politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Four months before being elected Tory leader Margaret Thatc

Options
System
System Posts: 12,578
edited October 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Four months before being elected Tory leader Margaret Thatcher was a 50-1 shot

The BBC Parliament Channel has been re-running the October 1974 General Election results programme as part of its intermittent series of playing back old elections. I love them and you learn so much simply from seeing how things were seen then.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • TGOHF
    TGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Huppert is 50-1 to be next LD leader ....
  • isam
    isam Posts: 42,205
    edited October 2014
    123% book on six runners... with 10% tax as well?!
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    No, but, in my defence, I wasn't born at the time.
  • Casino_Royale
    Casino_Royale Posts: 63,687
    You were out and about politically betting over 40 years ago?! I wasn't even born.

    £50 on this would have been very tasty. But I guess most bookies (if they're anything like they are today) would have only allowed half a crown.
  • TGOHF
    TGOHF Posts: 21,633
    edited October 2014
    MT was leader for 15 years - doubt we will see that again.

    Edit for hangover..
  • MikeSmithson
    MikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Casino_Royale said:

    You were out and about politically betting over 40 years ago?! I wasn't even born.

    £50 on this would have been very tasty. But I guess most bookies (if they're anything like they are today) would have only allowed half a crown.

    Actually half a crowns no longer existed in 1974.. Decimalisation came in on February 11th 1971.

  • Casino_Royale
    Casino_Royale Posts: 63,687
    MikeSmithson said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    You were out and about politically betting over 40 years ago?! I wasn't even born.

    £50 on this would have been very tasty. But I guess most bookies (if they're anything like they are today) would have only allowed half a crown.

    Actually half a crowns no longer existed in 1974.. Decimalisation came in on February 11th 1971.

    Yes, I know that. It was a figure of speech.
  • Financier
    Financier Posts: 3,916
    Lord Ashcroft's Defence

    http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/10/tale-two-elections-polls-snapshots-predictions/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=tale-two-elections-polls-snapshots-predictions&utm_source=Lord+Ashcroft+Polls&utm_campaign=6e34bbc130-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b70c7aec0a-6e34bbc130-71623245
  • dr_spyn
    dr_spyn Posts: 11,312
    If Labour's private polling showed that when led by someone else other than Ed Miliband was the only way to secure a majority, would the Party really keep him in place?
  • hucks67
    hucks67 Posts: 758
    edited October 2014
    I think Thatcher was a strong conviction led PM and her government were pretty radical. But I don't think she left the Tories in a good position, as there is now a generation of people who dislike the Tories, because of the way she ran the country. Some people look back at the 1980's with affection, but the UK was in a pretty bad state, when it should been doing very well due to North Sea oil and the privatisation revenues.

    Back to the present day and I would think most people would predict that Cameron will lose the election, he will resign and then within months Boris will become leader of the opposition. It should be pretty entertaining, with Boris facing Miliband at PMQ's. You can just imagine Bercow keep warning Boris to withdraw some language used and to ask questions, not make a speech.
  • audreyanne
    audreyanne Posts: 1,376
    edited October 2014
    I've just checked back on all by-elections since 2012 and in every single one Labour's share of the vote has been overstated: sometimes by nearly 20%. You know who I think is the worst offender, but ALL the pollsters are currently overstating Labour compared to how people are actually voting. Ashcroft claims he was right at Newark but even there he overstated them by 2.3%. The average overstating is above 5%.

    I haven't got time to go back through 2012 as it's painstaking but a thread on this would be very interesting.

    Shy non-Labour?
  • stodge
    stodge Posts: 14,908
    MikeSmithson said:


    Actually half a crowns no longer existed in 1974.. Decimalisation came in on February 11th 1971.

    Actually, I thought it was February 15th 1971, a Monday but that might be my dodgy recollection.

  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Betting markets haven't got going so the pre-race piece will be a little while yet.
  • SimonStClare
    SimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited October 2014
    1974 – A great year, although politics was yet to feature in it - I spent most of 74 lying in bed listening to Genesis albums and Pink Floyd’s ‘Dark Side of the Moon’ - somebody had to..!
  • Swiss_Bob
    Swiss_Bob Posts: 619
    hucks67 said:

    I think Thatcher was a strong conviction led PM and her government were pretty radical. But I don't think she left the Tories in a good position, as there is now a generation of people who dislike the Tories, because of the way she ran the country. Some people look back at the 1980's with affection, but the UK was in a pretty bad state, when it should been doing very well due to North Sea oil and the privatisation revenues.

    Back to the present day and I would think most people would predict that Cameron will lose the election, he will resign and then within months Boris will become leader of the opposition. It should be pretty entertaining, with Boris facing Miliband at PMQ's. You can just imagine Bercow keep warning Boris to withdraw some language used and to ask questions, not make a speech.

    If you look at what most PMs achieve then Thatcher makes them all look like Dwarves.

    You can only do so much and what time and choices you make should be with regard to the future.

    Look at London, the Big Bang, Canary Wharf, that paid for ten years of Labour profligacy before they finally blew it.

    Don't think I don't feel for the loss of industry and jobs in the North, I have visited close family since I was a child and I am well aware that things could have been done in a better way but coal mining was dead, the car and motorcycle industry just didn't move with the times, or more accurately attempt to compete and the same could be said for a whole swathe of industries. The unions killed the companies and the jobs.

    You had to live through the seventies to appreciate Thatcher.
  • audreyanne
    audreyanne Posts: 1,376
    edited October 2014
    And in the 2014 European elections 9 out of every 10 opinion polls overstated Labour's share of the vote.
    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/european-elections
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/vote2014/eu-uk-results

    This phenomenon has been more extreme at the by-elections, especially at Heywood and Middleton.

    So I ask again, is it shy non-Labour? Is this perhaps the core that UKIP have tapped into? Is it the working man who is Labour by background but who is placing his cross at the UKIP box but just doesn't wish to admit it?

    We should try to get to the bottom of this because at Heywood and Middleton it nearly caused a sensation, and if there is a shy non-Labour voter that the opinion polls are getting wrong it could wreak havoc with the 2015 General Election results.
  • dr_spyn
    dr_spyn Posts: 11,312
    edited October 2014
    £50 in 1974, could be worth c. £570 at current values, though the Bank of England figure is £454.

    http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-1633409/Historic-inflation-calculator-value-money-changed-1900.html

    http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/resources/inflationtools/calculator/flash/default.aspx
  • numbercruncher
    numbercruncher Posts: 136
    audreyanne said:

    And in the European elections 9 out of every 10 opinion polls overstated Labour's share of the vote.
    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/european-elections
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/vote2014/eu-uk-results

    So I ask again, is it shy non-Labour? Is this perhaps the core that UKIP have tapped into? It it the working man who is Labour by background but who is placing his cross at the UKIP box but just doesn't wish to admit it?

    We should try to get to the bottom of this because at Heywood and Middleton it nearly caused a sensation, and if there is a shy non-Labour voter that the opinion polls are getting wrong it could wreak havoc with the 2015 General Election results.

    I think I know what's happening... I'm writing a piece on this at the moment (should be coming next week)
  • audreyanne
    audreyanne Posts: 1,376
    Thanks numbercruncher: really look forward to it.
  • numbercruncher
    numbercruncher Posts: 136
    audreyanne said:

    I've just checked back on all by-elections since 2012 and in every single one Labour's share of the vote has been overstated: sometimes by nearly 20%. You know who I think is the worst offender, but ALL the pollsters are currently overstating Labour compared to how people are actually voting. Ashcroft claims he was right at Newark but even there he overstated them by 2.3%. The average overstating is above 5%.

    I haven't got time to go back through 2012 as it's painstaking but a thread on this would be very interesting.

    Shy non-Labour?

    Here is Lord Ashcroft's explanation (I have a different theory):

    http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/10/tale-two-elections-polls-snapshots-predictions/#more-6502
  • chestnut
    chestnut Posts: 7,341
    audreyanne said:

    I've just checked back on all by-elections since 2012 and in every single one Labour's share of the vote has been overstated: sometimes by nearly 20%. You know who I think is the worst offender, but ALL the pollsters are currently overstating Labour compared to how people are actually voting. Ashcroft claims he was right at Newark but even there he overstated them by 2.3%. The average overstating is above 5%.

    I haven't got time to go back through 2012 as it's painstaking but a thread on this would be very interesting.

    Shy non-Labour?

    The Euros (final poll)

    LABOUR

    Opinium +0.4 (i.e. Labour 0.4 better than poll result)
    YouGov -0.6
    Comres - 1.6
    Survation - 1.6
    TNS - 2.6
    ICM - 3.6

    UKIP

    ICM +2.5
    YG +0.5
    TNS - 3.5
    Opinium -4.5
    Survation - 4.5
    Comres - 5.5

    TORIES

    Comres +3.9
    TNS +2.9
    Opinium +2.9
    YouGov +1.9
    Survation +0.9
    ICM - 2.1

    Certain pollsters seem to remarkably overstate or understate certain parties.

    When betting on Rochester, using a Survation poll as a pulse-tester, compare to previous Survation by election polls in Newark and Clacton.
  • MikeSmithson
    MikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    edited October 2014
    At GE2010 all polls understated LAB.



  • chestnut
    chestnut Posts: 7,341
    MikeSmithson said:

    At GE2010 all polls understated LAB.

    So, perhaps a common theme would be the overstatement of the opposition, and understatement of the governing party (parties) ?
  • Swiss_Bob
    Swiss_Bob Posts: 619
    SimonStClare said:

    1974 – A great year, although politics was yet to feature in it - I spent most of 74 lying in bed listening to Genesis albums and Pink Floyd’s ‘Dark Side of the Moon’ - somebody had to..!

    I'm with you on the Pink Floyd but Genesis?

    First album I heard on a decent stereo, Deep Purple and Smoke on the Water. It blew my mind :-)
  • TGOHF
    TGOHF Posts: 21,633
    If LA is correct then Audreyanne has to consider how long before the vote polls were taken - is there a late swing away from Labour or crap polling ?
  • Roger
    Roger Posts: 20,744
    edited October 2014
    Sorry to be off topic (perhaps it balances audreyanne who posts the same post on every thread) but I'm getting seriously concerned by the UKIP effect. Listening to one of their spokesmen on 'Any Questions' I can't see any difference between them and Griffin's BNP.

    I now think it's crucial that one of the mainstream parties takes them on. No more pussyfooting around. I suspect the Lib Dems and Greens have their hearts in the right place but they haven't got the muscle. The Tories sit on the fence. This is a job for Labour alone. If Ed doesn't step up to the plate this time then we might as well vote Tory as the lesser of two evils.

    But these people have to be taken on. I know this site has now become replete with UKIPers Powellites and BNPers but it doesn't alter the basic truth that you are opposed by many many more than those who support you and Labour have to mobilize them.
  • TheScreamingEagles
    TheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,808
    Has anyone ever tipped and won a 50/1 political bet?

    *Innocent Face*
  • Andy_Cooke
    Andy_Cooke Posts: 5,045
    chestnut said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    At GE2010 all polls understated LAB.

    So, perhaps a common theme would be the overstatement of the opposition, and understatement of the governing party (parties) ?
    I think the main issue was the 'Cleggasm'. All polls overstated the Lib Dems. They all understated Labour. Most understated the Tories (three, I think, got the Tory share right; none overstated them)

    Given the Lib Dem poll surge last time, I'd be wary of trying to derive any rules from it.
  • TheScreamingEagles
    TheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,808
    Everyone seems to forget about Robert Carr. Shadow Chancellor and acting Tory leader for a few days.
  • RodCrosby
    RodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    chestnut said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    At GE2010 all polls understated LAB.

    So, perhaps a common theme would be the overstatement of the opposition, and understatement of the governing party (parties) ?
    Possibly, and the polls will overstate/understate at the extremes.
  • peter_from_putney
    peter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    OGH: "Did you get on? I certainly didn’t."

    Of course you didn't Mike ...... I mean who ever heard of anyone backing a 50/1 shot to become leader, that's strictly for the birds.
    Oh wait .......
  • Swiss_Bob
    Swiss_Bob Posts: 619
    Roger said:

    Sorry to be off topic (perhaps it balances audreyanne who posts the same post on every thread) but I'm getting seriously concerned by the UKIP effect. Listening to one of their spokesmen on 'Any Questions' I can't see any difference between them and Griffin's BNP.

    I now think it's crucial that one of the mainstream parties takes them on. No more pussyfooting around. I suspect the Lib Dems and Greens have their hearts in the right place but they haven't got the muscle. The Tories sit on the fence. This is a job for Labour alone. If Ed doesn't step up to the plate this time then we might as well vote Tory as the lesser of two evils.

    But these people have to be taken on. I know this site has now become replete with UKIPers Powellites and BNPers but it doesn't alter the basic truth that you are opposed by many many more than those who support you and Labour have to mobilize them.

    Bedwetter or here to smear?

    This is a very English revolution, a few hurt feelings, some unkind words but otherwise political discourse as it has been in England for hundreds of years, no blood spilt.



  • TGOHF
    TGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Roger said:

    Sorry to be off topic (perhaps it balances audreyanne who posts the same post on every thread) but I'm getting seriously concerned by the UKIP effect. Listening to one of their spokesmen on 'Any Questions' I can't see any difference between them and Griffin's BNP.

    I now think it's crucial that one of the mainstream parties takes them on. No more pussyfooting around. I suspect the Lib Dems and Greens have their hearts in the right place but they haven't got the muscle. The Tories sit on the fence. This is a job for Labour alone. If Ed doesn't step up to the plate this time then we might as well vote Tory as the lesser of two evils.

    But these people have to be taken on. I know this site has now become replete with UKIPers Powellites and BNPers but it doesn't alter the basic truth that you are opposed by many many more than those who support you and Labour have to mobilize them.

    You aren't alone Roger...

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100289281/who-will-speak-for-the-forgotten-85-the-people-who-dont-vote-for-ukip/
  • audreyanne
    audreyanne Posts: 1,376
    MikeSmithson said:

    At GE2010 all polls understated LAB.

    I know Mike, so what has changed? Because something has.
    TGOHF said:

    If LA is correct then Audreyanne has to consider how long before the vote polls were taken - is there a late swing away from Labour or crap polling ?

    Lord Ashcroft's H&M poll was taken just a few days before. He posted it this Monday: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/10/labour-set-clear-win-heywood-middleton/
  • anotherDave
    anotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited October 2014
    Roger said:

    ... it doesn't alter the basic truth that you [ukip] are opposed by many many more than those who support you and Labour have to mobilize them.

    You could say that about all the parties. None of them are popular. In Heywood we saw UKIP attracting an anti-Labour vote.
  • RodCrosby
    RodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    The bookies didn't know of Airey Neave's strategy to get Thatcher elected.

    Depending on which Tory MP he canvassed he said:-

    i) she can't win, but we need to give Ted a fright.
    ii) she can't win, but she can damage Ted enough to open up the field for Whitelaw, etc...
    iii) she can win...

    Enough of them voted for different reasons for her to beat Heath on the first ballot...
  • peter_from_putney
    peter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    TGOHF said:

    Huppert is 50-1 to be next LD leader ....


    ..... and Justine Greening, my MP, is a 50/1 shot (with Hills) to become the next Tory Leader.

    She has no chance in my humble opinion!

  • agingjb
    agingjb Posts: 76
    If at some future general election there is very close result between Lab and Con, and UKIP have the sole balance of power, then will they be accepted into coalition with one or other of the larger parties, or will there be a Lab and Tory national government?
  • anotherDave
    anotherDave Posts: 6,746
    peter_from_putney said:

    TGOHF said:

    Huppert is 50-1 to be next LD leader ....


    ..... and Justine Greening, my MP, is a 50/1 shot (with Hills) to become the next Tory Leader.

    She has no chance in my humble opinion!

    I rather her than many of the other names that get put forward.
  • SimonStClare
    SimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Swiss_Bob said:

    SimonStClare said:

    1974 – A great year, although politics was yet to feature in it - I spent most of 74 lying in bed listening to Genesis albums and Pink Floyd’s ‘Dark Side of the Moon’ - somebody had to..!

    I'm with you on the Pink Floyd but Genesis?
    I know, but pocket money was tight and I was reliant on an older brother’s record collection. It did however spark a fandom for Peter Gabriel that lasted for yonks.
  • stodge
    stodge Posts: 14,908
    If memory serves, Thatcher wasn't going to stand at all but was going to back Keith Joseph who was seen as being the standard bearer of the Right and had a real chance of mobilising anti-Heath support.

    Unfortunately, a speech on social issues just nine days after the election was widely criticised and put paid to his chances. His eclipse put Thatcher in with a chance and the move by Du Cann to force a challenge to Heath in January 1975 effectively meant that those close to Heath couldn't get involved until after Heath himself had been defeated - parallels with October 1990.

    By the time the likes of Prior and Whitelaw got involved, Thatcher had the momentum having defeated Heath in the first ballot.

  • Richard_Tyndall
    Richard_Tyndall Posts: 33,463
    Swiss_Bob said:

    Roger said:

    Sorry to be off topic (perhaps it balances audreyanne who posts the same post on every thread) but I'm getting seriously concerned by the UKIP effect. Listening to one of their spokesmen on 'Any Questions' I can't see any difference between them and Griffin's BNP.

    I now think it's crucial that one of the mainstream parties takes them on. No more pussyfooting around. I suspect the Lib Dems and Greens have their hearts in the right place but they haven't got the muscle. The Tories sit on the fence. This is a job for Labour alone. If Ed doesn't step up to the plate this time then we might as well vote Tory as the lesser of two evils.

    But these people have to be taken on. I know this site has now become replete with UKIPers Powellites and BNPers but it doesn't alter the basic truth that you are opposed by many many more than those who support you and Labour have to mobilize them.

    Bedwetter or here to smear?

    This is a very English revolution, a few hurt feelings, some unkind words but otherwise political discourse as it has been in England for hundreds of years, no blood spilt.



    Roger has no interest in anything but infantile smear. It has been his whole modus operandi for as long as he has been posting on this site.
  • RodCrosby
    RodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    agingjb said:

    If at some future general election there is very close result between Lab and Con, and UKIP have the sole balance of power, then will they be accepted into coalition with one or other of the larger parties, or will there be a Lab and Tory national government?

    That's a good question.

    Labour's experience of 1931 suggests (sans Wartime) they will never go into a grand coalition with the Tories.

    Hard to see them getting into bed with UKIP either.

    It's also a bit early to say whether UKIP are ministrable at all.

    The Tories might, in the hope of swallowing them...
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Mr. Dave, indeed, Justine Greening = future Prime Minister.
  • isam
    isam Posts: 42,205
    Roger said:

    Sorry to be off topic (perhaps it balances audreyanne who posts the same post on every thread) but I'm getting seriously concerned by the UKIP effect. Listening to one of their spokesmen on 'Any Questions' I can't see any difference between them and Griffin's BNP.

    I now think it's crucial that one of the mainstream parties takes them on. No more pussyfooting around. I suspect the Lib Dems and Greens have their hearts in the right place but they haven't got the muscle. The Tories sit on the fence. This is a job for Labour alone. If Ed doesn't step up to the plate this time then we might as well vote Tory as the lesser of two evils.

    But these people have to be taken on. I know this site has now become replete with UKIPers Powellites and BNPers but it doesn't alter the basic truth that you are opposed by many many more than those who support you and Labour have to mobilize them.

    You post the same on every thread as well though

    In answer to the latest version of your nonsense, the other parties are already fighting UKIP dirty . The Tory party smear us at every opportunity, look at the treatment of Mark Reckless, or even Camerons "Loonoes, Fruitvakes etc", as do much of the press and tv, Labour MEPs tweet that we want to abort disabled babies etc

    The Lib Dems tried to take UKIP on by sending Clegg to debate Farage, everywhere UKIP go Socialist Workers and Hope Not Hate try to disrupt us ( Hope not Hate members were in Clacton MacDonalds wearing UKIP badges on Thursday loudly talking about beheading Muslims in an attempt to get negative publicity for us by word of mouth)

    Just because it isn't working, and you don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't happening
  • Swiss_Bob
    Swiss_Bob Posts: 619
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Dave, indeed, Justine Greening = future Prime Minister.

    Just in case you didn't see my comment earlier. Thanks, 50% return on Bottas.
  • manofkent2014
    manofkent2014 Posts: 1,543
    edited October 2014
    Roger said:

    Sorry to be off topic (perhaps it balances audreyanne who posts the same post on every thread) but I'm getting seriously concerned by the UKIP effect. Listening to one of their spokesmen on 'Any Questions' I can't see any difference between them and Griffin's BNP.

    I now think it's crucial that one of the mainstream parties takes them on. No more pussyfooting around. I suspect the Lib Dems and Greens have their hearts in the right place but they haven't got the muscle. The Tories sit on the fence. This is a job for Labour alone. If Ed doesn't step up to the plate this time then we might as well vote Tory as the lesser of two evils.

    But these people have to be taken on. I know this site has now become replete with UKIPers Powellites and BNPers but it doesn't alter the basic truth that you are opposed by many many more than those who support you and Labour have to mobilize them.

    So you have yet to master the art of extracting your head from your nether regions before listening to radio shows? It can easily make the sounds indistinct! You should try harder.

    You might learn something then like for example that UKIP had more BME keynote spokesman at their conference (including the Communities and Immigration spokespeople) than any of the other parties (Greens excepted).

  • audreyanne
    audreyanne Posts: 1,376
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    Roger said:

    Sorry to be off topic (perhaps it balances audreyanne who posts the same post on every thread) but I'm getting seriously concerned by the UKIP effect. Listening to one of their spokesmen on 'Any Questions' I can't see any difference between them and Griffin's BNP.

    I now think it's crucial that one of the mainstream parties takes them on. No more pussyfooting around. I suspect the Lib Dems and Greens have their hearts in the right place but they haven't got the muscle. The Tories sit on the fence. This is a job for Labour alone. If Ed doesn't step up to the plate this time then we might as well vote Tory as the lesser of two evils.

    But these people have to be taken on. I know this site has now become replete with UKIPers Powellites and BNPers but it doesn't alter the basic truth that you are opposed by many many more than those who support you and Labour have to mobilize them.

    Bedwetter or here to smear?

    This is a very English revolution, a few hurt feelings, some unkind words but otherwise political discourse as it has been in England for hundreds of years, no blood spilt.



    Roger has no interest in anything but infantile smear. It has been his whole modus operandi for as long as he has been posting on this site.
    Thanks for the tipoff. I was going to respond to his jibe about my alleged monochromatic posting but I shan't bother with the man.
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Dave, indeed, Justine Greening = future Prime Minister.

    Didn't she rather blot her copybook over the west coast line fiasco? I'm only asking as I rather like her. I believe Michael Howard thought she was a bright prospect too.
  • logical_song
    logical_song Posts: 10,082
    "Bedwetter or here to smear?"

    Is that not a smear?
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Mr. Bob, I did indeed miss that.

    Cheers. I dislike tipping odds-on things, but it did stand out after the P3 times. A tenth here or there doesn't say much, but he was seven-tenths clear.

    Miss Anne, perhaps. She did want to actually cut aid, though, and was prevented from doing so.
  • Andy_Cooke
    Andy_Cooke Posts: 5,045
    stodge said:

    If memory serves, Thatcher wasn't going to stand at all but was going to back Keith Joseph who was seen as being the standard bearer of the Right and had a real chance of mobilising anti-Heath support.

    Unfortunately, a speech on social issues just nine days after the election was widely criticised and put paid to his chances. His eclipse put Thatcher in with a chance and the move by Du Cann to force a challenge to Heath in January 1975 effectively meant that those close to Heath couldn't get involved until after Heath himself had been defeated - parallels with October 1990.

    By the time the likes of Prior and Whitelaw got involved, Thatcher had the momentum having defeated Heath in the first ballot.

    Despite this, we still hear "he who wields the knife never wears the crown". Because Whitelaw and Prior believed that, they missed their chance.
  • stodge
    stodge Posts: 14,908
    Even though I'm no supporter of UKIP, I really don't see why they couldn't or wouldn't be able to support either a Conservative or Labour minority. I've heard nothing in UKIP's policy platform that makes them beyond any kind of pale.

    That said, UKIP won't get much if they are only bringing 5-10 MPs to the table so it may be a question of looking at where their policies converge with those of any prospective partner.
  • MarqueeMark
    MarqueeMark Posts: 55,459
    MikeSmithson said:

    At GE2010 all polls understated LAB.

    Maybe they are overcompensating for that now?

  • HurstLlama
    HurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    "Justine Greening = future Prime Minister"

    Only in your fevered dreams I suspect Mr. Dancer. I confess I had hopes for her until she went to DfID, where she seems to have become completely housetrained.
  • anotherDave
    anotherDave Posts: 6,746
    stodge said:

    Even though I'm no supporter of UKIP, I really don't see why they couldn't or wouldn't be able to support either a Conservative or Labour minority. I've heard nothing in UKIP's policy platform that makes them beyond any kind of pale.

    That said, UKIP won't get much if they are only bringing 5-10 MPs to the table so it may be a question of looking at where their policies converge with those of any prospective partner.

    I think its pretty clear UKIP would only have one red line.
  • Pulpstar
    Pulpstar Posts: 79,813
    I'd have had a great deal of difficulty getting on this market.
  • MarqueeMark
    MarqueeMark Posts: 55,459
    stodge said:

    Even though I'm no supporter of UKIP, I really don't see why they couldn't or wouldn't be able to support either a Conservative or Labour minority. I've heard nothing in UKIP's policy platform that makes them beyond any kind of pale.

    That said, UKIP won't get much if they are only bringing 5-10 MPs to the table so it may be a question of looking at where their policies converge with those of any prospective partner.

    I appreciate it may be realistic for a party just getting into Parliament, but 9 target seats did seem a bit....well, playing it safe. 9 has them well down the queue, behind the LibDems, the SNP and the Unionists. Where's the ambition in that? How will that change the face of politics?
  • Swiss_Bob
    Swiss_Bob Posts: 619
    logical_song said:

    "Bedwetter or here to smear?"

    Is that not a smear?

    I'll leave other people to judge but it was Wodger who conflated UKIP with the BNP, a fückwitted bunch of National Socialists, most of whom were Labour party members, or since the party collapsed returned to the Labour party because they're not welcome in UKIP.
  • manofkent2014
    manofkent2014 Posts: 1,543
    stodge said:

    Even though I'm no supporter of UKIP, I really don't see why they couldn't or wouldn't be able to support either a Conservative or Labour minority. I've heard nothing in UKIP's policy platform that makes them beyond any kind of pale.

    That said, UKIP won't get much if they are only bringing 5-10 MPs to the table so it may be a question of looking at where their policies converge with those of any prospective partner.

    Farage has indicated if the situation did arise then he would consider supply and confidence arrangements (with the Tories certainly). He doesn't see the need for anything more formal and today made clear he would not 'sell out' for a couple of ministerial jobs.....
  • Roger
    Roger Posts: 20,744
    edited October 2014
    TGOHF

    " You aren't alone Roger...

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100289281/who-will-speak-for-the-forgotten-85-the-people-who-dont-vote-for-ukip/"

    Thanks for drawing my attention to that article. Slightly comic but he makes some good points. He seems to think that because they represent no more than a dog and his bowl they can be lampooned and ignored. I don't think he's right.

    Making what they represent mainstream reduces us all in the same way as people who decry 'political correctness' because they feel safe with their stereotypes makes us more ignorant

  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Mr. Llama, my understanding is that she drew up a list of nonsense aid to be cut, but was told from the top (of government, not by civil servants) that was contrary to government policy.

    Anyway, a chap can have fevered dreams about a 50/1 shot coming in.
  • anotherDave
    anotherDave Posts: 6,746
    MarqueeMark said:

    stodge said:

    Even though I'm no supporter of UKIP, I really don't see why they couldn't or wouldn't be able to support either a Conservative or Labour minority. I've heard nothing in UKIP's policy platform that makes them beyond any kind of pale.

    That said, UKIP won't get much if they are only bringing 5-10 MPs to the table so it may be a question of looking at where their policies converge with those of any prospective partner.

    I appreciate it may be realistic for a party just getting into Parliament, but 9 target seats did seem a bit....well, playing it safe. 9 has them well down the queue, behind the LibDems, the SNP and the Unionists. Where's the ambition in that? How will that change the face of politics?
    9 reported target seats probably doesn't tell us much.

    They're also said to be following a northern strategy with an eye to the 2020 election.
  • HurstLlama
    HurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Andy_Cooke said:

    stodge said:

    If memory serves, Thatcher wasn't going to stand at all but was going to back Keith Joseph who was seen as being the standard bearer of the Right and had a real chance of mobilising anti-Heath support.

    Unfortunately, a speech on social issues just nine days after the election was widely criticised and put paid to his chances. His eclipse put Thatcher in with a chance and the move by Du Cann to force a challenge to Heath in January 1975 effectively meant that those close to Heath couldn't get involved until after Heath himself had been defeated - parallels with October 1990.

    By the time the likes of Prior and Whitelaw got involved, Thatcher had the momentum having defeated Heath in the first ballot.

    Despite this, we still hear "he who wields the knife never wears the crown". Because Whitelaw and Prior believed that, they missed their chance.
    Thank goodness they did. Whitelaw was a brave man and a good man but his fault was to believe that others were as honourable as he was himself. He was far too nice to have made an effective party leader let alone prime minister. Prior I recall as yet another Conservative politician, nobody special.
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    F1: hard finding value. Was tempted by Bottas for the win but decided against it. Got a few others in mind but I want the full Ladbrokes markets to be up before picking what I'll go for.
  • Swiss_Bob
    Swiss_Bob Posts: 619
    edited October 2014
    Fat finger

  • manofkent2014
    manofkent2014 Posts: 1,543
    audreyanne said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    Roger said:

    Sorry to be off topic (perhaps it balances audreyanne who posts the same post on every thread) but I'm getting seriously concerned by the UKIP effect. Listening to one of their spokesmen on 'Any Questions' I can't see any difference between them and Griffin's BNP.

    I now think it's crucial that one of the mainstream parties takes them on. No more pussyfooting around. I suspect the Lib Dems and Greens have their hearts in the right place but they haven't got the muscle. The Tories sit on the fence. This is a job for Labour alone. If Ed doesn't step up to the plate this time then we might as well vote Tory as the lesser of two evils.

    But these people have to be taken on. I know this site has now become replete with UKIPers Powellites and BNPers but it doesn't alter the basic truth that you are opposed by many many more than those who support you and Labour have to mobilize them.

    Bedwetter or here to smear?

    This is a very English revolution, a few hurt feelings, some unkind words but otherwise political discourse as it has been in England for hundreds of years, no blood spilt.



    Roger has no interest in anything but infantile smear. It has been his whole modus operandi for as long as he has been posting on this site.
    Thanks for the tipoff. I was going to respond to his jibe about my alleged monochromatic posting but I shan't bother with the man.
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Dave, indeed, Justine Greening = future Prime Minister.

    Didn't she rather blot her copybook over the west coast line fiasco? I'm only asking as I rather like her. I believe Michael Howard thought she was a bright prospect too.
    Will she even have a seat after the GE? What has been fairly clear is that there is a bigger swing to Labour in London in elections than elsewhere. In the Euros they improved on their 2014 position by 15.4% the highest improvement in the country. Not only that it is probably the most UKIP resistant part of the country as well so likely will provide much less competition for the working class vote.
  • TGOHF
    TGOHF Posts: 21,633
    anotherDave said:

    stodge said:

    Even though I'm no supporter of UKIP, I really don't see why they couldn't or wouldn't be able to support either a Conservative or Labour minority. I've heard nothing in UKIP's policy platform that makes them beyond any kind of pale.

    That said, UKIP won't get much if they are only bringing 5-10 MPs to the table so it may be a question of looking at where their policies converge with those of any prospective partner.

    I think its pretty clear UKIP would only have one red line.
    We won't support you unless you cancel the referendum Mr Cameron ?
  • surbiton
    surbiton Posts: 13,549
    My fear:

    The scenario A below is perfectly possible. So too is scenario B.Tories could form a coalition.

    This has nothing to do with UKIP. It has more to do with the increase in SNP seats and LD's perfoming against the odds in individual seats.

    c = coalition partners. Don't be shocked about the SNP and C in cahoots. SNP wants the Tories to give them Devo MAXXXX. Tories are only too willing in return for lower Scottish seats.


    A

    Con 260 c
    LD 35 c
    SNP 24 c
    DUP 8 c
    SF 5
    SDLP 3
    AP 1
    Others 1
    Labour 300
    PC 3
    UKIP 10

    B

    Con 270 c
    LD 35 c
    SNP 24 c
    DUP 8
    SF 5
    SDLP 3
    AP 1
    Others 1
    Labour 290
    PC 3
    UKIP 10
  • HurstLlama
    HurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Llama, my understanding is that she drew up a list of nonsense aid to be cut, but was told from the top (of government, not by civil servants) that was contrary to government policy.

    Anyway, a chap can have fevered dreams about a 50/1 shot coming in.

    If that is true about Greening then I have even less respect for her. If she disagreed with the policy set for the department of which she is supposed to be in charge then her proper course would have been to resign. That she didn't indicates a serious weakness of character.
  • manofkent2014
    manofkent2014 Posts: 1,543
    edited October 2014
    MarqueeMark said:

    stodge said:

    Even though I'm no supporter of UKIP, I really don't see why they couldn't or wouldn't be able to support either a Conservative or Labour minority. I've heard nothing in UKIP's policy platform that makes them beyond any kind of pale.

    That said, UKIP won't get much if they are only bringing 5-10 MPs to the table so it may be a question of looking at where their policies converge with those of any prospective partner.

    I appreciate it may be realistic for a party just getting into Parliament, but 9 target seats did seem a bit....well, playing it safe. 9 has them well down the queue, behind the LibDems, the SNP and the Unionists. Where's the ambition in that? How will that change the face of politics?
    Diane James has talked in terms of winning anything between 20 and 60 seats, however optimistic that may be. I think part of the strategy is to keep the other parties guessing for as long as possible.

    Not only that but things seem to be continually changing (e.g. UKIPs relative potential strength in the Medway Towns was not identified until this years Euro elections). Heywood would only have become a target two days ago and no doubt will cause a reassessment of their Northern strategy.

    It also depends on the funding. If they get more funding they will be able to target more seats.

    So I wouldn't take any target as definite.
  • DavidL
    DavidL Posts: 55,867
    Slightly off topic but another straw in the wind yesterday following the very poor construction figures: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11154749/Eurozone-recession-is-biggest-risk-to-UK-says-George-Osborne.html

    There are two different factors at plays here. Firstly, Osborne is trying to make it clear that everything in the garden is not rosy so it is no time to let a bunch of incompetents take the wheel but secondly, there is undoubtedly a major slow down coming and UK growth has almost certainly peaked.

    By May I suspect growth will have fallen to nearer half of what it is at the moment and the rate of increase of employment will have diminished. Tories who are hoping to be triumphalist about the economy in May are likely to be in for a disappointment. But the argument you need someone experienced and skilled to steer through the tricky waters may be stronger. Certainly Ed, what is this deficit issue, is not going to look like the answer.

    What is worrying is whether this will be a squall or a storm. If it turns into another international storm we are going to be going into it with dangerous levels of borrowing. We need a lot of calm water yet to restore the ship.
  • saddened
    saddened Posts: 2,245
    Roger said:

    Sorry to be off topic (perhaps it balances audreyanne who posts the same post on every thread) but I'm getting seriously concerned by the UKIP effect. Listening to one of their spokesmen on 'Any Questions' I can't see any difference between them and Griffin's BNP.

    I now think it's crucial that one of the mainstream parties takes them on. No more pussyfooting around. I suspect the Lib Dems and Greens have their hearts in the right place but they haven't got the muscle. The Tories sit on the fence. This is a job for Labour alone. If Ed doesn't step up to the plate this time then we might as well vote Tory as the lesser of two evils.

    But these people have to be taken on. I know this site has now become replete with UKIPers Powellites and BNPers but it doesn't alter the basic truth that you are opposed by many many more than those who support you and Labour have to mobilize them.

    Why do you care you only visit as often as your tax avoidance allows. If you lived and paid tax here then your opinion may have some weight.
  • HurstLlama
    HurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    manofkent2014 said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    stodge said:

    Even though I'm no supporter of UKIP, I really don't see why they couldn't or wouldn't be able to support either a Conservative or Labour minority. I've heard nothing in UKIP's policy platform that makes them beyond any kind of pale.

    That said, UKIP won't get much if they are only bringing 5-10 MPs to the table so it may be a question of looking at where their policies converge with those of any prospective partner.

    I appreciate it may be realistic for a party just getting into Parliament, but 9 target seats did seem a bit....well, playing it safe. 9 has them well down the queue, behind the LibDems, the SNP and the Unionists. Where's the ambition in that? How will that change the face of politics?
    Diane James has talked in terms of winning anything between 20 and 60 seats, however optimistic that may be. I think part of the strategy is to keep the other parties guessing for as long as possible.

    Not only that but things seem to be continually changing (e.g. UKIPs relative potential strength in the Medway Towns was not identified until this years Euro elections). Heywood would only have become a target two days ago and no doubt will cause a reassessment of their Northern strategy.

    It also depends on the funding. If they get more funding they will be able to target more seats.

    So I wouldn't take any target as definite.
    And people. Lots of people will support a party, fewer will join and fewer still will actually put on a rosette and tramp the streets. If the ground game is as important as people on here claim, and I am not convinced that it is, then UKIP may well struggle to find enough people.
  • manofkent2014
    manofkent2014 Posts: 1,543
    edited October 2014
    surbiton said:

    My fear:

    The scenario A below is perfectly possible. So too is scenario B.Tories could form a coalition.

    This has nothing to do with UKIP. It has more to do with the increase in SNP seats and LD's perfoming against the odds in individual seats.

    c = coalition partners. Don't be shocked about the SNP and C in cahoots. SNP wants the Tories to give them Devo MAXXXX. Tories are only too willing in return for lower Scottish seats.


    A

    Con 260 c
    LD 35 c
    SNP 24 c
    DUP 8 c
    SF 5
    SDLP 3
    AP 1
    Others 1
    Labour 300
    PC 3
    UKIP 10

    B

    Con 270 c
    LD 35 c
    SNP 24 c
    DUP 8
    SF 5
    SDLP 3
    AP 1
    Others 1
    Labour 290
    PC 3
    UKIP 10

    You scenario needs the right answers to these questions? Would Cameron try to cling on and not stand down to the largest party? Would the Libdems not negotiate with Labour despite being the largest party? Would Labour and the Libdems be able to come to an agreement?
  • Swiss_Bob
    Swiss_Bob Posts: 619
    Re Ind v WI. If you put some money on the WI then don't blame me if you haven't made money given the WI are now 1.8 from 3.1 when I tipped them.
  • surbiton
    surbiton Posts: 13,549
    manofkent2014 said:

    surbiton said:

    My fear:

    The scenario A below is perfectly possible. So too is scenario B.Tories could form a coalition.

    This has nothing to do with UKIP. It has more to do with the increase in SNP seats and LD's perfoming against the odds in individual seats.

    c = coalition partners. Don't be shocked about the SNP and C in cahoots. SNP wants the Tories to give them Devo MAXXXX. Tories are only too willing in return for lower Scottish seats.


    A

    Con 260 c
    LD 35 c
    SNP 24 c
    DUP 8 c
    SF 5
    SDLP 3
    AP 1
    Others 1
    Labour 300
    PC 3
    UKIP 10

    B

    Con 270 c
    LD 35 c
    SNP 24 c
    DUP 8
    SF 5
    SDLP 3
    AP 1
    Others 1
    Labour 290
    PC 3
    UKIP 10

    You scenario needs the right answers to these questions? Would Cameron try to cling on and not stand down to the largest party? Would the Libdems not negotiate with Labour despite being the largest party? Would Labour and the Libdems be able to come to an agreement?
    The scenario I envisage is no referendum [ or, a weak spineless one ]. Otherwise, LD will not play ball. All parties will be convinced of a IN win. That is why I have kept UKIP out.

    Clegg, as leader, will always do a deal with the Tories. The LD will be too small in Scotland for SNP to worry about. SNP and CON need each other. Basically, shaft Labour !
  • RodCrosby
    RodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    @surbiton

    It is inconceivable that Con or Lab would form a UK coalition government with

    i) any of the NI parties [the risk of fallout for the peace process]

    ii) SNP, a regional separatist party [inconceivable the SNP would join, for the same reason]

    More informal arrangements are perfectly possible though.
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    F1: bah. Thought I had a decent bet, before remembering Magnussen and Hulkenberg have penalties...
  • manofkent2014
    manofkent2014 Posts: 1,543
    HurstLlama said:

    manofkent2014 said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    stodge said:

    Even though I'm no supporter of UKIP, I really don't see why they couldn't or wouldn't be able to support either a Conservative or Labour minority. I've heard nothing in UKIP's policy platform that makes them beyond any kind of pale.

    That said, UKIP won't get much if they are only bringing 5-10 MPs to the table so it may be a question of looking at where their policies converge with those of any prospective partner.

    I appreciate it may be realistic for a party just getting into Parliament, but 9 target seats did seem a bit....well, playing it safe. 9 has them well down the queue, behind the LibDems, the SNP and the Unionists. Where's the ambition in that? How will that change the face of politics?
    Diane James has talked in terms of winning anything between 20 and 60 seats, however optimistic that may be. I think part of the strategy is to keep the other parties guessing for as long as possible.

    Not only that but things seem to be continually changing (e.g. UKIPs relative potential strength in the Medway Towns was not identified until this years Euro elections). Heywood would only have become a target two days ago and no doubt will cause a reassessment of their Northern strategy.

    It also depends on the funding. If they get more funding they will be able to target more seats.

    So I wouldn't take any target as definite.
    And people. Lots of people will support a party, fewer will join and fewer still will actually put on a rosette and tramp the streets. If the ground game is as important as people on here claim, and I am not convinced that it is, then UKIP may well struggle to find enough people.
    Your guess is a good as mine. UKIP haven't had much of a ground game to get where they have got to but whether that will be different in the general election is unclear. However its fair to say that the other parties will be stretched as well and may not have the resources to fight the seats UKIP are targetting.

    Many of the UKIP targets will be clustered in along the eastern coastal region so its possible for them to share resources. Whether the other parties can do the same in seats which they would not previously have been planning to throw resources at is again anyone's guess.
  • chestnut
    chestnut Posts: 7,341
    DavidL said:

    Slightly off topic but another straw in the wind yesterday following the very poor construction figures: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11154749/Eurozone-recession-is-biggest-risk-to-UK-says-George-Osborne.html

    There are two different factors at plays here. Firstly, Osborne is trying to make it clear that everything in the garden is not rosy so it is no time to let a bunch of incompetents take the wheel but secondly, there is undoubtedly a major slow down coming and UK growth has almost certainly peaked.

    By May I suspect growth will have fallen to nearer half of what it is at the moment and the rate of increase of employment will have diminished. Tories who are hoping to be triumphalist about the economy in May are likely to be in for a disappointment. But the argument you need someone experienced and skilled to steer through the tricky waters may be stronger. Certainly Ed, what is this deficit issue, is not going to look like the answer.

    What is worrying is whether this will be a squall or a storm. If it turns into another international storm we are going to be going into it with dangerous levels of borrowing. We need a lot of calm water yet to restore the ship.

    The construction figure initially published in the last quarter said there was a 0.5% contraction, only for it be revised away. Perhaps the same will happen again?

    Markit's latest PMI says that construction is in sharpest period of growth since the turn of the year.

    markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/fef24c6229ee4893a0ae8addfc2ca92f

    Unemployment should go below two million this month, while the claimant count is already below one million with nearly 700,000 job vacancies unfilled. Christmas recruitment should now hit full throttle as well.

    Growth will undoubtedly recede soon and I think we're being readied for interest rate rises next year. Once they kick in, the economy will go backwards unless more money is left in the electorate's pockets, so tax thresholds will be raised.

    That will mean heightened spending restraint, but the job vacancy figures imply that there would be somewhere for laid-off public sector employees to go other than the dole queue. The time seems to be right to trim the numbers on the public sector payroll.

    I also note that no one seems to be pledging to continue with council tax freezes. The government preparing the ground to say that local authorities need to convince local tax payers of the need to raise bills?

  • DavidL
    DavidL Posts: 55,867
    chestnut said:

    DavidL said:

    need a lot of calm water yet to restore the ship.

    The construction figure initially published in the last quarter said there was a 0.5% contraction, only for it be revised away. Perhaps the same will happen again?

    Markit's latest PMI says that construction is in sharpest period of growth since the turn of the year.

    markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/fef24c6229ee4893a0ae8addfc2ca92f

    Unemployment should go below two million this month, while the claimant count is already below one million with nearly 700,000 job vacancies unfilled. Christmas recruitment should now hit full throttle as well.

    Growth will undoubtedly recede soon and I think we're being readied for interest rate rises next year. Once they kick in, the economy will go backwards unless more money is left in the electorate's pockets, so tax thresholds will be raised.

    That will mean heightened spending restraint, but the job vacancy figures imply that there would be somewhere for laid-off public sector employees to go other than the dole queue. The time seems to be right to trim the numbers on the public sector payroll.

    I also note that no one seems to be pledging to continue with council tax freezes. The government preparing the ground to say that local authorities need to convince local tax payers of the need to raise bills?

    I agree that the ONS figures on construction are misleading and borderline useless but the mood music has got much darker of late. Partly because we have been growing faster (probably close to 4% on an annualised basis) we have been sucking in imports on a completely unsustainable level and struggling to increase our exports.

    The economy needs a breather and if that coincides with a major contraction on government borrowing (your spot on CT is a good one) it could easily slide into something more serious.
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Betting post

    F1: backed Kvyat to be top 6 at 2.7, after remembering Magnussen has a penalty. No hedge.

    More detail and thoughts here: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/russia-pre-race.html
  • manofkent2014
    manofkent2014 Posts: 1,543
    edited October 2014
    chestnut said:

    DavidL said:

    Slightly off topic but another straw in the wind yesterday following the very poor construction figures: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11154749/Eurozone-recession-is-biggest-risk-to-UK-says-George-Osborne.html

    markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/fef24c6229ee4893a0ae8addfc2ca92f

    Unemployment should go below two million this month, while the claimant count is already below one million with nearly 700,000 job vacancies unfilled. Christmas recruitment should now hit full throttle as well.

    Growth will undoubtedly recede soon and I think we're being readied for interest rate rises next year. Once they kick in, the economy will go backwards unless more money is left in the electorate's pockets, so tax thresholds will be raised.

    That will mean heightened spending restraint, but the job vacancy figures imply that there would be somewhere for laid-off public sector employees to go other than the dole queue. The time seems to be right to trim the numbers on the public sector payroll.

    I also note that no one seems to be pledging to continue with council tax freezes. The government preparing the ground to say that local authorities need to convince local tax payers of the need to raise bills?

    Putting aside I believe a good number of councils have already started increasing their council tax (mine has) am I right in thinking councils can only increase council tax by 1.99% without triggering a local referendum.

    I also believe Labour have indicated they will keep the referendums

    http://www.lgcplus.com/news/exclusive-labour-plans-to-keep-council-tax-referendums/5069012.article

    So council tax rises will only be within inflation limits will they not?
  • dr_spyn
    dr_spyn Posts: 11,312
    One for the cricket fans from twitter.

    Josephine Cumbo ‏@JosephineCumbo 4m4 minutes ago
    "The whinge in the willow" - best headline seen yet for a review of Kevin Pietersen's autobiography.
  • MikeK
    MikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited October 2014
    HurstLlama said:

    manofkent2014 said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    stodge said:

    Even though I'm no supporter of UKIP, I really don't see why they couldn't or wouldn't be able to support either a Conservative or Labour minority. I've heard nothing in UKIP's policy platform that makes them beyond any kind of pale.

    That said, UKIP won't get much if they are only bringing 5-10 MPs to the table so it may be a question of looking at where their policies converge with those of any prospective partner.

    I appreciate it may be realistic for a party just getting into Parliament, but 9 target seats did seem a bit....well, playing it safe. 9 has them well down the queue, behind the LibDems, the SNP and the Unionists. Where's the ambition in that? How will that change the face of politics?
    Diane James has talked in terms of winning anything between 20 and 60 seats, however optimistic that may be. I think part of the strategy is to keep the other parties guessing for as long as possible.

    Not only that but things seem to be continually changing (e.g. UKIPs relative potential strength in the Medway Towns was not identified until this years Euro elections). Heywood would only have become a target two days ago and no doubt will cause a reassessment of their Northern strategy.

    It also depends on the funding. If they get more funding they will be able to target more seats.

    So I wouldn't take any target as definite.
    And people. Lots of people will support a party, fewer will join and fewer still will actually put on a rosette and tramp the streets. If the ground game is as important as people on here claim, and I am not convinced that it is, then UKIP may well struggle to find enough people.
    There is no doubt that UKIP will be stretched thin at the GE if it tries to pursue all and every target. That won't happen if the National Executive have any sense. My understanding is that there will be 30± seats where the main effort will be greatest. There will be a second 30± where a good but secondary effort will be made. UKIP will make the effort to stand in all the English and Welsh seats and 9/10 Scottish seats, these to be decided by December 31st.

    The good news for UKIP is that besides momentum in by-elections, the YI (young independents) UKIPs youth wing, is growing at even faster rate than even for the main party.
    Also there are local volunteers (of no affiliation) that have started appearing at the UKIP shop/HQ unasked but very welcome indeed. So I think that UKIP will get by.
  • MikeSmithson
    MikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    I've got 33/1 with William Hill that UKIP will be part of a post GE15 coalition taken out in September last year.
  • RodCrosby
    RodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited October 2014
    MikeSmithson said:

    I've got 33/1 with William Hill that UKIP will be part of a post GE15 coalition taken out in September last year.

    So, which UKIP personality is going to be a minister in the next government, Mike?

    I'd be wanting 300/1...
  • MattW
    MattW Posts: 28,309
    RodCrosby said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    I've got 33/1 with William Hill that UKIP will be part of a post GE15 coalition taken out in September last year.

    So, which UKIP personality is going to be a minister in the next government, Mike?

    I'd be wanting 300/1...
    Farage.

    Minister for Scotlandshire.
  • Richard_Nabavi
    Richard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    On topic: On what a thin thread the future of the UK hung. It's a frightening thought. We could so easily have slipped into another decade, perhaps longer, of continued decline.
  • isam
    isam Posts: 42,205
    edited October 2014
    Douglas Carswell retweeted this.. is it a spoof Sun account or has Schapps really said this?


    Douglas Carswell retweeted

    The Sun Newsdesk ‏@SunNewsdesk · 51m51 minutes ago
    Voting Ukip puts Britain at greater risk from Ebola and terror attacks, Tory chairman Grant Shapps claims: http://bit.ly/Zk3bpF

  • RodCrosby
    RodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    On topic: On what a thin thread the future of the UK hung. It's a frightening thought. We could so easily have slipped into another decade, perhaps longer, of continued decline.

    You can thank the Ulster Unionists, SNP and Jeremy Thorpe for cooking Heath's goose in Feb 1974, ultimately for the rise of Thatcher...
  • Richard_Nabavi
    Richard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    RodCrosby said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    On topic: On what a thin thread the future of the UK hung. It's a frightening thought. We could so easily have slipped into another decade, perhaps longer, of continued decline.

    You can thank the Ulster Unionists, SNP and Jeremy Thorpe for cooking Heath's goose in Feb 1974, ultimately for the rise of Thatcher...
    And of course General Galtieri, without whose timely assistance she probably wouldn't have lasted very long.
  • taffys
    taffys Posts: 9,753
    Lord Tebbit seems to think 'only pride' stands between a UKIP/tory election pact.

    I don;t see it myself.
  • MattW
    MattW Posts: 28,309
    RodCrosby said:

    @surbiton

    It is inconceivable that Con or Lab would form a UK coalition government with

    i) any of the NI parties [the risk of fallout for the peace process]

    ii) SNP, a regional separatist party [inconceivable the SNP would join, for the same reason]

    More informal arrangements are perfectly possible though.

    Hmm. Tories worked with them in Scotland.

    But the SNP just became incredibly unpredictable, since they are 75% brand new members.

    I don't think anyone knows what the SNP is now.

    Perhaps we should start calling them the "Pretender Party".
  • RodCrosby
    RodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    On topic: On what a thin thread the future of the UK hung. It's a frightening thought. We could so easily have slipped into another decade, perhaps longer, of continued decline.

    You can thank the Ulster Unionists, SNP and Jeremy Thorpe for cooking Heath's goose in Feb 1974, ultimately for the rise of Thatcher...
    And of course General Galtieri, without whose timely assistance she probably wouldn't have lasted very long.
    Yes, but if Heath had hung on in 1974, I suspect Thatcher would have been a footnote to history. Succeeded by Whitelaw, or defeated by Callaghan seem to be the most likely options...
  • AndreaParma_82
    AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    Heidi Allen wins South Cambrideshire Conservative selection.

    It's the one who was suspected to have won SE Cambridgeshire selection if they had officers able to count.
  • logical_song
    logical_song Posts: 10,082
    Swiss_Bob said:

    logical_song said:

    "Bedwetter or here to smear?"

    Is that not a smear?

    I'll leave other people to judge but it was Wodger who conflated UKIP with the BNP, a fückwitted bunch of National Socialists, most of whom were Labour party members, or since the party collapsed returned to the Labour party because they're not welcome in UKIP.
    Maybe he saw this:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hitler-praised-as-magnetic-and-forceful-speaker-by-ukip-mep-9659626.html
    or
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/may/01/ukip-nazi-row-photoshops-hitler
  • isam
    isam Posts: 42,205
    logical_song said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    logical_song said:

    "Bedwetter or here to smear?"

    Is that not a smear?

    I'll leave other people to judge but it was Wodger who conflated UKIP with the BNP, a fückwitted bunch of National Socialists, most of whom were Labour party members, or since the party collapsed returned to the Labour party because they're not welcome in UKIP.
    Maybe he saw this:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hitler-praised-as-magnetic-and-forceful-speaker-by-ukip-mep-9659626.html
    or
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/may/01/ukip-nazi-row-photoshops-hitler
    Haha the second one was a wind up to trick people like you!!! kerching!
  • logical_song
    logical_song Posts: 10,082
    isam said:

    logical_song said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    logical_song said:

    "Bedwetter or here to smear?"

    Is that not a smear?

    I'll leave other people to judge but it was Wodger who conflated UKIP with the BNP, a fückwitted bunch of National Socialists, most of whom were Labour party members, or since the party collapsed returned to the Labour party because they're not welcome in UKIP.
    Maybe he saw this:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hitler-praised-as-magnetic-and-forceful-speaker-by-ukip-mep-9659626.html
    or
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/may/01/ukip-nazi-row-photoshops-hitler
    Haha the second one was a wind up to trick people like you!!! kerching!
    Maybe.
    What about the first one?

    Tell me how well you do on this quiz:
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/quiz/2014/may/19/quiz-bnp-ukip-quotes-who-said-what
  • isam
    isam Posts: 42,205
    edited October 2014
    logical_song said:

    isam said:

    logical_song said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    logical_song said:

    "Bedwetter or here to smear?"

    Is that not a smear?

    I'll leave other people to judge but it was Wodger who conflated UKIP with the BNP, a fückwitted bunch of National Socialists, most of whom were Labour party members, or since the party collapsed returned to the Labour party because they're not welcome in UKIP.
    Maybe he saw this:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hitler-praised-as-magnetic-and-forceful-speaker-by-ukip-mep-9659626.html
    or
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/may/01/ukip-nazi-row-photoshops-hitler
    Haha the second one was a wind up to trick people like you!!! kerching!
    Maybe.
    What about the first one?

    Tell me how well you do on this quiz:
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/quiz/2014/may/19/quiz-bnp-ukip-quotes-who-said-what
    Give up mate you've shown how desperate you are already x
This discussion has been closed.

Categories