politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corporeal looks at electoral precedent

This article reminded me of the excellent comic strip that was linked to on PB a few months ago which said "no one had ever won an election with X until...." It was based on the American experience but it showed the nonsense of relying on precedents in something as inherently unpredictable as elections.

In the referendum the consistent polling leads on the part of no proved to be a good indicator. The stability of Labour's lead despite all of Ed's best efforts to the contrary, is a very dangerous sign for the Tories.

Ed is not fit to be PM but it remains very likely that this is exactly what is going to happen.

Possibilities: Phillip Davies, Owen Paterson, Roger Gale, Chris Kelly, Adam Holloway...

isam said:

___Bobajob___ said:

2010 The Big Society
2015 Decide or Decline

The Tories' bizarre penchant for cryptic slogans continues

I think The Big Society was good myself... set themselves against The Big State well

Cameron didn't have the balls to stick with it, a la Miliband and Blue Labour

I would say UKIP are a combo of both, that's why I vote for them. I liked both ideas at the time

Agreed. The Big Society was one of the best concepts any party has come up with in a very long time. The problem was one of execution and the impression that the Tories really didn't understand their own concept or what was necessary to achieve it.

I'm tempted to go undercover....


Chesham&Amersham CLP @CheshamAmersham
We're looking for a parliamentary candidate for the 2015 general election. Are you a Labour Party member looking for a seat to contest?
Retweeted by tom_watson

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:

The Mirror's bang to rights. Apparently the photos used in their stingentrapment were of a Swedish model, used without permission.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/29/swedish-model-did-not-permit-sunday-mirror-use-photo-brooks-newmark

Yes, it is appalling but as with Oscar Wilde's libel suit, maybe the Tories would be better advised to swallow it rather than risk it hitting the headlines again in, say, six months' time during the election campaign.

I'm not sure that's right: I think the way Newmark's handled it may garner him some sympathy.

How many of us can honestly say, hand on heart, that we would not fall for anything similar? That flattery and comment from someone who knew us (or at least our public profile) well could cause us to do something obviously stupid?

Remember, this was not an affair, just a sordid photo.

I'm very happily married and deeply in love. I've never had an affair, and can foresee no circumstances were I'd have one. But I'm not sure that I wouldn't fall for someone pressing the right buttons and getting me to do something stupid.

And if we were honest, the same could be said for most of us.

Itajai said:

FalseFlag said:

Evidence of atrocities carried out by the Kiev government forces in the Donbass emerging.
http://rt.com/news/190564-mass-graves-three-osce/

After continual shelling of residential areas of Donetsk by Kiev government forces the Novorussian Armed Forces are seeking to dislodge them from the Donetsk airport.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/29/ukraine-crisis-attack-idUKL6N0RU1G120140929

Elswehere Kiev government forces have abandoned a number of positions in the Donbass leaving behind heavy equipment sorely needed by the rebels. NAF now able to muster circa 20k soldiers with Kiev able to muster only 35-40k with many of their elite units and equipment significantly degraded. Offensive capabilities remain limited and any offensive runs the risk of a counter offensive which would see further NAF gains. Novorossiya is beginning to take shape as an independent state with a military well capable of protecting itself.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/09/16/ukraines-breakaway-region-is-becoming-a-de-facto-country/

In the rear support for the war party led by Lyashko continues to drop with Poroshenko set to win a sizeable majority. Fully 32% plan to boycott the parliamentary election, 3% to spoil the ballot, 5% to vote for pro-Russian parties which most likely won't be allowed on the ballot (CPU, PR), and another 3% to vote for Tihipko's "Strong Ukraine". Less than 60% plan to vote in Eastern and Southern Ukraine (obviously this excludes Crimea and the Donbass which are de facto liberated now). In the government controlled areas of Donbass, 23.5% are planning to participate in the October election. Very poor considering the intensive propaganda of the Kiev media. The natives are getting restless with promised Western economic assistance proving so far to be empty promises.

That no one talks about MH17 now tells you all you need to know.

Oh dear. Time to get the tinfoil hat out again.

John Baron is a good call IMO. Wouldn't have any problem holding his seat in Basildon and Billericay.

Anyone planning to defect can you wait until 6.30pm please.

Richard_Tyndall said:

And whilst I don't remember them I know of times well before that when they State did none of those things. To pick out one particular dark period in history and use it as an example of the whole of the past is frankly daft. .

Well, you'd have to go back to before the First World War to look for your golden age. However, you won't find it. Look at, for example, the attack on property rights of the building of the railways, when a few well-connected landowners could get their private compulsory-purchase bills through parliament. Even in the most favourable interpretation, the golden age you hark back to existed in practice only for a minority with private means, and even then was subject to all sorts of state interference - in their sex lives for example, or in religion. The Test Act was repealed only in 1828 (by a Tory government, natch), and even after that there was considerable state-sponsored discrimination on religious grounds right through the nineteenth century.

TheWatcher said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

TheWatcher said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:

The Mirror's bang to rights. Apparently the photos used in their stingentrapment were of a Swedish model, used without permission.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/29/swedish-model-did-not-permit-sunday-mirror-use-photo-brooks-newmark

Yes, it is appalling but as with Oscar Wilde's libel suit, maybe the Tories would be better advised to swallow it rather than risk it hitting the headlines again in, say, six months' time during the election campaign.

They can't stop the model suing.

No but they might have a word with Mark Pritchard, the MP who has complained.

Nah. The Mirror deserves everything it gets for this one.

And that is no doubt why the complaint was made. But it was not made by Newmark, and it is probably better for him and the Conservative Party if this is allowed to be forgotten. It would be different if the minister had not taken the bait but he did. When his Paisley PJs hit the headlines again next year, who benefits? As the lawyers say: expensive things, principles.

Richard_Tyndall said:

isam said:

___Bobajob___ said:

2010 The Big Society
2015 Decide or Decline

The Tories' bizarre penchant for cryptic slogans continues

I think The Big Society was good myself... set themselves against The Big State well

Cameron didn't have the balls to stick with it, a la Miliband and Blue Labour

I would say UKIP are a combo of both, that's why I vote for them. I liked both ideas at the time

Agreed. The Big Society was one of the best concepts any party has come up with in a very long time. The problem was one of execution and the impression that the Tories really didn't understand their own concept or what was necessary to achieve it.

The main problem with The Big Society from a political party's point of view is that it seeks to politicise lots of good and charitable work done by at least hundreds of thousands of people up and down this country of all political persuasions whether they have any political intent or not.

So those that do sponsored charity runs or work with their church etc etc do not for a moment think they are doing the government's work, usually quite the reverse. And in government it can all too easily fall into the temptation of having charities fill the gaps that on one view the state should fill. So you have foodbanks giving food to hungry people who all too often are being sanctioned by the State for some perceived failing on their part.

My view is that the original concept of recognising that it is not the role or the function of the State to look after us and nanny us from cradle to grave is a sound one but claiming any positive steps are a result of the policy is problematic in the extreme.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anyone planning to defect can you wait until 6.30pm please.

I''m busting for a dump.... oh wait...

If anyone defects I'm using this picture for the thread header

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BysWE6MIEAAe5w5.jpg

Re Mirror, public interest etc.

http://barristerblogger.com/2014/09/28/tricked-sex-fraud-sunday-mirrors-sting-brookes-newmark-criminal/

Might amuse the lawyers, but will the model be willing to sue for misuse of her photograph?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anyone planning to defect can you wait until 6.30pm please.

I''m busting for a dump.... oh wait...

If anyone defects I'm using this picture for the thread header

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BysWE6MIEAAe5w5.jpg

I always liked the history lessons with that cuddly penalty of hung, drawn and quartered.

And the 20/1 on Gordon Henderson

TheScreamingEagles said:

Just got 33/1 on Davies to be the next traitorous pig dog

https://m.ladbrokes.com/ladbrokes/en/#!event_details?id=219441608

Good luck but surely DD is more likely to hang around in the sure and certain expectation that David Cameron will resign in a year or so.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

And whilst I don't remember them I know of times well before that when they State did none of those things. To pick out one particular dark period in history and use it as an example of the whole of the past is frankly daft. .

Well, you'd have to go back to before the First World War to look for your golden age. However, you won't find it. Look at, for example, the attack on property rights of the building of the railways, when a few well-connected landowners could get their private compulsory-purchase bills through parliament. Even in the most favourable interpretation, the golden age you hark back to existed in practice only for a minority with private means, and even then was subject to all sorts of state interference - in their sex lives for example, or in religion. The Test Act was repealed only in 1828 (by a Tory government, natch), and even after that there was considerable state-sponsored discrimination on religious grounds right through the nineteenth century.

There will always be examples of how the Government overruled people no matter where you look. But we currently have a situation where the State takes almost half of the GDP of the country to waste and in doing so has warped our society and our expectations as a nation far beyond anything that is practical or desirable in the long term.

I have never referred to a 'Golden Age', that is just you indulging in a logical fallacy. All I have said is that the idea that things were not better in significant ways in the past is clearly false and that maintaining that belief that we have the best of what is currently possible, particularly given that it is unsustainable, is a dangerous and false assertion.

JosiasJessop said:

RobC said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Well, England certainly doesn't seem terribly keen on coalitions at the moment, especially not the people who voted for the LibDems specifically in order to get one.

I find that bemusing. The Lib Dems have stood for years on having 'fairer' electoral systems that stood good chances of putting them into coalitions. Yet the moment they go into coalition, people scream and huff about it being the 'wrong' coalition, despite the fact it was the only practical one available.

What did they expect?

(Edit: and I should add the coalition has been more mature and successful than I considered possible when it was formed).

The parliamentary Lib Dems have largely got on with it. I was at a local activists party in 2010 (I'm now just an invisible supporter) and the feeling then was although it was not something we want to do there's a job to be done and therefore we need to do it well. The problems the Tories have is with their EU obsessed right flank (ie with their own internal coalition).

The problem the Conservatives have is not just their EU-obsessed right flank, but a large number who hark back to nebulous glorious days of the past, when our military was strong, we ruled ourselves, society was somehow better, and the days were generally sunnier (thus disproving this newfangled AGW rubbish).

As a forty-something, I find this attitude curious. Whilst the country has problems, I would rather be alive now than at any time in the past. Give me the Britain of 2014 over that of 1984, 1954 or 1924.

And we all - including political parties - need to work to ensure that 2044 is better than 2014.

Bollocks and Boak, 70's and 80's were far better

New thread.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Just got 33/1 on Davies to be the next traitorous pig dog

https://m.ladbrokes.com/ladbrokes/en/#!event_details?id=219441608

I suspect the only one to win money on that market is Shadsy.

The way to make money out of any defection is to lump on UKIP to win the seat in 2015 before the bookies slash the odds.

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:

The Mirror's bang to rights. Apparently the photos used in their stingentrapment were of a Swedish model, used without permission.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/29/swedish-model-did-not-permit-sunday-mirror-use-photo-brooks-newmark

Yes, it is appalling but as with Oscar Wilde's libel suit, maybe the Tories would be better advised to swallow it rather than risk it hitting the headlines again in, say, six months' time during the election campaign.

I'm not sure that's right: I think the way Newmark's handled it may garner him some sympathy.

How many of us can honestly say, hand on heart, that we would not fall for anything similar? That flattery and comment from someone who knew us (or at least our public profile) well could cause us to do something obviously stupid?

Remember, this was not an affair, just a sordid photo.

I'm very happily married and deeply in love. I've never had an affair, and can foresee no circumstances were I'd have one. But I'm not sure that I wouldn't fall for someone pressing the right buttons and getting me to do something stupid.

And if we were honest, the same could be said for most of us.

How can you have sympathy for a fool unless you are also a fool. The man is an imbecile and is obviously not capable of running a bath never mind a government department. You by your post appear to associate yourself as being like him.

Richard_Nabavi said:

You said " I believe our society is much poorer in terms of the relationship between the Government and the populace than it has been in the past "

OK: When? Put a date to it.

Robert Smithson regularly likes to quote AJP Taylor on this issue and I will do the same.

"Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent. of the national income. The state intervened to prevent the citizen from eating adulterated food or contracting certain infectious diseases. It imposed safety rules in factories, and prevented women, and adult males in some industries, from working excessive hours. The state saw to it that children received education up to the age of 13. Since 1 January 1909, it provided a meagre pension for the needy over the age of 70. Since 1911, it helped to insure certain classes of workers against sickness and unemployment. This tendency towards more state action was increasing. Expenditure on the social services had roughly doubled since the Liberals took office in 1905. Still, broadly speaking, the state acted only to help those who could not help themselves. It left the adult citizen alone."

malcolmg said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:

The Mirror's bang to rights. Apparently the photos used in their stingentrapment were of a Swedish model, used without permission.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/29/swedish-model-did-not-permit-sunday-mirror-use-photo-brooks-newmark

Yes, it is appalling but as with Oscar Wilde's libel suit, maybe the Tories would be better advised to swallow it rather than risk it hitting the headlines again in, say, six months' time during the election campaign.

I'm not sure that's right: I think the way Newmark's handled it may garner him some sympathy.

How many of us can honestly say, hand on heart, that we would not fall for anything similar? That flattery and comment from someone who knew us (or at least our public profile) well could cause us to do something obviously stupid?

Remember, this was not an affair, just a sordid photo.

I'm very happily married and deeply in love. I've never had an affair, and can foresee no circumstances were I'd have one. But I'm not sure that I wouldn't fall for someone pressing the right buttons and getting me to do something stupid.

And if we were honest, the same could be said for most of us.

How can you have sympathy for a fool unless you are also a fool. The man is an imbecile and is obviously not capable of running a bath never mind a government department. You by your post appear to associate yourself as being like him.

You can have sympathy with people who are foolish. For instance, I have a little sympathy (*) for those who have spent the last couple of years spamming websites about their desire for Scottish independence, only to see their countrymen nobly disagree with them.

(*) one grain's worth.

I may be wrong to think that there was not also an increase in the vote share for Labour between 1964 and 1966 and that Labour got back in 1970 after only 1 term out under Heath government of 1970-74?