politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Yesterday’s interviews could prove to have been Alex Salmon

TheScreamingEagles said:

The data also shows that Ed Miliband is more unpopular than David Cameron in Scotland. The prime minister’s net personal rating is -33, while the Labour leader’s is -39.

That's just because the Scotch are bigots though, surely. Cameron is a Scotch name = good whereas Miliband isn't = bad. As we have seen here with the comedy posts of malcolm and the late lamented Stewart Dixon and Michael Pork, many nats are just deeply thick and delusional.

Pork is probably still lying pissed in a shop doorway somewhere in Hackney thinking he won.

Indigo said:

JosiasJessop said:

Ashya King:

It's amazing that some people on here think a child can go missing from hospital and the police and authorities not get involved.

They're often the same sort of people who expect the police and authorities to get highly involved in child welfare in other areas that are of rather obsessive interest to them.

(That is not excusing the later arrest warrant; but the parents did deliberately remove the child without telling the hospital, and made it very hard to be contacted by switching off their mobiles. What do people expect the hospital and police to do?)

The parents have no obligation to justify themselves to the hospital in any shape or form, the child was not admitted with any suspected abuse, and there was no evidence to suggest the parents had anything other than the child'd best interests at heart. It is in all respects the nanny state gone mad. We arrest and harass loving parents trying to obtain the best treatment for their children when told by the NHS that the treatment would do no good (when clearly they had advise to the contrary), and yet we ignore hundreds of children being raped and abused in the northern and midland cities - not sure our priorities are quite right here.

That's not the way I read the situation. AFAICR, the child was being treated in hospital and the parents asked to be able to take him around the grounds. He did not return, and the parents were uncontactable.

For instance: might there have been a medical incident, and the child was ill on the grounds? What happens if they had taken him out and there had been a car crash?

After the initial search of the grounds, should the hospital have just ignored it? Or would it be best to try to find them?

Again, I am not defending what happened later; just that the hospital did the correct thing in contacting the police, and the police did the right thing in trying to find the family. But once that happens, and international borders are involved, the situation can easily escalate, just as it did.

(BTW, although it should not need saying, I'm very glad that the child appears to be well).

Ukip commit to 2% defence spending... And there's an interesting emphasis on the public spending cuts

'The money will be found by cutting the overseas aid budget by £9 billion, leaving the European Union, scrapping the High Speed 2 rail project and cutting Scottish public spending.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11489399/Ukip-puts-pressure-on-David-Cameron-with-defence-spending-pledge.html

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

FPT

david_herdson said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

notme said:

I think the fact that *she* could intervene is enough to make a government think twice. Its something a monarch could only get away with once, and i doubt it would happen. What would happen is that in their weekly chats, she would express her displeasure. By all accounts she is extremely intelligent and astute. No PM would be crazy enough to go to the wire with her, there would be compromise, all done entirely in private.

Thirty years ago when I was at Croydon college we had a general studies lecturer who was a liberal councillor in Kingston. We had an interesting discussion one day as to whether she could dissolve parliament to stop a perfidious government in its tracks.

He was of the opinion that she could de jure but only de facto if it was a matter of critical importance that the people - and armed forces who are hers not parliaments - would support. The example he gave was if a government attempted to repeal the representation of the people act to avoid submitting themselves for re election.

Would certainly be interesting if she went all Charles II.

I would agree with that.

Well, almost. Thirty years ago, the better reserve power to use would be to dissolve parliament on her own initiative in that situation. One would assume that the other main parties would oppose the controversial measure and that it was a critical issue in the public's mind. If either wasn't the case, it'd be near-enough impossible to justify an extraordinary use of a reserve power but assuming both were, then it would be better put to the electorate than vetoing outright.

However, now that she doesn't have that power any more, the veto would be the only option.

Didn't realise she had lost that power. Which PM did that to her?

It's a consequence of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, so the current one.

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

That said, if she had the army and people on her side she could regain it pretty sharpish.

De facto, yes. If she had the army and people on her side, she'd still be better off vetoing the bill but doing so would likely lead to an immediate election one way or another as it'd be extremely difficult for a government not to resign after such an action, either in a direct challenge to the crown or in protest at its action.

I'd be amazed if UKIP got half the votes the Tories did in Scotland.

Does ICM have the data tables for this poll ?

Salmond should be taken to task over his false position. Clamining to hold the balance of power whilst only being prepared to deal with one side is farcical. It's not holding the balance of power it's tipping the scales in one direction. If he wants maximum leverage he needs to be prepared to sway one way or the other but he isn't.

david_herdson said:

Financier said:

From LaboutList Today:

" Speaking of tricky situations - Ed Miliband is in Scotland this morning. He'll no doubt be question on the Salmond remarks (jumped on by the right-wing press) that the SNP would try and get concessions to a Labour budget, and back Labour on a vote by vote basis. One things Salmond wants is for HS2 to start in Scotland, but using infrastructure projects as bartering chips seems like the opposite of good government. And it's worth noting - again - that the SNP worked with the Tories from 2007-2011 in the Scottish Parliament, and that between 2005 and 2010, SNP MPs voted with the Tories on 88% of Finance Bills.

I'm not saying they're Tartan Tories - but I am saying that the idea that they won't work with the Tories is fanciful. And Anthony Painter outlined an all too-plausible Tory/SNP deal this weekend. A new ICM poll this morning shows just how far Scottish Labour have fallen, with the SNP still holding a 16 point lead."

There is no chance whatsoever of the SNP propping up the Conservatives in Westminster.

- Sturgeon has explicitly ruled it out.
- It would in a stroke alienate all the culturally anti-Tory voters they've just picked up from Labour.
- It would run counter to all their current policy direction.
- They'd take a load of flack for the austerity measures (they'd get this to an extent from propping up Labour but nothing like as much).

There is all the difference in the world between being a SNP government that does deals with the Tories and being an SNP minority party that does deals with a Tory government.

Worth remembering that the SNP don't care about what happens in Westminster, except insofar as they can gain independence from it. Thus a Tory/SNP deal on the basis of SuperDevoMax and English Votes for English Laws is not massively less credible than a deal with a Labour Party intent on watering down the Vow.

FrankBooth said:

Salmond should be taken to task over his false position. Clamining to hold the balance of power whilst only being prepared to deal with one side is farcical. It's not holding the balance of power it's tipping the scales in one direction. If he wants maximum leverage he needs to be prepared to sway one way or the other but he isn't.

Nats can't countenance ANY deal with the Conservatives having the whip hand though, the Nats are shooting for some of the most left wing areas of the UK. You don't pick up Motherwell and Wishaw by hinting you might do a deal with the Conservatives (See the Lib Dem vote there for details)

rottenborough said:

Slackbladder said:

FrankBooth said:

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The data also shows that Ed Miliband is more unpopular than David Cameron in Scotland. The prime minister’s net personal rating is -33, while the Labour leader’s is -39.

Further analysis for the Guardian suggests that the dire headline figures could be an underestimate of the catastrophe confronting Scottish Labour.

ICM used postcodes to place its 1,002 respondents into individual seats, which were then lumped into four categories – including “Labour heartland” (where the 2010 lead over the SNP exceeded 25 points) and “more marginal Labour”.

Prof John Curtice, of Strathclyde University, Scotland’s pre-eminent psephologist, calculated the post-2010 swing in each class of constituency, and concluded that Scottish Labour could be wiped out in all but two seats.

It is ironic that Scottish Labour MPs have been among those most opposed to PR. Looks like they are going to pay the price, big time.

Another irony of this election, the Lib Dems are going to be saved by FPTP, but they would have got mullered under AV.

PR to save the Union.

It looks like after the next GE it will only be the Tories that oppose it.

Is Miliband in favour of PR? Could he rally his party behind it?

Indeed, Is ther any proof what-so-ever that labour (on a whole) want PR. FPTP still works very very well for them.

Labour would be the big loser without FPTP, they are the only party which can get a majority on 35/sub 35% of the vote.

The biggest winner would be UKIP, as they would easily become king-makers.

Ed M has rule out changing the voting system (for MPs):

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ed-miliband-no-change-voting-5259855

But, I believe I have read in the past that he personally supports PR.

Note thought that this leaves the door open for PR for local elections in a deal with LibDems.

Is that 'personally supports' as in the way he 'personally opposed the Iraq invasion'? He might have muttered it to himself quietly in a toilet cubicle but he didn't let it interfere with his career aspirations?

OblitusSumMe said:

david_herdson said:

Financier said:

From LaboutList Today:

" Speaking of tricky situations - Ed Miliband is in Scotland this morning. He'll no doubt be question on the Salmond remarks (jumped on by the right-wing press) that the SNP would try and get concessions to a Labour budget, and back Labour on a vote by vote basis. One things Salmond wants is for HS2 to start in Scotland, but using infrastructure projects as bartering chips seems like the opposite of good government. And it's worth noting - again - that the SNP worked with the Tories from 2007-2011 in the Scottish Parliament, and that between 2005 and 2010, SNP MPs voted with the Tories on 88% of Finance Bills.

I'm not saying they're Tartan Tories - but I am saying that the idea that they won't work with the Tories is fanciful. And Anthony Painter outlined an all too-plausible Tory/SNP deal this weekend. A new ICM poll this morning shows just how far Scottish Labour have fallen, with the SNP still holding a 16 point lead."

There is no chance whatsoever of the SNP propping up the Conservatives in Westminster.

- Sturgeon has explicitly ruled it out.
- It would in a stroke alienate all the culturally anti-Tory voters they've just picked up from Labour.
- It would run counter to all their current policy direction.
- They'd take a load of flack for the austerity measures (they'd get this to an extent from propping up Labour but nothing like as much).

There is all the difference in the world between being a SNP government that does deals with the Tories and being an SNP minority party that does deals with a Tory government.

Worth remembering that the SNP don't care about what happens in Westminster, except insofar as they can gain independence from it. Thus a Tory/SNP deal on the basis of SuperDevoMax and English Votes for English Laws is not massively less credible than a deal with a Labour Party intent on watering down the Vow.

Not if it costs them power in Holyrood, which it very well might.

I'd also add that the SNP seem to be ratcheting up their campaign to piss off the English, and propping up Ed Miliband while crowing about all the things being thrown north fits into that plan very nicely.

CarlottaVance said:

Labour has been “hijacked” by a north London liberal elite and the public thinks Ed Miliband is more of a “toff” than David Cameron, according to one prominent Labour backbencher.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/exclusive-labour-mp-says-public-think-ed-miliband-aloof-and-more-toff-cameron

This is disappointing. I've been delighted that the wonderful word 'toff', which had once looked to have almost completely dropped out of modern English, has staged a revival thanks to Labour, but now it looks as though my delight might have been premature:

"And what they mean by that is that he’s seen as more aloof. They’d prefer to go for a pint with David Cameron than they would with Ed Miliband, that’s the reality of it.”

I do hope people don't think 'toff' means "someone I wouldn't want to go for a pint with".

View from the doorstep: Ed costing Labour votes.

Ed More of a Toff than Dave

"what they mean by that is that he’s seen as more aloof. They’d prefer to go for a pint with David Cameron than they would with Ed Miliband, that’s the reality of it.”

Scott_P said:

@iainjwatson: Has @Ed_Miliband now confirmed Ed Balls would be next Lab Chancellor? Tells Clydebank audience the two Eds not SNP will write Labour budget

Ed Laurel and Ed Hardy running the country's finances. How could that possibly fail......

david_herdson said:

rottenborough said:

Slackbladder said:

FrankBooth said:

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The data also shows that Ed Miliband is more unpopular than David Cameron in Scotland. The prime minister’s net personal rating is -33, while the Labour leader’s is -39.

Further analysis for the Guardian suggests that the dire headline figures could be an underestimate of the catastrophe confronting Scottish Labour.

ICM used postcodes to place its 1,002 respondents into individual seats, which were then lumped into four categories – including “Labour heartland” (where the 2010 lead over the SNP exceeded 25 points) and “more marginal Labour”.

Prof John Curtice, of Strathclyde University, Scotland’s pre-eminent psephologist, calculated the post-2010 swing in each class of constituency, and concluded that Scottish Labour could be wiped out in all but two seats.

It is ironic that Scottish Labour MPs have been among those most opposed to PR. Looks like they are going to pay the price, big time.

Another irony of this election, the Lib Dems are going to be saved by FPTP, but they would have got mullered under AV.

PR to save the Union.

It looks like after the next GE it will only be the Tories that oppose it.

Is Miliband in favour of PR? Could he rally his party behind it?

Indeed, Is ther any proof what-so-ever that labour (on a whole) want PR. FPTP still works very very well for them.

Labour would be the big loser without FPTP, they are the only party which can get a majority on 35/sub 35% of the vote.

The biggest winner would be UKIP, as they would easily become king-makers.

Ed M has rule out changing the voting system (for MPs):

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ed-miliband-no-change-voting-5259855

But, I believe I have read in the past that he personally supports PR.

Note thought that this leaves the door open for PR for local elections in a deal with LibDems.

Is that 'personally supports' as in the way he 'personally opposed the Iraq invasion'? He might have muttered it to himself quietly in a toilet cubicle but he didn't let it interfere with his career aspirations?

Let's see what's in the manifesto.

MarqueeMark said:

Scott_P said:

@iainjwatson: Has @Ed_Miliband now confirmed Ed Balls would be next Lab Chancellor? Tells Clydebank audience the two Eds not SNP will write Labour budget

Ed Laurel and Ed Hardy running the country's finances. How could that possibly fail......

Couldn`t do any worse than Trust fund boy and his Bullingdon PR frontman,could they?

rottenborough said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

CarlottaVance said:

Labour has been “hijacked” by a north London liberal elite and the public thinks Ed Miliband is more of a “toff” than David Cameron, according to one prominent Labour backbencher.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/exclusive-labour-mp-says-public-think-ed-miliband-aloof-and-more-toff-cameron

This is disappointing. I've been delighted that the wonderful word 'toff', which had once looked to have almost completely dropped out of modern English, has staged a revival thanks to Labour, but now it looks as though my delight might have been premature:

"And what they mean by that is that he’s seen as more aloof. They’d prefer to go for a pint with David Cameron than they would with Ed Miliband, that’s the reality of it.”

I do hope people don't think 'toff' means "someone I wouldn't want to go for a pint with".

I like the way the web URL address for this article uses the word 'exclusive'. I'm not sure it's an exclusive to be told that a Labour MP has found Ed to be a massive problem on the doorstep.

That, and the fact the story is in the Telegraph too...

Three Big Fibs from Milliband in One Speech

One - the biggest party forms the Government. No it doesn't. The administration which commands the House majority forms the Government.

Two - we will end austerity. No you wouldn't. Ball's plan is for public spending cuts.

Three - SNP devo max will cut Scotland's Budget. No it won't. All parties including Labour signed up for the principle of "no detriment" in the Smith Commission.

isam said:

Ukip commit to 2% defence spending... And there's an interesting emphasis on the public spending cuts

'The money will be found by cutting the overseas aid budget by £9 billion, leaving the European Union, scrapping the High Speed 2 rail project and cutting Scottish public spending.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11489399/Ukip-puts-pressure-on-David-Cameron-with-defence-spending-pledge.html

Since leaving the EU completely will cost is billions it will save nothing. Joining the EEA would make little difference, Add to that removing the aid budget completely will ultimately mean spending double on defence since we will have no friends in the world.
The UKIP option shows what a thoroughly nasty lot they are. And thats before they say it would be legal to discriminate against blacks... Pakistanis Indians Chinese Arabs... Aborigines Maories Fijians...

scotslass said:

Three Big Fibs from Milliband in One Speech

One - the biggest party forms the Government. No it doesn't. The administration which commands the House majority forms the Government.

Two - we will end austerity. No you wouldn't. Ball's plan is for public spending cuts.

Three - SNP devo max will cut Scotland's Budget. No it won't. All parties including Labour signed up for the principle of "no detriment" in the Smith Commission.

Lies, lies and more lies. It's all Labour know.

DaemonBarber said:

SMukesh said:

MarqueeMark said:

Scott_P said:

@iainjwatson: Has @Ed_Miliband now confirmed Ed Balls would be next Lab Chancellor? Tells Clydebank audience the two Eds not SNP will write Labour budget

Ed Laurel and Ed Hardy running the country's finances. How could that possibly fail......

Couldn`t do any worse than Trust fund boy and his Bullingdon PR frontman,could they?

Did you miss the budget?

5 years of failures and one big speech to cover them up.Did you miss Miliband`s response?

What would really put the cat among the pigeons is the Conservatives withdrawing their candidate from Gordon. Only the Lib Dems can beat Salmond there (and they're not far off as it stands according to electionforecast as shown below). It might even help the Tories in England by strengthening the "we're the party to keep the SNP out" line they've been pushing in recent weeks.

And let's be clear, Salmond losing in Gordon might not alter the overall number of seats held by the SNP much, but it would be a brutal blow to their momentum. All it will take is a small number of Tory voters backing the Lib Dems:

SNP: 36%
Lib Dem: 30%
Tories: 16%
Labour: 14%

stodge said:

As for Salmond vs Soubry, I've watched the recording and I'm much less convinced about Soubry then all her cheerleaders on here (especially those who seem more interested in preventing the re-election of the former Labour MP). Of course, Salmond was being combative - could you imagine if Nick Clegg had said it before the last GE - and it may well be that a Conservative-SNP deal is more plausible than many suppose but it was a different approach to deal-making and we'll see.

Soubry's faux outrage was fairly repellent - she might complain about Salmond controlling Labour but would she complain if the DUP were the ones helping the Conservatives ? I suspect not and for all her comments about the "failure of Labour", the truth is the Conservatives are the ones who have failed in Scotland.

She's a Marmite candidate - keen Tories really, really like her, as do activists in other parties who enjoy a high-profile puncher (rather as many Tories enjoy Dennis Skinner); less political non-Labour voters tell me unflatteringly that they'll vote for me as the lesser evil (often phrased more bluntly than that). Labour voters just can't wait for a 'Portillo moment' on May 7. But her basic problem is the 17% 2010 LibDems - she's attacked their party relentlessly for 5 years, we are in coalition with them locally, and their late selection is not an accident. I honestly don't see a way past them for her: she needs to avoid more than one seventeenth of them going Labour.

@paulwaugh: One topic on which Ed Miliband is not in favour of whistleblowers: vote-by-vote Lab-SNP speculation. https://t.co/MSmdJMNj2i

DaemonBarber said:

View from the doorstep: Ed costing Labour votes.

Ed More of a Toff than Dave

"what they mean by that is that he’s seen as more aloof. They’d prefer to go for a pint with David Cameron than they would with Ed Miliband, that’s the reality of it.”

DaemonBarber said:

View from the doorstep: Ed costing Labour votes.

Ed More of a Toff than Dave

"what they mean by that is that he’s seen as more aloof. They’d prefer to go for a pint with David Cameron than they would with Ed Miliband, that’s the reality of it.”

This is from the MP who received 20,000 pounds from the Daily Mail and has been censured for not declaring it in time.

As usual, I don't quite see what everyone is getting so worked up about. In essence, you could argue Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander have "written" every Budget since 2010 yet the pro-Conservatives on here continually trumpet the success of the economy.

We will never know what the economic policy of a Conservative majority Government would have been after 2010. Salmond is staking out some ground for the SNP with Labour and it's all part of the dance. The risk, which I'm sure he appreciates, is he will drive English voters to the Conservatives but that doesn't matter to him either.

It may be he calculates five years of Conservtive rule and the Scottish electorate would be clamouring for Independence so in a sense he "wins" both ways - concessions extracted from Labour now or the prospect of an unstoppable pro-Independence tide later.

bigjohnowls said:

Pulpstar said:

scotslass said:

Three Big Fibs from Milliband in One Speech

One - the biggest party forms the Government. No it doesn't. The administration which commands the House majority forms the Government.

Two - we will end austerity. No you wouldn't. Ball's plan is for public spending cuts.

Three - SNP devo max will cut Scotland's Budget. No it won't. All parties including Labour signed up for the principle of "no detriment" in the Smith Commission.

Lies, lies and more lies. It's all Labour know.

No top down NHS reorganisation, no plans to increase VAT, abolish tuition fees

Was that Labour?

Did I claim anything about the Conservatives or the Lib Dems ?

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

isam said:

Michael Heaver (@Michael_Heaver)
23/03/2015 09:22
Roma gipsy girls as young as 12 are being ‘forced to live in arranged marriages in scandal-hit Rotherham’ dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2…

I have my doubts about that. Roma are generally Catholic or Orthodox and would need a priedt to perform the ceremony.

Hindu, but often adopt superficial elements of the dominant religion of the region, be that Islam, Orthodox Christianity or Roman Catholic.

MarqueeMark said:

SMukesh said:

MarqueeMark said:

Scott_P said:

@iainjwatson: Has @Ed_Miliband now confirmed Ed Balls would be next Lab Chancellor? Tells Clydebank audience the two Eds not SNP will write Labour budget

Ed Laurel and Ed Hardy running the country's finances. How could that possibly fail......

Couldn`t do any worse than Trust fund boy and his Bullingdon PR frontman,could they?

Man oh man, you are so rattled aren't you?

Been looking at Labour canvassing returns have you?</blockquo

You have a vivid imagination.

Indigo said:

JosiasJessop said:

Financier said:

JJ - if that had been your child and the hospital could not provide possible better treatment - would you have let your child die in that hospital or searched the world for that possible better treatment that gave a hope of a cure and actively followed up that hope.?

Absolutely. In fact, my parents moved heaven and earth to get me good medical help for the problems I had when a teenager, and although I was not dying, at least I can now walk. And walk. And walk ;-)

But I'm not sure I would remove my child from the hospital without telling anyone what I was doing. It's clear that the trust between Southampton General and the Kings broke down well before this, and as far as I know we do not know the full story of that. It's likely that all parties could - and should - have behaved differently.

I still maintain that, once the parents had removed their child, the search was an understandable and correct course of action that got well out of hand.

The problem I believe is that some hospitals have tried to interfere with a parents right to withdraw their child from treatment by suggesting that this amounts to child abuse. This has been an issue for religious sects that reject medical treatment for a long time, but appears to be spreading into the mainstream. The parents ran the risk that if they told the hospital, that the hospital would tell social services, who, acting on medical advice would trying a get a restraining order, if not permission to treat the child in the teeth of the parents wishes. The alternative is to leave quietly. Heads they lose, tails they lose. In a similar position I would probably have quietly left, but left behind a signed letter discharging the child and absolving the hospital of further responsibility and liability.

Fair comment.

We really cannot be sure what happened in the relationship between the hospital and the family - we have the family's side, but I daresay the hospital is rather tied up wrt patient confidentiality and possible lawsuits. But it is clear it broke down *before* they took their son.

I would like to think that I would get a second or third opinion, including one that said that my proposed course of action was sensible. I'm not medically trained, and although I'm a techie, I'm not sure when it came to cancer or similar I'd be mentally or emotionally able to decide authoritatively on what would be the best course of action *without* medical advice. But try to get as much advice as possible.

logical_song said:

ryangauldforge said:

What would really put the cat among the pigeons is the Conservatives withdrawing their candidate from Gordon. Only the Lib Dems can beat Salmond there (and they're not far off as it stands according to electionforecast as shown below). It might even help the Tories in England by strengthening the "we're the party to keep the SNP out" line they've been pushing in recent weeks.

And let's be clear, Salmond losing in Gordon might not alter the overall number of seats held by the SNP much, but it would be a brutal blow to their momentum. All it will take is a small number of Tory voters backing the Lib Dems:

SNP: 36%
Lib Dem: 30%
Tories: 16%
Labour: 14%

Or Labour. I would have thought that Labour and the Tories would both prefer not to have Mr Salmond in Westminster.

But if Labour stand aside for the Tories, it is a massive own goal because it very publicly reinforces the SNP argument - vote Labour and get a Tory-ruled UK. Another reason against it is why that local activist had to resign for advocating tactical voting - the chart he used (and which has been reproduced on PB) is would end up with more Tory and LD MPs than Labour MPs from the constituencies shown, which could be disastrous on a UK scale as well as falling foul of the first issue.

Edit: Or if Labour stand aside for the LDs, who are currently in coalition with the Tories, I should have rememberedto add.

Dair said:

Is there a site on the web where someone collates the Raw from the various pollsters and applies a standardised (and open) weighting model?

Not sure but 43% with ICM for the Nats looks very very strong to me. The unweighted will almost certainly be higher.

Even with the weight of evidence from the national polls and the much anticipated Lord Ashcroft polls, still many seem to doubt that SLAB and the LibDems are facing extinction in Scotland. This post from Mike is yet another example of political commentators scrabbling around for anything which might give hope to the mainstream parties. The Daily Mail headline is only going to help drive the SNP surge, the press really needs to rethink its strategy, the constant demonizing of the SNP/Scots is counterproductive.

I think the SNP's position is only going to strengthen as we approach May and they will end up with over 50% of the vote. Consider the following factors:

- SLAB are already in meltdown, with recriminations about their impending defeat already setting in. I think they’ll struggle to get 25% of the vote.

- In terms of tactical voting, other than a few diehard Unionist Scottish Tories who might vote Labour, the vast majority of Scottish Tories and SLAB supporters, hate each other more than they hate the SNP. So the SNP are likely to be net beneficiaries of any tactical voting.

- Ed Milliband is so unpopular in Scotland that the more we see of him on the TV screens yet more SLAB support will melt away to the SNP, Greens, UKIP and even the LibDems.

- There are no signs of the LibDems staging any recovery, if Kennedy is at risk no LibDem seat in Scotland is safe.

- The SNP membership surge continues, giving them phenomenal ground resources to deploy in any seat where the mainstream parties have any remaining hopes.

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrankBooth said:

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The data also shows that Ed Miliband is more unpopular than David Cameron in Scotland. The prime minister’s net personal rating is -33, while the Labour leader’s is -39.

Further analysis for the Guardian suggests that the dire headline figures could be an underestimate of the catastrophe confronting Scottish Labour.

ICM used postcodes to place its 1,002 respondents into individual seats, which were then lumped into four categories – including “Labour heartland” (where the 2010 lead over the SNP exceeded 25 points) and “more marginal Labour”.

Prof John Curtice, of Strathclyde University, Scotland’s pre-eminent psephologist, calculated the post-2010 swing in each class of constituency, and concluded that Scottish Labour could be wiped out in all but two seats.

It is ironic that Scottish Labour MPs have been among those most opposed to PR. Looks like they are going to pay the price, big time.

Another irony of this election, the Lib Dems are going to be saved by FPTP, but they would have got mullered under AV.

PR to save the Union.

It looks like after the next GE it will only be the Tories that oppose it.

Is Miliband in favour of PR? Could he rally his party behind it?

He backed AV, so he is in favour of PR.

Single Outcome STV is not PR.

Bond_James_Bond said:

Flightpath said:

isam said:

Ukip commit to 2% defence spending... And there's an interesting emphasis on the public spending cuts

'The money will be found by cutting the overseas aid budget by £9 billion, leaving the European Union, scrapping the High Speed 2 rail project and cutting Scottish public spending.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11489399/Ukip-puts-pressure-on-David-Cameron-with-defence-spending-pledge.html

Since leaving the EU completely will cost is billions it will save nothing. Joining the EEA would make little difference, Add to that removing the aid budget completely will ultimately mean spending double on defence since we will have no friends in the world.
The UKIP option shows what a thoroughly nasty lot they are. And thats before they say it would be legal to discriminate against blacks... Pakistanis Indians Chinese Arabs... Aborigines Maories Fijians...

What baffles me about Farage is that he appears not to grasp the delusional nature of this idea that we can leave the EU and enjoy all the benefits without any of the drawbacks. The quid pro quo for access to the EU is going to be things like signing up to its treaties and accepting free movement of people.

Farage either doesn't get this in which case he's dim; or he does get and is dissembling about it. This is either because a lousy post-EU deal is a price worth paying for his racial purity agenda, or because he is just the operator of the foaming loony franchise in UK politics. As such, he couldn't give a sh1t about any of this, because it's not about policy, it's about maintaining the cascade of expenses and allowances that keep on falling untaxed into his pockets.

The supporters of all this are, charitably, a children's crusade.

Most people who are opposed to EU membership recognise that independence would have pros and cons. We just think that on balance, self-government is preferable to ever closer union.

SMukesh said:

MarqueeMark said:

SMukesh said:

MarqueeMark said:

Scott_P said:

@iainjwatson: Has @Ed_Miliband now confirmed Ed Balls would be next Lab Chancellor? Tells Clydebank audience the two Eds not SNP will write Labour budget

Ed Laurel and Ed Hardy running the country's finances. How could that possibly fail......

Couldn`t do any worse than Trust fund boy and his Bullingdon PR frontman,could they?

You have a vivid imagination.

So no denial then....

Bond_James_Bond said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

CarlottaVance said:

Labour has been “hijacked” by a north London liberal elite and the public thinks Ed Miliband is more of a “toff” than David Cameron, according to one prominent Labour backbencher.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/exclusive-labour-mp-says-public-think-ed-miliband-aloof-and-more-toff-cameron

This is disappointing. I've been delighted that the wonderful word 'toff', which had once looked to have almost completely dropped out of modern English, has staged a revival thanks to Labour, but now it looks as though my delight might have been premature:

"And what they mean by that is that he’s seen as more aloof. They’d prefer to go for a pint with David Cameron than they would with Ed Miliband, that’s the reality of it.”

I do hope people don't think 'toff' means "someone I wouldn't want to go for a pint with".

I used to enjoy Labourese very much indeed. I look back with the nostalgia to the days of union leaders pontificating about their members' "aspirations", as in "the management's offer falls short of our members' aspirations". This was a word that one of them who had once read a book lit on, at which point hey all had to use it because it sounded so much better than "greed".

Another gem was "truculent". This was a Scargill term of abuse - "we have been unable to reach agreement owing to the truculent attitude of the Coal Board". "Truculent" in normal speech means aggressively defiant, but in unionese, it meant any instance of management asserting its right and duty to manage.

Then there was "my executive." When offered anything by management, union leaders would ponderously announce that they would be "referring it my executive", which was meant to sound like a properly convened body of responsible individuals but was of course a mob of oikish fat no-mark yobs like John Prescott, who did whatever the thug-in-chief said.

I was a kid in the 70s and even then I was bewildered as to why we heard so much on TV from this rabble. They all got a vote in the election same as everyone else, so what were they doing in Downing Street all the time?

And the CBI (and in the 1980s, the IoD) -- did you wonder about them too?

Sean_F said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

Flightpath said:

isam said:

Ukip commit to 2% defence spending... And there's an interesting emphasis on the public spending cuts

'The money will be found by cutting the overseas aid budget by £9 billion, leaving the European Union, scrapping the High Speed 2 rail project and cutting Scottish public spending.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11489399/Ukip-puts-pressure-on-David-Cameron-with-defence-spending-pledge.html

Since leaving the EU completely will cost is billions it will save nothing. Joining the EEA would make little difference, Add to that removing the aid budget completely will ultimately mean spending double on defence since we will have no friends in the world.
The UKIP option shows what a thoroughly nasty lot they are. And thats before they say it would be legal to discriminate against blacks... Pakistanis Indians Chinese Arabs... Aborigines Maories Fijians...

What baffles me about Farage is that he appears not to grasp the delusional nature of this idea that we can leave the EU and enjoy all the benefits without any of the drawbacks. The quid pro quo for access to the EU is going to be things like signing up to its treaties and accepting free movement of people.

Farage either doesn't get this in which case he's dim; or he does get and is dissembling about it. This is either because a lousy post-EU deal is a price worth paying for his racial purity agenda, or because he is just the operator of the foaming loony franchise in UK politics. As such, he couldn't give a sh1t about any of this, because it's not about policy, it's about maintaining the cascade of expenses and allowances that keep on falling untaxed into his pockets.

The supporters of all this are, charitably, a children's crusade.

Most people who are opposed to EU membership recognise that independence would have pros and cons. We just think that on balance, self-government is preferable to ever closer union.

So which EU-originating laws would UKIP not have implemented?

Populus slow today.

No doubt the embargoed numbers are out there though.

MarqueeMark said:

SMukesh said:

MarqueeMark said:

SMukesh said:

MarqueeMark said:

Scott_P said:

@iainjwatson: Has @Ed_Miliband now confirmed Ed Balls would be next Lab Chancellor? Tells Clydebank audience the two Eds not SNP will write Labour budget

Ed Laurel and Ed Hardy running the country's finances. How could that possibly fail......

Couldn`t do any worse than Trust fund boy and his Bullingdon PR frontman,could they?

You have a vivid imagination.

So no denial then....

Vivid imagination,nevertheless tends to miss the obvious point.

I'm going to go for a tie with Populus, although it's Gambler's fallacy it feels that on a fundamentally tied race (Or as good as) a tie with Populus (Which indicates a Tory lead of two) is "due"

Bond_James_Bond said:

Sean_F said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

Flightpath said:

isam said:

Ukip commit to 2% defence spending... And there's an interesting emphasis on the public spending cuts

'The money will be found by cutting the overseas aid budget by £9 billion, leaving the European Union, scrapping the High Speed 2 rail project and cutting Scottish public spending.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11489399/Ukip-puts-pressure-on-David-Cameron-with-defence-spending-pledge.html

Since leaving the EU completely will cost is billions it will save nothing. Joining the EEA would make little difference, Add to that removing the aid budget completely will ultimately mean spending double on defence since we will have no friends in the world.
The UKIP option shows what a thoroughly nasty lot they are. And thats before they say it would be legal to discriminate against blacks... Pakistanis Indians Chinese Arabs... Aborigines Maories Fijians...

What baffles me about Farage is that he appears not to grasp the delusional nature of this idea that we can leave the EU and enjoy all the benefits without any of the drawbacks. The quid pro quo for access to the EU is going to be things like signing up to its treaties and accepting free movement of people.

Farage either doesn't get this in which case he's dim; or he does get and is dissembling about it. This is either because a lousy post-EU deal is a price worth paying for his racial purity agenda, or because he is just the operator of the foaming loony franchise in UK politics. As such, he couldn't give a sh1t about any of this, because it's not about policy, it's about maintaining the cascade of expenses and allowances that keep on falling untaxed into his pockets.

The supporters of all this are, charitably, a children's crusade.

Most people who are opposed to EU membership recognise that independence would have pros and cons. We just think that on balance, self-government is preferable to ever closer union.

So which EU-originating laws would UKIP not have implemented?

Now, we're in the realms of alternative history. Had the UK not joined the EU in 1973, we can't be entirely sure how British political life would have turned out.

Outside the EU, the UK would not be part of the CAP, or CFP; it wouldn't be signed up to the Social Chapter. I would hope (but cannot be certain) that it would not have signed up to the EU's environmental agenda. I would hope that it would not agree that Criminal Justice was an EU competence.

Now, it's possible that a UK government might introduce laws that were similar to those that emanate from Bruseels; or it might not. But, either way, the decision would be in the hands of people who were accountable to the British electorate.

richardDodd said:

No one in Europe will be chucked out of anywhere.. it has always been possible to live in a European country...you simply register your presence with the local police station.

But there's an odd inconsistency here. The Kippers claim that there will be zero effect on British citizens wanting to live in continental European countries, whilst simultaneously claiming the the UK will 'have full control of its borders' and be able to decide which EU citizens live here.

These two propositions can't both be true.

Pulpstar said:

Populus slow today.

No doubt the embargoed numbers are out there though.

They don't send out embargoed figures.

Much to my chagrin.

It is a universal release.

Pulpstar said:

Eagles, which party leader is going to be clinging to the top of the toilet before they go tumbling down the stairs come May 7th ?

Natalie Bennett

Theresa May trying to resemble Margaret Thatcher in her appearance.