politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New Ashcroft 20k sample mega-poll highlights the massive ch
Comments
-
Well this poll was in November, this week's Ashcroft poll has them on 16%.Tissue_Price said:
Peak Kipper!TheScreamingEagles said:The VI in this poll was
Con 29%, Lab 33% LD 7%, UKIP 19%, Greens 6%0 -
I'm hopeful that my Sajid Javid as next PM bet comes in at 66/1.Pulpstar said:TheScreamingEagles said:We might have a Tory leadership contest starting in less than 4 months time, conhome are (becoming) huge fans of Sajid Javid
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/01/javids-moderation-will-help-tackle-islamist-extremism-not-farages-stridency.html
He is still available at 16/1
Thanks, a nice tip at a nice price.TheScreamingEagles said:We might have a Tory leadership contest starting in less than 4 months time, conhome are (becoming) huge fans of Sajid Javid
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/01/javids-moderation-will-help-tackle-islamist-extremism-not-farages-stridency.html
He is still available at 16/1
Looking at it. I backed him as next Con leader at 40/1.0 -
Murphy explains his attachment to the 'United Kingdom' quite clearly - and I can certainly see how a socialist would have a different conception of the 'union' from a 'Conservative & Unionist'.calum said:The Daily Murphy has an interesting article today, it turns out that Jim Murphy is not a Unionist. I'm not sure how this sudden realisation on his part is going to play with the Scottish Tories he's hoping to attract;
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-labour-leader-jim-murphy-4973610
I sense the hand of McTernan behind this, the new ideology, McMurphyism is starting to take shape.
Do you think the Nationalists failure to understand the many strands of Unionism was why they lost?
Or some other reason?
0 -
Yes, I know. Peak Kipper was in November too :-) Soon they will be polling less than the Greens.TheScreamingEagles said:
Well this poll was in November, this week's Ashcroft poll has them on 16%.Tissue_Price said:
Peak Kipper!TheScreamingEagles said:The VI in this poll was
Con 29%, Lab 33% LD 7%, UKIP 19%, Greens 6%0 -
And winning.malcolmg said:
The big fearty will be behind the sofa as usual searching for his spine.TheScreamingEagles said:
That's irrelevant the Nat GOTV will win the referendum for Yes.CarlottaVance said:
Its behind the Paywall - but I've seen a few comments agreeing with Danny Finkelstein's argument Cameron being called names on Twitter would be less damaging than going head to head with Farage on TV.....TheScreamingEagles said:
Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.MarqueeMark said:FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.
Remember how we were assured that without any doubt whatsoever Cameron would absolutely, definitely, certainly positively debate Salmond.
And if he didn't everyone would laugh at him until the end of time?
Again.
0 -
Are you still under the belief that Cameron won the last election?CarlottaVance said:
And winning.malcolmg said:
The big fearty will be behind the sofa as usual searching for his spine.TheScreamingEagles said:
That's irrelevant the Nat GOTV will win the referendum for Yes.CarlottaVance said:
Its behind the Paywall - but I've seen a few comments agreeing with Danny Finkelstein's argument Cameron being called names on Twitter would be less damaging than going head to head with Farage on TV.....TheScreamingEagles said:
Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.MarqueeMark said:FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.
Remember how we were assured that without any doubt whatsoever Cameron would absolutely, definitely, certainly positively debate Salmond.
And if he didn't everyone would laugh at him until the end of time?
Again.
0 -
Wee Dougie struggling to explain Labour's debate position
"Why don't you want the Greens?"
"That's up to the broadcasters"
"Why did Ed run away from a debate at the Euros?"
"The GE is different..."0 -
The most interesting thing re UKIP polling in the last few months, ComRes and YouGov have started prompting for UKIP and UKIP's share is trending down with those two.Tissue_Price said:
Yes, I know. Peak Kipper was in November too :-) Soon they will be polling less than the Greens.TheScreamingEagles said:
Well this poll was in November, this week's Ashcroft poll has them on 16%.Tissue_Price said:
Peak Kipper!TheScreamingEagles said:The VI in this poll was
Con 29%, Lab 33% LD 7%, UKIP 19%, Greens 6%0 -
PBers might be aware that I firmly support the Coalition and also Cameron's premiership however his present decision to duck the debates is a significant error of judgement.
With fixed term parliaments the Coalition has effectively ensured the PM no longer has the ability to determine the date of the general election for party advantage. So it must be with the debates. No PM must be allowed to derail the debates for party advantage.
If Cameron refuses to debate he should be "empty chaired" and accept the consequences. I accept that we may have to have tiered debates - Ukip, Greens and Respect in one and Con/Lab/LibDem in say two later debates. If Cameron vacates the stage then Miliband and Clegg will take their chance.
The genie is out of the bottle, the debates are here to stay and no politician should be allowed to wreck them.0 -
http://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/corse/2015/01/12/quelques-eleves-refusent-de-participer-aux-minutes-de-silence-en-corse-aussi-631312.htmlTheScreamingEagles said:
They'd probably be more gutted that Dave supports their front cover.TheWatcher said:
Hebdo would probably approve of the snub to authority.Socrates said:sean thomas knox @thomasknox 1 min1 minute ago
Article is paywalled, but details: in 70 - SEVENTY - French schools, kids refused to honour the Hebdo dead, catcalling during minute silence
One teacher reported a student as saying:"We will not be insulted by a drawing of the Prophet, it is to be expected that we take revenge. This is more than a mockery, it's an insult (...) Why do they continue, madam, when we had already threatened them? "
A Teacher was quoted as being rather unhappy:""After these noxious reactions, outrageous, I am furious ... and all these students who say," Yes, but they still insulted the prophet. " Yesterday a mother called her daughter to college to tell her not to respect the minute of silence! "
0 -
Did Ed M actually coin the phrase "weaponise the NHS"? If so, can someone please give me the reference? Thank you.0
-
UKIP have chosen the former Lord Mayor of London as the candidate for South Basildon and East Thurrock.
Presumably he's one of those people that lives in an area of low immigration and has thus not met any immigrants.0 -
The NHS is obviously the government's Achilles Heel, simply because people believe, always have believed, and always will believe that the Conservatives don't like it.
Labour could announce they were cutting spending in half, and people would still prefer their approach to that of the Conservatives.
But, to a large extent, this belief is already "priced in" to voting intentions.0 -
Mr Socrates, Mr Indigo, and others - see this FPT:Socrates said:@Indigo
The Jim Murphy claim is so bizarre. Wasn't this the guy that famously went round the country standing on a box to argue for the union?
I had however momentarily forgotten he was the leader of the NUS in, one presumes, a previous incarnation.Carnyx said:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/i-have-never-been-a-unionist-murphy.116094238Theuniondivvie said:A statement that may come as a suprise to some folk, particularly those looking for tactical unionist voting at the next GE.
'SCOTS Labour leader Jim Murphy has insisted he is “not a unionist”.'
http://tinyurl.com/pjn68sp
The question as to whether or not Murphy is the consummate political hoor has been handsomely answered, all that remains to be seen is will enough people buy his slippery charms over the next 4 months.
Hmm, how to pick and choose from 3 different meanings of the term in the Scottish context (Scottish Conservative and U, Ulster, Indyref alliance).
Of course there is a fourth meaning which is certainly true given the trade unions' general antipathy for his leadership campaign.
0 -
i am always amazed by the obsession with the NHS in the UK. It seems that people will never be happy until the NHS stops everyone from dying from any illness and that whole swathes of the country are occupied by hospitals. Why can people not be rational and see that the NHS cannot do everything. Even if every pound in tax take went to the NHS people would still be moaning that they are not getting their particular favourite illness cured.
Until people make a decision about whether the NHS is there to help with emergencies and do the basics well or whether they want it to be the best at everything then there can be no rational discussion. Everyone, mainly towards the left seems to expect it to be able to do everything.
Perhaps if the NHS didn't replace people's personal responsibility and cure them for every type of lifestyle related illness (and i say this as a smoker and drinker) then people would have to make decisions about how they live their lives - weigh up whether that cigarette, pint, extra pie is a good idea because if they wont get cured on the NHS for the results.
It seems that Labour use the NHS as the most cynical tool and suggest to the gullible that if they just add a few more billion to the budget from nasty bankers then everyone will be fit and healthy. There will always be too many people wanting everything from the NHS and never enough money.
encourage people to take private insurance by offering tax breaks, charge for treatment for lifestyle related illnesses. Also I don't understand why Doctors who have had their training paid for by the state and stand to make large salaries over their careeers are not compelled to return to the state by having to agree to working a fixed amount of their week at times that are not so convenient for them but necessary for others.
0 -
The reply was to Malcolm and referred to the Sindyref......Socrates said:
Are you still under the belief that Cameron won the last election?CarlottaVance said:
And winning.malcolmg said:
The big fearty will be behind the sofa as usual searching for his spine.TheScreamingEagles said:
That's irrelevant the Nat GOTV will win the referendum for Yes.CarlottaVance said:
Its behind the Paywall - but I've seen a few comments agreeing with Danny Finkelstein's argument Cameron being called names on Twitter would be less damaging than going head to head with Farage on TV.....TheScreamingEagles said:
Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.MarqueeMark said:FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.
Remember how we were assured that without any doubt whatsoever Cameron would absolutely, definitely, certainly positively debate Salmond.
And if he didn't everyone would laugh at him until the end of time?
Again.
0 -
Is it such an error of judgement that you might revise your opinion that Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister?JackW said:PBers might be aware that I firmly support the Coalition and also Cameron's premiership however his present decision to duck the debates is a significant error of judgement.
With fixed term parliaments the Coalition has effectively ensured the PM no longer has the ability to determine the date of the general election for party advantage. So it must be with the debates. No PM must be allowed to derail the debates for party advantage.
If Cameron refuses to debate he should be "empty chaired" and accept the consequences. I accept that we may have to have tiered debates - Ukip, Greens and Respect in one and Con/Lab/LibDem in say two later debates. If Cameron vacates the stage then Miliband and Clegg will take their chance.
The genie is out of the bottle, the debates are here to stay and no politician should be allowed to wreck them.0 -
One can't really blame Cameron for knowing his limitations. If he's a poor debater, it's best to avoid debates.Socrates said:
As Cameron has in the debates.TheScreamingEagles said:
Or perhaps he's realised that the political positives outweigh the negatives.
The reason for that? Because Cameron's record, policies and arguments would be torn to shreds by Farage. Even CCHQ and the Tory cheerleaders in the press agree.0 -
He's a politician, as Sir Humphrey put it "Ministers have so many good qualities, such as an enviable intellectual suppleness and moral maneuverability"Socrates said:@Indigo
The Jim Murphy claim is so bizarre. Wasn't this the guy that famously went round the country standing on a box to argue for the union?0 -
But what about all those Shy UKIP voters we weren't seeing because UKIP wasn't prompted in the first round?TheScreamingEagles said:
The most interesting thing re UKIP polling in the last few months, ComRes and YouGov have started prompting for UKIP and UKIP's share is trending down with those two.Tissue_Price said:
Yes, I know. Peak Kipper was in November too :-) Soon they will be polling less than the Greens.TheScreamingEagles said:
Well this poll was in November, this week's Ashcroft poll has them on 16%.Tissue_Price said:
Peak Kipper!TheScreamingEagles said:The VI in this poll was
Con 29%, Lab 33% LD 7%, UKIP 19%, Greens 6%0 -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11338695/Ed-Miliband-said-he-wanted-to-weaponise-NHS-in-secret-meeting-with-BBC-executives.htmlToms said:Did Ed M actually coin the phrase "weaponise the NHS"? If so, can someone please give me the reference? Thank you.
0 -
It's not that he's a poor poker player. It's that he's got a terrible hand.Sean_F said:
One can't really blame Cameron for knowing his limitations. If he's a poor debater, it's best to avoid debates.Socrates said:
As Cameron has in the debates.TheScreamingEagles said:
Or perhaps he's realised that the political positives outweigh the negatives.
The reason for that? Because Cameron's record, policies and arguments would be torn to shreds by Farage. Even CCHQ and the Tory cheerleaders in the press agree.
Who would want to defend his "vote me out of office if I don't get immigration down" or his buckling on EU renegotiation or his vandalism of civil liberties?0 -
UKIP support (like the Lib Dems') spikes after a by-election win, or a good performance in the Euros, but in general, I think it's wishful thinking to say it's on a downward trend. A simple average of this week's polls gives UKIP 15.6%, which is a high figure.CarlottaVance said:
But what about all those Shy UKIP voters we weren't seeing because UKIP wasn't prompted in the first round?TheScreamingEagles said:
The most interesting thing re UKIP polling in the last few months, ComRes and YouGov have started prompting for UKIP and UKIP's share is trending down with those two.Tissue_Price said:
Yes, I know. Peak Kipper was in November too :-) Soon they will be polling less than the Greens.TheScreamingEagles said:
Well this poll was in November, this week's Ashcroft poll has them on 16%.Tissue_Price said:
Peak Kipper!TheScreamingEagles said:The VI in this poll was
Con 29%, Lab 33% LD 7%, UKIP 19%, Greens 6%
0 -
It's got nothing to do with "being a poor debater". It's to do with having more to lose than to gain from them.Sean_F said:
One can't really blame Cameron for knowing his limitations. If he's a poor debater, it's best to avoid debates.Socrates said:
As Cameron has in the debates.TheScreamingEagles said:
Or perhaps he's realised that the political positives outweigh the negatives.
The reason for that? Because Cameron's record, policies and arguments would be torn to shreds by Farage. Even CCHQ and the Tory cheerleaders in the press agree.0 -
Cheers TSE. That's possibly true, but I'll take it with a grain of salt as it wasn't public.TheScreamingEagles said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11338695/Ed-Miliband-said-he-wanted-to-weaponise-NHS-in-secret-meeting-with-BBC-executives.htmlToms said:Did Ed M actually coin the phrase "weaponise the NHS"? If so, can someone please give me the reference? Thank you.
0 -
THis certainly does not contradict you, from an older Daily Murphy:Indigo said:
He's a politician, as Sir Humphrey put it "Ministers have so many good qualities, such as an enviable intellectual suppleness and moral maneuverability"Socrates said:@Indigo
The Jim Murphy claim is so bizarre. Wasn't this the guy that famously went round the country standing on a box to argue for the union?
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/labour-mp-jim-murphy-rules-4466742
"Labour MP Jim Murphy rules out challenging Johann Lamont for Scottish party leadership
MURPHY insisted he wants to be part of a Labour government at Westminster after next year's general election rather than take on Nicola Sturgeon at Holyrood."
0 -
I presume the people who cant seem to fathom his position are those who have only read the url rather than what he had to say.CarlottaVance said:
Murphy explains his attachment to the 'United Kingdom' quite clearly - and I can certainly see how a socialist would have a different conception of the 'union' from a 'Conservative & Unionist'.calum said:The Daily Murphy has an interesting article today, it turns out that Jim Murphy is not a Unionist. I'm not sure how this sudden realisation on his part is going to play with the Scottish Tories he's hoping to attract;
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-labour-leader-jim-murphy-4973610
I sense the hand of McTernan behind this, the new ideology, McMurphyism is starting to take shape.
Do you think the Nationalists failure to understand the many strands of Unionism was why they lost?0 -
I agree - they are 'treading water' (and why wouldn't they be, for the reasons you outline?) - the comment was aimed at those who thought the LibLabConspiracy was suppressing 25%+ polls......Sean_F said:
UKIP support (like the Lib Dems') spikes after a by-election win, or a good performance in the Euros, but in general, I think it's wishful thinking to say it's on a downward trend. A simple average of this week's polls gives UKIP 15.6%, which is a high figure.CarlottaVance said:
But what about all those Shy UKIP voters we weren't seeing because UKIP wasn't prompted in the first round?TheScreamingEagles said:
The most interesting thing re UKIP polling in the last few months, ComRes and YouGov have started prompting for UKIP and UKIP's share is trending down with those two.Tissue_Price said:
Yes, I know. Peak Kipper was in November too :-) Soon they will be polling less than the Greens.TheScreamingEagles said:
Well this poll was in November, this week's Ashcroft poll has them on 16%.Tissue_Price said:
Peak Kipper!TheScreamingEagles said:The VI in this poll was
Con 29%, Lab 33% LD 7%, UKIP 19%, Greens 6%
0 -
I don't think any salt at all is warranted.Toms said:
Cheers TSE. That's possibly true, but I'll take it with a grain of salt as it wasn't public.TheScreamingEagles said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11338695/Ed-Miliband-said-he-wanted-to-weaponise-NHS-in-secret-meeting-with-BBC-executives.htmlToms said:Did Ed M actually coin the phrase "weaponise the NHS"? If so, can someone please give me the reference? Thank you.
Mr Robinson confirmed that Mr Miliband had made the comments. He said on Twitter: "If anyone doubted Ed Miliband spoke of "weaponising" NHS I think he cleared that up on Marr just now – repeatedly didn't deny or disown it."
Just an unbelievably stupid thing to have said in those terms.
Tony Pulis doesn't say "We're going to make sure we give all their skilful players a kicking." He says "We're going to show them that we're right up for it."0 -
OK OK. A blunder. Won't be the last. For everybody.0
-
Instead of the dole, if Murphy loses in GE2015, maybe Labour could park him in the House of Lords until May 2016 - Lord Flip Flop.malcolmg said:
It is a laugh listening to Murphy nowadays, he is the polar opposite of what he was a few weeks ago. He was struggling on the question re leading the Scottish party whilst on the dole as well, was very nippy with Gary.calum said:The Daily Murphy has an interesting article today, it turns out that Jim Murphy is not a Unionist. I'm not sure how this sudden realisation on his part is going to play with the Scottish Tories he's hoping to attract;
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-labour-leader-jim-murphy-4973610
I sense the hand of McTernan behind this, the new ideology, McMurphyism is starting to take shape.0 -
He goes from saying that he's "not a unionist" to then describing himself as part of one of "two unionist traditions" in favour of the union. All over the place.Neil said:
I presume the people who cant seem to fathom his position are those who have only read the url rather than what he had to say.CarlottaVance said:
Murphy explains his attachment to the 'United Kingdom' quite clearly - and I can certainly see how a socialist would have a different conception of the 'union' from a 'Conservative & Unionist'.calum said:The Daily Murphy has an interesting article today, it turns out that Jim Murphy is not a Unionist. I'm not sure how this sudden realisation on his part is going to play with the Scottish Tories he's hoping to attract;
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-labour-leader-jim-murphy-4973610
I sense the hand of McTernan behind this, the new ideology, McMurphyism is starting to take shape.
Do you think the Nationalists failure to understand the many strands of Unionism was why they lost?0 -
Re The NHS
Last year the NHS spent £2,025 per capita
In 1997 it was £707 per capita, which is £1,162 in todays money, adjusted for inflation
So we are currently spending almost double what we were were a decade and a half ago, per person, in real terms, where does all the money go!0 -
Interesting 538 piece about US polling. The pollsters end up "herding" around a common value by tweaking their methodologies if they get out of line:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-proof-some-pollsters-are-putting-a-thumb-on-the-scale/0 -
Something tells me that SNP supporters are now going to be obsessively lampooning Jim Murphy and John McTernan with ever more childish nicknames from here to GE day..... Anyone would think that the SNP fans on here are running scared of the impact Murphy might have on their chances at the GE, I mean if they weren't, they wouldn't be getting so worked up about his every utterance would they?calum said:
The Daily Murphy has an interesting article today, it turns out that Jim Murphy is not a Unionist. I'm not sure how this sudden realisation on his part is going to play with the Scottish Tories he's hoping to attract;
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-labour-leader-jim-murphy-4973610
I sense the hand of McTernan behind this, the new ideology, McMurphyism is starting to take shape.0 -
The issue is more that Mr Murphy seems to be trying to appeal to those different forms of Unionism which Ms Vance (correctly) identifies, separately, and none of them, all at the same time, when one consdiers his actions and press performances over the last year. It's an interesting approach to take.Neil said:
I presume the people who cant seem to fathom his position are those who have only read the url rather than what he had to say.CarlottaVance said:
Murphy explains his attachment to the 'United Kingdom' quite clearly - and I can certainly see how a socialist would have a different conception of the 'union' from a 'Conservative & Unionist'.calum said:The Daily Murphy has an interesting article today, it turns out that Jim Murphy is not a Unionist. I'm not sure how this sudden realisation on his part is going to play with the Scottish Tories he's hoping to attract;
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-labour-leader-jim-murphy-4973610
I sense the hand of McTernan behind this, the new ideology, McMurphyism is starting to take shape.
Do you think the Nationalists failure to understand the many strands of Unionism was why they lost?
0 -
It would seem logical that not promoting suppressed the score... The reason given for not prompting was that it inflates the score of smaller partiesCarlottaVance said:
I agree - they are 'treading water' (and why wouldn't they be, for the reasons you outline?) - the comment was aimed at those who thought the LibLabConspiracy was suppressing 25%+ polls......Sean_F said:
UKIP support (like the Lib Dems') spikes after a by-election win, or a good performance in the Euros, but in general, I think it's wishful thinking to say it's on a downward trend. A simple average of this week's polls gives UKIP 15.6%, which is a high figure.CarlottaVance said:
But what about all those Shy UKIP voters we weren't seeing because UKIP wasn't prompted in the first round?TheScreamingEagles said:
The most interesting thing re UKIP polling in the last few months, ComRes and YouGov have started prompting for UKIP and UKIP's share is trending down with those two.Tissue_Price said:
Yes, I know. Peak Kipper was in November too :-) Soon they will be polling less than the Greens.TheScreamingEagles said:
Well this poll was in November, this week's Ashcroft poll has them on 16%.Tissue_Price said:
Peak Kipper!TheScreamingEagles said:The VI in this poll was
Con 29%, Lab 33% LD 7%, UKIP 19%, Greens 6%
Could be that Ukip would be scoring lower than their current rate if it weren't for the promoting, who knows? In the only poll that did both Ukip scored much higher when prompted0 -
Given the obsession shown by quite a few nat posters here about him I wonder who is meant to have the issues.Carnyx said:
The issue is more that Mr Murphy seems to be trying to appeal to those different forms of Unionism which Ms Vance (correctly) identifies, separately, and none of them, all at the same time, when one consdiers his actions and press performances over the last year. It's an interesting approach to take.Neil said:
I presume the people who cant seem to fathom his position are those who have only read the url rather than what he had to say.CarlottaVance said:
Murphy explains his attachment to the 'United Kingdom' quite clearly - and I can certainly see how a socialist would have a different conception of the 'union' from a 'Conservative & Unionist'.calum said:The Daily Murphy has an interesting article today, it turns out that Jim Murphy is not a Unionist. I'm not sure how this sudden realisation on his part is going to play with the Scottish Tories he's hoping to attract;
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-labour-leader-jim-murphy-4973610
I sense the hand of McTernan behind this, the new ideology, McMurphyism is starting to take shape.
Do you think the Nationalists failure to understand the many strands of Unionism was why they lost?
0 -
What childish nicknames? I haven't seen any, and the McMurphyism tag came from somewhere else altogether.fitalass said:Something tells me that SNP supporters are now going to be obsessively lampooning Jim Murphy and John McTernan with ever more childish nicknames from here to GE day..... Anyone would think that the SNP fans on here are running scared of the impact Murphy might have on their chances at the GE, I mean if they weren't, they wouldn't be getting so worked up about his every utterance would they?
calum said:The Daily Murphy has an interesting article today, it turns out that Jim Murphy is not a Unionist. I'm not sure how this sudden realisation on his part is going to play with the Scottish Tories he's hoping to attract;
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-labour-leader-jim-murphy-4973610
I sense the hand of McTernan behind this, the new ideology, McMurphyism is starting to take shape.
It's more a genuine fascination for a completely different approach, which is still to play out.
0 -
One might ask why a politician is secretly briefing our supposedly independent state broadcaster on his plans to win political office.TheScreamingEagles said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11338695/Ed-Miliband-said-he-wanted-to-weaponise-NHS-in-secret-meeting-with-BBC-executives.htmlToms said:Did Ed M actually coin the phrase "weaponise the NHS"? If so, can someone please give me the reference? Thank you.
One might then speculate on the pure coincidence that the BBC decided to run a campaign over Christmas contemplating the alleged overstretch in the NHS A&E departments which it had failed to find the interest in doing many previous years.0 -
And one might be quite mad.Indigo said:
One might ask why a politician is secretly briefing our supposedly independent state broadcaster on his plans to win political office.TheScreamingEagles said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11338695/Ed-Miliband-said-he-wanted-to-weaponise-NHS-in-secret-meeting-with-BBC-executives.htmlToms said:Did Ed M actually coin the phrase "weaponise the NHS"? If so, can someone please give me the reference? Thank you.
One might then speculate on the pure coincidence that the BBC decided to run a campaign over Christmas contemplating the alleged overstretch in the NHS A&E departments which it had failed to find the interest in doing many previous years.
0 -
Depending on the time frame, UKIP are either up or down where they were x months ago.Sean_F said:
UKIP support (like the Lib Dems') spikes after a by-election win, or a good performance in the Euros, but in general, I think it's wishful thinking to say it's on a downward trend. A simple average of this week's polls gives UKIP 15.6%, which is a high figure.CarlottaVance said:
But what about all those Shy UKIP voters we weren't seeing because UKIP wasn't prompted in the first round?TheScreamingEagles said:
The most interesting thing re UKIP polling in the last few months, ComRes and YouGov have started prompting for UKIP and UKIP's share is trending down with those two.Tissue_Price said:
Yes, I know. Peak Kipper was in November too :-) Soon they will be polling less than the Greens.TheScreamingEagles said:
Well this poll was in November, this week's Ashcroft poll has them on 16%.Tissue_Price said:
Peak Kipper!TheScreamingEagles said:The VI in this poll was
Con 29%, Lab 33% LD 7%, UKIP 19%, Greens 6%
The point I was trying to make, for a time Survation were the first/only pollsters that prompted for UKIP.
They had the highest score for UKIP of any pollster.
So some of us were curious about this, would this make Survation the most or least accurate pollsters. (I've discussed this at length with Damian Lyons Lowe of Survation)
So when ComRes and YouGov followed Survation's lead, I've been paying a lot of attention to see what happens, it would appear at best it makes no difference to UKIP's score, at worst it lowers UKIP's share from where it was say in November/December.
Lord Ashcroft has started prompting for UKIP this week, and saw them fall 3% from their last poll share, we need a few more results from him to say definitively.
My prediction for this election, the pollster with the most accurate share for UKIP will be the top pollster in PB's General election league table for accuracy.
0 -
It's hardly surprising that we are taking an interest in him - he is supposed to be the leader of the Scottish Labour Party, and to put it mildly is proving a considerable change from the last one, with a strategy that is certainly different.Neil said:
Given the obsession shown by quite a few nat posters here about him I wonder who is meant to have the issues.Carnyx said:
The issue is more that Mr Murphy seems to be trying to appeal to those different forms of Unionism which Ms Vance (correctly) identifies, separately, and none of them, all at the same time, when one consdiers his actions and press performances over the last year. It's an interesting approach to take.Neil said:
I presume the people who cant seem to fathom his position are those who have only read the url rather than what he had to say.CarlottaVance said:
Murphy explains his attachment to the 'United Kingdom' quite clearly - and I can certainly see how a socialist would have a different conception of the 'union' from a 'Conservative & Unionist'.calum said:The Daily Murphy has an interesting article today, it turns out that Jim Murphy is not a Unionist. I'm not sure how this sudden realisation on his part is going to play with the Scottish Tories he's hoping to attract;
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-labour-leader-jim-murphy-4973610
I sense the hand of McTernan behind this, the new ideology, McMurphyism is starting to take shape.
Do you think the Nationalists failure to understand the many strands of Unionism was why they lost?
I haven't seen any of the sort of sniping and personal attacks we used to see against SNP politicians - remember when they were accused of being paedophiles?
0 -
Don't be a silly billy.TheScreamingEagles said:
Is it such an error of judgement that you might revise your opinion that Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister?JackW said:PBers might be aware that I firmly support the Coalition and also Cameron's premiership however his present decision to duck the debates is a significant error of judgement.
With fixed term parliaments the Coalition has effectively ensured the PM no longer has the ability to determine the date of the general election for party advantage. So it must be with the debates. No PM must be allowed to derail the debates for party advantage.
If Cameron refuses to debate he should be "empty chaired" and accept the consequences. I accept that we may have to have tiered debates - Ukip, Greens and Respect in one and Con/Lab/LibDem in say two later debates. If Cameron vacates the stage then Miliband and Clegg will take their chance.
The genie is out of the bottle, the debates are here to stay and no politician should be allowed to wreck them.
0 -
The final paragraph:Tissue_Price said:Interesting 538 piece about US polling. The pollsters end up "herding" around a common value by tweaking their methodologies if they get out of line:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-proof-some-pollsters-are-putting-a-thumb-on-the-scale/
So … what to do about it? If you’ve read this far, you’re undoubtedly highly interested in polling. So my message for fellow polling geeks is as follows: Let’s not give pollsters so much grief the next time they publish what looks to be an “outlier.” Polling data is noisy and polling is becoming more challenging. The occasional or even not-so-occasional result that deviates from the consensus is sometimes a sign the pollster is doing good, honest work and trusting its data. It’s the inliers — the polls that always stay implausibly close to the consensus and always conform to the conventional wisdom about a race — that deserve more scrutiny instead.0 -
Very good news for those of us on at 20/1
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 23m23 minutes ago
Just bet at 10/3 that UKIP candidate for Basildon S, Ian Luder, will win. Know him well. A serious candidate & political campaigner.
0 -
The NHS has always been a political football. As has anything else that will give politicians an edge- it's what they do.
Any politicians who complains that others shouldn't bring x, y or z into politics is a hypocrite. But they all are, aren't they?0 -
Interesting analysis on the British Election Study:
http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-resources/voter-trends-in-2014-and-lessons-for-the-2015-general-election/#.VLZPKcZLcqZ
i) Scottish turnout at the GE might not be as high as some anticipate
2) 'Core UKIP' around 14-15%
3) Its still 'the economy stupid'.....0 -
Good morning, everyone.
The debates remain rubbish.0 -
Quite possibly.Neil said:
And one might be quite mad.Indigo said:
One might ask why a politician is secretly briefing our supposedly independent state broadcaster on his plans to win political office.TheScreamingEagles said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11338695/Ed-Miliband-said-he-wanted-to-weaponise-NHS-in-secret-meeting-with-BBC-executives.htmlToms said:Did Ed M actually coin the phrase "weaponise the NHS"? If so, can someone please give me the reference? Thank you.
One might then speculate on the pure coincidence that the BBC decided to run a campaign over Christmas contemplating the alleged overstretch in the NHS A&E departments which it had failed to find the interest in doing many previous years.
But even if its innocent, the optics are terrible. Why should politicians of any party be having secret talks with an impartial broadcaster, it just doesn't look good. They shouldn't be co-conspirators in EdM's political campaign, and so should have no knowledge of it, they should just be reporting the campaign as it develops, I would say the same of any other politician having similar talks, it's like having a private talk with the judge before he instructs the jury.
0 -
Then the voters will ignore them but I'd rather give them the choice.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
The debates remain rubbish.
0 -
Yes, Mike's money will mean you can cash out on the Tory at a better price ;-)isam said:Very good news for those of us on at 20/1
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 23m23 minutes ago
Just bet at 10/3 that UKIP candidate for Basildon S, Ian Luder, will win. Know him well. A serious candidate & political campaigner.0 -
Unfortunately I personally get nothing and never have done, I get whacked for thousands a month and hav eto fend for myself so have some sympathy.TGOHF said:
No worries Malc - you are welcome.malcolmg said:
no worries for us , England will make up the difference with the famed unionist pooling and sharing. That is why the fearties accepted the bribe , they don't have to worry , given unionists were desperate to hold on to us and pick up the tab. bad for down south as they will have to make up the difference.TGOHF said:
Big day today for the 45 Malc !malcolmg said:
The big fearty will be behind the sofa as usual searching for his spine.TheScreamingEagles said:
That's irrelevant the Nat GOTV will win the referendum for Yes.CarlottaVance said:
Its behind the Paywall - but I've seen a few comments agreeing with Danny Finkelstein's argument Cameron being called names on Twitter would be less damaging than going head to head with Farage on TV.....TheScreamingEagles said:
Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.MarqueeMark said:FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.
Remember how we were assured that without any doubt whatsoever Cameron would absolutely, definitely, certainly positively debate Salmond.
And if he didn't everyone would laugh at him until the end of time?
$45 dollars a barrel....0 -
Mostly on drugs. I believe spending on drugs accounts for about a third of NHS spending overall and is the single largest expenditure, higher than wage costs.Indigo said:Re The NHS
Last year the NHS spent £2,025 per capita
In 1997 it was £707 per capita, which is £1,162 in todays money, adjusted for inflation
So we are currently spending almost double what we were were a decade and a half ago, per person, in real terms, where does all the money go!0 -
Come on McTernan stopping pretending you are a Tory galCarlottaVance said:
Murphy explains his attachment to the 'United Kingdom' quite clearly - and I can certainly see how a socialist would have a different conception of the 'union' from a 'Conservative & Unionist'.calum said:The Daily Murphy has an interesting article today, it turns out that Jim Murphy is not a Unionist. I'm not sure how this sudden realisation on his part is going to play with the Scottish Tories he's hoping to attract;
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-labour-leader-jim-murphy-4973610
I sense the hand of McTernan behind this, the new ideology, McMurphyism is starting to take shape.
Do you think the Nationalists failure to understand the many strands of Unionism was why they lost?
Or some other reason?0 -
I think you're a bit high. The NHS spends c. £12bn on drugs out of a total cost of £64bn or so. So, that's more like 20%.MaxPB said:
Mostly on drugs. I believe spending on drugs accounts for about a third of NHS spending overall and is the single largest expenditure, higher than wage costs.Indigo said:Re The NHS
Last year the NHS spent £2,025 per capita
In 1997 it was £707 per capita, which is £1,162 in todays money, adjusted for inflation
So we are currently spending almost double what we were were a decade and a half ago, per person, in real terms, where does all the money go!0 -
Mr. W, the voters ignore them? Perhaps if they refuse to buy newspapers, or consume news via radio and TV.0
-
He has never won anything , could not beat a crap labour party , needed to beg Clegg to get in. The man is a loser and will do so once again.CarlottaVance said:
And winning.malcolmg said:
The big fearty will be behind the sofa as usual searching for his spine.TheScreamingEagles said:
That's irrelevant the Nat GOTV will win the referendum for Yes.CarlottaVance said:
Its behind the Paywall - but I've seen a few comments agreeing with Danny Finkelstein's argument Cameron being called names on Twitter would be less damaging than going head to head with Farage on TV.....TheScreamingEagles said:
Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.MarqueeMark said:FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.
Remember how we were assured that without any doubt whatsoever Cameron would absolutely, definitely, certainly positively debate Salmond.
And if he didn't everyone would laugh at him until the end of time?
Again.0 -
The Euro results are better for UKIP in that seat than neighbouring Thurrock, where they are best price 8/13 and my system made it a stronger bet on 2010 results... so a good candidate is a relief, and 10/3 is still good valueTissue_Price said:
Yes, Mike's money will mean you can cash out on the Tory at a better price ;-)isam said:Very good news for those of us on at 20/1
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 23m23 minutes ago
Just bet at 10/3 that UKIP candidate for Basildon S, Ian Luder, will win. Know him well. A serious candidate & political campaigner.0 -
Busted! You can claim your 5 Groats....or whatever currency Scotland uses once it separates......malcolmg said:
Come on McTernan stopping pretending you are a Tory galCarlottaVance said:
Murphy explains his attachment to the 'United Kingdom' quite clearly - and I can certainly see how a socialist would have a different conception of the 'union' from a 'Conservative & Unionist'.calum said:The Daily Murphy has an interesting article today, it turns out that Jim Murphy is not a Unionist. I'm not sure how this sudden realisation on his part is going to play with the Scottish Tories he's hoping to attract;
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-labour-leader-jim-murphy-4973610
I sense the hand of McTernan behind this, the new ideology, McMurphyism is starting to take shape.
Do you think the Nationalists failure to understand the many strands of Unionism was why they lost?
Or some other reason?
0 -
RodCrosby said:
There are numerous calls to violent jihad in the Koran. But the Koran is hardly alone. In too much of Islam, jihad is a thoroughly modern concept. The 20th-century jihad bible, and an animating work for many Islamist groups today, is The Quranic Concept of War, a book written in the mid-1970s by Pakistani general SK Malik. He argues that because Allah himself authored every word of the Koran, the rules of war contained in the Koran are of a higher calibre than the rules developed by mere mortals.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/terror/charlie-hebdo-west-must-stop-appeasing-islamic-purveyors-of-hatred/story-fnpdbcmu-1227180111327
In Malik’s analysis of Koranic strategy, the human soul — and not any physical battlefield — is the centre of conflict. The key to victory, taught by Allah through the military campaigns of the prophet Mohammed, is to strike at the soul of your enemy. And the best way to strike at your enemy’s soul is through terror. Terror, Malik writes, is “the point where the means and the end meet”. Terror, he adds, “is not a means of imposing a decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose”.0 -
LOL, she forgot that Cameron is a loser , needed Clegg for GE and needed Clegg, Ed et al for Independence. He had to leave it to labour party to run Independence debate to be sure he did not lose. LOL................CarlottaVance said:
The reply was to Malcolm and referred to the Sindyref......Socrates said:
Are you still under the belief that Cameron won the last election?CarlottaVance said:
And winning.malcolmg said:
The big fearty will be behind the sofa as usual searching for his spine.TheScreamingEagles said:
That's irrelevant the Nat GOTV will win the referendum for Yes.CarlottaVance said:
Its behind the Paywall - but I've seen a few comments agreeing with Danny Finkelstein's argument Cameron being called names on Twitter would be less damaging than going head to head with Farage on TV.....TheScreamingEagles said:
Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.MarqueeMark said:FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.
Remember how we were assured that without any doubt whatsoever Cameron would absolutely, definitely, certainly positively debate Salmond.
And if he didn't everyone would laugh at him until the end of time?
Again.0 -
Oh dear....haven't got past 'denial' I see......remember how you absolutely positively definitely assured us that Cameron would be forced into debate with Salmond.......how did that turn out?malcolmg said:
He has never won anythingCarlottaVance said:
And winning.malcolmg said:
The big fearty will be behind the sofa as usual searching for his spine.TheScreamingEagles said:
That's irrelevant the Nat GOTV will win the referendum for Yes.CarlottaVance said:
Its behind the Paywall - but I've seen a few comments agreeing with Danny Finkelstein's argument Cameron being called names on Twitter would be less damaging than going head to head with Farage on TV.....TheScreamingEagles said:
Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.MarqueeMark said:FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.
Remember how we were assured that without any doubt whatsoever Cameron would absolutely, definitely, certainly positively debate Salmond.
And if he didn't everyone would laugh at him until the end of time?
Again.
0 -
So that would mean an 80% rise in the cost of the NHS in real terms in the last 17 years even if you exclude the drug budget, and I assume we bought some drugs even in 1997!rcs1000 said:
I think you're a bit high. The NHS spends c. £12bn on drugs out of a total cost of £64bn or so. So, that's more like 20%.MaxPB said:
Mostly on drugs. I believe spending on drugs accounts for about a third of NHS spending overall and is the single largest expenditure, higher than wage costs.Indigo said:Re The NHS
Last year the NHS spent £2,025 per capita
In 1997 it was £707 per capita, which is £1,162 in todays money, adjusted for inflation
So we are currently spending almost double what we were were a decade and a half ago, per person, in real terms, where does all the money go!
0 -
What is your objection to the voters assessing the competing positions of the parties via adversarial debates?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. W, the voters ignore them? Perhaps if they refuse to buy newspapers, or consume news via radio and TV.
0 -
LOL, yes just like we fear a Tory surge. Tory Murphy and his desperado McTerrible are nothing to fear. As we see they cannot even explain in English what they stand for, like the Tories they are they have more faces than the town clock. A different face for every occasion and zero principles, wonder when the merger with the failed Scottish sub regional Tory party will be required.fitalass said:Something tells me that SNP supporters are now going to be obsessively lampooning Jim Murphy and John McTernan with ever more childish nicknames from here to GE day..... Anyone would think that the SNP fans on here are running scared of the impact Murphy might have on their chances at the GE, I mean if they weren't, they wouldn't be getting so worked up about his every utterance would they?
calum said:The Daily Murphy has an interesting article today, it turns out that Jim Murphy is not a Unionist. I'm not sure how this sudden realisation on his part is going to play with the Scottish Tories he's hoping to attract;
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-labour-leader-jim-murphy-4973610
I sense the hand of McTernan behind this, the new ideology, McMurphyism is starting to take shape.0 -
Lets not forget that at the last election Labour's back of a fag packet spending plans were to cut NHS spending, and Tories to increase it....and it got the Tories nowhere.Sean_F said:The NHS is obviously the government's Achilles Heel, simply because people believe, always have believed, and always will believe that the Conservatives don't like it.
Labour could announce they were cutting spending in half, and people would still prefer their approach to that of the Conservatives.
But, to a large extent, this belief is already "priced in" to voting intentions.
And of course under Labour, not just Stafford, stuff like NHS computer system disaster, NHS trusts having to get massive bail outs as they went busto, yadda yadda yadda.0 -
Only joshing with you... you must have a very good portfolio of constituency bets - whether or not to hedge them can be a very difficult call. Cashing out is usually not a good idea since you're paying the margin again.isam said:
The Euro results are better for UKIP in that seat than neighbouring Thurrock, where they are best price 8/13 and my system made it a stronger bet on 2010 results... so a good candidate is a relief, and 10/3 is still good valueTissue_Price said:
Yes, Mike's money will mean you can cash out on the Tory at a better price ;-)isam said:Very good news for those of us on at 20/1
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 23m23 minutes ago
Just bet at 10/3 that UKIP candidate for Basildon S, Ian Luder, will win. Know him well. A serious candidate & political campaigner.
However, many punters caught up in the LD surge never cashed out on their bets. Perhaps they were right not to do so as they were still value (or, more accurately, the other side was not value). I suppose it's the equivalent of playing for the jackpot rather than settling for a nice payday...0 -
A word of caution for those who have already written off Jim Murphy and 'Scottish Labour' before the GE campaign has even officially kicked off... Murphy is going to get the same wall to wall coverage as Nicola Sturgeon during the official GE campaign, and as with last time, I expect his performance to be just as impressive as it was five years ago. Forget Gordon Brown or Iain Gray, the then two Labour leaders at that time. It was Jim Murphy that led the 'Scottish Labour' GE campaign last time, and he was up against a far more popular Alex Salmond who was still enjoying a bit of a honeymoon period as FM at Holyrood.
Anyone who caught the Jim Murphy/Ruth Davidson team effort on Any Questions just before the Indy Referendum might well remember just what a polished media operator Murphy can be in those interactive panel/audience based debates. Nicola Sturgeon is simple not in the same league, she tends to come across as far too tribal and often ends up simple playing to the faithful SNP base in any audience with trite slogans.Indigo said:
As I asked a couple of days agocalum said:The Daily Murphy has an interesting article today, it turns out that Jim Murphy is not a Unionist. I'm not sure how this sudden realisation on his part is going to play with the Scottish Tories he's hoping to attract;
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-labour-leader-jim-murphy-4973610
I sense the hand of McTernan behind this, the new ideology, McMurphyism is starting to take shape.
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/512155/#Comment_512155Indigo said:I was thinking of SNP/SLAB as analogous to LAB/CON in Westminster, they are both nominally staunch supporters of their wing, but both try and sidle into where the votes are. If Murphy gets slaughtered in GE2015 as looks likely, what's the game plan to get some of those voters back, its not going to fly trying to be more left wing than Sturgeon's SNP, he already is the Unionist voice to all intents so not many more votes to be made there. Is there a body of voters that might be summarised as "Well I quite like the look of Murphy and SLAB if they weren't so damn anti-independence".
0 -
No obsessions, just dislike the lying unprincipled toerag and hope he goes down big time, he certainly deserves it.Neil said:
Given the obsession shown by quite a few nat posters here about him I wonder who is meant to have the issues.Carnyx said:
The issue is more that Mr Murphy seems to be trying to appeal to those different forms of Unionism which Ms Vance (correctly) identifies, separately, and none of them, all at the same time, when one consdiers his actions and press performances over the last year. It's an interesting approach to take.Neil said:
I presume the people who cant seem to fathom his position are those who have only read the url rather than what he had to say.CarlottaVance said:
Murphy explains his attachment to the 'United Kingdom' quite clearly - and I can certainly see how a socialist would have a different conception of the 'union' from a 'Conservative & Unionist'.calum said:The Daily Murphy has an interesting article today, it turns out that Jim Murphy is not a Unionist. I'm not sure how this sudden realisation on his part is going to play with the Scottish Tories he's hoping to attract;
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-labour-leader-jim-murphy-4973610
I sense the hand of McTernan behind this, the new ideology, McMurphyism is starting to take shape.
Do you think the Nationalists failure to understand the many strands of Unionism was why they lost?0 -
Carnyx Fitalass is easily confused, it is all that surging.Carnyx said:
What childish nicknames? I haven't seen any, and the McMurphyism tag came from somewhere else altogether.fitalass said:Something tells me that SNP supporters are now going to be obsessively lampooning Jim Murphy and John McTernan with ever more childish nicknames from here to GE day..... Anyone would think that the SNP fans on here are running scared of the impact Murphy might have on their chances at the GE, I mean if they weren't, they wouldn't be getting so worked up about his every utterance would they?
calum said:The Daily Murphy has an interesting article today, it turns out that Jim Murphy is not a Unionist. I'm not sure how this sudden realisation on his part is going to play with the Scottish Tories he's hoping to attract;
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-labour-leader-jim-murphy-4973610
I sense the hand of McTernan behind this, the new ideology, McMurphyism is starting to take shape.
It's more a genuine fascination for a completely different approach, which is still to play out.0 -
Mr. W, overwhelming coverage. We get pre-match waffle, the debates themselves, immediate post-match reaction and then a more prolonged assessment of how it might alter each party's prospects. There's far less analysis of policy and substance, it's style and soundbite instead.
The worm. This is, by a long way, the worst aspect of these tedious debates. The worm is wide open to the mob effect and by any one individual (only a small number get to alter it) who hates/loves a specific individual or party. The worm has a significant impact on audience perceptions, and is vile, indefensible and utterly stupid. It should be axed, but it won't be, because TV nonsense trumps political fairness.0 -
Labour have never successfully cut anything, so obviously the voters didn't believe them. The problem as we have discussed often enough is that the voters believe in the magic money tree, because every time we got to the point that someone might have to make a tough decision, it either got kicked down the road, or we printed some money.FrancisUrquhart said:
Lets not forget that at the last election Labour's back of a fag packet spending plans were to cut NHS spending, and Tories to increase it....and it got the Tories nowhere.Sean_F said:The NHS is obviously the government's Achilles Heel, simply because people believe, always have believed, and always will believe that the Conservatives don't like it.
Labour could announce they were cutting spending in half, and people would still prefer their approach to that of the Conservatives.
But, to a large extent, this belief is already "priced in" to voting intentions.
Its a kind of Moral Hazard, the public doesn't get any real consequence for electing idiots, because for 99% of them our safety nets keep the discomfort relatively mild (whilst costing the country even more on the basis of their idiocy).
0 -
(AP) French govt: At least 50 people detained for defending terrorism since Paris newspaper attack.0
-
I know!Tissue_Price said:
Only joshing with you... you must have a very good portfolio of constituency bets - whether or not to hedge them can be a very difficult call. Cashing out is usually not a good idea since you're paying the margin again.isam said:
The Euro results are better for UKIP in that seat than neighbouring Thurrock, where they are best price 8/13 and my system made it a stronger bet on 2010 results... so a good candidate is a relief, and 10/3 is still good valueTissue_Price said:
Yes, Mike's money will mean you can cash out on the Tory at a better price ;-)isam said:Very good news for those of us on at 20/1
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 23m23 minutes ago
Just bet at 10/3 that UKIP candidate for Basildon S, Ian Luder, will win. Know him well. A serious candidate & political campaigner.
However, many punters caught up in the LD surge never cashed out on their bets. Perhaps they were right not to do so as they were still value (or, more accurately, the other side was not value). I suppose it's the equivalent of playing for the jackpot rather than settling for a nice payday...
Actually I don't have that many bets on the constituencies really.. getting on is a bind and freeing up the money long term is easier some times than others.
Thurrock and South Basildon & East Thurrock are the only two I have three figures on. 16/1 & 20/1 though so nice prices... other than that its the odd £25 here and there.. £40@25/1 Telford is the next biggest bet oddly enough
If UKIP poll 9%, poll less than the lib Dems and only win Clacton I am in a mess.. so you know what to cheer for!0 -
As you well know it is the POUND , our pound.........(:-CarlottaVance said:
Busted! You can claim your 5 Groats....or whatever currency Scotland uses once it separates......malcolmg said:
Come on McTernan stopping pretending you are a Tory galCarlottaVance said:
Murphy explains his attachment to the 'United Kingdom' quite clearly - and I can certainly see how a socialist would have a different conception of the 'union' from a 'Conservative & Unionist'.calum said:The Daily Murphy has an interesting article today, it turns out that Jim Murphy is not a Unionist. I'm not sure how this sudden realisation on his part is going to play with the Scottish Tories he's hoping to attract;
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-labour-leader-jim-murphy-4973610
I sense the hand of McTernan behind this, the new ideology, McMurphyism is starting to take shape.
Do you think the Nationalists failure to understand the many strands of Unionism was why they lost?
Or some other reason?
neil, yet to be seen if we really lost , only that vote for the present , more to come.Neil said:
It is rare to see the losing side gloating over a referendum result. I salute you.malcolmg said:He had to leave it to labour party to run Independence debate to be sure he did not lose. LOL................
0 -
I assumed , even as cowardly as I thought he was , that he could not be that big a coward. Just goes to show , even I can get it wrong some times.CarlottaVance said:
Oh dear....haven't got past 'denial' I see......remember how you absolutely positively definitely assured us that Cameron would be forced into debate with Salmond.......how did that turn out?malcolmg said:
He has never won anythingCarlottaVance said:
And winning.malcolmg said:
The big fearty will be behind the sofa as usual searching for his spine.TheScreamingEagles said:
That's irrelevant the Nat GOTV will win the referendum for Yes.CarlottaVance said:
Its behind the Paywall - but I've seen a few comments agreeing with Danny Finkelstein's argument Cameron being called names on Twitter would be less damaging than going head to head with Farage on TV.....TheScreamingEagles said:
Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.MarqueeMark said:FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.
Remember how we were assured that without any doubt whatsoever Cameron would absolutely, definitely, certainly positively debate Salmond.
And if he didn't everyone would laugh at him until the end of time?
Again.0 -
Haud yer wheesht!
Remember how the Nats derided the Unionists in the run up to SindyRef?
They're doing it again - rattling around in their nice little echo chamber, convincing each other how superior they are.....'You don't understand...'We've heard it all before....'Its about GOTV......'
Look how well that worked in September....fitalass said:A word of caution for those who have already written off Jim Murphy and 'Scottish Labour'
Indigo said:
As I asked a couple of days agocalum said:The Daily Murphy has an interesting article today, it turns out that Jim Murphy is not a Unionist. I'm not sure how this sudden realisation on his part is going to play with the Scottish Tories he's hoping to attract;
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-labour-leader-jim-murphy-4973610
I sense the hand of McTernan behind this, the new ideology, McMurphyism is starting to take shape.
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/512155/#Comment_512155Indigo said:I was thinking of SNP/SLAB as analogous to LAB/CON in Westminster, they are both nominally staunch supporters of their wing, but both try and sidle into where the votes are. If Murphy gets slaughtered in GE2015 as looks likely, what's the game plan to get some of those voters back, its not going to fly trying to be more left wing than Sturgeon's SNP, he already is the Unionist voice to all intents so not many more votes to be made there. Is there a body of voters that might be summarised as "Well I quite like the look of Murphy and SLAB if they weren't so damn anti-independence".
0 -
Unfortunately we have been listening over the last few weeks which is a tad more relevant and he comes across as having multiple personalities and not sure who or what he is. I look forward to him being on the dole , unfortunately having sucked up millions from the trough I am sure he will be fine, the Labour way.fitalass said:A word of caution for those who have already written off Jim Murphy and 'Scottish Labour' before the GE campaign has even officially kicked off... Murphy is going to get the same wall to wall coverage as Nicola Sturgeon during the official GE campaign, and as with last time, I expect his performance to be just as impressive as it was five years ago. Forget Gordon Brown or Iain Gray, the then two Labour leaders at that time. It was Jim Murphy that led the 'Scottish Labour' GE campaign last time, and he was up against a far more popular Alex Salmond who was still enjoying a bit of a honeymoon period as FM at Holyrood.
Anyone who caught the Jim Murphy/Ruth Davidson team effort on Any Questions just before the Indy Referendum might well remember just what a polished media operator Murphy can be in those interactive panel/audience based debates. Nicola Sturgeon is simple not in the same league, she tends to come across as far too tribal and often ends up simple playing to the faithful SNP base in any audience with trite slogans.Indigo said:
As I asked a couple of days agocalum said:The Daily Murphy has an interesting article today, it turns out that Jim Murphy is not a Unionist. I'm not sure how this sudden realisation on his part is going to play with the Scottish Tories he's hoping to attract;
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-labour-leader-jim-murphy-4973610
I sense the hand of McTernan behind this, the new ideology, McMurphyism is starting to take shape.
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/512155/#Comment_512155Indigo said:I was thinking of SNP/SLAB as analogous to LAB/CON in Westminster, they are both nominally staunch supporters of their wing, but both try and sidle into where the votes are. If Murphy gets slaughtered in GE2015 as looks likely, what's the game plan to get some of those voters back, its not going to fly trying to be more left wing than Sturgeon's SNP, he already is the Unionist voice to all intents so not many more votes to be made there. Is there a body of voters that might be summarised as "Well I quite like the look of Murphy and SLAB if they weren't so damn anti-independence".
0 -
What is interesting is that UKIP voters are even more negative than Labour voters on the state of the NHS. The core of UKIP voters are older and thus more likely to vote. I would also think they are actually using the NHS services a lot more than most.
Could it be that Labour going big on how bad the NHS is kinda of already factored into the polling, but it effect maybe to harden further former Tory, now UKIP voters, from switching back to Tories at the GE?0 -
Massive related contingency alert! I'm not cheering against anyone, mind. Other than (a) in the normal course of business and (b) in the interests of Ed Miliband never being Prime Minister.isam said:If UKIP poll 9%, poll less than the lib Dems and only win Clacton I am in a mess.. so you know what to cheer for!
0 -
The "worm" is simply a instant focus group, the latter of course heavily used by the parties themselves.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. W, overwhelming coverage. We get pre-match waffle, the debates themselves, immediate post-match reaction and then a more prolonged assessment of how it might alter each party's prospects. There's far less analysis of policy and substance, it's style and soundbite instead.
The worm. This is, by a long way, the worst aspect of these tedious debates. The worm is wide open to the mob effect and by any one individual (only a small number get to alter it) who hates/loves a specific individual or party. The worm has a significant impact on audience perceptions, and is vile, indefensible and utterly stupid. It should be axed, but it won't be, because TV nonsense trumps political fairness.
If the debates encourage "overwhelming coverage" then so be it and the higher engagement that goes with it. In the final analysis the punters, including your good self, also have the optimum strike weapon - the off button. You have the choice and so should those of us who support the debates.
0 -
That is not at public expense , unlike Labour and Tories , SNP pay their own way. You do not see SNP getting chucked out/resigning for fiddling. Taxi for Scott he needs to pay his office rentScott_P said:
Is he still being chauffeured round the country?malcolmg said:having sucked up millions from the trough
0 -
At the end of the day, it's the total lack of progress on those (coupled with defence) and the total lack of respect or appreciation he and his team showed me as a Conservative activist that has led to me defecting.Socrates said:
It's not that he's a poor poker player. It's that he's got a terrible hand.Sean_F said:
One can't really blame Cameron for knowing his limitations. If he's a poor debater, it's best to avoid debates.Socrates said:
As Cameron has in the debates.TheScreamingEagles said:
Or perhaps he's realised that the political positives outweigh the negatives.
The reason for that? Because Cameron's record, policies and arguments would be torn to shreds by Farage. Even CCHQ and the Tory cheerleaders in the press agree.
Who would want to defend his "vote me out of office if I don't get immigration down" or his buckling on EU renegotiation or his vandalism of civil liberties?
I could also add failing to lead the case for Conservatism and Conservative principles (rather than just apologising for them) within the country at large, to build a long-term movement. That's led to a continuing extension of the nanny-statery of the Blair/Brown years, and the same tiresome depressing socio-cultural consensus in the public sector.
I'm take it or leave it (meh) on Health, International Development and the Deficit.
But I'm more or less happy with Conservative progress on Education, Pensions, Transport, Science, Jobs, Tax and Welfare.
0 -
The Labour lead of 5 and Tory lead of 6 from Ashcroft/Populus are reassuring facts.Tissue_Price said:
The final paragraph:Tissue_Price said:Interesting 538 piece about US polling. The pollsters end up "herding" around a common value by tweaking their methodologies if they get out of line:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-proof-some-pollsters-are-putting-a-thumb-on-the-scale/
So … what to do about it? If you’ve read this far, you’re undoubtedly highly interested in polling. So my message for fellow polling geeks is as follows: Let’s not give pollsters so much grief the next time they publish what looks to be an “outlier.” Polling data is noisy and polling is becoming more challenging. The occasional or even not-so-occasional result that deviates from the consensus is sometimes a sign the pollster is doing good, honest work and trusting its data. It’s the inliers — the polls that always stay implausibly close to the consensus and always conform to the conventional wisdom about a race — that deserve more scrutiny instead.0 -
Serious point: Nicola Sturgeon has consistently been MORE popular than Mr Salmond as far back as I can remember.fitalass said:A word of caution for those who have already written off Jim Murphy and 'Scottish Labour' before the GE campaign has even officially kicked off... Murphy is going to get the same wall to wall coverage as Nicola Sturgeon during the official GE campaign, and as with last time, I expect his performance to be just as impressive as it was five years ago. Forget Gordon Brown or Iain Gray, the then two Labour leaders at that time. It was Jim Murphy that led the 'Scottish Labour' GE campaign last time, and he was up against a far more popular Alex Salmond who was still enjoying a bit of a honeymoon period as FM at Holyrood.
Anyone who caught the Jim Murphy/Ruth Davidson team effort on Any Questions just before the Indy Referendum might well remember just what a polished media operator Murphy can be in those interactive panel/audience based debates. Nicola Sturgeon is simple not in the same league, she tends to come across as far too tribal and often ends up simple playing to the faithful SNP base in any audience with trite slogans.Indigo said:
As I asked a couple of days agocalum said:The Daily Murphy has an interesting article today, it turns out that Jim Murphy is not a Unionist. I'm not sure how this sudden realisation on his part is going to play with the Scottish Tories he's hoping to attract;
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-labour-leader-jim-murphy-4973610
I sense the hand of McTernan behind this, the new ideology, McMurphyism is starting to take shape.
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/512155/#Comment_512155Indigo said:I was thinking of SNP/SLAB as analogous to LAB/CON in Westminster, they are both nominally staunch supporters of their wing, but both try and sidle into where the votes are. If Murphy gets slaughtered in GE2015 as looks likely, what's the game plan to get some of those voters back, its not going to fly trying to be more left wing than Sturgeon's SNP, he already is the Unionist voice to all intents so not many more votes to be made there. Is there a body of voters that might be summarised as "Well I quite like the look of Murphy and SLAB if they weren't so damn anti-independence".
0 -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11344253/ECJ-ruling-paves-way-for-eurozone-QE.html
Is the Eurozone going to lose some of it's shine for Germany now the ECJ has approved the OMT and potentially more QE in the teeth of heavy opposition from the BundesBank and the German Consitutional Court0 -
It strikes me as very odd that the posters on PB who constantly call named Politicians "Cowards " always hide behind an avatar or false name0
-
Google is your friend malcolm.malcolmg said:
That is not at public expense , unlike Labour and Tories , SNP pay their own way. You do not see SNP getting chucked out/resigning for fiddling. Taxi for Scott he needs to pay his office rentScott_P said:
Is he still being chauffeured round the country?malcolmg said:having sucked up millions from the trough
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10755898/Revealed-The-five-star-suite-Alex-Salmond-enjoyed-at-the-taxpayers-expense.html
http://www.scotlandsaysnaw.com/snpsalmond-expense-financial-scandals/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2569029/Now-Scottish-breakaway-leaders-aide-faces-expenses-probe-calls-resign-using-taxpayers-money-pay-lovers-cheated-wife.html0 -
LOL, great input as ever from you, always good for a laugh.richardDodd said:It strikes me as very odd that the posters on PB who constantly call named Politicians "Cowards " always hide behind an avatar or false name
0 -
But we'll only know that after we know the result of the GE. In your opinion is ICM still likely to be the gold standard, if not then what's your best guess?TheScreamingEagles said:
Depending on the time frame, UKIP are either up or down where they were x months ago.Sean_F said:
UKIP support (like the Lib Dems') spikes after a by-election win, or a good performance in the Euros, but in general, I think it's wishful thinking to say it's on a downward trend. A simple average of this week's polls gives UKIP 15.6%, which is a high figure.CarlottaVance said:
But what about all those Shy UKIP voters we weren't seeing because UKIP wasn't prompted in the first round?TheScreamingEagles said:
The most interesting thing re UKIP polling in the last few months, ComRes and YouGov have started prompting for UKIP and UKIP's share is trending down with those two.Tissue_Price said:
Yes, I know. Peak Kipper was in November too :-) Soon they will be polling less than the Greens.TheScreamingEagles said:
Well this poll was in November, this week's Ashcroft poll has them on 16%.Tissue_Price said:
Peak Kipper!TheScreamingEagles said:The VI in this poll was
Con 29%, Lab 33% LD 7%, UKIP 19%, Greens 6%
The point I was trying to make, for a time Survation were the first/only pollsters that prompted for UKIP.
They had the highest score for UKIP of any pollster.
So some of us were curious about this, would this make Survation the most or least accurate pollsters. (I've discussed this at length with Damian Lyons Lowe of Survation)
So when ComRes and YouGov followed Survation's lead, I've been paying a lot of attention to see what happens, it would appear at best it makes no difference to UKIP's score, at worst it lowers UKIP's share from where it was say in November/December.
Lord Ashcroft has started prompting for UKIP this week, and saw them fall 3% from their last poll share, we need a few more results from him to say definitively.
My prediction for this election, the pollster with the most accurate share for UKIP will be the top pollster in PB's General election league table for accuracy.0 -
*slaps Mr. W about the head and neck with a large haddock*
That's the point!
It's a focus group, which are wide open to mob effect and [perhaps not in the worm's case] experimenter effects, rampantly over-used by the media and presented to the public as an objective and reliable measure of when politicians were performing well or badly, when it isn't.
Higher engagement - what was the impact on voter turnout? I forget if it was negligible or minimal. And engaging voters matters less than objectivity and fairness, which the worm and (on rare occasions) the moderators prevent.
And because the debates dominate so much coverage, if you want to follow the election you have to follow the debates.0 -
You have to admire Dave's chutzpah/balls.0
-
Bit of green cheese there, go get a job with perks and you can go as well. That is what happens when you work hard you get a job with perks.TheWatcher said:
5 star suites for the Ryder Cup - why the battle to hide the truth?malcolmg said:
That is not at public expense , unlike Labour and Tories , SNP pay their own way. You do not see SNP getting chucked out/resigning for fiddling. Taxi for Scott he needs to pay his office rentScott_P said:
Is he still being chauffeured round the country?malcolmg said:having sucked up millions from the trough
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10755898/Revealed-The-five-star-suite-Alex-Salmond-enjoyed-at-the-taxpayers-expense.html
http://www.scotlandsaysnaw.com/snpsalmond-expense-financial-scandals/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2569029/Now-Scottish-breakaway-leaders-aide-faces-expenses-probe-calls-resign-using-taxpayers-money-pay-lovers-cheated-wife.html
Did not realise Tory policy was to make executives give up all perks and stay in hostels and walk to work0
