politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour should be second favourite in Thanet South not a 10-

Pulpstar said:

Yes but we'll have all the pieces on the chessboard

Still doesn't tell us the 'result'

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

1) Labour has NOT ruled out a deal with the SNP. It has ruled out a coalition.

We seem to be facing the hilarious prospect of Labour begging the SNP not to support them!

It's important to understand that there doesn't need to be a deal to support a minority government, there only needs to be the absence of a majority to vote it down. In practice, in a hung parliament where Lab+SNP is over 325, I would expect the SNP to cause as much havoc as possible without actually voting against Labour in a confidence motion, at least for a while.

That's exactly what I expect. Labour should also be lining up support from the Lib Dems in such circumstances, who are likely to prove more reliable allies, even if they are not coalition partners.

In the next Parliament we can divide the parties into three groups: those that have a vested interest in at least a moderately stable government, those who do not care and those that actively want instability.

Wanting stability

Conservatives
Lib Dems
Labour

Indifferent

Greens
DUP (and other northern Irish parties)
Plaid Cymru
Respect

Wanting instability

SNP
UKIP

(This is not to set LibLabCon up as paragons - it's simply that their pitch to the public is as responsible parties of government, and being seen to cause instability would be damaging to their electoral prospects. The other parties are seeking votes on different bases.)

Parties in the third category have no motivation to enter into formal coalitions. Parties in the second category could in theory be incentivised to enter into a formal coalition, but it's not obvious why anyone would offer them one.

So if there is to be a coalition, it will involve the parties in the first category.

Nice avatar, Pulpstar (was never sure what the last one actually was)

TGOHF said:

Neil said:

RobD said:

I see Unite are threatening a toy and pram moment.

It's the Tories that are threatening workers' rights.

Only a minority of the workforce impacted - the rest are getting on with productive activity.

I think you'll find that workers in all areas are impacted by various Tory assaults on their rights.

Neil said:

RobD said:

Neil said:

RobD said:

I see Unite are threatening a toy and pram moment.

It's the Tories that are threatening workers' rights.

This is the requirement to have a 40% vote in order to have a strike?

The proposed requirement is for 40% support for strike action in certain areas. Imagine if we required 40% support before we allowed a political party to govern...

Have two candidates and that is what happens, unless there are more than two options on a strike ballot?

Neil said:

RobD said:

Neil said:

RobD said:

Neil said:

RobD said:

I see Unite are threatening a toy and pram moment.

It's the Tories that are threatening workers' rights.

This is the requirement to have a 40% vote in order to have a strike?

The proposed requirement is for 40% support for strike action in certain areas. Imagine if we required 40% support before we allowed a political party to govern...

Have two candidates and that is what happens, unless there are more than two options on a strike ballot?

No. Many winning candidates would fail to get 40% support from the electorate in even a two horse race.

Oh, the absolute requirement. I see. Well, make voting compulsory!

Scott_P said:

Plato said:

LOL

Liam Kirkaldy @HolyroodLiam
@rafaelbehr Everyone in Scotland is just standing around, taking it in turns to call each other Tories. Except the Tories.

@ScotTories: If you want a pro-UK party who will stand up to the SNP you have to #voteforit http://t.co/RECD9qzwi4

I sincerely hope the Conservatives try to get every last vote they can possibly get in Scotland.

Neil said:

RobD said:

Neil said:

RobD said:

I see Unite are threatening a toy and pram moment.

It's the Tories that are threatening workers' rights.

This is the requirement to have a 40% vote in order to have a strike?

The proposed requirement is for 40% support for strike action in certain areas. Imagine if we required 40% support before we allowed a political party to govern...

That sounds like an excellent idea. Forcing politicians to engage with the disengaged and to form coalitions with a broad base is exactly what we should be doing.

OblitusSumMe said:

Neil said:

RobD said:

Neil said:

RobD said:

I see Unite are threatening a toy and pram moment.

It's the Tories that are threatening workers' rights.

This is the requirement to have a 40% vote in order to have a strike?

The proposed requirement is for 40% support for strike action in certain areas. Imagine if we required 40% support before we allowed a political party to govern...

40% of the electorate would equate to a 61.5% vote share on a 65% turnout. I think the current government fell *just* short.

How about a compromise? Strikes can only take place if they achieve the same level of support as the governing party/parties in terms of share of the electorate? That'd stop crazy situations where strikes go ahead with 10% of members saying yes.

RobD said:

Well, make voting compulsory!

Havent they gone for enough of our rights without attacking our right to sit at home on election day as well?!

Neil said:

RobD said:

Well, make voting compulsory!

Havent they gone for enough of our rights without attacking our right to sit at home on election day as well?!

titter....

Create your own UKIP expense claim

http://www.libdems.org.uk/create-ukip-expense-claim

Neil said:

Nuala said:

Now that Sir Malcolm is stepping down (and I have still not forgiven him) I will be considering the offering of Mr Farage.

What have you not forgiven him for - stepping down or the loose talk that resulted in him stepping down?

Mr Neil, I am distraught at Sir Malcolm's clear lack of judgement in speaking so inopportunely to the undercover reporter. I have always viewed him as a man of utmost integrity and he has shaken me to the quick.

Mr Farage however has shown the utmost probity.

antifrank said:

Following on from this morning's thread, here are the Scottish seats arranged by prices as at today's date:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bygi8eZw-4q1dVo4dE5YRjdtOWs/view?usp=sharing

Given that only 25 seats are priced for the SNP at 1/2 or shorter, there still seems to be value here if (like me) you believe there is a better than two in three chance that the SNP will get more than 25 seats. The Labour seats where the SNP are priced between 1/2 and 2/1 continue to look worthy of close scrutiny.

There are, however, only three Scottish seats where the SNP are priced at longer than 2/1: East Renfrewshire, Berwickshire Roxburgh & Selkirk and Orkney & Shetland.

There are now a huge number of bookies in the Scottish seat markets.

On the evidence of Ashcroft Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale being the same price as Glasgow North East is a bit bonkers. Glasgow North East is next to Renfrewshire East as my "last to go down on the SLab ship" seats even if the SNP storm the rest of the country. DCT is a straight knife edge battle between Con and SNP were every vote counts.

DCT is value in my book and Glasgow NE is a leave alone at that price.

antifrank said:

Neil said:

RobD said:

Neil said:

RobD said:

I see Unite are threatening a toy and pram moment.

It's the Tories that are threatening workers' rights.

This is the requirement to have a 40% vote in order to have a strike?

The proposed requirement is for 40% support for strike action in certain areas. Imagine if we required 40% support before we allowed a political party to govern...

That sounds like an excellent idea. Forcing politicians to engage with the disengaged and to form coalitions with a broad base is exactly what we should be doing.

In post-Soviet Eastern Europe, I recall some countries experimenting with a rule that elections were only valid if a certain proportion of voters turned out - otherwise they had to rerun them. After a few times when this happened, without improving turnout, I think they may have given it up. Perhaps antifrank knows?

Bond_James_Bond said:

A square footage tax would be fairer. £1 a year up to 2,000 feet, £3 2001 to 5000, £5 5001 to 10,000, etc. and with a discount for occupancy levels.

This would enable the overall level to be lower because childless couples overhoused in huge cheap property oop north would pay more than families squashed into tiny expensive houses daan sarf. It would also warn Labour voters that it is entirely possible for the state to come after their houses too.

Does that mean I would be able to negotiate cheaper rent given I have a large family and it would reduce the landlord's tax (or would renters pay)?

isam said:

Conservatives +6.5 available in South Thanet

Even money

Con +6.5k votes, right?

If so, I'll have a nibble

Sean_F said:

taffys said:

You should change your profile picture to that of Ms Cole's tattoo.

The gag is that Ms F-V is anything but a pop strumpet. Her husband's very high profile cheating clearly affected her very deeply, and still does.

Like Congressman Weiner and Brooks Newmark, he was another one who liked sending photos of his private parts to all and sundry, a fetish which I find inexplicable.

Why do they think women will be interested in seeing a middle aged man's private parts? Or, come to think of it, at any age?

NickPalmer said:

antifrank said:

Neil said:

RobD said:

Neil said:

RobD said:

I see Unite are threatening a toy and pram moment.

It's the Tories that are threatening workers' rights.

This is the requirement to have a 40% vote in order to have a strike?

The proposed requirement is for 40% support for strike action in certain areas. Imagine if we required 40% support before we allowed a political party to govern...

That sounds like an excellent idea. Forcing politicians to engage with the disengaged and to form coalitions with a broad base is exactly what we should be doing.

In post-Soviet Eastern Europe, I recall some countries experimenting with a rule that elections were only valid if a certain proportion of voters turned out - otherwise they had to rerun them. After a few times when this happened, without improving turnout, I think they may have given it up. Perhaps antifrank knows?

I haven't heard that before.

If true, the problem with that is that the politicians determined the success or failure of the experiment.

In the business world, if a product fails to sell, the fault is found in the producer or the product rather than the recalcitrant public. Only in politics is it concluded that the fault is with the public if they don't invest in the politicians.

Well this sounds like a happy ship:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/20/labour-disqualifies-130-halifax-party-members-linda-riordan

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

taffys said:

You should change your profile picture to that of Ms Cole's tattoo.

The gag is that Ms F-V is anything but a pop strumpet. Her husband's very high profile cheating clearly affected her very deeply, and still does.

Like Congressman Weiner and Brooks Newmark, he was another one who liked sending photos of his private parts to all and sundry, a fetish which I find inexplicable.

Why do they think women will be interested in seeing a middle aged man's private parts? Or, come to think of it, at any age?

There is (I'm told) a website called Rate My ****, which is dedicated to the female equivalent.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Palmer, is does seem perversely undemocratic to demand people vote.

"It's your choice. Except whether or not you vote, of course. Then the state compels you." It's not really freedom if you're compelled to do it.

I dislike the choice to not bother, but it is a valid choice.

There would be riots in the streets if we were compelled to vote in Police Commissionaire elections.

10/1 is perhaps a bit long for Labour but looking at the breakdown of the Survation poll it seems UKIP have been eating into the Labour vote in Cliftonville and it's the Tory vote in Sandwich that will prove more difficult to win round. I wouldn't say Labour are finished in Kent but in this seat they're not going to poll above 35% and thus for them to win you'd need the mother of all 3 way marginals. Had Sandys stayed on Nigel would be finding life much tougher. I agree that by shaping the campaign as a straight UKIP vs Labour battle it will help the former, the reality is that it will probably be UKIP vs Tory.

Brom said:

10/1 is perhaps a bit long for Labour but looking at the breakdown of the Survation poll it seems UKIP have been eating into the Labour vote in Cliftonville and it's the Tory vote in Sandwich that will prove more difficult to win round. I wouldn't say Labour are finished in Kent but in this seat they're not going to poll above 35% and thus for them to win you'd need the mother of all 3 way marginals. Had Sandys stayed on Nigel would be finding life much tougher. I agree that by shaping the campaign as a straight UKIP vs Labour battle it will help the former, the reality is that it will probably be UKIP vs Tory.

Don't think the winner will need 35%. 30% could be enough if the Greens get 4%, Lib Dems 4% or so and other assorted odds and ends (Murray) 2%.

Election 2015: How close are you to the political centre?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31973051

My score = 5
Your answers place you on the left of the political centre in comparison with the overall population in 2014.

Though the questions were rigged to move me further to the right than I should be.
Bloody biased BBC again!

Nuala said:

Neil said:

Nuala said:

Now that Sir Malcolm is stepping down (and I have still not forgiven him) I will be considering the offering of Mr Farage.

What have you not forgiven him for - stepping down or the loose talk that resulted in him stepping down?

Mr Neil, I am distraught at Sir Malcolm's clear lack of judgement in speaking so inopportunely to the undercover reporter. I have always viewed him as a man of utmost integrity and he has shaken me to the quick.

Mr Farage however has shown the utmost probity.

It is with a deep sense of regret that I notice that the fragrant Ms Nuala has allowed the perfidious activities of the media to wrench Sir Malcie from her enviable bosom and transfer her voluptuous affections to the vulgar arriviste leader of Ukip.

The times they are a changin.

CarlottaVance said:

Much of the book could be summed up as 'why I was right and everyone else was wrong'.

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2015/03/20/review-the-dream-shall-never-die-by-alex-salmond

Is the English version going to be translated as the "The Nightmare Will Never End" ?

RobD said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Neil said:

RobD said:

Neil said:

RobD said:

I see Unite are threatening a toy and pram moment.

It's the Tories that are threatening workers' rights.

This is the requirement to have a 40% vote in order to have a strike?

The proposed requirement is for 40% support for strike action in certain areas. Imagine if we required 40% support before we allowed a political party to govern...

40% of the electorate would equate to a 61.5% vote share on a 65% turnout. I think the current government fell *just* short.

How about a compromise? Strikes can only take place if they achieve the same level of support as the governing party/parties in terms of share of the electorate? That'd stop crazy situations where strikes go ahead with 10% of members saying yes.

How about another compromise.

Driverless Tube Trains.

Pulpstar said:

Brom said:

10/1 is perhaps a bit long for Labour but looking at the breakdown of the Survation poll it seems UKIP have been eating into the Labour vote in Cliftonville and it's the Tory vote in Sandwich that will prove more difficult to win round. I wouldn't say Labour are finished in Kent but in this seat they're not going to poll above 35% and thus for them to win you'd need the mother of all 3 way marginals. Had Sandys stayed on Nigel would be finding life much tougher. I agree that by shaping the campaign as a straight UKIP vs Labour battle it will help the former, the reality is that it will probably be UKIP vs Tory.

Don't think the winner will need 35%. 30% could be enough if the Greens get 4%, Lib Dems 4% or so and other assorted odds and ends (Murray) 2%.

Suppose so! The Lib Dems wont be getting 4% thats for sure! If the election was today Farage has this in the bag, same with Aker in Thurrock, and while I expect the UKIP vote nationally to get squeezed it will be interested to see if it holds up in the marginals.

MattW said:

RobD said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Neil said:

RobD said:

Neil said:

RobD said:

I see Unite are threatening a toy and pram moment.

It's the Tories that are threatening workers' rights.

This is the requirement to have a 40% vote in order to have a strike?

The proposed requirement is for 40% support for strike action in certain areas. Imagine if we required 40% support before we allowed a political party to govern...

40% of the electorate would equate to a 61.5% vote share on a 65% turnout. I think the current government fell *just* short.

How about a compromise? Strikes can only take place if they achieve the same level of support as the governing party/parties in terms of share of the electorate? That'd stop crazy situations where strikes go ahead with 10% of members saying yes.

How about another compromise.

Driverless Tube Trains.

Yep, nothing wrong with automation. And it would free up staff to be on the train itself (i.e. a conductor) or on the platforms.

Brom said:

Pulpstar said:

Brom said:

10/1 is perhaps a bit long for Labour but looking at the breakdown of the Survation poll it seems UKIP have been eating into the Labour vote in Cliftonville and it's the Tory vote in Sandwich that will prove more difficult to win round. I wouldn't say Labour are finished in Kent but in this seat they're not going to poll above 35% and thus for them to win you'd need the mother of all 3 way marginals. Had Sandys stayed on Nigel would be finding life much tougher. I agree that by shaping the campaign as a straight UKIP vs Labour battle it will help the former, the reality is that it will probably be UKIP vs Tory.

Don't think the winner will need 35%. 30% could be enough if the Greens get 4%, Lib Dems 4% or so and other assorted odds and ends (Murray) 2%.

Suppose so! The Lib Dems wont be getting 4% thats for sure! If the election was today Farage has this in the bag, same with Aker in Thurrock, and while I expect the UKIP vote nationally to get squeezed it will be interested to see if it holds up in the marginals.

UKIP on 13.6% so far this week in ELBOW. They haven't been below 14% since August.

Perfect time to Miliband proof investments I think.

I'm looking forward to the definition of a 'Miliband proof investment'

RobD said:

MattW said:

RobD said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Neil said:

RobD said:

Neil said:

RobD said:

I see Unite are threatening a toy and pram moment.

It's the Tories that are threatening workers' rights.

This is the requirement to have a 40% vote in order to have a strike?

The proposed requirement is for 40% support for strike action in certain areas. Imagine if we required 40% support before we allowed a political party to govern...

40% of the electorate would equate to a 61.5% vote share on a 65% turnout. I think the current government fell *just* short.

How about a compromise? Strikes can only take place if they achieve the same level of support as the governing party/parties in terms of share of the electorate? That'd stop crazy situations where strikes go ahead with 10% of members saying yes.

How about another compromise.

Driverless Tube Trains.

Yep, nothing wrong with automation. And it would free up staff to be on the train itself (i.e. a conductor) or on the platforms.

Like on the Docklands Light Rail!

RobD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RobD said:

MattW said:

RobD said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Neil said:

RobD said:

Neil said:

RobD said:

I see Unite are threatening a toy and pram moment.

It's the Tories that are threatening workers' rights.

This is the requirement to have a 40% vote in order to have a strike?

The proposed requirement is for 40% support for strike action in certain areas. Imagine if we required 40% support before we allowed a political party to govern...

40% of the electorate would equate to a 61.5% vote share on a 65% turnout. I think the current government fell *just* short.

How about a compromise? Strikes can only take place if they achieve the same level of support as the governing party/parties in terms of share of the electorate? That'd stop crazy situations where strikes go ahead with 10% of members saying yes.

How about another compromise.

Driverless Tube Trains.

Yep, nothing wrong with automation. And it would free up staff to be on the train itself (i.e. a conductor) or on the platforms.

Like on the Docklands Light Rail!

Did you read that piece on the BBC about the death of the 125s. Makes me very sad just thinking about it.

Yes, those trains are forty years old next year I believe. The prototype driving cars had originally been intended to be just another class of locomotive!

Brom said:

10/1 is perhaps a bit long for Labour but looking at the breakdown of the Survation poll it seems UKIP have been eating into the Labour vote in Cliftonville and it's the Tory vote in Sandwich that will prove more difficult to win round. I wouldn't say Labour are finished in Kent but in this seat they're not going to poll above 35% and thus for them to win you'd need the mother of all 3 way marginals. Had Sandys stayed on Nigel would be finding life much tougher. I agree that by shaping the campaign as a straight UKIP vs Labour battle it will help the former, the reality is that it will probably be UKIP vs Tory.

BROM-I agree the Tory supporters in and around Sandwich is a key battle ground in a UKIP/Tory fight. I suspect how they turnout will be key to either side winning.

I campaigned quite a lot last time in the Newington area-whilst it might be Labour at local Elections it has very strong BNP / UKIP leanings. This area and others like it -such as Cliftonville-are the Labour areas that UKIP need to turnout to win the seat.


Laura is a genuinely nice person BUT she was very pro Europe and a lot of local Tories knew that-Labour knew that and so did Farge which is why I am sure he had been eyeing up Thanet S for so long.
Mackinlay's UKIP past was a key reason he got the nomination.

Pong said:

Pulpstar said:

Smarmeron said:

Election 2015: How close are you to the political centre?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31973051

My score = 5
Your answers place you on the left of the political centre in comparison with the overall population in 2014.

Though the questions were rigged to move me further to the right than I should be.
Bloody biased BBC again!

I got 12 on that. Which puts me in the centre apparently.

9

Tory!

RobD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RobD said:

MattW said:

RobD said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Neil said:

RobD said:

Neil said:

RobD said:

I see Unite are threatening a toy and pram moment.

It's the Tories that are threatening workers' rights.

This is the requirement to have a 40% vote in order to have a strike?

The proposed requirement is for 40% support for strike action in certain areas. Imagine if we required 40% support before we allowed a political party to govern...

40% of the electorate would equate to a 61.5% vote share on a 65% turnout. I think the current government fell *just* short.

How about a compromise? Strikes can only take place if they achieve the same level of support as the governing party/parties in terms of share of the electorate? That'd stop crazy situations where strikes go ahead with 10% of members saying yes.

How about another compromise.

Driverless Tube Trains.

Yep, nothing wrong with automation. And it would free up staff to be on the train itself (i.e. a conductor) or on the platforms.

Like on the Docklands Light Rail!

Did you read that piece on the BBC about the death of the 125s. Makes me very sad just thinking about it.

The 125s killed off the Westerns and Deltics. Good riddance to bad rubbish!

taffys said:

Perfect time to Miliband proof investments I think.

I'm looking forward to the definition of a 'Miliband proof investment'

One with no trading links to the UK?

SandyRentool said:

RobD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RobD said:

MattW said:

RobD said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Neil said:

RobD said:

Neil said:

RobD said:

I see Unite are threatening a toy and pram moment.

It's the Tories that are threatening workers' rights.

This is the requirement to have a 40% vote in order to have a strike?

The proposed requirement is for 40% support for strike action in certain areas. Imagine if we required 40% support before we allowed a political party to govern...

40% of the electorate would equate to a 61.5% vote share on a 65% turnout. I think the current government fell *just* short.

How about a compromise? Strikes can only take place if they achieve the same level of support as the governing party/parties in terms of share of the electorate? That'd stop crazy situations where strikes go ahead with 10% of members saying yes.

How about another compromise.

Driverless Tube Trains.

Yep, nothing wrong with automation. And it would free up staff to be on the train itself (i.e. a conductor) or on the platforms.

Like on the Docklands Light Rail!

Did you read that piece on the BBC about the death of the 125s. Makes me very sad just thinking about it.

The 125s killed off the Westerns and Deltics. Good riddance to bad rubbish!

You just know the next model is going to be even crapper!

O/T I've just done a webinar on Money Laundering, for the Conveyancing Quality Scheme.

Amusingly, I was warned to be especially cautious when taking instructions from politicians and their families (British and foreign) and to consider requiring them to provide enhanced disclosure. Politicians and their families are considered more likely than the population as a whole to be recycling the proceeds of crime through property purchases.

RepublicanTory said:

Brom said:

10/1 is perhaps a bit long for Labour but looking at the breakdown of the Survation poll it seems UKIP have been eating into the Labour vote in Cliftonville and it's the Tory vote in Sandwich that will prove more difficult to win round. I wouldn't say Labour are finished in Kent but in this seat they're not going to poll above 35% and thus for them to win you'd need the mother of all 3 way marginals. Had Sandys stayed on Nigel would be finding life much tougher. I agree that by shaping the campaign as a straight UKIP vs Labour battle it will help the former, the reality is that it will probably be UKIP vs Tory.

BROM-I agree the Tory supporters in and around Sandwich is a key battle ground in a UKIP/Tory fight. I suspect how they turnout will be key to either side winning.

I campaigned quite a lot last time in the Newington area-whilst it might be Labour at local Elections it has very strong BNP / UKIP leanings. This area and others like it -such as Cliftonville-are the Labour areas that UKIP need to turnout to win the seat.


Laura is a genuinely nice person BUT she was very pro Europe and a lot of local Tories knew that-Labour knew that and so did Farge which is why I am sure he had been eyeing up Thanet S for so long.
Mackinlay's UKIP past was a key reason he got the nomination.

Interesting views. My family loosely know Laura and say she is a lovely person, though given your comments perhaps she is more suited to a 'leafier' Conservative seat. I suppose Mackinlay's UKIP past may even out the incumbency factor that the Tories lost through Sandys standing down. I've no doubt this will be a close run thing and nothing will be taken for granted until election night itself. I do however think despite some views on this site that Farage did pick the correct seat and would not have been better off fighting in areas where he would be more of an outsider candidate such as Boston or Great Yarmouth.

I'd be interested to know what the feeling on the ground is in North Thanet and whether UKIP's support spreads into the next constituency which demographically I see as being something of a mirror image.

TheWatcher said:

RobD said:

SandyRentool said:

RobD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RobD said:

MattW said:

RobD said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Neil said:

RobD said:

Neil said:

RobD said:

I see Unite are threatening a toy and pram moment.

It's the Tories that are threatening workers' rights.

This is the requirement to have a 40% vote in order to have a strike?

The proposed requirement is for 40% support for strike action in certain areas. Imagine if we required 40% support before we allowed a political party to govern...

40% of the electorate would equate to a 61.5% vote share on a 65% turnout. I think the current government fell *just* short.

How about a compromise? Strikes can only take place if they achieve the same level of support as the governing party/parties in terms of share of the electorate? That'd stop crazy situations where strikes go ahead with 10% of members saying yes.

How about another compromise.

Driverless Tube Trains.

Yep, nothing wrong with automation. And it would free up staff to be on the train itself (i.e. a conductor) or on the platforms.

Like on the Docklands Light Rail!

Did you read that piece on the BBC about the death of the 125s. Makes me very sad just thinking about it.

The 125s killed off the Westerns and Deltics. Good riddance to bad rubbish!

You just know the next model is going to be even crapper!

Westerns were rubbish.

Diesel hydraulics were never as reliable as diesel electrics

antifrank said:

Well this sounds like a happy ship:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/20/labour-disqualifies-130-halifax-party-members-linda-riordan

"Fifty have appealed against their disqualification, according to a local party source."

Only 50, did the others not realise they had been signed up? :-)

That nice Mr Shapps has just sent me a message (graphical, just in case I don't read proper)

* There are less than 50 days to go until the most important election in a generation...

* We are on the road to recovery but there's still more to do

* Together we can deliver:

- A Britain that lives within its means (reducing the deficit so we can keep investing in vital public services)
- A job for everyone who wants one (backing businesses to keep creating jobs and opportunities)
- A Britain that rewards work (cutting income tax so people keep more of their hard earned money)
- The best start in life for every child (delivery a good primary school place for every child)
- A home of your own (keeping mortgage rates low and extending our help to buy scheme)
- Security in retirement (increasing the state pension and protecting pensioner benefits)

* Don't let Labour wreck the progress we have made as a country

* Let's stick with the plan and secure a better future for you, your family and for Britain


A nicely positive message, with some specific promises. A couple of slightly uncomfortable dog whistles there & I wish they wouldn't keep promising to protection pensioner benefits.

SandyRentool said:

RobD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RobD said:

MattW said:

RobD said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Neil said:

RobD said:

Neil said:

RobD said:

I see Unite are threatening a toy and pram moment.

It's the Tories that are threatening workers' rights.

This is the requirement to have a 40% vote in order to have a strike?

The proposed requirement is for 40% support for strike action in certain areas. Imagine if we required 40% support before we allowed a political party to govern...

40% of the electorate would equate to a 61.5% vote share on a 65% turnout. I think the current government fell *just* short.

How about a compromise? Strikes can only take place if they achieve the same level of support as the governing party/parties in terms of share of the electorate? That'd stop crazy situations where strikes go ahead with 10% of members saying yes.

How about another compromise.

Driverless Tube Trains.

Yep, nothing wrong with automation. And it would free up staff to be on the train itself (i.e. a conductor) or on the platforms.

Like on the Docklands Light Rail!

Did you read that piece on the BBC about the death of the 125s. Makes me very sad just thinking about it.

The 125s killed off the Westerns and Deltics. Good riddance to bad rubbish!

Point of order: the Westerns started to be withdrawn well before the HST reached squadron service, and withdrawal was completed well before all the HSTs were completed. In fact, they were withdrawn because:

a) they did not have electric train heating, and
b) they were a load of non-standard nonsense by copper-topped Swindon idiots who felt the knew best, but didn't.

You are on firmer ground with the magnificent Deltics, but even those thoroughbreds were maintenance nightmares and could only top 100MPH.

The HST 125s are a superlative piece of industrial design and the pinnacle of locomotive design in this country.

(And I'm not just saying that because they were designed in Derby). :-)