pupil_from_wearing_niqab_veil_for_security_1_3781011

She just cannot accept - quite rightly in my view - that the school had any other choice. And she is disgusted at the lack of support it has received from mainstream parties. She said a stand has to be taken.

This is a woman who has been Labour for 50 years, whose whole family was Labour and whose Dad was a shop steward. I doubt there are many specific UKIP policies she would support, but she sees the party as a way of sending a message to all the other ones - Labour especially. "We have to take a stand" is what she said.

I have been somewhat dismissive of UKIP's ability to seal the deal with Labour voters. But if my Mum can say she is thinking of voting for them then I would say that Labour has very serious problems ahead.

As I said yesterday on here, maybe the best thing that can happen to Labour for its long-term good is a serious kicking in Heywood & Middleton.

SouthamObserver said:

Very interesting talking to my Mum about her embrace of UKIP last night. For her it's not about immigration per se, or about the EU; instead, it's about culture. The straw that broke the camel's back is something that is currently unfolding at my sister's old school:

http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/camden_school_for_girls_bans_muslim_pupil_from_wearing_niqab_veil_for_security_1_3781011

She just cannot accept - quite rightly in my view - that the school had any other choice. And she is disgusted at the lack of support it has received from mainstream parties. She said a stand has to be taken.

This is a woman who has been Labour for 50 years, whose whole family was Labour and whose Dad was a shop steward. I doubt there are many specific UKIP policies she would support, but she sees the party as a way of sending a message to all the other ones - Labour especially. "We have to take a stand" is what she said.

I have been somewhat dismissive of UKIP's ability to seal the deal with Labour voters. But if my Mum can say she is thinking of voting for them then I would say that Labour has very serious problems ahead.

As I said yesterday on here, maybe the best thing that can happen to Labour for its long-term good is a serious kicking in Heywood & Middleton.

Itajai said:

Rexel56 said:

Itajai said:

Socrates said:

___Bobajob___ said:

@JackW

PB is at its absolute worst when discussing complex child abuse cases. Ill-informed people making I intemperate, unguarded and sometimes libellous comments about a desperately sensitive subject they know too little about.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing indeed.

There's a clear effort by those on the left to use every excuse they can to try to clamp down on people raising awareness on this issue. It's almost like there's a massive vested interest in keeping the facts suppressed. The discussions here about child abuse are no more ill-informed, intemperate or unguarded than those about economics, or foreign policy, or a dozen other issues.

Of course there is. Connect the dots:
Labour-political correctness-ethnic minorities-child abuse

Are you being sarcastic or are you suggesting a causal link between ethnicity and child abuse?

I'm not saying it, the Rotherham Report said it.

Socrates said:

SouthamObserver said:

Very interesting talking to my Mum about her embrace of UKIP last night. For her it's not about immigration per se, or about the EU; instead, it's about culture. The straw that broke the camel's back is something that is currently unfolding at my sister's old school:

http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/camden_school_for_girls_bans_muslim_pupil_from_wearing_niqab_veil_for_security_1_3781011

As I said yesterday on here, maybe the best thing that can happen to Labour for its long-term good is a serious kicking in Heywood & Middleton.

I saw this the other day but decided not to mention it, as it seems a fairly minor cultural issue compared to things like Rotherham. But I think that the problem for many politicos is that they start from an entirely abstract philosophical logic of how policy should be determined, and then follow that logic through regardless of where it takes them. In some areas this leads to views that are very far from where the bulk of the population is.

Things like Islamic body covering are the classic example: most political people of all three establishment parties think of wearing the burkha as a matter of women's right to wear what they choose and are thus not bothered by it. . And of course a woman is entitled to wear what she wants. But it is still uncomfortable for most non-political types to see women who dress head to toe in black with only their face showing. People, on the whole, just don't like it: it seems like a symbol of women being held as inferior if they subscribe to a belief system where they have to cover their arms, necks and legs as they are responsible for the lustful thoughts of men. But people know that it's not really affecting anyone else, so they don't bring it up, and the huge divergence in views about it between the public and the political elite doesn't come out. But then when you go just a bit further and women start covering even their faces, it crosses a line for the public. It's clearly such a double standard for women to have to cover their faces and men not to, its a backwards thing that has never existed in the Western world, it prevents the normal identification of those walking down the street that we take for granted, and it makes anyone talking to them feel very uncomfortable not to be able to see facial expressions. As your mother said, it's a final straw. Yet politicos are completely surprised by the public's reaction, still think of it in terms of religious rights, and assume regular people are being racist out the blue.

Socrates said:

anotherDave said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Ajob, duplicates? If the power is devolved to Scotland why can't it be devolved to England?

Mr. Dave, I want England to have equality with Scotland. If Scottish devolution is good and super and lovely and we should have more of it, what's wrong with that for England? Why is Scottish devolution great and English devolution horrid? It's an utterly inconsistent and indefensible position to hold.

Mr. Away, you're quite right.

Imagine a Northumbrian (for argument's sake) Parliament. It would get lower spend per head than London. But its people would be poorer. They might well complain about this.

Then imagine a London Parliament. They would be a net exporter of taxes, to places like Northumbria, but instead of gratitude they'd get complaints.

Both would have a legitimate case. Congratulations, balkanisers of England, you've just institutionalised division and discord.

And that's without considering that England is one land. It is not the property or plaything of today's political pygmy's to cut into little political fiefdoms. Why is one parliament essential for Scotland but not good enough for England?

I don't think England devolution is horrid. I want decentralisation of power, I just don't think that an England Parliament would be decentralisation.

I'd like to see the powers currently devolved to the Scottish Parliament/Welsh Assembly devolved to county/city government in England.

So every city and county should have its own health service and its own planning department for railways etc?

TGOHF said:

saddo said:

Labour clearly have no idea how they will actually set the "mansion tax" up and actually identify houses that are worth £2m or more.

Yesterday Burnham made a complete idiot of himself in all interviews claiming they would use the Land Registry system, which of course only covers sold prices. Andrew Neil found it pretty hard not to laugh at his lack of knowledge.

Now today Miliband is talking about using the same system that the government uses when properties are put into company shells. Once again this based upon a sale and purchase process.
There may well be 70,000 properties worth more than £2m across the UK, but the number where there's a real recorded actual value Labour can tax is tiny.

Labour have no economic credibility already. This policy makes it worse.

So say 100k houses need appraised to see if they pass the limit.

A surveyor with his finger out could do say 5 a day.

20,000 man days to assess them every year.

80 surveyors working for a year..

Plus support and appeals ?