Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Hallam and Thanet South – the most interesting constituency

SystemSystem Posts: 12,682
edited April 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Hallam and Thanet South – the most interesting constituency fights in generations

All the published Thanet South polls pic.twitter.com/oILe6nAltf

Read the full story here


Comments

  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    first?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,760
    I'm getting sick of getting phone polled.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,760
    But it looks like Dave wants me to vote Tory in Sheffield Hallam

    Looks like Cameron's electoral strategy is going to be Lib Dem delenda est

    David Cameron's plan to 'destroy' the Liberal Democrats

    Interview: The Prime Minister tells the Telegraph that the road to a Conservative victory will run through Nick Clegg's heartlands

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11518408/David-Camerons-plan-to-destroy-the-Liberal-Democrats.html
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,065
    edited April 2015
    Interesting spat between Cameron and Clegg. Clegg has the evidence that Cameron didn't want to bring in the £10,000 tax threshold. He said it in so many words during the 2010 debate. We're also told that the Lib Dems had to fight them to stop them reducing tax for the very richest.

    What I can't understand though is why Clegg thinks it'll do him any good publicising this fact when it reflects so badly on them.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,760
    Roger said:

    Interesting spat between Cameron and Clegg. Clegg has the evidence that Cameron didn't want to bring in the £10,000 tax threshold. He said it in so many words during the 2010 debate. We're also told that the Lib Dems had to fight them reducing tax for the very richest.

    What I can't understand though is why Clegg thinks it'll do him any good publicising this fact when it reflects so badly on them.

    FPT

    Roger, you're going to love the front page of the Nat rag, note the second bullet point

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CB7-b4pWMAErGg8.jpg
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 10,026
    TSE - Cameron wants you to vote Lib Dem in Hallam. He's expressed his fears about Clegg losing his seat.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,376
    Nick will hold on, just.

    Farage will fail, possibly coming third.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,760
    edited April 2015
    DavidL said:

    Nick will hold on, just.

    Farage will fail, possibly coming third.

    Well Farage does have form for coming third in a two horse race.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    FPT:
    MP_SE said:

    antifrank said:

    Will this do Labour's cause good or harm?

    @hendopolis: GUARDIAN: Cameron's EU vote threatens chaos - Blair #tomorrowspaperstoday #BBCPapers http://t.co/3zHBGQbEwC

    Anything Blair puts his name to can only cause harm. He is most probably the most toxic politician since Thatcher.
    However both these 'toxic' politicians managed to win three general elections, and win them with two or more of them with three figure majorities.

    Just think the actual width and depth of support you need to win with over a hundred majority. Cameron and Miliband are fighting over who can possibly scrape enough to be largest party. Each of them would consider 300 to be a breathtaking and resounding endorsement of their policies etc. Lady Thatcher got 397 seats the second time of asking. Blair managed 418 on the first and barely changed the second.

    Toxic my a*se.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    FPT
    SquareRoot said:

    notme said:

    EPG said:

    Freggles said:

    Only hope for Labour now is that the election period and Cameron's overtures to the Kipper wing will send wavering Red Liberals back to Labour rather than Green or non-voting.
    Though a Tory minority government could lead to a more sustainable Labour administration than a narrow Lab victory with the 'help' of the SNP

    Parties.
    This next parliameny.
    Whichever party is in power, they will struggle. The difference is that as with McDoom, Labour spent every possible pound to make it as difficult as possible for an incoming Govt.. A new Labour Govt will do the same.. They have no idea how to be fiscally responsible

    Fortunately for me.. 5 yrs down the line I will have quit the UK forever and will not give a F**k what they do..

    New Zealand is the place to go to...
    They never really got punished for their sheer recklessness nature that they ran the public finances when it became clear they would lose. Any semblance of good government was thrown out of the window.

    There are arguments you can thrown at Brown. His decision to pump up public spending in 2001, which was largely funded by the revenue from the city of london, and to run a sustained deficit right up to the crash.

    The public finances in 2001 were in an incredibly good position. The deficit up until the crash was perfectly sustainable. Brown presented himself as a fiscal conservative, we had a golden rule that spending would be fiscally neutral over the economic cycle.

    All good and well, but he (and everyone else it seemed) believed that boom and bust had ended and we had no real economic cycle anymore, just sustained perpetual economic growth. If that was true, then a small managed deficit was fine.

    He allowed the debt to move from 30% of gdp (it peaked at 43% in 1996 and was dropping considerably from there on) in 2001 to rise to 38% in 2008. A totally unnecessary increase, in a period of mass employment, low unemployment, the economy firing on all cylinders and revenues flowing in like no ones business.

    In 2008, as Ken Clarke has pointed out about budgets in the past, a small deficit in the good times swells out of all control when the economy turns.

    Gordon Browns solution to the crash was to spend spend spend. He turned all the taps on, full. He couldnt flush money through the system quick enough.

    Between 2008 and second quarter of 2010 debt jumped from 38% to 60%. By the fourth quarter of 2011 it was 70% and now sits at about 75%.

    The lesson is of course, once you turn those taps on, it becomes almost impossible to turn them off.

  • Ally_BAlly_B Posts: 185
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I'm getting sick of getting phone polled.

    Well living in Birmingham Ladywood I am expecting this election will pass me by without a canvas or leaflet appearing from anyone.

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,802
    FrankBooth said:

    TSE - Cameron wants you to vote Lib Dem in Hallam. He's expressed his fears about Clegg losing his seat.

    Unsurprisingly. If Clegg goes, the ConDem coalition goes: there'll be no Libs left who could deliver and would want to continue it.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,376
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    DavidL said:

    Nick will hold on, just.

    Farage will fail, possibly coming third.

    Well Farage does have form for coming third in a two horse race.
    Quite And this is a 3 horse race and a close one at that.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,802
    notme said:

    FPT

    SquareRoot said:

    notme said:

    EPG said:

    Freggles said:

    Only hope for Labour now is that the election period and Cameron's overtures to the Kipper wing will send wavering Red Liberals back to Labour rather than Green or non-voting.
    Though a Tory minority government could lead to a more sustainable Labour administration than a narrow Lab victory with the 'help' of the SNP

    Parties.
    This next parliameny.
    Whichever party is in power, they will struggle. The difference is that as with McDoom, Labour spent every possible pound to make it as difficult as possible for an incoming Govt.. A new Labour Govt will do the same.. They have no idea how to be fiscally responsible

    Fortunately for me.. 5 yrs down the line I will have quit the UK forever and will not give a F**k what they do..

    New Zealand is the place to go to...
    They never really got punished for their sheer recklessness nature that they ran the public finances when it became clear they would lose. Any semblance of good government was thrown out of the window.

    There are arguments you can thrown at Brown. His decision to pump up public spending in 2001, which was largely funded by the revenue from the city of london, and to run a sustained deficit right up to the crash.

    The public finances in 2001 were in an incredibly good position. The deficit up until the crash was perfectly sustainable. Brown presented himself as a fiscal conservative, we had a golden rule that spending would be fiscally neutral over the economic cycle.

    All good and well, but he (and everyone else it seemed) believed that boom and bust had ended and we had no real economic cycle anymore, just sustained perpetual economic growth. If that was true, then a small managed deficit was fine.

    He allowed the debt to move from 30% of gdp (it peaked at 43% in 1996 and was dropping considerably from there on) in 2001 to rise to 38% in 2008. A totally unnecessary increase, in a period of mass employment, low unemployment, the economy firing on all cylinders and revenues flowing in like no ones business.

    In 2008, as Ken Clarke has pointed out about budgets in the past, a small deficit in the good times swells out of all control when the economy turns.

    Gordon Browns solution to the crash was to spend spend spend. He turned all the taps on, full. He couldnt flush money through the system quick enough.

    Between 2008 and second quarter of 2010 debt jumped from 38% to 60%. By the fourth quarter of 2011 it was 70% and now sits at about 75%.

    The lesson is of course, once you turn those taps on, it becomes almost impossible to turn them off.

    Amen

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    I thought there was a poll showing Clegg 3% ahead recently. Going by the polls above, he is a goner. The Labour GOTV machine is too slick.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Ally_B said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I'm getting sick of getting phone polled.

    Well living in Birmingham Ladywood I am expecting this election will pass me by without a canvas or leaflet appearing from anyone.

    Thank FPTP for that.

  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Scott_P said:

    Scotland has poorer health outcomes than England (totally devolved remember) so the SNP will spend more English taxpayers' money

    but not on fixing the problem...

    @thetimes: Tomorrow’s front page: Yorkshire teens slip net to Syria http://t.co/cCwP55GGam

    Scotland knows who is to blame for its health outcomes. The Labour Party.

    Health outcomes are long term consequences, you don't change them in 5 years. You don't change them dramatically in less than 20 years. 60 years of Labour policy of "Make poor people poorer, make sick people sicer" takes a lot of work to undo.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Roger said:

    Dair

    "Backlash against Carmichael is gaining traction in Zetland."

    I have seen some odd links to prove points on here but a letter from a reader of the Shetland Gazette to show a 'backlash' against Carmichael wins the Victor Ludorum.

    Dair has finally taken the much coveted 'Party Hack award' from Scot n'pate.

    You're going to love the front page of the Nat rag.

    Looks at the second bullet point

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CB7-b4pWMAErGg8.jpg
    I saw it earlier and I agree, the second bullet point is simply bizarre.

    I have mixed feelings about The National, it's made a good, solid start and has the potential to become a decent paper. But I don't trust The Herald team to avoid the trap of turning the whole thing into a Shortbread Tin instead of a Scottish equivalent of The Mail.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,065
    edited April 2015
    Eagle

    "Roger, you're going to love the front page of the Nat rag, note the second bullet point'

    There's something fascistic about nationalism in any form and like most things fascist it attracts some pretty unattractive people. If that's their rag it's a good insight into Scottish Nationalism but it's not a pretty sight
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,760
    The one thing I will say, all the Sheffield Hallam polls have UKIP far too high, this place is not fertile UKIP territory.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,760
    Ally_B said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I'm getting sick of getting phone polled.

    Well living in Birmingham Ladywood I am expecting this election will pass me by without a canvas or leaflet appearing from anyone.

    Honestly, tell them you're a Tory considering tactically voting for Nick Clegg, and they don't leave you alone.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,908
    I got my polling card this weekend!
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Out of curiosity - what are QI's viewing figures?
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    edited April 2015
    notme said:

    MP_SE said:

    antifrank said:

    Will this do Labour's cause good or harm?

    @hendopolis: GUARDIAN: Cameron's EU vote threatens chaos - Blair #tomorrowspaperstoday #BBCPapers http://t.co/3zHBGQbEwC

    Anything Blair puts his name to can only cause harm. He is most probably the most toxic politician since Thatcher.
    However both these 'toxic' politicians managed to win three general elections, and win them with two or more of them with three figure majorities.

    Just think the actual width and depth of support you need to win with over a hundred majority. Cameron and Miliband are fighting over who can possibly scrape enough to be largest party. Each of them would consider 300 to be a breathtaking and resounding endorsement of their policies etc. Lady Thatcher got 397 seats the second time of asking. Blair managed 418 on the first and barely changed the second.

    Toxic my a*se.
    I believe Blair can be considered toxic now.

    Whilst you may believe Thatcher is not considered toxic, there is a huge amount of hatred for her in northern towns. The sort of hatred bland politicians such a Major have not received.

    Blair is equally toxic. If not more so, as at least Thatcher is generally well liked amongst Tories. If you think he is not toxic then why were Labour candidates up and down the country refusing his donations. There are few politicians alive today who would have their generous donations turned down. Blair may have been popular when in power but he is certainly not popular now.
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    I'm worried for the faithful if nige does not win. It will be like a replay of the Jones town massacre, as they consume the kool aide of despair, realising that the one true god has been overthrown.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    surbiton said:

    I thought there was a poll showing Clegg 3% ahead recently. Going by the polls above, he is a goner. The Labour GOTV machine is too slick.

    It looks like Clegg has closed the gap somewhat from its worst position, so to say he's a goner seems a little bold I think.

    Surely the good thing for him is the Tory vote dropping back and making it a two horse race, encouraging tactical voting to save him rather than being tempted to go for the win themselves. He's got a chance.

    I very much hope he wins. The LDs have a tough and interesting set of decisions to make after the GE, whether they are in a position to decisively help someone else become PM or not, and it would be far too easy on them and Clegg for them to be able to ignore him and his impact in that stage.

    Even though Labour would need to win one more seat elsewhere if Clegg did win, a case could be made it would not be the worst thing in the world for them if he did win, if it helped add to LD paralysis and confusion afterwards (I discount the possibility the LDs would be inclined to go straight back into a coalition with Cameron under Clegg's stewardship even if they had the numbers, which they will not).
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Dair said:

    Scott_P said:

    Scotland has poorer health outcomes than England (totally devolved remember) so the SNP will spend more English taxpayers' money

    but not on fixing the problem...

    @thetimes: Tomorrow’s front page: Yorkshire teens slip net to Syria http://t.co/cCwP55GGam

    Scotland knows who is to blame for its health outcomes. The Labour Party.

    Health outcomes are long term consequences, you don't change them in 5 years. You don't change them dramatically in less than 20 years. 60 years of Labour policy of "Make poor people poorer, make sick people sicer" takes a lot of work to undo.
    No , Scotland is to blame for its health outcomes. Take some responsibility.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,376
    Finally got around to watching Coalition tonight. Rather good with a brilliant portrayal of Mandelson. Cameron did not come across well but you were left with the reminder that him and Clegg holding this together for 5 full years has been bloody miraculous.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,810
    Quick audit on BBC1 news share of coverage tonight:

    Lead story on election - didn't use stopwatch but would estimate 50% Cameron, 40% Balls, 10% Clegg. Reporter sum-up exactly the same. UKIP - not mentioned, not one single second.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Roger said:

    Interesting spat between Cameron and Clegg. Clegg has the evidence that Cameron didn't want to bring in the £10,000 tax threshold. He said it in so many words during the 2010 debate. We're also told that the Lib Dems had to fight them reducing tax for the very richest.

    What I can't understand though is why Clegg thinks it'll do him any good publicising this fact when it reflects so badly on them.

    FPT

    Roger, you're going to love the front page of the Nat rag, note the second bullet point

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CB7-b4pWMAErGg8.jpg
    That's really bizarre. I know I am not the audience for the National, but it just feels like there is a time for wisecracks and it isn't in a headline about righteously demanding the truth after an attempted smear. If it was a more mocking main headline, maybe. Oh well, I'm sure they know what their customers want better than I do.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,879
    saddened said:

    I'm worried for the faithful if nige does not win. It will be like a replay of the Jones town massacre, as they consume the kool aide of despair, realising that the one true god has been overthrown.

    Nah. They'll just go down the pub and grumble into their pint, like they always used to....
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,879
    BTW, was talking to a Tory today about SW Devon. They are fully expecting the LibDems - their challengers last time, with nearly double the votes of Labour in third - to come in fifth this time, behind UKIP, Labour and the Greens....
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    OT Just watching Raiders of the Lost Ark yet again - what a FAB movie. I love Romancing The Stone too = where are ones like this today?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    So...Mullah Omar is still alive apparently?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-32193807
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    edited April 2015
    MP_SE said:

    notme said:

    MP_SE said:

    antifrank said:

    Will this do Labour's cause good or harm?

    @hendopolis: GUARDIAN: Cameron's EU vote threatens chaos - Blair #tomorrowspaperstoday #BBCPapers http://t.co/3zHBGQbEwC

    Anything Blair puts his name to can only cause harm. He is most probably the most toxic politician since Thatcher.
    However both these 'toxic' politicians managed to win three general elections, and win them with two or more of them with three figure majorities.

    Just think the actual width and depth of support you need to win with over a hundred majority. Cameron and Miliband are fighting over who can possibly scrape enough to be largest party. Each of them would consider 300 to be a breathtaking and resounding endorsement of their policies etc. Lady Thatcher got 397 seats the second time of asking. Blair managed 418 on the first and barely changed the second.

    Toxic my a*se.
    I believe Blair can be considered toxic now.

    Whilst you may believe Thatcher is not considered toxic, there is a huge amount of hatred for her in northern towns. The sort of hatred bland politicians such a Major have not received.

    Blair is equally toxic. If not more so, as at least Thatcher is generally well liked amongst Tories. If you think he is not toxic then why were Labour candidates up and down the country refusing his donations. There are few politicians alive today who would have their generous donations turned down. Blair may have been popular when in power but he is certainly not popular now.
    That says more about those candidates. Here is a proposition, if Blair was leading this Labour party right now, against Cameron, he would win a majority. And to counter, if thatcher (assuming she handt actually died, or hadnt actually deteriorated into dementia as she did before she passed awat) was leading the Conservatives right now, she would win a majority against Miliband.

    We all know this is the truth. Both of them were political giants.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    edited April 2015
    MikeL said:

    Quick audit on BBC1 news share of coverage tonight:

    Lead story on election - didn't use stopwatch but would estimate 50% Cameron, 40% Balls, 10% Clegg. Reporter sum-up exactly the same. UKIP - not mentioned, not one single second.

    Don't worry, the anointed Nigel will get some coverage May 8th. After the SNP landslide and Nicola demandingasking Ed to come to Edinburgh for a chat, he'll be one of the compilation of Portillo moments alongside the Alexanders, Clegg, Murphy, Curran and Cable.

    Nigel's 20 seconds could well keep Alistair Carmichael's portillo moment off the main news!

    Farage's desperation was in the papers today. He's begging party workers from every other seat to hit Thanet and help him out.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    notme said:

    FPT

    SquareRoot said:

    notme said:

    EPG said:

    Freggles said:

    Only hope for Labour now is that the election period and Cameron's overtures to the Kipper wing will send wavering Red Liberals back to Labour rather than Green or non-voting.
    Though a Tory minority government could lead to a more sustainable Labour administration than a narrow Lab victory with the 'help' of the SNP

    Parties.
    This next parliameny.
    Whichever party is in power, they will struggle. The difference is that as with McDoom, Labour spent every possible pound to make it as difficult as possible for an incoming Govt.. A new Labour Govt will do the same.. They have no idea how to be fiscally responsible

    Fortunately for me.. 5 yrs down the line I will have quit the UK forever and will not give a F**k what they do..

    New Zealand is the place to go to...
    They never really got punished for their sheer recklessness nature that they ran the public finances when it became clear they would lose. Any semblance of good government was thrown out of the window.
    ...
    The public finances in 2001 were in an incredibly good position. ...
    All good and well, but he (and everyone else it seemed) believed that boom and bust had ended and we had no real economic cycle anymore, just sustained perpetual economic growth. If that was true, then a small managed deficit was fine.
    He allowed the debt to move from 30% of gdp (it peaked at 43% in 1996 and was dropping considerably from there on) in 2001 to rise to 38% in 2008. ...
    In 2008, as Ken Clarke has pointed out about budgets in the past, a small deficit in the good times swells out of all control when the economy turns.
    Gordon Browns solution to the crash was to spend spend spend. ...
    Between 2008 and second quarter of 2010 debt jumped from 38% to 60%. By the fourth quarter of 2011 it was 70% and now sits at about 75%.
    The lesson is of course, once you turn those taps on, it becomes almost impossible to turn them off.

    Yes you make good points. Above all it was spending and not just spending following the crash.
    Brown increased spending between 2000 and 2010 by 50% in real terms.
    http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002073.html
    ''In inflation-adjusted terms, 2013-14 prices, there was a massive increase in total managed expenditure over the 2000-2010 period. Spending in real terms in 2009-10, £737.3bn, was 51% higher than it was in 1999-2000, £488.5bn. ''
    ''The increase in spending in the last 2-3 years was not out of line with its average in the rest of the 2000s. The rise in spending was overwhelmingly deliberate.''
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,939
    notme said:



    They never really got punished for their sheer recklessness nature that they ran the public finances when it became clear they would lose. Any semblance of good government was thrown out of the window.

    There are arguments you can thrown at Brown. His decision to pump up public spending in 2001, which was largely funded by the revenue from the city of london, and to run a sustained deficit right up to the crash.

    The public finances in 2001 were in an incredibly good position. The deficit up until the crash was perfectly sustainable. Brown presented himself as a fiscal conservative, we had a golden rule that spending would be fiscally neutral over the economic cycle.

    All good and well, but he (and everyone else it seemed) believed that boom and bust had ended and we had no real economic cycle anymore, just sustained perpetual economic growth. If that was true, then a small managed deficit was fine.

    He allowed the debt to move from 30% of gdp (it peaked at 43% in 1996 and was dropping considerably from there on) in 2001 to rise to 38% in 2008. A totally unnecessary increase, in a period of mass employment, low unemployment, the economy firing on all cylinders and revenues flowing in like no ones business.

    In 2008, as Ken Clarke has pointed out about budgets in the past, a small deficit in the good times swells out of all control when the economy turns.

    Gordon Browns solution to the crash was to spend spend spend. He turned all the taps on, full. He couldnt flush money through the system quick enough.

    Between 2008 and second quarter of 2010 debt jumped from 38% to 60%. By the fourth quarter of 2011 it was 70% and now sits at about 75%.

    The lesson is of course, once you turn those taps on, it becomes almost impossible to turn them off.

    Quite right. And Blair's biggest failing was allowing Brown to do it. In Blair's defence though very few people spotted the dangers created by his chancellor. He didn't, the Tories didn't, and (for what it's worth) I didn't. For this everyone should hang their heads in shame, and for the unprecedented damage to the United Kingdom that he inflicted Brown should be locked up. Ignorance of economics is no defence for his crimes.

  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    Dair said:

    MikeL said:

    Quick audit on BBC1 news share of coverage tonight:

    Lead story on election - didn't use stopwatch but would estimate 50% Cameron, 40% Balls, 10% Clegg. Reporter sum-up exactly the same. UKIP - not mentioned, not one single second.

    Don't worry, the anointed Nigel will get some coverage May 8th. After the SNP landslide and Nicola demandingasking Ed to come to Edinburgh for a chat, he'll be one of the compilation of Portillo moments alongside the Alexanders, Clegg, Murphy, Curran and Cable.

    Nigel's 20 seconds could well keep Alistair Carmichael's portillo moment off the main news!

    Farage's desperation was in the papers today. He's begging party workers from every other seat to hit Thanet and help him out.
    Jesus, do you get moist as you type this tripe?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Dair said:

    Scott_P said:

    Scotland has poorer health outcomes than England (totally devolved remember) so the SNP will spend more English taxpayers' money

    but not on fixing the problem...

    @thetimes: Tomorrow’s front page: Yorkshire teens slip net to Syria http://t.co/cCwP55GGam

    Scotland knows who is to blame for its health outcomes. The Labour Party.

    Health outcomes are long term consequences, you don't change them in 5 years. You don't change them dramatically in less than 20 years. 60 years of Labour policy of "Make poor people poorer, make sick people sicer" takes a lot of work to undo.
    That is simply not true.

    In 1972 North Karelia had the highest cardiovascular mortality in Finland, which was the highest national cardiovascular mortality in the world.

    The project (see refs 2 and 3) substantially reduced cardiovascular disease within 5 years:

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Karelia

    Why cannot Scotland do the same? It is a lack of will rather than lack of means.
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    notme said:

    MP_SE said:

    notme said:

    MP_SE said:

    antifrank said:

    Will this do Labour's cause good or harm?

    @hendopolis: GUARDIAN: Cameron's EU vote threatens chaos - Blair #tomorrowspaperstoday #BBCPapers http://t.co/3zHBGQbEwC

    Anything Blair puts his name to can only cause harm. He is most probably the most toxic politician since Thatcher.
    However both these 'toxic' politicians managed to win three general elections, and win them with two or more of them with three figure majorities.

    Just think the actual width and depth of support you need to win with over a hundred majority. Cameron and Miliband are fighting over who can possibly scrape enough to be largest party. Each of them would consider 300 to be a breathtaking and resounding endorsement of their policies etc. Lady Thatcher got 397 seats the second time of asking. Blair managed 418 on the first and barely changed the second.

    Toxic my a*se.
    I believe Blair can be considered toxic now.

    Whilst you may believe Thatcher is not considered toxic, there is a huge amount of hatred for her in northern towns. The sort of hatred bland politicians such a Major have not received.

    Blair is equally toxic. If not more so, as at least Thatcher is generally well liked amongst Tories. If you think he is not toxic then why were Labour candidates up and down the country refusing his donations. There are few politicians alive today who would have their generous donations turned down. Blair may have been popular when in power but he is certainly not popular now.
    That says more about those candidates. Here is a proposition, if Blair was leading this Labour party right now, against Cameron, he would win a majority. And to counter, if thatcher (assuming she handt actually died, or hadnt actually deteriorated into dementia as she did before she passed awat) was leading the Conservatives right now, she would win a majority against Miliband.

    We all know this is the truth. Both of them were political giants.
    Letting either Blair or Thatcher near an EU referendum campaign would be fatal. Blair is massively disliked and therefore anything he says is discredited. Thatcher is hated in the north and would therefore boost the case for staying in.

    An EU referendum isn't about winning 35-40% of the vote like at a GE but winning over 50%. In order to do that they would have to obtain support from all political parties.

    I have no doubt that if Thatcher was in charge of the Tories they would walk this GE. But an EU referendum is not the same as a GE.


  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    saddened said:

    Dair said:

    MikeL said:

    Quick audit on BBC1 news share of coverage tonight:

    Lead story on election - didn't use stopwatch but would estimate 50% Cameron, 40% Balls, 10% Clegg. Reporter sum-up exactly the same. UKIP - not mentioned, not one single second.

    Don't worry, the anointed Nigel will get some coverage May 8th. After the SNP landslide and Nicola demandingasking Ed to come to Edinburgh for a chat, he'll be one of the compilation of Portillo moments alongside the Alexanders, Clegg, Murphy, Curran and Cable.

    Nigel's 20 seconds could well keep Alistair Carmichael's portillo moment off the main news!

    Farage's desperation was in the papers today. He's begging party workers from every other seat to hit Thanet and help him out.
    Jesus, do you get moist as you type this tripe?
    It's not politics its religion. Jonestown style.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    saddened said:

    Dair said:

    MikeL said:

    Quick audit on BBC1 news share of coverage tonight:

    Lead story on election - didn't use stopwatch but would estimate 50% Cameron, 40% Balls, 10% Clegg. Reporter sum-up exactly the same. UKIP - not mentioned, not one single second.

    Don't worry, the anointed Nigel will get some coverage May 8th. After the SNP landslide and Nicola demandingasking Ed to come to Edinburgh for a chat, he'll be one of the compilation of Portillo moments alongside the Alexanders, Clegg, Murphy, Curran and Cable.

    Nigel's 20 seconds could well keep Alistair Carmichael's portillo moment off the main news!

    Farage's desperation was in the papers today. He's begging party workers from every other seat to hit Thanet and help him out.
    Jesus, do you get moist as you type this tripe?
    No but it makes me chuckle.

    Kippers were predicting 100 seats not so long ago. Even if it was only the most lunatic fringe going with 100, the rest of the loonies were confident of 50+. There was no evidence to support it - just the opposite - all empirical evidence says even 25% for a new party doesn't result in more than a couple of seats.

    But the Kippers did insist.

    Now we have Farage desperately begging other candidates to send their activists to Thanet. I'm sure Mark Reckless can't wait for his activists to pop over to Thanet for a day or two...
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Omnium said:

    notme said:



    They never really got punished for their sheer recklessness nature that they ran the public finances when it became clear they would lose. Any semblance of good government was thrown out of the window.

    There are arguments you can thrown at Brown. His decision to pump up public spending in 2001, which was largely funded by the revenue from the city of london, and to run a sustained deficit right up to the crash.

    The public finances in 2001 were in an incredibly good position. The deficit up until the crash was perfectly sustainable. Brown presented himself as a fiscal conservative, we had a golden rule that spending would be fiscally neutral over the economic cycle.

    All good and well, but he (and everyone else it seemed) believed that boom and bust had ended and we had no real economic cycle anymore, just sustained perpetual economic growth. If that was true, then a small managed deficit was fine.

    He allowed the debt to move from 30% of gdp (it peaked at 43% in 1996 and was dropping considerably from there on) in 2001 to rise to 38% in 2008. A totally unnecessary increase, in a period of mass employment, low unemployment, the economy firing on all cylinders and revenues flowing in like no ones business.

    In 2008, as Ken Clarke has pointed out about budgets in the past, a small deficit in the good times swells out of all control when the economy turns.

    Gordon Browns solution to the crash was to spend spend spend. He turned all the taps on, full. He couldnt flush money through the system quick enough.

    Between 2008 and second quarter of 2010 debt jumped from 38% to 60%. By the fourth quarter of 2011 it was 70% and now sits at about 75%.

    The lesson is of course, once you turn those taps on, it becomes almost impossible to turn them off.

    Quite right. And Blair's biggest failing was allowing Brown to do it. In Blair's defence though very few people spotted the dangers created by his chancellor. He didn't, the Tories didn't, and (for what it's worth) I didn't. For this everyone should hang their heads in shame, and for the unprecedented damage to the United Kingdom that he inflicted Brown should be locked up. Ignorance of economics is no defence for his crimes.

    I do remember Iain Dale on his blog, before he stopped doing blogging, and then started again, at a time when blogging sounded like a really cool word, made a big fuss about it. Kind of "why is no one bothered about the PSBR?" As we used to call it.

    Just googled the article... Here it is, interesting how a few paragraphs stick in your mind, fairly accurately as well!

    http://iaindale.blogspot.co.uk/2008/02/do-you-know-how-big-psbr-is.html
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,802
    MP_SE said:

    Letting...Thatcher near an EU referendum campaign would be fatal...Thatcher is hated in the north and would therefore boost the case for staying in...I have no doubt that if Thatcher was in charge of the Tories they would walk this GE...

    Um...isn't she, y'know...dead?

  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    notme said:

    Omnium said:

    notme said:



    They never really got punished for their sheer recklessness nature that they ran the public finances when it became clear they would lose. Any semblance of good government was thrown out of the window.

    There are arguments you can thrown at Brown. His decision to pump up public spending in 2001, which was largely funded by the revenue from the city of london, and to run a sustained deficit right up to the crash.

    The public finances in 2001 were in an incredibly good position. The deficit up until the crash was perfectly sustainable. Brown presented himself as a fiscal conservative, we had a golden rule that spending would be fiscally neutral over the economic cycle.

    All good and well, but he (and everyone else it seemed) believed that boom and bust had ended and we had no real economic cycle anymore, just sustained perpetual economic growth. If that was true, then a small managed deficit was fine.

    He allowed the debt to move from 30% of gdp (it peaked at 43% in 1996 and was dropping considerably from there on) in 2001 to rise to 38% in 2008. A totally unnecessary increase, in a period of mass employment, low unemployment, the economy firing on all cylinders and revenues flowing in like no ones business.

    In 2008, as Ken Clarke has pointed out about budgets in the past, a small deficit in the good times swells out of all control when the economy turns.

    Gordon Browns solution to the crash was to spend spend spend. He turned all the taps on, full. He couldnt flush money through the system quick enough.

    Between 2008 and second quarter of 2010 debt jumped from 38% to 60%. By the fourth quarter of 2011 it was 70% and now sits at about 75%.

    The lesson is of course, once you turn those taps on, it becomes almost impossible to turn them off.

    Quite right. And Blair's biggest failing was allowing Brown to do it. In Blair's defence though very few people spotted the dangers created by his chancellor. He didn't, the Tories didn't, and (for what it's worth) I didn't. For this everyone should hang their heads in shame, and for the unprecedented damage to the United Kingdom that he inflicted Brown should be locked up. Ignorance of economics is no defence for his crimes.

    I do remember Iain Dale on his blog, before he stopped doing blogging, and then started again, at a time when blogging sounded like a really cool word, made a big fuss about it. Kind of "why is no one bothered about the PSBR?" As we used to call it.

    Just googled the article... Here it is, interesting how a few paragraphs stick in your mind, fairly accurately as well!

    http://iaindale.blogspot.co.uk/2008/02/do-you-know-how-big-psbr-is.html
    Oh my...... I am a modern day sage... The post by the person 'Gman', is actually me!!! LMAO!
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Dair said:

    Scott_P said:

    Scotland has poorer health outcomes than England (totally devolved remember) so the SNP will spend more English taxpayers' money

    but not on fixing the problem...

    @thetimes: Tomorrow’s front page: Yorkshire teens slip net to Syria http://t.co/cCwP55GGam

    Scotland knows who is to blame for its health outcomes. The Labour Party.

    Health outcomes are long term consequences, you don't change them in 5 years. You don't change them dramatically in less than 20 years. 60 years of Labour policy of "Make poor people poorer, make sick people sicer" takes a lot of work to undo.
    That is simply not true.

    In 1972 North Karelia had the highest cardiovascular mortality in Finland, which was the highest national cardiovascular mortality in the world.

    The project (see refs 2 and 3) substantially reduced cardiovascular disease within 5 years:

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Karelia

    Why cannot Scotland do the same? It is a lack of will rather than lack of means.
    Over the last decade the number of new cases of CHD in Scotland has decreased by over 27 per cent and mortality rates for CHD have fallen steadily.

    http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Health/Services/Long-Term-Conditions/Heart-Disease

    Scott P's typically anti-Scottish rant was based on comparative rates (outcomes) not improvements. Outcomes will remain outside the UK norm for a long time to come no matter how much progress the Scottish Government make.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Dair said:

    MikeL said:

    Quick audit on BBC1 news share of coverage tonight:

    Lead story on election - didn't use stopwatch but would estimate 50% Cameron, 40% Balls, 10% Clegg. Reporter sum-up exactly the same. UKIP - not mentioned, not one single second.

    Don't worry, the anointed Nigel will get some coverage May 8th. After the SNP landslide and Nicola demandingasking Ed to come to Edinburgh for a chat, he'll be one of the compilation of Portillo moments alongside the Alexanders, Clegg, Murphy, Curran and Cable.

    Nigel's 20 seconds could well keep Alistair Carmichael's portillo moment off the main news!

    Farage's desperation was in the papers today. He's begging party workers from every other seat to hit Thanet and help him out.
    He may win he may not. But the effort of trying looks like taking its toll
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/nigel-farage-asks-ukip-followers-for-personal-favour-of-one-or-two-days-support-in-south-thanet-after-poll-shows-he-may-lose-seat-10158336.html
    And not just on his fashion sense.
    There are times I think he takes his Arthur Daley impersonation a bit too far.
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    viewcode said:

    MP_SE said:

    Letting...Thatcher near an EU referendum campaign would be fatal...Thatcher is hated in the north and would therefore boost the case for staying in...I have no doubt that if Thatcher was in charge of the Tories they would walk this GE...

    Um...isn't she, y'know...dead?

    The discussion was on their relative successes should they be alive.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Tonights thread is dead.

    It should be about Cammo's call for Kippers to swim home to his lair.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11518250/David-Cameron-tells-Ukip-voters-its-time-to-come-home.html

    David Cameron tells Ukip voters - it's time to come home
    I have heard the message of frustrated Tories loud and clear, says Cameron

    Yep, he wants all those fruitcakes, racists and homophobes, to come home to the tories, say all is forgiven, if only they give him their vote.

    No chance of that. More tories are leaving that party and coming over to UKIP or not voting at all in disgust.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,802
    MP_SE said:

    viewcode said:

    MP_SE said:

    Letting...Thatcher near an EU referendum campaign would be fatal...Thatcher is hated in the north and would therefore boost the case for staying in...I have no doubt that if Thatcher was in charge of the Tories they would walk this GE...

    Um...isn't she, y'know...dead?

    The discussion was on their relative successes should they be alive.
    Facepalm.

  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    notme said:


    Oh my...... I am a modern day sage... The post by the person 'Gman', is actually me!!! LMAO!

    In fairness it didn't turn to £150bn "quite easily" it took a ridiculous amount of incompetence and even actual effort to make it so bad.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Dair said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Dair said:

    Scott_P said:

    Scotland has poorer health outcomes than England (totally devolved remember) so the SNP will spend more English taxpayers' money

    but not on fixing the problem...

    @thetimes: Tomorrow’s front page: Yorkshire teens slip net to Syria http://t.co/cCwP55GGam

    Scotland knows who is to blame for its health outcomes. The Labour Party.

    Health outcomes are long term consequences, you don't change them in 5 years. You don't change them dramatically in less than 20 years. 60 years of Labour policy of "Make poor people poorer, make sick people sicer" takes a lot of work to undo.
    That is simply not true.

    In 1972 North Karelia had the highest cardiovascular mortality in Finland, which was the highest national cardiovascular mortality in the world.

    The project (see refs 2 and 3) substantially reduced cardiovascular disease within 5 years:

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Karelia

    Why cannot Scotland do the same? It is a lack of will rather than lack of means.
    Over the last decade the number of new cases of CHD in Scotland has decreased by over 27 per cent and mortality rates for CHD have fallen steadily.

    http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Health/Services/Long-Term-Conditions/Heart-Disease

    Scott P's typically anti-Scottish rant was based on comparative rates (outcomes) not improvements. Outcomes will remain outside the UK norm for a long time to come no matter how much progress the Scottish Government make.
    Weren't Labour in power for 5 years and the Cons for 5 ? Who are you giving the credit to ?
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Dair said:

    notme said:


    Oh my...... I am a modern day sage... The post by the person 'Gman', is actually me!!! LMAO!

    In fairness it didn't turn to £150bn "quite easily" it took a ridiculous amount of incompetence and even actual effort to make it so bad.
    chuckle!!!!!
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    MikeK said:

    Tonights thread is dead.

    It should be about Cammo's call for Kippers to swim home to his lair.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11518250/David-Cameron-tells-Ukip-voters-its-time-to-come-home.html

    David Cameron tells Ukip voters - it's time to come home
    I have heard the message of frustrated Tories loud and clear, says Cameron

    Yep, he wants all those fruitcakes, racists and homophobes, to come home to the tories, say all is forgiven, if only they give him their vote.

    No chance of that. More tories are leaving that party and coming over to UKIP or not voting at all in disgust.

    Personally, I'd rather see labour in power than rely on the likes of you supporting the conservative party. I find your obsession with Islam to be obnoxious.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,100
    edited April 2015
    MarqueeMark said:

    BTW, was talking to a Tory today about SW Devon. They are fully expecting the LibDems - their challengers last time, with nearly double the votes of Labour in third - to come in fifth this time, behind UKIP, Labour and the Greens....

    This will be the case too in Truro and Falmouth, the 16-1 on UKIP is far more correct than the 7-2 on the Lib Dems, but the 1-4 is just printing money. Conservative incumbency vs Lib Dems = No contest. Except Watford.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    TGOHF said:

    Dair said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Dair said:

    Scott_P said:

    Scotland has poorer health outcomes than England (totally devolved remember) so the SNP will spend more English taxpayers' money

    but not on fixing the problem...

    @thetimes: Tomorrow’s front page: Yorkshire teens slip net to Syria http://t.co/cCwP55GGam

    Scotland knows who is to blame for its health outcomes. The Labour Party.

    Health outcomes are long term consequences, you don't change them in 5 years. You don't change them dramatically in less than 20 years. 60 years of Labour policy of "Make poor people poorer, make sick people sicer" takes a lot of work to undo.
    That is simply not true.

    In 1972 North Karelia had the highest cardiovascular mortality in Finland, which was the highest national cardiovascular mortality in the world.

    The project (see refs 2 and 3) substantially reduced cardiovascular disease within 5 years:

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Karelia

    Why cannot Scotland do the same? It is a lack of will rather than lack of means.
    Over the last decade the number of new cases of CHD in Scotland has decreased by over 27 per cent and mortality rates for CHD have fallen steadily.

    http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Health/Services/Long-Term-Conditions/Heart-Disease

    Scott P's typically anti-Scottish rant was based on comparative rates (outcomes) not improvements. Outcomes will remain outside the UK norm for a long time to come no matter how much progress the Scottish Government make.
    Weren't Labour in power for 5 years and the Cons for 5 ? Who are you giving the credit to ?
    Of the Last 10 years, Lab/Lib coalition were in place the first two years and SNP in place since then. I'll use a phrase we'll be seeing a lot of soon - SNP Gain.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited April 2015
    Dair said:

    TGOHF said:

    Dair said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Dair said:

    Scott_P said:

    Scotland has poorer health outcomes than England (totally devolved remember) so the SNP will spend more English taxpayers' money

    but not on fixing the problem...

    @thetimes: Tomorrow’s front page: Yorkshire teens slip net to Syria http://t.co/cCwP55GGam

    Scotland knows who is to blame for its health outcomes. The Labour Party.

    Health outcomes are long term consequences, you don't change them in 5 years. You don't change them dramatically in less than 20 years. 60 years of Labour policy of "Make poor people poorer, make sick people sicer" takes a lot of work to undo.
    That is simply not true.

    In 1972 North Karelia had the highest cardiovascular mortality in Finland, which was the highest national cardiovascular mortality in the world.

    The project (see refs 2 and 3) substantially reduced cardiovascular disease within 5 years:

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Karelia

    Why cannot Scotland do the same? It is a lack of will rather than lack of means.
    Over the last decade the number of new cases of CHD in Scotland has decreased by over 27 per cent and mortality rates for CHD have fallen steadily.

    http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Health/Services/Long-Term-Conditions/Heart-Disease

    Scott P's typically anti-Scottish rant was based on comparative rates (outcomes) not improvements. Outcomes will remain outside the UK norm for a long time to come no matter how much progress the Scottish Government make.
    Weren't Labour in power for 5 years and the Cons for 5 ? Who are you giving the credit to ?
    Of the Last 10 years, Lab/Lib coalition were in place the first two years and SNP in place since then. I'll use a phrase we'll be seeing a lot of soon - SNP Gain.
    Haven't we had enough of the SNP cult for tonight?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNOSm9wvf5o
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    edited April 2015
    Dair said:

    TGOHF said:

    Dair said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Dair said:

    Scott_P said:

    Scotland has poorer health outcomes than England (totally devolved remember) so the SNP will spend more English taxpayers' money

    but not on fixing the problem...

    @thetimes: Tomorrow’s front page: Yorkshire teens slip net to Syria http://t.co/cCwP55GGam

    Scotland knows who is to blame for its health outcomes. The Labour Party.

    Health outcomes are long term consequences, you don't change them in 5 years. You don't change them dramatically in less than 20 years. 60 years of Labour policy of "Make poor people poorer, make sick people sicer" takes a lot of work to undo.
    That is simply not true.

    In 1972 North Karelia had the highest cardiovascular mortality in Finland, which was the highest national cardiovascular mortality in the world.

    The project (see refs 2 and 3) substantially reduced cardiovascular disease within 5 years:

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Karelia

    Why cannot Scotland do the same? It is a lack of will rather than lack of means.
    Over the last decade the number of new cases of CHD in Scotland has decreased by over 27 per cent and mortality rates for CHD have fallen steadily.

    http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Health/Services/Long-Term-Conditions/Heart-Disease

    Scott P's typically anti-Scottish rant was based on comparative rates (outcomes) not improvements. Outcomes will remain outside the UK norm for a long time to come no matter how much progress the Scottish Government make.
    Weren't Labour in power for 5 years and the Cons for 5 ? Who are you giving the credit to ?
    Of the Last 10 years, Lab/Lib coalition were in place the first two years and SNP in place since then. I'll use a phrase we'll be seeing a lot of soon - SNP Gain.
    There was an interesting article re what we were discussing the other night about how Labour must know with great detail (in some areas) how bad it is in Scotland. Theyll know which seats are going to go... The difficulty will be at which point to draw the line in the sand and fight. You get it wrong and you spend resources on seats you were never going to keep and miss out on the ones that get snipped by less than 500.

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e804dfd2-d9e6-11e4-ab32-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3WZX0UPlZ
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    Anyone thinking of backing Labour to beat Greg Mulholland in Leeds NW should note that the local Labour party have had to pay £ 2,000 in legal costs and issue a leaflet apologising for publishing false information about the Lib Dem MP in a previous election leaflet ,
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited April 2015
    @JohnLilburne OT you mentioned liking rock - is anything better than Lynyrd's Gimme Three Steps? It's so funny and believable.

    http//:youtube.com/watch?v=SM3jgkChV6M
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited April 2015
    MarkSenior said:

    Anyone thinking of backing Labour to beat Greg Mulholland in Leeds NW should note that the local Labour party have had to pay £ 2,000 in legal costs and issue a leaflet apologising for publishing false information about the Lib Dem MP in a previous election leaflet ,

    Is that news as old as the last election?
    They only need to publish one statistic on the Labour leaflets this time, his voting record is 92% coalition.

    http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?id=uk.org.publicwhip/member/40356&showall=yes#divisions

    Goodnight.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Dair said:

    saddened said:

    Dair said:

    MikeL said:

    Quick audit on BBC1 news share of coverage tonight:

    Lead story on election - didn't use stopwatch but would estimate 50% Cameron, 40% Balls, 10% Clegg. Reporter sum-up exactly the same. UKIP - not mentioned, not one single second.

    Don't worry, the anointed Nigel will get some coverage May 8th. After the SNP landslide and Nicola demandingasking Ed to come to Edinburgh for a chat, he'll be one of the compilation of Portillo moments alongside the Alexanders, Clegg, Murphy, Curran and Cable.

    Nigel's 20 seconds could well keep Alistair Carmichael's portillo moment off the main news!

    Farage's desperation was in the papers today. He's begging party workers from every other seat to hit Thanet and help him out.
    Jesus, do you get moist as you type this tripe?
    all empirical evidence says even 25% for a new party doesn't result in more than a couple of seats.
    What empirical evidence is that? Typing numbers into Electoral Calculus and seeing what comes out?

    Slugger O'Toole made a prediction model for Westminster wins based on local election results. It suggested 38 UKIP MPs.

    http://sluggerotoole.com/2015/01/24/forecasting-the-2015-uk-general-election/
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    edited April 2015
    anotherDave said:

    Dair said:

    saddened said:

    Dair said:

    MikeL said:

    Quick audit on BBC1 news share of coverage tonight:

    Lead story on election - didn't use stopwatch but would estimate 50% Cameron, 40% Balls, 10% Clegg. Reporter sum-up exactly the same. UKIP - not mentioned, not one single second.

    Don't worry, the anointed Nigel will get some coverage May 8th. After the SNP landslide and Nicola demandingasking Ed to come to Edinburgh for a chat, he'll be one of the compilation of Portillo moments alongside the Alexanders, Clegg, Murphy, Curran and Cable.

    Nigel's 20 seconds could well keep Alistair Carmichael's portillo moment off the main news!

    Farage's desperation was in the papers today. He's begging party workers from every other seat to hit Thanet and help him out.
    Jesus, do you get moist as you type this tripe?
    all empirical evidence says even 25% for a new party doesn't result in more than a couple of seats.
    What empirical evidence is that? Typing numbers into Electoral Calculus and seeing what comes out?

    Slugger O'Toole made a prediction model for Westminster wins based on local election results. It suggested 38 UKIP MPs.

    http://sluggerotoole.com/2015/01/24/forecasting-the-2015-uk-general-election/
    That link is filled with nonsense. It has the Greens on 9 seats and Plaid on 8.

    The history of FPTP elections is the empirical evidence you need, the early history of the Labour Party, the Liberal Surge of the 1970s and the first years of the SDP in the 1980s ALL demonstrate that new insurgent parties do not get a seat return in FPTP systems.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,609
    edited April 2015
    Maybe Daves next press conference will have him reading the lyrics of this song to Ukip Con waverers

    'I don't believe you're all I ever need
    And I need to feel that you're not holding me
    But the way I feel just makes me want to scream 'Come Home'

    http://youtu.be/xWd9mqC80BU
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 10,026
    MarkSenior said:

    Anyone thinking of backing Labour to beat Greg Mulholland in Leeds NW should note that the local Labour party have had to pay £ 2,000 in legal costs and issue a leaflet apologising for publishing false information about the Lib Dem MP in a previous election leaflet ,

    The news from Sheffield Hallam doesn't auger well for Mr Mulholland. If his boss is vulnerable, then so surely is he.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited April 2015
    Dair said:

    anotherDave said:

    Dair said:

    saddened said:

    Dair said:

    MikeL said:

    Quick audit on BBC1 news share of coverage tonight:

    Lead story on election - didn't use stopwatch but would estimate 50% Cameron, 40% Balls, 10% Clegg. Reporter sum-up exactly the same. UKIP - not mentioned, not one single second.

    Don't worry, the anointed Nigel will get some coverage May 8th. After the SNP landslide and Nicola demandingasking Ed to come to Edinburgh for a chat, he'll be one of the compilation of Portillo moments alongside the Alexanders, Clegg, Murphy, Curran and Cable.

    Nigel's 20 seconds could well keep Alistair Carmichael's portillo moment off the main news!

    Farage's desperation was in the papers today. He's begging party workers from every other seat to hit Thanet and help him out.
    Jesus, do you get moist as you type this tripe?
    all empirical evidence says even 25% for a new party doesn't result in more than a couple of seats.
    What empirical evidence is that? Typing numbers into Electoral Calculus and seeing what comes out?

    Slugger O'Toole made a prediction model for Westminster wins based on local election results. It suggested 38 UKIP MPs.

    http://sluggerotoole.com/2015/01/24/forecasting-the-2015-uk-general-election/
    That link is filled with nonsense. It has the Greens on 9 seats and Plaid on 8.

    The history of FPTP elections is the empirical evidence you need, the early history of the Labour Party, the Liberal Surge of the 1970s and the first years of the SDP in the 1980s ALL demonstrate that new insurgent parties do not get a seat return in FPTP systems.
    The requirement of FPTP is that support should not be evenly distributed across the nation.

    Local election wins within a constituency demonstrate concentration of support.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Omnium said:

    notme said:



    They never really got punished for their sheer recklessness nature that they ran the public finances when it became clear they would lose. Any semblance of good government was thrown out of the window.

    There are arguments you can thrown at Brown. His decision to pump up public spending in 2001, which was largely funded by the revenue from the city of london, and to run a sustained deficit right up to the crash.

    The public finances in 2001 were in an incredibly good position. The deficit up until the crash was perfectly sustainable. Brown presented himself as a fiscal conservative, we had a golden rule that spending would be fiscally neutral over the economic cycle.

    All good and well, but he (and everyone else it seemed) believed that boom and bust had ended and we had no real economic cycle anymore, just sustained perpetual economic growth. If that was true, then a small managed deficit was fine.

    He allowed the debt to move from 30% of gdp (it peaked at 43% in 1996 and was dropping considerably from there on) in 2001 to rise to 38% in 2008. A totally unnecessary increase, in a period of mass employment, low unemployment, the economy firing on all cylinders and revenues flowing in like no ones business.

    In 2008, as Ken Clarke has pointed out about budgets in the past, a small deficit in the good times swells out of all control when the economy turns.

    Gordon Browns solution to the crash was to spend spend spend. He turned all the taps on, full. He couldnt flush money through the system quick enough.

    Between 2008 and second quarter of 2010 debt jumped from 38% to 60%. By the fourth quarter of 2011 it was 70% and now sits at about 75%.

    The lesson is of course, once you turn those taps on, it becomes almost impossible to turn them off.

    Quite right. And Blair's biggest failing was allowing Brown to do it. In Blair's defence though very few people spotted the dangers created by his chancellor. He didn't, the Tories didn't, and (for what it's worth) I didn't. For this everyone should hang their heads in shame, and for the unprecedented damage to the United Kingdom that he inflicted Brown should be locked up. Ignorance of economics is no defence for his crimes.

    It is quite untrue to say that nobody spotted the dangers inherent in Brown's spending binge before the crash. There were numerous articles in the mainstream media on just that point; indeed there were even discussions on this very site. Leading politicians may, in their perennial courting of popularity, have chosen to ignore the warnings but warnings there were.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,566
    edited April 2015
    Really? I turned it off after about 10-15 minutes having been been under the impression it was going to be a factual portrayal of events, so a huge disappointment in that respect. It was a real shame, and very much a missed opportunity considering the volume of published accounts from all sides of events leading up to the Coalition. I can get over hyped prejudiced views of any politician any day of the week, but thought a drama timed to go out just before a GE might have been more keen to hit a more accurate note. But it was C4 afterall, didn't they air a programme about Cameron, Boris & Co in the Bullingdon Club just before the 2010 GE?
    DavidL said:

    Finally got around to watching Coalition tonight. Rather good with a brilliant portrayal of Mandelson. Cameron did not come across well but you were left with the reminder that him and Clegg holding this together for 5 full years has been bloody miraculous.

  • The_WoodpeckerThe_Woodpecker Posts: 508
    FrankBooth said:

    MarkSenior said:

    Anyone thinking of backing Labour to beat Greg Mulholland in Leeds NW should note that the local Labour party have had to pay £ 2,000 in legal costs and issue a leaflet apologising for publishing false information about the Lib Dem MP in a previous election leaflet ,

    The news from Sheffield Hallam doesn't auger well for Mr Mulholland. If his boss is vulnerable, then so surely is he.
    Exactly right.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025