politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Lib Dems fall into 5th place in this week’s Ashcroft Na
Comments
-
Awesome awesome awesome. I can't wait to read it, David.david_herdson said:
Many thanks. I'm writing a series of alternative histories rather than just one. I have checked out alternativehistory (albeit rarely), and while I've not posted there, have found it interesting and of use.Andy_Cooke said:
The best advice I can give is to head over to www.alternatehistory.com, register, and serialise a first draft in the relevant forum (Post 1900 for me, usually).david_herdson said:
Andy, I'm in the middle of writing a series of political / military alternative histories myself. Any advice / tips / introductions / contacts you're able to offer?Andy_Cooke said:With the travails of FPTP with the current polling scores, and the brief plugs of books on the site earlier, I'll take the plunge meself.
Stuff like the issues of FPTP with multiple creditable challengers and multi-way marginals are in it - as well as the reactions of the main parties to the upstarts. Might be worth your time (I've priced it at 77p - Amazon wouldn't let me make it free, otherwise I would have - on the age-old philosophy of drawing you in with the first one
)
The commenters are invariably pleasant and helpful, and often have an astonishing amount of relevant information and helpful feedback.
I found that the very action of committing to a weekly update schedule for new chapters was very helpful at focussing me to produce the output and the feedback definitely improved my writing.
Everyone's got their own writing strategy: mine was to work out what the broad story is first (where it'll end up and more or less why it's a story at all), have a broadbrush outline, and then just write. One thing that many have said is that one key is just to finish the first draft rather than go back again and again to perfect it.
But head on over to alternatehistory.com if you haven't already.
When I can drag myself away from here, I intend to wrap up WWI by the end of 1916 this evening (the starting point for which is William Howard Taft being appointed to the Supreme court in 1906, out of interest).
0 -
The difference is that plenty of countries have been successful with relatively low level immigration throughout modern history. Nobody have done so while running 10% deficits on an ongoing basis. There's plenty of economic choice you can have even while accepting you need to (nearly) balance the budget long term.Danny565 said:
Except a majority of the public DON'T think that there should be more cuts, and consider "cutting the deficit" to be a lower priority than improving living standards (thus, rationally one would conclude that people would be happy with a government who made the latter their priority, even if it came at the expense of not cutting the deficit).david_herdson said:
I've no idea how you've come to that conclusion, though to be fair, I've no idea how you've rationally come to several of your conclusions.
To be clear: I'd be delighted if Labour campaigned on your platform because I have enough faith in the electorate that they would see through such nonsense.
My point is that so many on the Right around the world now actually say that, when it comes to the economy and public spending, the public's views don't matter and it's all about what the (unelected) "markets" will allow. I mean, to state the obvious, what is actually the point in having elections if no choice on the economy is "allowed"? Elites in their ivory towers can dismiss it all they want, but the fact is there's HUGE numbers of people out there who are angry that their own elected governments refuse to actually exercise any power or put their own voters' views ahead of global "realities" (whether that's on immigration or on the economy/spending/control over businesses and rich people).
0 -
NoSean_F said:
I suppose in much the same way the Labour Party were doing the Liberals a long-term favour by siphoning off their core voters in Scotland, Wales, and the urban North after 1918.Peter_the_Punter said:
Watcher's words. See previous quotes.logical_song said:
To the right of the party and obsessed by Europe. Fruitcakes and loons are your words.Peter_the_Punter said:
Nice theory. Fails the practical.logical_song said:
This chimes with my theory that UKIP are doing the Tories a long-term favour by siphoning off the more extreme elements, councillors, MPs maybe and voters. UKIP will be the 'nasty' party, Tories will be de-toxified provided they don't follow in UKIP's wake. Of course it's not helping the Tories in the short term.Peter_the_Punter said:
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?TheWatcher said:
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.corporeal said:
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.saddened said:
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.TheWatcher said:
It's the real thing.saddened said:This calypso thing currently doing the rounds. It doesn't have anything to do with the official kippers does it? It's a anti kipper spoof right?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/20/ukip-calypso-song-number-one-nigel-farage-mike-read
Carswell and Reckless - fruitcakes and loons? Tories better off without them?
Hmmmm.0 -
Of course, I should have remembered Corporeal as well. His posts are excellent.manofkent2014 said:
Corporeal, FoxinSox, Mr Senior, Stodge, OGHIshmael_X said:
I was thinking the other day, are there any LD posters active here any more? Or is the site a microcosm of the country?DavidL said:Every time you think things really can't get any worse for the Lib Dems they do.
Be careful what you wish for, as the old saying goes. Coalition government is looking seriously close to fatal for them at the moment. They deserve better but it doesn't look as if they are going to get it.0 -
Equally selfless of them, Sean. ;-)Sean_F said:
I suppose in much the same way the Labour Party were doing the Liberals a long-term favour by siphoning off their core voters in Scotland, Wales, and the urban North after 1918.Peter_the_Punter said:
Watcher's words. See previous quotes.logical_song said:
To the right of the party and obsessed by Europe. Fruitcakes and loons are your words.Peter_the_Punter said:
Nice theory. Fails the practical.logical_song said:
This chimes with my theory that UKIP are doing the Tories a long-term favour by siphoning off the more extreme elements, councillors, MPs maybe and voters. UKIP will be the 'nasty' party, Tories will be de-toxified provided they don't follow in UKIP's wake. Of course it's not helping the Tories in the short term.Peter_the_Punter said:
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?TheWatcher said:
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.corporeal said:
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.saddened said:
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.TheWatcher said:
It's the real thing.saddened said:This calypso thing currently doing the rounds. It doesn't have anything to do with the official kippers does it? It's a anti kipper spoof right?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/20/ukip-calypso-song-number-one-nigel-farage-mike-read
Carswell and Reckless - fruitcakes and loons? Tories better off without them?
Hmmmm.
0 -
I don't think the tax cuts proposed are of themselves desperate and irresponsible but they have to come with very significant spending cuts, otherwise I'd agree.Hugh said:
I agree.david_herdson said:
The policy Danny is advocating is exactly to default.Hugh said:
The UK will not default.david_herdson said:
When are borrowing from someone, if you don't make good your payments, they're likely to hold it against you when you come asking for more. Economic reality really isn't difficult.Danny565 said:
Yeah, this is the PBTories' mantra. When the public are unhappy about immigration or Europe, it's an anti-democratic scandal for politicians not to listen to them. Yet when people are unhappy with economic policies (all polls show a majority opposed to 5 more years of spending cuts), it's just too bad because they just can't get their little heads round the economic realities, and they should leave it to the grown-ups to decide for them.david_herdson said:
People that selfish and short-sighted don't deserve to be listened to and should be told so in no uncertain terms.Danny565 said:manofkent2014 said:
What else can they offer? The country is £1.3 trillion in debt (or will be)?Danny565 said:I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
That said, I'd be delighted if Labour were to go into an election with such a programme.
People don't buy this scaremongering any more.
The Tories spent years saying the sky would fall in if the UK lost its credit rating. Gideon then proceeded to trash the UK's rating, nothing happened.
However, if you continue to run a structural deficit year after year, you will eventually default: that is simple mathematics. It can take a long time but the end result is inevitable.
Which is why the country cannot afford ever-lower rates of tax, which is why Cameron's unfunded tax cut promise the other week was so desperate and irresponsible.0 -
So Taft never becomes President presumably. 1912 is one of the most interesting US elections and has been done to death over on AH - someone even tried a version which had Eugene Debs winning which took some believing.david_herdson said:Many thanks. I'm writing a series of alternative histories rather than just one. I have checked out alternativehistory (albeit rarely), and while I've not posted there, have found it interesting and of use.
When I can drag myself away from here, I intend to wrap up WWI by the end of 1916 this evening (the starting point for which is William Howard Taft being appointed to the Supreme court in 1906, out of interest).
Does the GOP still divide - it might have done anyway given TR's personality. Have him win in 1912 and obviously he plays a huge role in WW1.
0 -
Just to add that stodge's 'For Want Of A Vote' and 'For Want Of A Debate' were, (with the excellent (but unfinished) 'Were You Up For Balls?' by iainbhx), crucial in inspiring me to get writing myself.stodge said:
Mr Cooke may have temporarily forgotten but if you go over to Alternatehistory.com you have every Conservative's nightmare "For Want of A Debate" about another different 2010 GE penned by my good self.david_herdson said:
Andy, I'm in the middle of writing a series of political / military alternative histories myself. Any advice / tips / introductions / contacts you're able to offer?
I've written a few over there - I tend to avoid the "big ticket" items - I leave military campaigns and wars to others as grand histories. I tend to write from the focus of individuals so it becomes a series of vignettes set against events.
As an example, I wrote about FWoAD from the perspective of a candidate, a party worker, a SPAD and a journalist among others. I also wrote in real time and in hindsight (Mike Smithson of politichat at a symposium about the election). I did an extract of five minutes from the fictional politichat from election night - the content is different but the style is a direct lift from PB (as are one or two of the "names")
If I ever get the chance to write AH again, I'd rather write a set of vignettes - a family having breakfast or a woman on a train and paint the alternate world around them in terms of the everyday changes and that's what makes you think.0 -
Many thanks. I'm trying to write each 'history' in a different style so may well use some of those you've suggested.stodge said:
Mr Cooke may have temporarily forgotten but if you go over to Alternatehistory.com you have every Conservative's nightmare "For Want of A Debate" about another different 2010 GE penned by my good self.david_herdson said:
Andy, I'm in the middle of writing a series of political / military alternative histories myself. Any advice / tips / introductions / contacts you're able to offer?
I've written a few over there - I tend to avoid the "big ticket" items - I leave military campaigns and wars to others as grand histories. I tend to write from the focus of individuals so it becomes a series of vignettes set against events.
As an example, I wrote about FWoAD from the perspective of a candidate, a party worker, a SPAD and a journalist among others. I also wrote in real time and in hindsight (Mike Smithson of politichat at a symposium about the election). I did an extract of five minutes from the fictional politichat from election night - the content is different but the style is a direct lift from PB (as are one or two of the "names")
If I ever get the chance to write AH again, I'd rather write a set of vignettes - a family having breakfast or a woman on a train and paint the alternate world around them in terms of the everyday changes and that's what makes you think.0 -
As a contributor to this site I cannot endorse that course of action.stodge said:
Well, consider me a representative of the 7% or higher if you're an ICM fan. Can we take two such divergent polls seriously - Populus has the duopoly at 70%, Ashcroft has it at 59% - an absurd difference. The Conservatives are either 34% or 28% depending on who you believe.Ishmael_X said:
I was thinking the other day, are there any LD posters active here any more? Or is the site a microcosm of the country?DavidL said:Every time you think things really can't get any worse for the Lib Dems they do.
Be careful what you wish for, as the old saying goes. Coalition government is looking seriously close to fatal for them at the moment. They deserve better but it doesn't look as if they are going to get it.
Once again, if all people are going to do is micro-analyse every poll ad infinitum I strongly suggest they appropriate something called a life.0 -
Much obliged sir.DavidL said:
Of course, I should have remembered Corporeal as well. His posts are excellent.manofkent2014 said:
Corporeal, FoxinSox, Mr Senior, Stodge, OGHIshmael_X said:
I was thinking the other day, are there any LD posters active here any more? Or is the site a microcosm of the country?DavidL said:Every time you think things really can't get any worse for the Lib Dems they do.
Be careful what you wish for, as the old saying goes. Coalition government is looking seriously close to fatal for them at the moment. They deserve better but it doesn't look as if they are going to get it.
0 -
Mr Cooke and Mr Herdson,
Best of luck with the alternative histories. It gives you lots of space to create. William Taft? Is that the history where he dies of anorexia?0 -
How old are you? I don't intend to be insulting, just think it would be relevant in working out your thought process.Danny565 said:
So the supposed "economic reality" is more important than democracy in your view? Just checking.david_herdson said:
When are borrowing from someone, if you don't make good your payments, they're likely to hold it against you when you come asking for more. Economic reality really isn't difficult.Danny565 said:
Yeah, this is the PBTories' mantra. When the public are unhappy about immigration or Europe, it's an anti-democratic scandal for politicians not to listen to them. Yet when people are unhappy with economic policies (all polls show a majority opposed to 5 more years of spending cuts), it's just too bad because they just can't get their little heads round the economic realities, and they should leave it to the grown-ups to decide for them.david_herdson said:
People that selfish and short-sighted don't deserve to be listened to and should be told so in no uncertain terms.Danny565 said:
That gets to the heart of the matter. Labour seems to have decided that the national balance sheet is more important than tackling inequality. That is the EXACT opposite of what the party was set up to do, and it means they're turning away the votes of the MANY people who believe inequality is more important -- not least, the very poorest people who couldn't give a damn about whether some random rich dude on a Shanghai trading floor gets paid back, but just want to know how their own lives are going to be improved.manofkent2014 said:
What else can they offer? The country is £1.3 trillion in debt (or will be)?Danny565 said:I've made comments like this a million times, but I still can't understand why the Labour leadership can't see that the main decline in their support has been caused by their embrace of austerity and Tory economic policies. They're driving more and more people who actually wanted to vote Labour to the Greens because of how dire Labour's offering is. Barely any of Labour's lost support has gone to the Tories; they're still pretty much down at core-vote levels.
That said, I'd be delighted if Labour were to go into an election with such a programme.0 -
Being dramatic... has anyone considered that it might be possible that Labour polls *less* in May 2015 than Gordon Brown? Say, 28%?Sean_F said:
I suppose in much the same way the Labour Party were doing the Liberals a long-term favour by siphoning off their core voters in Scotland, Wales, and the urban North after 1918.Peter_the_Punter said:
Watcher's words. See previous quotes.logical_song said:
To the right of the party and obsessed by Europe. Fruitcakes and loons are your words.Peter_the_Punter said:
Nice theory. Fails the practical.logical_song said:
This chimes with my theory that UKIP are doing the Tories a long-term favour by siphoning off the more extreme elements, councillors, MPs maybe and voters. UKIP will be the 'nasty' party, Tories will be de-toxified provided they don't follow in UKIP's wake. Of course it's not helping the Tories in the short term.Peter_the_Punter said:
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?TheWatcher said:
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.corporeal said:
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.saddened said:
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.TheWatcher said:
It's the real thing.saddened said:This calypso thing currently doing the rounds. It doesn't have anything to do with the official kippers does it? It's a anti kipper spoof right?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/20/ukip-calypso-song-number-one-nigel-farage-mike-read
Carswell and Reckless - fruitcakes and loons? Tories better off without them?
Hmmmm.
Labour managed to run (with some success) a keep hold of nurse, for fear of something worse, campaign in 2010. Though it baffles me, some felt Gordon Brown was a safe, experienced pair of hands to guide the UK through the recession. He was also popular in Scotland.
You can't say the same about Ed. He also has Douglas "strategic genius" Alexander, as general election coordinator, rather than the far more competent Mandelson.
Labour could shed votes to the SNP in Scotland, Greens in urban areas, UKIP in the WWC north, ..and plenty could stay at home. A perfect storm, were it not for FPTP.0 -
Polling 7% and fifth place is absolutely shocking. Why on earth is Nick Clegg safe?
It is bizarre.
0 -
20th century. Mostly UK, some US, the odd other (perhaps). Mostly political, some military, some both. The two I've written are Ken Clarke wins the 2001 Tory leadership (one vote changes in the final MP's round, putting Portillo through rather than IDS), and Britain adopts PR for Westminster in 1918 (which it very nearly did).Socrates said:
I'd be really interested in reading these David, if you allow any early readsdavid_herdson said:
Andy, I'm in the middle of writing a series of political / military alternative histories myself. Any advice / tips / introductions / contacts you're able to offer?Andy_Cooke said:With the travails of FPTP with the current polling scores, and the brief plugs of books on the site earlier, I'll take the plunge meself.
Back in 2011, I wrote a novella-length alternate history story on what could have happened if UKIP had entered the 2010 General Election debates, with the 'something different' surge that actually boosted Clegg instead boosting UKIP. It was well received on the alternate history website, and I followed it up by serialising a novel-length sequel throughout 2013.
With the real-life actual boost for UKIP, I've been talked into polishing them up and releasing them on Amazon. The first, The Fourth Lectern, is available at Amazon already; the sequel (The Fifth Lectern) will be available in a week or two (I'm finishing off getting it independently editted).
Stuff like the issues of FPTP with multiple creditable challengers and multi-way marginals are in it - as well as the reactions of the main parties to the upstarts. Might be worth your time (I've priced it at 77p - Amazon wouldn't let me make it free, otherwise I would have - on the age-old philosophy of drawing you in with the first one ) What period would you focus on?
Be assured: if I can come somewhere close to publication, I'll find it within myself to mention it here!0 -
Thanks mate. For those who don't know, FWoAV is based on IDS surviving the No Confidence vote in 2003. Chris Grayling becomes Party leader and Prime Minister and David Cameron Mayor of London.Andy_Cooke said:
Just to add that stodge's 'For Want Of A Vote' and 'For Want Of A Debate' were, (with the excellent (but unfinished) 'Were You Up For Balls?' by iainbhx), crucial in inspiring me to get writing myself.stodge said:
Mr Cooke may have temporarily forgotten but if you go over to Alternatehistory.com you have every Conservative's nightmare "For Want of A Debate" about another different 2010 GE penned by my good self.david_herdson said:
Andy, I'm in the middle of writing a series of political / military alternative histories myself. Any advice / tips / introductions / contacts you're able to offer?
I've written a few over there - I tend to avoid the "big ticket" items - I leave military campaigns and wars to others as grand histories. I tend to write from the focus of individuals so it becomes a series of vignettes set against events.
As an example, I wrote about FWoAD from the perspective of a candidate, a party worker, a SPAD and a journalist among others. I also wrote in real time and in hindsight (Mike Smithson of politichat at a symposium about the election). I did an extract of five minutes from the fictional politichat from election night - the content is different but the style is a direct lift from PB (as are one or two of the "names")
If I ever get the chance to write AH again, I'd rather write a set of vignettes - a family having breakfast or a woman on a train and paint the alternate world around them in terms of the everyday changes and that's what makes you think.
0 -
Without giving too much away, the chapter titles for those I've written are:stodge said:
So Taft never becomes President presumably. 1912 is one of the most interesting US elections and has been done to death over on AH - someone even tried a version which had Eugene Debs winning which took some believing.david_herdson said:Many thanks. I'm writing a series of alternative histories rather than just one. I have checked out alternativehistory (albeit rarely), and while I've not posted there, have found it interesting and of use.
When I can drag myself away from here, I intend to wrap up WWI by the end of 1916 this evening (the starting point for which is William Howard Taft being appointed to the Supreme court in 1906, out of interest).
Does the GOP still divide - it might have done anyway given TR's personality. Have him win in 1912 and obviously he plays a huge role in WW1.
I – Roosevelt’s Second Term (1906-09)
II – President Bryan (1909-13)
III – The Return of the Rough Rider (1913-15)
IV – War (1915-16)
And still to do:
V - Peace (1916-21)
VI - Epilogue0 -
Well in the comforting knowledge that Labour's economic illiteracy is alive and thriving (and therefore their voters will inevitably be ripe for the plucking should they get into power), Im off to watch the football for a while....0
-
"Half of British parliamentary seats haven’t changed hands since 1970. Nearly one-third have remained in the same party’s control since 1945. "
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/ukip-britains-tea-party-111270 -
They do need to retain some believability!CD13 said:Mr Cooke and Mr Herdson,
Best of luck with the alternative histories. It gives you lots of space to create. William Taft? Is that the history where he dies of anorexia?0 -
Mr Herdson,
I don't claim to know much about politics (yes, really) but my book starts in 1962 during the Cuban missile crisis when Kennedy's illness kicks in and a limited world war begins. That was a time when even the tiniest butterfly's wing could have changed history forever.
I then switch to 2062 where I0 -
Ishmael_X said:
I was thinking the other day, are there any LD posters active here any more? Or is the site a microcosm of the country?
So it reflects the country exactly then - there are five of them ... and they all post on here!manofkent2014 said:
Corporeal, FoxinSox, Mr Senior, Stodge, OGH 0 -
Aargh! where my fat finger kicked in.
No, where I can let my scientific imagination roam.
Sorry about that - and I won't mention it again., as this is a politics site.0 -
Butterflies wings indeed.CD13 said:Mr Herdson,
I don't claim to know much about politics (yes, really) but my book starts in 1962 during the Cuban missile crisis when Kennedy's illness kicks in and a limited world war begins. That was a time when even the tiniest butterfly's wing could have changed history forever.
...
Actually, my alternative histories, though hopefully interesting in their own right, are also a training exercise for me as I want to write a full novel, set in an alternative history world, where slavery has survived in the South into the early 20th century. The starting point for that timeline is when Frederick, Prince of Wales, turns down a single during a cricket match.0 -
My favourite alternative history.
In the summer of 1994, Tony Blair announces he isn't standing for the Labour leadership, and endorses Gordon Brown instead.
What happens next?
John Prescott led Labour party loses the 1997 General election?0 -
It's only "bizarre" if you believe Ashcrodt's poll to be accurate. Have a look at them over the past six months - they are hugely volatile.Jonathan said:Polling 7% and fifth place is absolutely shocking. Why on earth is Nick Clegg safe?
It is bizarre.
On the other hand, polling 28% less than seven months before an election - why on earth is David Cameron safe ?
It's bizarre.
See how ludicrous life becomes if you believe Ashcroft to be true.
0 -
Just to clarify the changes made between the draft and the finished article (and to cover the way I got into it): I originally started writing in a mix of 'newspaper excerpts', 'book excerpts' and fake blog posts, linked with some narrative, before shifting to first person in the head of Andy Coulson for Election Night and into third person narrative for the third part, the aftermath. I rewrote the first two parts into third person prose after the positive feedback I got from the sequel (all in that voice) and added in aspects of the Mandelson/Osborne clash of plots from the sequel, cast back to increase the story (and because everyone seemed to like that thread in the sequel :-) )Andy_Cooke said:
Thanks :-)GeoffM said:
I read Fourth Lectern over at AH back in the day and thoroughly enjoyed it. AH has some gems on it and that was one of them - although the forum is very curate's egg overall. I praised the story on that thread and am delighted to do so again here.Andy_Cooke said:With the travails of FPTP with the current polling scores, and the brief plugs of books on the site earlier, I'll take the plunge meself.
Back in 2011, I wrote a novella-length alternate history story on what could have happened if UKIP had entered the 2010 General Election debates, with the 'something different' surge that actually boosted Clegg instead boosting UKIP. It was well received on the alternate history website, and I followed it up by serialising a novel-length sequel throughout 2013.
With the real-life actual boost for UKIP, I've been talked into polishing them up and releasing them on Amazon. The first, The Fourth Lectern, is available at Amazon already; the sequel (The Fifth Lectern) will be available in a week or two (I'm finishing off getting it independently editted).
Stuff like the issues of FPTP with multiple creditable challengers and multi-way marginals are in it - as well as the reactions of the main parties to the upstarts. Might be worth your time (I've priced it at 77p - Amazon wouldn't let me make it free, otherwise I would have - on the age-old philosophy of drawing you in with the first one )
I did re-do it into 3rd person and align it closer with the sequel (serialised as "Maybe The Horse Will Learn To Sing"; to be made available as "The Fifth Lectern"), so it should be improved from the draft.0 -
Ashcroft isn't volatile with all parties.
The polls in general aren't volatile.
The impression of volatility comes from a few percent ping-ponging between the Tories and UKIP according to the media cycle.
The Libs plummeted and have never recovered. Labour keep reaching for new lows. SNP and Greens up.
0 -
The don't look very volatile to me.stodge said:
It's only "bizarre" if you believe Ashcroft's poll to be accurate. Have a look at them over the past six months - they are hugely volatile.Jonathan said:Polling 7% and fifth place is absolutely shocking. Why on earth is Nick Clegg safe?
It is bizarre.
19/10/2014: Con 28%, Lab 31%, LD 7%, UKIP 18%
21/9/2014: Con 27%, Lab 33%, LD 9%, UKIP 17%
1/8/2014: Con 30%, Lab 33%, LD 8%, UKIP 18%
20/7/2014: Con 27%, Lab 35%, LD 7%, UKIP 17%
22/6/2014: Con 28%, Lab 33%, LD 9%, UKIP 17%
18/5/2014: Con 29%, Lab 35%, LD 9%, UKIP 14%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#20140 -
Cameron has higher ratings than his party and much higher leadership ratings than Miliband, which has convinced enough Tories so far that as the election nears these will result in significant swingback towards them and they will at least remain the largest party.stodge said:
On the other hand, polling 28% less than seven months before an election - why on earth is David Cameron safe ?Jonathan said:Polling 7% and fifth place is absolutely shocking. Why on earth is Nick Clegg safe?
It is bizarre.
=0 -
I think it is unthinkable that the tories will poll less than 33%.
We see one of the opening salvoes of the campaign today. The Mails articles on NHS Wales. Various allegations are made of which I will not dwell however, it is also claimed that the Labour Welsh Assembly "has been accused of making cuts of £500million" while the Tories increased spending in England 1% year on year.
The guardian reported on 30th August. "Ed Miliband to put NHS at centre of general election campaign. Labour leader is reportedly considering excluding health service from spending cuts and introducing tax to increase funding for it" (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/30/ed-miliband-labour-put-nhs-centre-general-election-campaign)
Todays Mail editorial states "Miliband's terrifying blueprint for the NHS" Talk about tanks on their lawn!!!
Six months of this sort of ruthlessness and Labour have had it.
Meanwhile all the sandal & beardie brigade are voting Green not Labour in their hour of disillusionment with Clegg & Co
With the SNP surge in Scotland, and them going to have to spend valuable activist resources propping up inner city northern seats that a donkey in a red rosette would normally win this is starting to turn into a perfect storm for both Labour and the Libdems.
I think Mike ought to be considering what the effect of the tories winning a majority (or workable minority with eg DUP supply & confidence) on a lower % vote than they got in 2010 will be.
Much as I cant stand Gideon, he seems to be the only one who is really hungry for power, and virtually everything he has done (like 1% year on year rises for NHS funding), seems to be part of a very political strategy (which seems to me to have taken precedence over the national interest). Labour have no Alistair Campbell, no ruthless operator to counter this, and I think they will be crushed.0 -
While it would be absurd of those who remain in the party after the slaughter in 2015 to place all the blame on Clegg and his cohorts, easier for them to do so or at least imply it to be so if they wait until after the terrible day than to make a move beforehand, perhaps do a little better, but also perhaps mean a new 'clean slate' leader could not pick up the pieces. I presume.Jonathan said:Polling 7% and fifth place is absolutely shocking. Why on earth is Nick Clegg safe?
It is bizarre.
I still think they'll wind up with around 25MPs, maybe 30, but that the vote has continued to show no increase and in fact the trend in the polls has been of a further decline, has made it much much harder that a reasonable showing can be had by the LDs. Sure maybe this one is not to be believed, but it certainly is not as easy to dismiss as it would have been even in what seemed the doldrums 12 months ago, and that speaks volumes.
0 -
Update on the SYPCC election.
The Labour leaflet received today makes no mention of Rotherham but has multiple references to ....
.... Thatcher.
Full of attacks on UKIP it is as well.
You'd think it was UKIP that had tolerated the racist rape of thousands of children.
I wonder who fears UKIP the most - Establishment Labour in the North or Establishment Tories in the South.
0 -
anotherDave said:
The don't look very volatile to me.stodge said:
It's only "bizarre" if you believe Ashcroft's poll to be accurate. Have a look at them over the past six months - they are hugely volatile.Jonathan said:Polling 7% and fifth place is absolutely shocking. Why on earth is Nick Clegg safe?
It is bizarre.
19/10/2014: Con 28%, Lab 31%, LD 7%, UKIP 18%
21/9/2014: Con 27%, Lab 33%, LD 9%, UKIP 17%
1/8/2014: Con 30%, Lab 33%, LD 8%, UKIP 18%
20/7/2014: Con 27%, Lab 35%, LD 7%, UKIP 17%
22/6/2014: Con 28%, Lab 33%, LD 9%, UKIP 17%
18/5/2014: Con 29%, Lab 35%, LD 9%, UKIP 14%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2014
They're up and down a bit, but overall trends are clear.
0 -
The latest ComRes has Mr Cameron and the Conservative Party with identical favourable/unfavourable numbers, +25/-48.dodrade said:
Cameron has higher ratings than his party and much higher leadership ratings than Miliband, which has convinced enough Tories so far that as the election nears these will result in significant swingback towards them and they will at least remain the largest party.stodge said:
On the other hand, polling 28% less than seven months before an election - why on earth is David Cameron safe ?Jonathan said:Polling 7% and fifth place is absolutely shocking. Why on earth is Nick Clegg safe?
It is bizarre.
=
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/09/27/comres-poll-farage-as-popular-as-cameron/0 -
Oh for...I really hope we eventually get to a point where simply repeating Thatcher's name will cease to be some lazy fear or inspiration tactic. I know there's been no really striking Tory leader to strike fear into the hearts of those who might be tempted to vote Tory but whose hatred of Thatcher remains, and equally no Tory leader who's won a majority to inspire the party faithful either, but I for one do not care about Thatcher. Given the way the party's like to mutate to find the centre ground, and naturally blame their opponents even for things they did (and the reverse for taking credit), without having lived through the Thatcher years in a politically aware way, tactics using her name really have no impact on me and I immediately switch off.another_richard said:Update on the SYPCC election.
The Labour leaflet received today makes no mention of Rotherham but has multiple references to ....
.... Thatcher.
Oh well, maybe it works better in Rotherham. I would assume both sides continue to use such tactics because they work.0 -
As I keep saying, places like Yeovil that should be safe Libdem seats are not. In the 2014 Euros Libdems were third, 5,000 behind both Tories and UKIP, and only 5,000 ahead of Greens.kle4 said:
While it would be absurd of those who remain in the party after the slaughter in 2015 to place all the blame on Clegg and his cohorts, easier for them to do so or at least imply it to be so if they wait until after the terrible day than to make a move beforehand, perhaps do a little better, but also perhaps mean a new 'clean slate' leader could not pick up the pieces. I presume.Jonathan said:Polling 7% and fifth place is absolutely shocking. Why on earth is Nick Clegg safe?
It is bizarre.
I still think they'll wind up with around 25MPs, maybe 30, but that the vote has continued to show no increase and in fact the trend in the polls has been of a further decline, has made it much much harder that a reasonable showing can be had by the LDs. Sure maybe this one is not to be believed, but it certainly is not as easy to dismiss as it would have been even in what seemed the doldrums 12 months ago, and that speaks volumes.
Thats an awful lot to ask of an incumbency vote to overcome. Factor in the greens standing (which they didn't in 2010) and you are looking at a valiant close defeat like Shirley Williams had in Crosby in the '83 election.
In comparison, in the 2009 Euros, Libdems came second, only 2,000 votes behind the Tories, an easy hurdle for an incumbent, then untainted by the expenses business, to overcome in 2010.
If this polling dosen't improve, and particularly if the Greens continue to eat into their votes, Libdems are going to go to the next parliament in a minibus.0 -
Shock new poll just out - voters in favour of better standard of living - for free!! yippee! How come no-one else thought of it?Danny565 said:
Except a majority of the public DON'T think that there should be more cuts, and consider "cutting the deficit" to be a lower priority than improving living standards (thus, rationally one would conclude that people would be happy with a government who made the latter their priority, even if it came at the expense of not cutting the deficit).david_herdson said:
I've no idea how you've come to that conclusion, though to be fair, I've no idea how you've rationally come to several of your conclusions.
To be clear: I'd be delighted if Labour campaigned on your platform because I have enough faith in the electorate that they would see through such nonsense.
My point is that so many on the Right around the world now actually say that, when it comes to the economy and public spending, the public's views don't matter and it's all about what the (unelected) "markets" will allow. I mean, to state the obvious, what is actually the point in having elections if no choice on the economy is "allowed"? Elites in their ivory towers can dismiss it all they want, but the fact is there's HUGE numbers of people out there who are angry that their own elected governments refuse to actually exercise any power or put their own voters' views ahead of global "realities" (whether that's on immigration or on the economy/spending/control over businesses and rich people).0 -
Is it possible to bet on UKIP beating Labour in number of votes at the GE?0
-
kle4 said:
The Lib Dem decline and fall is mirrored by a Green Party surge.Jonathan said:Polling 7% and fifth place is absolutely shocking. Why on earth is Nick Clegg safe?
It is bizarre.
The Greens are surging at speed, making UKIP's current progress appear somewhat pedestrian. There is very good and simple reason for this, which commentators in the mainstream media (bar one correspondent in The Guardian) and commenters on sites like this are overlooking. Why not open up your minds and see what's actually going on.....
http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/green-party-gets-huge-electoral-boost.html0 -
Fill your boots. Plenty of money to be made on such an outcome.Paul_Mid_Beds said:I think it is unthinkable that the tories will poll less than 33%.
We see one of the opening salvoes of the campaign today. The Mails articles on NHS Wales. Various allegations are made of which I will not dwell however, it is also claimed that the Labour Welsh Assembly "has been accused of making cuts of £500million" while the Tories increased spending in England 1% year on year.
The guardian reported on 30th August. "Ed Miliband to put NHS at centre of general election campaign. Labour leader is reportedly considering excluding health service from spending cuts and introducing tax to increase funding for it" (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/30/ed-miliband-labour-put-nhs-centre-general-election-campaign)
Todays Mail editorial states "Miliband's terrifying blueprint for the NHS" Talk about tanks on their lawn!!!
Six months of this sort of ruthlessness and Labour have had it.
Meanwhile all the sandal & beardie brigade are voting Green not Labour in their hour of disillusionment with Clegg & Co
With the SNP surge in Scotland, and them going to have to spend valuable activist resources propping up inner city northern seats that a donkey in a red rosette would normally win this is starting to turn into a perfect storm for both Labour and the Libdems.
I think Mike ought to be considering what the effect of the tories winning a majority (or workable minority with eg DUP supply & confidence) on a lower % vote than they got in 2010 will be.
Much as I cant stand Gideon, he seems to be the only one who is really hungry for power, and virtually everything he has done (like 1% year on year rises for NHS funding), seems to be part of a very political strategy (which seems to me to have taken precedence over the national interest). Labour have no Alistair Campbell, no ruthless operator to counter this, and I think they will be crushed.0 -
So promising it works then.felix said:
Shock new poll just out - voters in favour of better standard of living - for free!! yippee! How come no-one else thought of it?Danny565 said:
Except a majority of the public DON'T think that there should be more cuts, and consider "cutting the deficit" to be a lower priority than improving living standards (thus, rationally one would conclude that people would be happy with a government who made the latter their priority, even if it came at the expense of not cutting the deficit).david_herdson said:
I've no idea how you've come to that conclusion, though to be fair, I've no idea how you've rationally come to several of your conclusions.
To be clear: I'd be delighted if Labour campaigned on your platform because I have enough faith in the electorate that they would see through such nonsense.
My point is that so many on the Right around the world now actually say that, when it comes to the economy and public spending, the public's views don't matter and it's all about what the (unelected) "markets" will allow. I mean, to state the obvious, what is actually the point in having elections if no choice on the economy is "allowed"? Elites in their ivory towers can dismiss it all they want, but the fact is there's HUGE numbers of people out there who are angry that their own elected governments refuse to actually exercise any power or put their own voters' views ahead of global "realities" (whether that's on immigration or on the economy/spending/control over businesses and rich people).
Well quite - eventually if you sink low enough it becomes hard to cluster enough support to cling on, even in what look like rock solid areas. That's why they decline this year, rather than stability or even a marginal increase, has surely been far worse than they could ever have expected. I'd still be inclined to see some sort of polling increase come 2015 which should see more of those seats remain safe, but the gap between 'reasonable result in the circumstances' to 'near total wipeout' is uncomfortably narrow for them.Paul_Mid_Beds said:
0 -
Its now been as long a time period since Thatcher left office as it was between Churchill leaving office and Thatcher entering.kle4 said:
Oh for...I really hope we eventually get to a point where simply repeating Thatcher's name will cease to be some lazy fear or inspiration tactic. I know there's been no really striking Tory leader to strike fear into the hearts of those who might be tempted to vote Tory but whose hatred of Thatcher remains, and equally no Tory leader who's won a majority to inspire the party faithful either, but I for one do not care about Thatcher. Given the way the party's like to mutate to find the centre ground, and naturally blame their opponents even for things they did (and the reverse for taking credit), without having lived through the Thatcher years in a politically aware way, tactics using her name really have no impact on me and I immediately switch off.another_richard said:Update on the SYPCC election.
The Labour leaflet received today makes no mention of Rotherham but has multiple references to ....
.... Thatcher.
Oh well, maybe it works better in Rotherham. I would assume both sides continue to use such tactics because they work.
0 -
Tapestry said:
I don't really see what the good reasons for the Green party surge is, even with that explanation, because everything that could explain it was true last year, wasn't it, so why now?kle4 said:
The Lib Dem decline and fall is mirrored by a Green Party surge.Jonathan said:Polling 7% and fifth place is absolutely shocking. Why on earth is Nick Clegg safe?
It is bizarre.
The Greens are surging at speed, making UKIP's current progress appear somewhat pedestrian. There is very good and simple reason for this, which commentators in the mainstream media (bar one correspondent in The Guardian) and commenters on sites like this are overlooking. Why not open up your minds and see what's actually going on.....
http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/green-party-gets-huge-electoral-boost.html0 -
And then there is now, after last nights event at Didcot it appears the possibility of power cuts if we get a winter high (the ones that make it freezing with zero wind so zero wind power).
That occuring just before an election won't do the main three parties any good (or the SNP or Greens), meanwhile Fargle will just say "I told you so"0 -
That's not pure incumbency though, some of it is straight ge vs euro vote switching.Paul_Mid_Beds said:
As I keep saying, places like Yeovil that should be safe Libdem seats are not. In the 2014 Euros Libdems were third, 5,000 behind both Tories and UKIP, and only 5,000 ahead of Greens.kle4 said:
While it would be absurd of those who remain in the party after the slaughter in 2015 to place all the blame on Clegg and his cohorts, easier for them to do so or at least imply it to be so if they wait until after the terrible day than to make a move beforehand, perhaps do a little better, but also perhaps mean a new 'clean slate' leader could not pick up the pieces. I presume.Jonathan said:Polling 7% and fifth place is absolutely shocking. Why on earth is Nick Clegg safe?
It is bizarre.
I still think they'll wind up with around 25MPs, maybe 30, but that the vote has continued to show no increase and in fact the trend in the polls has been of a further decline, has made it much much harder that a reasonable showing can be had by the LDs. Sure maybe this one is not to be believed, but it certainly is not as easy to dismiss as it would have been even in what seemed the doldrums 12 months ago, and that speaks volumes.
Thats an awful lot to ask of an incumbency vote to overcome. Factor in the greens standing (which they didn't in 2010) and you are looking at a valiant close defeat like Shirley Williams had in Crosby in the '83 election.
In comparison, in the 2009 Euros, Libdems came second, only 2,000 votes behind the Tories, an easy hurdle for an incumbent, then untainted by the expenses business, to overcome in 2010.
If this polling dosen't improve, and particularly if the Greens continue to eat into their votes, Libdems are going to go to the next parliament in a minibus.0 -
There have been 3 council by elections in Yeovil since this year's Euros , the average Lib Dem vote share was almost 75% .Paul_Mid_Beds said:
As I keep saying, places like Yeovil that should be safe Libdem seats are not. In the 2014 Euros Libdems were third, 5,000 behind both Tories and UKIP, and only 5,000 ahead of Greens.kle4 said:
While it would be absurd of those who remain in the party after the slaughter in 2015 to place all the blame on Clegg and his cohorts, easier for them to do so or at least imply it to be so if they wait until after the terrible day than to make a move beforehand, perhaps do a little better, but also perhaps mean a new 'clean slate' leader could not pick up the pieces. I presume.Jonathan said:Polling 7% and fifth place is absolutely shocking. Why on earth is Nick Clegg safe?
It is bizarre.
I still think they'll wind up with around 25MPs, maybe 30, but that the vote has continued to show no increase and in fact the trend in the polls has been of a further decline, has made it much much harder that a reasonable showing can be had by the LDs. Sure maybe this one is not to be believed, but it certainly is not as easy to dismiss as it would have been even in what seemed the doldrums 12 months ago, and that speaks volumes.
Thats an awful lot to ask of an incumbency vote to overcome. Factor in the greens standing (which they didn't in 2010) and you are looking at a valiant close defeat like Shirley Williams had in Crosby in the '83 election.
In comparison, in the 2009 Euros, Libdems came second, only 2,000 votes behind the Tories, an easy hurdle for an incumbent, then untainted by the expenses business, to overcome in 2010.
If this polling dosen't improve, and particularly if the Greens continue to eat into their votes, Libdems are going to go to the next parliament in a minibus.
0 -
Well they will presumably lose any seat where the sitting Lib Dem is retiring along with at least half their Scottish contingent and more generally where Labour is running second. Even so Simon Hughes will still be ok I imagine. Lynne Featherstone maybe not. The unknown is whether any Lib Dem/Tory marginals will fall where the LD incumbent is in place.kle4 said:
While it would be absurd of those who remain in the party after the slaughter in 2015 to place all the blame on Clegg and his cohorts, easier for them to do so or at least imply it to be so if they wait until after the terrible day than to make a move beforehand, perhaps do a little better, but also perhaps mean a new 'clean slate' leader could not pick up the pieces. I presume.Jonathan said:Polling 7% and fifth place is absolutely shocking. Why on earth is Nick Clegg safe?
It is bizarre.
I still think they'll wind up with around 25MPs, maybe 30, but that the vote has continued to show no increase and in fact the trend in the polls has been of a further decline, has made it much much harder that a reasonable showing can be had by the LDs. Sure maybe this one is not to be believed, but it certainly is not as easy to dismiss as it would have been even in what seemed the doldrums 12 months ago, and that speaks volumes.0 -
At Tory leader elections the question of defining themselves in relation to MT still hangs over it.kle4 said:
Oh for...I really hope we eventually get to a point where simply repeating Thatcher's name will cease to be some lazy fear or inspiration tactic. I know there's been no really striking Tory leader to strike fear into the hearts of those who might be tempted to vote Tory but whose hatred of Thatcher remains, and equally no Tory leader who's won a majority to inspire the party faithful either, but I for one do not care about Thatcher. Given the way the party's like to mutate to find the centre ground, and naturally blame their opponents even for things they did (and the reverse for taking credit), without having lived through the Thatcher years in a politically aware way, tactics using her name really have no impact on me and I immediately switch off.another_richard said:Update on the SYPCC election.
The Labour leaflet received today makes no mention of Rotherham but has multiple references to ....
.... Thatcher.
Oh well, maybe it works better in Rotherham. I would assume both sides continue to use such tactics because they work.0 -
kle4 said:
A year ago fracking was poorly understood by 99% of the British population. It is poorly understood by 85% now. As the planning applications proliferate across the landscape and people realise what fracking/shale gas entails, they don't want it, no matter how much money Cameron offers. The only political avenue open to the growing revolt is The Greens. UKIP/Tories/Lab/Lib are all in total favour.Tapestry said:
I don't really see what the good reasons for the Green party surge is, even with that explanation, because everything that could explain it was true last year, wasn't it, so why now?kle4 said:
The Lib Dem decline and fall is mirrored by a Green Party surge.Jonathan said:Polling 7% and fifth place is absolutely shocking. Why on earth is Nick Clegg safe?
It is bizarre.
The Greens are surging at speed, making UKIP's current progress appear somewhat pedestrian. There is very good and simple reason for this, which commentators in the mainstream media (bar one correspondent in The Guardian) and commenters on sites like this are overlooking. Why not open up your minds and see what's actually going on.....
http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/green-party-gets-huge-electoral-boost.html0 -
New Thread0
-
I suspect they will be ok in those circumstances. What I would like to see in 2015 are some really bizarre results, like a safe Tory seat with solid LD second place being, of all things, a LD gain because of a UKIP surge, or the Greens snatching some from Labour in similar circumstances. Could be some interesting results, but it'll probably be duller than we imagine.Norm said:
Well they will presumably lose any seat where the sitting Lib Dem is retiring along with at least half their Scottish contingent and more generally where Labour is running second. Even so Simon Hughes will still be ok I imagine. Lynne Featherstone maybe not. The unknown is whether any Lib Dem/Tory marginals will fall where the LD incumbent is in place.kle4 said:
While it would be absurd of those who remain in the party after the slaughter in 2015 to place all the blame on Clegg and his cohorts, easier for them to do so or at least imply it to be so if they wait until after the terrible day than to make a move beforehand, perhaps do a little better, but also perhaps mean a new 'clean slate' leader could not pick up the pieces. I presume.Jonathan said:Polling 7% and fifth place is absolutely shocking. Why on earth is Nick Clegg safe?
It is bizarre.
I still think they'll wind up with around 25MPs, maybe 30, but that the vote has continued to show no increase and in fact the trend in the polls has been of a further decline, has made it much much harder that a reasonable showing can be had by the LDs. Sure maybe this one is not to be believed, but it certainly is not as easy to dismiss as it would have been even in what seemed the doldrums 12 months ago, and that speaks volumes.
0 -
EDIT: Actually, it doesn't matter now , what's done is doneTheScreamingEagles said:
Mine was merely quoting Tory MPs otherwise we'd have never been able to cover plebgate.isam said:
Funny that, I called someone a c*nt for graphically describing an abortion after I asked if he would stop using the word to describe things that went wrong, and got banned for my troubleTheScreamingEagles said:
True, I've just remembered, I did a PB thread header, which called Reckless a F*cking c*nt, who deserves a red hot poker up his arse.Scrapheap_as_was said:
Come on now TSE, EVERYONE slags off both Ed's in Labour, that's hardly a scouts badge of merit.TheScreamingEagles said:
He's been slagging off Ed over the mansion taxScrapheap_as_was said:
He may be but he's forever red now.TheScreamingEagles said:
Sol's a Tory. You have to love him now.Scrapheap_as_was said:
And Sol.TheScreamingEagles said:
Wait until you see the next poll.Scrapheap_as_was said:Good to see OGH thread has gently moved the Betfair prices on Rochester.... more power to his elbow!
TSE hasn't even finished calling everyone in the constituency to tell them about Reckless's worth either...
I'm going to ask Damian of Survation to tweak one of his questions.
Do you agree or disagree that Mark 'Judas' Reckless is a traitorous pig dog, whose betrayal is up there with Judas, Philby, Maclean, Burgess and Blunt?
You should love him.
Same thread header said he was ‘effing Reckless’, ‘fat arse’ and ‘dick head and Tory to UKIP defectors were the kind of people who had sex with vacuums.
Perhaps you should do a similar blog about Sol, you'll find it cathartic.
You should be civil to other posters.0 -
Boundary changes?anotherDave said:"Half of British parliamentary seats haven’t changed hands since 1970. Nearly one-third have remained in the same party’s control since 1945. "
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/ukip-britains-tea-party-111270 -
I don't doubt it. I wonder if there is a calculable 'influence of leader' measure, based upon how many years that leader was in situ, and how many of those years in power as well, vs how much their image dominates their party afterward, either in hero worship or condemnation.corporeal said:
At Tory leader elections the question of defining themselves in relation to MT still hangs over it.kle4 said:
Oh for...I really hope we eventually get to a point where simply repeating Thatcher's name will cease to be some lazy fear or inspiration tactic. I know there's been no really striking Tory leader to strike fear into the hearts of those who might be tempted to vote Tory but whose hatred of Thatcher remains, and equally no Tory leader who's won a majority to inspire the party faithful either, but I for one do not care about Thatcher. Given the way the party's like to mutate to find the centre ground, and naturally blame their opponents even for things they did (and the reverse for taking credit), without having lived through the Thatcher years in a politically aware way, tactics using her name really have no impact on me and I immediately switch off.another_richard said:Update on the SYPCC election.
The Labour leaflet received today makes no mention of Rotherham but has multiple references to ....
.... Thatcher.
Oh well, maybe it works better in Rotherham. I would assume both sides continue to use such tactics because they work.0 -
We really have to be cutting great LIMBS of state off if we're to survive. DCMS for a start. Then it gets tougher. Sooner or later we'll find ourselves in a position where more money is coming into the Exchequer than going out.0
-
Really like those plots. Did you put them together?MarkHopkins said:
They're up and down a bit, but overall trends are clear.anotherDave said:
The don't look very volatile to me.stodge said:
It's only "bizarre" if you believe Ashcroft's poll to be accurate. Have a look at them over the past six months - they are hugely volatile.Jonathan said:Polling 7% and fifth place is absolutely shocking. Why on earth is Nick Clegg safe?
It is bizarre.
19/10/2014: Con 28%, Lab 31%, LD 7%, UKIP 18%
21/9/2014: Con 27%, Lab 33%, LD 9%, UKIP 17%
1/8/2014: Con 30%, Lab 33%, LD 8%, UKIP 18%
20/7/2014: Con 27%, Lab 35%, LD 7%, UKIP 17%
22/6/2014: Con 28%, Lab 33%, LD 9%, UKIP 17%
18/5/2014: Con 29%, Lab 35%, LD 9%, UKIP 14%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2014
Thanks for the links to them anyway.0 -
I am a great fan of military alternative histories too.david_herdson said:
Andy, I'm in the middle of writing a series of political / military alternative histories myself. Any advice / tips / introductions / contacts you're able to offer?Andy_Cooke said:With the travails of FPTP with the current polling scores, and the brief plugs of books on the site earlier, I'll take the plunge meself.
Back in 2011, I wrote a novella-length alternate history story on what could have happened if UKIP had entered the 2010 General Election debates, with the 'something different' surge that actually boosted Clegg instead boosting UKIP. It was well received on the alternate history website, and I followed it up by serialising a novel-length sequel throughout 2013.
With the real-life actual boost for UKIP, I've been talked into polishing them up and releasing them on Amazon. The first, The Fourth Lectern, is available at Amazon already; the sequel (The Fifth Lectern) will be available in a week or two (I'm finishing off getting it independently editted).
Stuff like the issues of FPTP with multiple creditable challengers and multi-way marginals are in it - as well as the reactions of the main parties to the upstarts. Might be worth your time (I've priced it at 77p - Amazon wouldn't let me make it free, otherwise I would have - on the age-old philosophy of drawing you in with the first one )
Wish you luck with the project and let us know when they are available.0 -
You expect that with the current administration? Seriously?Luckyguy1983 said:We really have to be cutting great LIMBS of state off if we're to survive. DCMS for a start. Then it gets tougher. Sooner or later we'll find ourselves in a position where more money is coming into the Exchequer than going out.
0
