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

Sean_F said:

The US is a country in which the vast majority of people believe in God, but I think it strikes the balance pretty well in terms of separating church and state.

tyson said:

Strategically, Labour now have the advantage. It just seems like are hungrier for power- united and now with a policy platform that is politically non threatening- tax a few millionaires, and do sod all else. Hardly scaring the children. On the downside there are the two Ed's of course- ergo poor leadership and economy polling.

The Tories however are desperate. Realistically, with their charismatic leader, and much better economy ratings, the election should be in the bag. But no. They are the Tories- now with an inbuilt craving for self harm. Instead of uniting and developing a broadly popular, centre ground policy framework as Labour (and Merkel has proved) which would doubtless secure them an easy victory, they are fixated with division, Europe, UKIP and now EVEL. I'm sure Cameron loathes the ground that Redwood, Fox, Patterson, Brady et al walk on. The loons are destroying any hope for a Tory victory. The Tories are the mirror image of Labour in the 70's and 80's- a desperate, relatively sensible leadership undermined by it's militants.

Sean_F said:

FrankBooth said:

SeanF - Labour's apparent pandering to Scotland may not be helping it in Wales. In some ways England and Wales may be converging politically but economically much of Wales is very different to the wealthier parts of England. The age profile in Wales may be helping the Tories and Ukip.

I should have been clearer. The fact that Wales is poorer than England gives it a left-wing slant. But, that left-wing slant is far less pronounced than it was in the days when Wales was dominated first by the Liberals, and then by Labour.

tyson said:

Strategically, Labour now have the advantage. It just seems like are hungrier for power- united and now with a policy platform that is politically non threatening- tax a few millionaires, and do sod all else. Hardly scaring the children. On the downside there are the two Ed's of course- ergo poor leadership and economy polling.

tyson said:

Strategically, Labour now have the advantage. It just seems like are hungrier for power- united and now with a policy platform that is politically non threatening- tax a few millionaires, and do sod all else. Hardly scaring the children. On the downside there are the two Ed's of course- ergo poor leadership and economy polling.

The Tories however are desperate. Realistically, with their charismatic leader, and much better economy ratings, the election should be in the bag. But no. They are the Tories- now with an inbuilt craving for self harm. Instead of uniting and developing a broadly popular, centre ground policy framework as Labour (and Merkel has proved) which would doubtless secure them an easy victory, they are fixated with division, Europe, UKIP and now EVEL. I'm sure Cameron loathes the ground that Redwood, Fox, Patterson, Brady et al walk on. The loons are destroying any hope for a Tory victory. The Tories are the mirror image of Labour in the 70's and 80's- a desperate, relatively sensible leadership undermined by it's militants.

JackW said:

tyson said:

Strategically, Labour now have the advantage. It just seems like are hungrier for power- united and now with a policy platform that is politically non threatening- tax a few millionaires, and do sod all else. Hardly scaring the children. On the downside there are the two Ed's of course- ergo poor leadership and economy polling.

You couldn't be further from the truth. Power is completely off the table.

The big question is how bad will next years general election be for Labour - Poor, Desperate or Crushing.

Labour will have to fend off the Coalition on the economy and other issues, UKIP now snapping around their ankles, the backwash from an unpopular Labour administration in Wales, a resurgent SNP in Scotland and all washed down with the heady brew of the 2Ed's.

It's a formula for catastrophe.

BenM said:

Still exasperated that Ed decided to gamble on a noteless speech.

At this stage!

Aarrrgggghhhh! Dammit!

Richard_Nabavi said:

@OblitusSumMe - In 2009, at the equivalent stage, the Conservatives were buzzing with ideas and holding seminars and announcing what they would do - there was a palpable sense of preparation for power. And indeed the various ministers hit the ground running (except arguably Liam Fox in Defence). The same has been true in previous elections where it looked as though a change was on the cards. I just don't get that sense at all with Labour now; they seem to be going through the motions, but don't look as though they really believe it.

tyson said:

Strategically, Labour now have the advantage. It just seems like are hungrier for power- united and now with a policy platform that is politically non threatening- tax a few millionaires, and do sod all else. Hardly scaring the children. On the downside there are the two Ed's of course- ergo poor leadership and economy polling.

The Tories however are desperate. Realistically, with their charismatic leader, and much better economy ratings, the election should be in the bag. But no. They are the Tories- now with an inbuilt craving for self harm. Instead of uniting and developing a broadly popular, centre ground policy framework as Labour (and Merkel has proved) which would doubtless secure them an easy victory, they are fixated with division, Europe, UKIP and now EVEL. I'm sure Cameron loathes the ground that Redwood, Fox, Patterson, Brady et al walk on. The loons are destroying any hope for a Tory victory. The Tories are the mirror image of Labour in the 70's and 80's- a desperate, relatively sensible leadership undermined by it's militants.

Rexel56 said:

nigel4england 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.

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?

Rexel, no-one is interested in your PC mad world any longer, just grow up and admit that multiculturalism has failed. Not only that, but that it has failed through no fault of the British public, apart from those obsessed with PC.

Or are you another that thinks the ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED victims of Rotherham are collateral damage.

I can readily accept a causal relationship between "political correctness" and the failure to stop child abuse in Rotherham. Some in position to decide whether to investigate and prosecute valued their careers above the victims and not wishing to offend the explicit or implicit expectations of their bosses they did nothing. The offenders then realised they could offend without fear and the problem spiralled. Whether it was "political correctness" per se or a more specific intent not to antagonise a bloc vote of voters is worth debate.

I also think that the ethnicity of the great majority of the offenders is unarguable in the Rotherham case. But that is not the same as saying a given ethnic group is predisposed to abuse children - the shame of Rotherham is that so many are now doing exactly what the authorities did: seeing the problem solely in racial terms. Projecting the behaviour of a group of lawless men in Rotherham onto a whole ethnic group is as nonsensical as projecting the behaviour of ISIS into every adherent of Islam

FrankBooth said:

DavidL 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.

What I found most interesting is that the areas where the Tories used to have seats, in Perthshire, Aberdeenshire , Angus, the borders and the posh parts of Edinburgh were all strongly no. Most of the local populations in these areas have not voted Tory for a long time but they were against independence and, I think, disconcerted by the leftward swing of the SNP, something that is likely to accelerate under Sturgeon. There is an opportunity for the Tories here but whether an ossified and very old party can seize it is another issue. They need to start with the activist data base of BT.

Cameron will be pressured into dealing with the English question which I suspect will leave many Scots disillusioned. They expected to be the centre of attention after the the vows pre-referendum but that won't happen now.

rottenborough said:

BenM said:

Still exasperated that Ed decided to gamble on a noteless speech.

At this stage!

Aarrrgggghhhh! Dammit!

pointless gamble - as no up side to doing it. We already know he can pull off this little trick. What he actually showed is he can't as forgot parts of it. Who the hell is advising the guy?

isam said:

I agree, but is anyone seriously saying it is innate rather than circumstantial for Pakistani heritage Muslims to be the perpetrators?

People who who are separated from other ways of life and protected by being in favour with those in power can get away with stuff that they shouldn't. It's abuse of power

In the 70s it was celebrites and Djs, in the 21st century it is Asian Muslims . I don't see much difference between the two logically.

You could throw in rich white men and underage girls in Thailand, it's much the same thing

Casino_Royale said:

@DavidL - I also noticed that. My takeaway was that the Tories may be moribund in Scotland, but the centre-right isn't.

Do you have a view on any pick-ups for May 2015? My view is that only D,C&T (hold) and B,R&S (gain) and WA&K (gain) are likely.

Sean_F said:

TGOHF said:

FalseFlag said:

hamiltonace said:

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...

That is my feeling. One of the untold stories of the referendum is how they lost the North East.

Picked up the Irish Catholic vote but lost the Protestant?

Worth a read

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/09/the-scottish-church-showed-little-statesmanship-or-even-common-sense-during-the-referendum/

"I heard last week from a pupil at the largest Catholic secondary school in Scotland, Holyrood in Glasgow, that many teachers were completely open with pupils about their pro-independence views."

"On Thursday I am firmly convinced that most Catholics flocked to support a cause which viewed Britain in the most negative and demeaning terms. It was a poor way to repay a country which helped them to journey from the margins to the mainstream of society. Their Church in particular showed little statesmanship or even common sense"

I should think that in Glasgow, at any rate, there was a strong correlation between religious affiliation and voting.

oxfordsimon said:

isam said:

I agree, but is anyone seriously saying it is innate rather than circumstantial for Pakistani heritage Muslims to be the perpetrators?

People who who are separated from other ways of life and protected by being in favour with those in power can get away with stuff that they shouldn't. It's abuse of power

In the 70s it was celebrites and Djs, in the 21st century it is Asian Muslims . I don't see much difference between the two logically.

You could throw in rich white men and underage girls in Thailand, it's much the same thing

I think what people are saying is that the heritage of the perpetrators in the cases in Oxford, Peterborough, Rotherham and in many other cities is broadly the same.

That is not to say all Pakistani Muslims are going to carry out such horrendous crimes - but that in these cases, they most certainly did.

And their backgrounds were used to avoid proper scrutiny of their behaviour for far, far, far too long.

Race/Religion were used as a reason not to ask questions, let alone investigate properly.

We cannot allow any barrier to proper policing - race, religion or any other consideration.

Socrates said:

corporeal said:

Socrates said:

corporeal said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Dave, I think that's an indefensible position. You're arguing for devolution for all Scotland, for all Wales, but for England to be carved into pieces. I don't care about decentralisation or regional authorities, I do not want my country to be cut into little shitty regions.

How can you defend a single Scottish Parliament and oppose the same for England?

Iirc the Cornish want their own separate assembly (and a chunk of them claim themselves as a nation).

But the main reason is the idea of a destabilizing dominance. That you'd end up with an English parliament dictating everything.

How practically would this happen? We would have set powers for the UK and home national levels. On devolved matters like education, England couldn't dominate anyone else, because it would be devolved. On UK matters like economic policy and foreign policy, it would be exactly the same as now. This idea of England dominating if it had its own parliament just isn't thought through.

Spending levels.

That's not an explanation.

Smarmeron said:

Interesting that women not wearing a headscarf when outside would be assumed to be loose and immoral as late as the 50's/60's in Britain.
Of course, in that case, it was cultural and not religious.

audreyanne said:

It's high time to debunk one of Mike's favourite fall-backs, as trotted by SeanF below, the 2010 Lab-LibDem switchers, but instead of a long piece I'm going to cut to the chase:

Less than 1% of the electorate are members of the three main political parties. In this fast-moving technological and social savvy age where people treat world affairs like a pick n' mix supermarket, and past 'allegiances' mean virtually nothing, 99% of the electorate are floating voters.

Charles said:

Smarmeron said:

Interesting that women not wearing a headscarf when outside would be assumed to be loose and immoral as late as the 50's/60's in Britain.
Of course, in that case, it was cultural and not religious.

The Burkha/Niqab is not religious.

It's entirely cultural. The first usage became common in the 1890s when the UK was the dominant power in Egypt.

British soldiers regarded it as an unacceptable infringement of a woman's liberty, so banned the wearing of the veil.

Of course this just encouraged its adoption.

But it was, and remains today, an explicit statement of a rejection of Western values. But not a religious mandate.

corporeal said:

Socrates said:

corporeal said:

Socrates said:

corporeal said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Dave, I think that's an indefensible position. You're arguing for devolution for all Scotland, for all Wales, but for England to be carved into pieces. I don't care about decentralisation or regional authorities, I do not want my country to be cut into little shitty regions.

How can you defend a single Scottish Parliament and oppose the same for England?

Iirc the Cornish want their own separate assembly (and a chunk of them claim themselves as a nation).

But the main reason is the idea of a destabilizing dominance. That you'd end up with an English parliament dictating everything.

How practically would this happen? We would have set powers for the UK and home national levels. On devolved matters like education, England couldn't dominate anyone else, because it would be devolved. On UK matters like economic policy and foreign policy, it would be exactly the same as now. This idea of England dominating if it had its own parliament just isn't thought through.

Spending levels.

That's not an explanation.

That a devolved England would essentially dictate the size of the budgets for education and other devolved matters.

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

@DavidL - I also noticed that. My takeaway was that the Tories may be moribund in Scotland, but the centre-right isn't.

Do you have a view on any pick-ups for May 2015? My view is that only D,C&T (hold) and B,R&S (gain) and WA&K (gain) are likely.

I think Dumfries and Galloway is a possible gain if there is any fall back in the Scottish Labour vote post Gordon. There are some more outside chances (such as NEF and Moray) but I agree that is probably going to be it.

Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk must surely be a good prospect for the Conservatives.

FattyBolger said:

Personally I am relieved by the speech yesterday. I expected at least a couple of absolute humdingers of new populist policies to leave us righties floundering to frame a response. What we got instead was pretty standard labour. No game changers. Missed opportunity.

Richard_Nabavi 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.

They don't really believe that they will be implementing this policy, do they? And it's not just this policy. As many people have remarked, Labour don't look like a government-in-waiting. They look like an opposition, or a minor party, making random populist noises safe in the knowledge that they'll never have to implement any of them.

I don't think I've ever seen this before in the case where an opposition looked as though it might be in power in a few months' time.