politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In first post-debate poll Survation finds LAB 2% ahead and

Evening all

Ishmael_X said:

Chris_A said:

A straw poll. What do people think is the cost of a year's supply on antiretriviral drugs to treat HIV?

At a guess £30,000 to the NHS, but it only costs evil Big Pharma about 87p, and if they are selling it in Africa there's a discounted rate of £5000 picked up by the Gates foundation.

About £5k to the NHS and yes the Indians and South Africans are knocking up generics (under licence) at a fraction of the cost. Many of the drugs are now off patent anyway and many more of the commonly used ones will be in the next 3-5 years.

The Daily Mail seems to have removed the claim about Nicola Sturgeon supporting David Cameron as PM from its website.

MikeK said:

Dirty Politics ‏@HouseOfTraitors 4m4 minutes ago
Labour DIRTY TRICK has come home to roost, as Sturgeon story proved to be false & linked to Labour source.

Why vote for DIRTY LIARS.?

They are stabbing each other.

Source that the source was Labour?

SouthamObserver said:

Danny565 said:

Full quote from the original Telegraph story:

It continues: "The Ambassador....had a truncated meeting with the FM [Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister] (FM running late after a busy Thursday…). Discussion appears to have focused mainly on the political situation, with the FM stating that she wouldn’t want a formal coalition with Labour; that the SNP would almost certainly have a large number of seats... that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material)."

I suppose Sturgeon might have just said that Ed wasn't PM material, and her supposedly wanting Dave to stay PM was just the conjecture of the civil-servant writing the minutes?

Whatever way you look at it there's plenty of wriggle room for Sturgeon and the SNP. They can deny the story to the satisfaction of their supporters and attack the English press. It's actually a bit of a gift for them now.

But it does remain the case that the SNP is praying for a Tory victory as it's the quickest route to IndyRef 2.



Yes, all things told the only possible downside for the SNP is just how quickly things have unravelled for the Telegraph story, meaning perhaps not as many people will have gotten worked up about it in the first place to enjoy the vindication of Sturgeon (or at worst, enough wiggle room to be unharmed by it).

Night all.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Chris_A said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Chris_A said:

A straw poll. What do people think is the cost of a year's supply on antiretriviral drugs to treat HIV?

Depends which antiretrivirals....Are some of them coming off patent soon and about to potentially become very cheap?

That is what I seemed to remember was mentioned when they were talking about the programme they ran for high risk gay men, who were given antiretrivirals upfront to stop the spread of AIDS. The particular one they were given was quite costly, but about to come off patent protection.

The commonest ones prescribed in this country, i.e. Apripla or Truvada +darunavir/ritonavir?

I believe in that study it was Truvada and they talked about it being £400 a month, but I remember the expert saying it comes off patent in the near future and it will be more like £400 a year.

Francis the constituent products of Truvada will be off patent in the next year or two. The combination product will retain its patent for a while longer, but the price will fall. Glad to see that PB.commers are not misled by Farage's lies.

Theuniondivvie said:

If SLab faithful like Hothersall are backtracking...

Duncan Hothersall ‏@dhothersall 16 mins16 minutes ago
So both @NicolaSturgeon & French ambassador have now both categorically denied Telegraph story. Apologies to the FM. Looks like I was duped.

twitte

Yep, Mr twitter must have had a mouth full of sick when tweeting that.

There is no Lib Dem minister in the foreign office.

RobD said:

Tykejohnno said:

Kenny Farquharson @KennyFarq
·
The question now, I suppose, is whether Nicola privately believes a Tory victory would be best for the SNP and the indy cause. #nickileaks

(I think Nicola was responding to this above)


Nicola Sturgeon ✔ @NicolaSturgeon

@KennyFarq no, I don't

Surely that's her public opinion?

Well she would say that, wouldn't she?

Had a look at my Scottish book, equalised profit on Coatsbridge. Going by Electionforecast's model there's have to be a big big swing back to Labour for the rest to move out of profit.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Been out - I hope this little SNP/tory leakage doesn't end up at the door of a Lab person....

OR do I?

https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/584124631633764352

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Been out - I hope this little SNP/tory leakage doesn't end up at the door of a Lab person....

OR do I?

https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/584124631633764352

you can see how it might be a desperate lefty spinners wet-dream can't you?

FrancisUrquhart said:

MikeK said:

Dirty Politics ‏@HouseOfTraitors 4m4 minutes ago
Labour DIRTY TRICK has come home to roost, as Sturgeon story proved to be false & linked to Labour source.

Why vote for DIRTY LIARS.?

They are stabbing each other.

Source that the source was Labour?

Indeed

Again very difficult to believe that even Labour would be that stupid. If discovered it would be utterly catastrophic for Labour and they would know that. Wiser heads would have prevailed I would have hoped.

However Labour do do smears and they did Red Rag and targeted wives off the politicians so they have some proven form in this area.

I think this whole business might have originated in Glasgow. It looks like SLAB's Hail Mary Pass has failed.

surbiton said:

old_labour said:

James Cook ‏@BBCJamesCook 2m2 minutes ago

Spokesman for the French ambassador tells me @NicolaSturgeon did not express a preference for next British prime minister or government.
67 retweets 16 favorites

She would , wouldn't she ? Now that she is in a pickle. Anyway, what was the point of the French telling the Foreign Office ?

FrankBooth said:

United Labour party security services plot? I'm not sure on that one.

Well if you look on twitter, some Nats are reminding everyone, of the dodgy dossier.

If Labour can misuse the Intelligence and Security services over a Casus belli, then they will have no qualms about this

For the record, it ain't a modern day Zinoviev letter.

FrankBooth said:

United Labour party security services plot? I'm not sure on that one.

Agreed - it would be REALLY stupid and/or desperate. Hard to believe they would do this.

But do we think there's a slightest chance that any one person in SLAB could be REALLY stupid and/or that desperate?

Surely not but then I remember some of the geniuses defending their fraudulent expenses on telly as being fine......

Tykejohnno said:

@TheScreamingEagles

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11499197/Gay-marriage-will-be-David-Camerons-enduring-legacy.html

Good story.

It is, I suspect, if Ed becomes PM, people in a few years time will say Cameron's best legacy was the economy.

Nicola SturgeonVerified account
‏@NicolaSturgeon
.@Telegraph don't you think you should update this story with the statements from both myself and the French Ambassador that it's untrue?

There's something quite important to come out of this

https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/584094997890359297

Basically the Telegraph are exposed as no longer even doing BASIC fact checking. For a broadsheet newspaper, that should be fatally damaging. Any view the Telegraph have of themselves as a Newspaper of Record is blown out the water.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

FrankBooth said:

United Labour party security services plot? I'm not sure on that one.

Agreed - it would be REALLY stupid and/or desperate. Hard to believe they would do this.

But do we think there's a slightest chance that any one person in SLAB could be REALLY stupid and/or that desperate?

Surely not but then I remember some of the geniuses defending their fraudulent expenses on telly as being fine......

Can you think of a particularly Hawkish Labour MP, maybe quite a senior one with an important role in Scottish Labour? One that almost certainly has connections at the highest levels of the civil service and security services from years in Cabinet. I can think of one.

Something I didn't expect a bit of class from Labour Hame as they issue apology to Sturgeon. Wont get one from Macmurphy though. I have found some respect for James Cook of the BBC as well, that will be him sacked then.

Chris_A said:

bigjohnowls said:

Chris_A said:

A straw poll. What do people think is the cost of a year's supply on antiretriviral drugs to treat HIV?

i guess £7k based on the always reliable Torygraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9109658/Foreigners-to-be-offered-free-treatment-for-HIV-on-the-NHS.html

Well the Telegraph is quite reliable but that story a few years old. A tad high as most Trusts will obtain them under contract and also supply them via a homecare company to make use of the VAT fiddle. Which just goes to show that Farage is a liar who talks complete bollocks.

Do you support an International Health Service at the expense of first rate healthcare for British citizens?

I was browsing a Trust's FOI requests and their annual bill on translation services would quite comfortably pay for an additional doctor. Just one of many additional costs in running an International Health Service.

The text of that is pretty bad for the Telegraph given their lack of fact checking : -

confessed that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material). I have to admit that I’m not sure that the FM’s tongue would be quite so loose on that kind of thing in a meeting like that, so it might well be a case of something being lost in translation.

If the memo writer says "this bit is probably bullshit" yet the Telegraph go with it, I suspect they are in a lot of trouble both from IPSA and legally.

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Here is the full text of the British Government's account of the French ambassador's meetings at the Scottish Parliament, including her talks with Nicola Sturgeon.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11515276/Revealed-Full-text-of-Nicola-Sturgeon-memo.html

Published a few minutes ago, they are sticking to their guns it would seem.

It is the final paragraph that stuck out for me.

Was it in English or French? Or were the notes made in French, translated from a discussion in English.

I think the lingua Franca was English for the entire conversation.

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Here is the full text of the British Government's account of the French ambassador's meetings at the Scottish Parliament, including her talks with Nicola Sturgeon.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11515276/Revealed-Full-text-of-Nicola-Sturgeon-memo.html

Published a few minutes ago, they are sticking to their guns it would seem.

It is the final paragraph that stuck out for me.

Was it in English or French? Or were the notes made in French, translated from a discussion in English.

I think the lingua Franca was English for the entire conversation.

Gotta feel sorry for the French.

Never. Wash your mouth out with soap and water for saying such a thing.

Dair said:

The text of that is pretty bad for the Telegraph given their lack of fact checking : -

confessed that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material). I have to admit that I’m not sure that the FM’s tongue would be quite so loose on that kind of thing in a meeting like that, so it might well be a case of something being lost in translation.

If the memo writer says "this bit is probably bullshit" yet the Telegraph go with it, I suspect they are in a lot of trouble both from IPSA and legally.

I'm no expert in this. Say these notes were genuine, would it be libelous to report them?

I wouldn't put anything past SLAB tbh.

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Here is the full text of the British Government's account of the French ambassador's meetings at the Scottish Parliament, including her talks with Nicola Sturgeon.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11515276/Revealed-Full-text-of-Nicola-Sturgeon-memo.html

Published a few minutes ago, they are sticking to their guns it would seem.

It is the final paragraph that stuck out for me.

Was it in English or French? Or were the notes made in French, translated from a discussion in English.

I think the lingua Franca was English for the entire conversation.

Gotta feel sorry for the French.

Never. Wash your mouth out with soap and water for saying such a thing.

I've laid off my Coatsbridge bet off the back of this !

Anyway objectively looking at it, that might not be terrible after all.

It's Coatbridge, no s.

Eh_ehm_a_eh said:

Nicola SturgeonVerified account
‏@NicolaSturgeon
.@Telegraph don't you think you should update this story with the statements from both myself and the French Ambassador that it's untrue?

Ouch!

The dead tree press is really struggling with this whole twitter thingy.

RobD said:

Dair said:

The text of that is pretty bad for the Telegraph given their lack of fact checking : -

confessed that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material). I have to admit that I’m not sure that the FM’s tongue would be quite so loose on that kind of thing in a meeting like that, so it might well be a case of something being lost in translation.

If the memo writer says "this bit is probably bullshit" yet the Telegraph go with it, I suspect they are in a lot of trouble both from IPSA and legally.

I'm no expert in this. Say these notes were genuine, would it be libelous to report them?

The Telegraph are reporting a story where they make a claim the FM said something. Not "may have" or "allegedly". But that she said it.

The source document makes it clear that the writer does not believe the FM said it.

That, to me, smells like a libel but IANAL.

Dair said:

RobD said:

Dair said:

The text of that is pretty bad for the Telegraph given their lack of fact checking : -

confessed that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material). I have to admit that I’m not sure that the FM’s tongue would be quite so loose on that kind of thing in a meeting like that, so it might well be a case of something being lost in translation.

If the memo writer says "this bit is probably bullshit" yet the Telegraph go with it, I suspect they are in a lot of trouble both from IPSA and legally.

I'm no expert in this. Say these notes were genuine, would it be libelous to report them?

The Telegraph are reporting a story where they make a claim the FM said something. Not "may have" or "allegedly". But that she said it.

The source document makes it clear that the writer does not believe the FM said it.

That, to me, smells like a libel but IANAL.

No, the document says that she may have may have not said it. That still means she could have done. Where does that put it in terms of libel?

Dair said:

RobD said:

Dair said:

The text of that is pretty bad for the Telegraph given their lack of fact checking : -

confessed that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material). I have to admit that I’m not sure that the FM’s tongue would be quite so loose on that kind of thing in a meeting like that, so it might well be a case of something being lost in translation.

If the memo writer says "this bit is probably bullshit" yet the Telegraph go with it, I suspect they are in a lot of trouble both from IPSA and legally.

I'm no expert in this. Say these notes were genuine, would it be libelous to report them?

The Telegraph are reporting a story where they make a claim the FM said something. Not "may have" or "allegedly". But that she said it.

The source document makes it clear that the writer does not believe the FM said it.

That, to me, smells like a libel but IANAL.

Also, I'm pretty sure putting allegedly doesn't cut it as a libel defence... allegedly.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Pulpstar said:

On another note, I see Sam has been banned. I'm not getting into that, but I need to communicate with him through Vanilla - I assume that's still possible ?

Without going into the fors and againsts, what has he banned for?

He'll still have access to his vanilla account, so he'll see the message, and should be able to reply. Whether he checks or not, is another matter.

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

Dair said:

RobD said:

Dair said:

The text of that is pretty bad for the Telegraph given their lack of fact checking : -

confessed that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material). I have to admit that I’m not sure that the FM’s tongue would be quite so loose on that kind of thing in a meeting like that, so it might well be a case of something being lost in translation.

If the memo writer says "this bit is probably bullshit" yet the Telegraph go with it, I suspect they are in a lot of trouble both from IPSA and legally.

I'm no expert in this. Say these notes were genuine, would it be libelous to report them?

The Telegraph are reporting a story where they make a claim the FM said something. Not "may have" or "allegedly". But that she said it.

The source document makes it clear that the writer does not believe the FM said it.

That, to me, smells like a libel but IANAL.

No, the document says that she may have may have not said it. That still means she could have done. Where does that put it in terms of libel?

If the document is legit and quoted in full, then the telegraph should be ok.

For example it isn't a libellous comment to say "The SNP would probably prefer a Tory government winning in May, as that makes a second Indyref more likely than a Lab Gov in May."

But is it libelous to say "Sturgeon wants the Tories to win" based on the note? I don't think it is given that it is suppose to be a note of record, and the wording at the end does give a large amount of room for it being true, and not being a translation error.

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

Dair said:

RobD said:

Dair said:

The text of that is pretty bad for the Telegraph given their lack of fact checking : -

confessed that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material). I have to admit that I’m not sure that the FM’s tongue would be quite so loose on that kind of thing in a meeting like that, so it might well be a case of something being lost in translation.

If the memo writer says "this bit is probably bullshit" yet the Telegraph go with it, I suspect they are in a lot of trouble both from IPSA and legally.

I'm no expert in this. Say these notes were genuine, would it be libelous to report them?

The Telegraph are reporting a story where they make a claim the FM said something. Not "may have" or "allegedly". But that she said it.

The source document makes it clear that the writer does not believe the FM said it.

That, to me, smells like a libel but IANAL.

No, the document says that she may have may have not said it. That still means she could have done. Where does that put it in terms of libel?

If the document is legit and quoted in full, then the telegraph should be ok.

For example it isn't a libellous comment to say "The SNP would probably prefer a Tory government winning in May, as that makes a second Indyref more likely than a Lab Gov in May."

But is it libelous to say "Sturgeon wants the Tories to win" based on the note? I don't think it is given that it is suppose to be a note of record, and the wording at the end does give a large amount of room for it being true, and not being a translation error.

The coalition have changed the libel laws, one change that should help the Telegraph.

Protection for those publishing material on a matter of public interest where they reasonably believe that it is in the public interest

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25551640

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

Dair said:

RobD said:

Dair said:

The text of that is pretty bad for the Telegraph given their lack of fact checking : -

confessed that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material). I have to admit that I’m not sure that the FM’s tongue would be quite so loose on that kind of thing in a meeting like that, so it might well be a case of something being lost in translation.

If the memo writer says "this bit is probably bullshit" yet the Telegraph go with it, I suspect they are in a lot of trouble both from IPSA and legally.

I'm no expert in this. Say these notes were genuine, would it be libelous to report them?

The Telegraph are reporting a story where they make a claim the FM said something. Not "may have" or "allegedly". But that she said it.

The source document makes it clear that the writer does not believe the FM said it.

That, to me, smells like a libel but IANAL.

No, the document says that she may have may have not said it. That still means she could have done. Where does that put it in terms of libel?

If the document is legit and quoted in full, then the telegraph should be ok.

For example it isn't a libellous comment to say "The SNP would probably prefer a Tory government winning in May, as that makes a second Indyref more likely than a Lab Gov in May."

But is it libelous to say "Sturgeon wants the Tories to win" based on the note? I don't think it is given that it is suppose to be a note of record, and the wording at the end does give a large amount of room for it being true, and not being a translation error.

I think we are reading this differently.

As I read the Telegraph story, they claim that the memo writer CLARIFIED the statement with the French Consul. But the memo does not say this. It does say that the memo writer thinks this may be an error but makes no mention of it being clarified with the Consul.

The Telegraph story is claiming that Sturgeon definitely said it. It is also claiming that the memo writer clarified it to confirm it was definitely said.

The memo backs up neither of these claims.

Ed's government knows best approach again...

Under its plan, any bank or building society that offered such an ISA would be required to invest the money in housing.

This would unlock £5bn to invest in a Future Homes Investment Fund to build 125,000 new homes between 2015 and 2020, according to Mr Miliband, and a Labour government would underwrite the investment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32176740

And what the BBC don't tell you...

Labour appeared to have made its announcement in a hurry, calling the new policy both “Future Homes Fund” and “Future Homes Investment Fund.”

On its press release the party also mistakenly called the new ISA the “First Time Buyer ISA” rather than by its correct name, “Help to Buy ISA”.

Labour’s Treasury team also appeared to be unaware of the details of the policy — initiated by Mr Miliband’s advisers — on Friday night.

Ed Balls is going to have a bit of shock when he wakes up in the morning.

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Pulpstar said:

On another note, I see Sam has been banned. I'm not getting into that, but I need to communicate with him through Vanilla - I assume that's still possible ?

Without going into the fors and againsts, what has he banned for?

Tpvrdyrt smf DyppF od s [idj [p;;dyrt

Missed a few letters there, I think

RobD said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Pulpstar said:

On another note, I see Sam has been banned. I'm not getting into that, but I need to communicate with him through Vanilla - I assume that's still possible ?

Without going into the fors and againsts, what has he banned for?

Tpvrdyrt smf DyppF od s [idj [p;;dyrt

Missed a few letters there, I think

I think it's a quote from the Iran Nuke Deal

It is interesting that Labour appear to be in constant motion with announcements...none of them really any good or that substantial, but every day they have some they want to run with.

The Tories far less active and the Lib Dems basically nothing.

I wonder who has it right?

RobD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Labourites were quick off the mark with their photoshop, almost like they prepared in advance.

http://tinyurl.com/p4udtpg

The Scottish leaders' debate next Tuesday with Murphy & Sturgeon should be 'interesting'.

That would take about 10 minutes for someone to make.

Really? Okay, I want a mock up of 'Jock' Murphy, Colossus Carmichael and a generic hack looking furtive on the steps of the Scottish Office; I'll give you till 02:00 BST.

Chop, chop.

It appears the Hypocrite Hobbit story gets better and better. His service company was setup and administered by an accountancy firm who boasts of their ability to minimize tax bills and it seems his partners story over his bankruptcy / repayment isn't quite as she has made out and of course she uses the same setup as her partner for her earnings.

Just a note on two seats which might turn out to be tighter than the odds suggest and offer risky but viable long-shot opportunities in what are effectively two horse races.

Belfast South

Due to a split unionist vote in 2010 and Sinn Fein not running, the SDLPs Alistair McDonnell strolled in. He may not have such an easy ride this time. He polled 14 000 votes in 2010 but this time round Sinn Fein are running and have put Máirtín Ó Muilleoir out to compete. Máirtín could well outpoll the previous SF standard bearer, Alex Maskey, in the constituency. On paper, the choice of candidate is designed to do damage to the SDLP, Máirtín doesn't frighten the horses so much, has a high profile and the assumption is that this is not a one shot deal, he is there to take McDonnell out one way or another (politically..not old-style republican methods)

The Shinners ground game in this area is notably up this time and it is possible they could eat a very substantial amount into McDonnells vote, beyond what McDonnell gained from their non-presence in 2010.

The split is the potential gap the DUP have been waiting for. Now dominating in what was a fairly strong UUP spot until the 2000s, the man that they usually run with, Jimmy Spratt, isn't in play so they've sent out Jonathan Bell who represents an interesting face. The UUP vote I expect not to stand up but the question is whether Unionists bother at all as Unionist apathy in the constituency has been a been a bit of theme in recent years. If they do decide to turn up then the DUP have a live chance here as I can see them eating further into the UUP share whilst McDonnell has to deal .

What might save McDonnell is a mix of the guilty Prods and Alliance vote. Alliance don't have the high profile candidature of Anna Lo this time and have put frequent South Belfast runner Paula Bradshaw in, a former Ulster Unionist. I'd be surprised if she garners the levels of support of Lo and some of that loss will end up in McDonnell's column. The question is whether its enough to substitute the potential loss to Sinn Fein.

Foyle

Mark Durkan should just see his way home in Foyle but the local election results and stories on the ground suggests he is going to need every last bit of his personal vote and stop Sinn Fein unionist switchers to get home. In both the 2011 Assembly elections and the local Council elections last year Sinn Fein were all over the SDLP like a rash and the gap between the two parties has been falling since 2010. It could well be the Unionist switchers that keep him alive...just...but be had some already in 2010 so he has to find more.

Sinn Fein have been as large as 9/2 for Foyle and its too big. Don't know much about their candidate but he's well embedded up there.

FrancisUrquhart said:

It appears the Hypocrite Hobbit story gets better and better. His service company was setup and administered by an accountancy firm who boasts of their ability to minimize tax bills and it seems his partners story over his bankruptcy / repayment isn't quite as she has made out and of course she uses the same setup as her partner for her earnings.

You forgot a bit

This specific hobbit sends his kid to a private hobbit school across Hobbitville at a cost per annum of one of the rings....

Daily mail still has on website

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3024983/SNP-s-Nicola-Sturgeon-tells-Ed-Miliband-ll-call-shots-now.html

They seriously neede to be Better, more than right and not not only that but so squeaky that when I run by finger around the pages I get that very high pitched whine

Also being , Palmolive, Andrex puppy clean is a help

No doubt they are...perhaps.. Maybe... Ish.