Skip to content
Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » UKIP drops to 11% as the Tories re-take the lead with Opini

SystemSystem Posts: 12,598
edited April 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » UKIP drops to 11% as the Tories re-take the lead with Opinium

CON take lead with Opinium
Con 36% (+3), Lab 34% (+1), Lib Dems 7% (n/c), UKIP 11% (-3), Greens 6% (-1)

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    edited April 2015
    Sleazy broken Kippers on the slide (usual caveats apply)

    But if Dave is to remain in power, he definitely needs to see UKIP down.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    The most important finding from Opinium was this

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/586938953632198656
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,940
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sleazy broken Kippers on the slide (usual caveats apply)

    But if Dave is to remain in power, he definitely needs to see UKIP down.

    Lazy thinking.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    The usual ABC1: C2DE ratio in a sample is c. 55:45

    Survation used 40:60.

    Lots more poor people in the sample = better than usual result for Ed/Labour.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    Alanbrooke said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sleazy broken Kippers on the slide (usual caveats apply)

    But if Dave is to remain in power, he definitely needs to see UKIP down.

    Lazy thinking.
    This morning's YouGov had 13% of 2010 Tories voting for UKIP, Dave gets half of those to come home, that's 2% onto the Tory share.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    The wording of the Survation approval question is awful. It gets the respondent to focus on the last month. You might think that, for example, Ed Miliband had done quite well in the last month but still have the view that he's just not up to the job.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @GdnPolitics: Labour pledges huge fines on tax avoiders to raise £7.5bn a year http://t.co/yghCCF0R9C
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,874
    antifrank said:

    The wording of the Survation approval question is awful. It gets the respondent to focus on the last month. You might think that, for example, Ed Miliband had done quite well in the last month but still have the view that he's just not up to the job.

    How hard is being Prime Minister though ?

    Home Secretary is the toughest gig in Gov't.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    Even inconsistently being behind Ed (or close to Ed) on approval ratings is bad for Cameron, but a return to more regular figures will be of some comfort I am sure.

    Sooner or later the blind faith in the 'People will not want to see Ed M as PM and will change their minds' will butt up against the blind faith in the '35% strategy', so it'll be interesting to see which ends up winning.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    Scott_P said:

    @GdnPolitics: Labour pledges huge fines on tax avoiders to raise £7.5bn a year http://t.co/yghCCF0R9C

    Sounds great and should be a very popular promise.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,314
    edited April 2015
    Ed Miliband and the Curse of the Were-Rabbit on BBC3 right now!
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,940
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sleazy broken Kippers on the slide (usual caveats apply)

    But if Dave is to remain in power, he definitely needs to see UKIP down.

    Lazy thinking.
    This morning's YouGov had 13% of 2010 Tories voting for UKIP, Dave gets half of those to come home, that's 2% onto the Tory share.
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sleazy broken Kippers on the slide (usual caveats apply)

    But if Dave is to remain in power, he definitely needs to see UKIP down.

    Lazy thinking.
    This morning's YouGov had 13% of 2010 Tories voting for UKIP, Dave gets half of those to come home, that's 2% onto the Tory share.
    there are probably 2-3 times that number of 2010 voters who are just going to sit on their hands and not vote
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sleazy broken Kippers on the slide (usual caveats apply)

    But if Dave is to remain in power, he definitely needs to see UKIP down.

    I think this is now Sleazy Broken UKIP are Dead as SLAB.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,314
    Opinium reduces Lab lead in part-ELBOW for the week so far to 1.2% (cf. 2.5% when Survation/Panelbase came out).
    But still, 1.2% would be the 4th highest Lab lead in ELBOW this year.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    Labour sources said most of the £7.5bn would go towards paying down the deficit and described the target as ambitious but achievable.

    "Ambitious but achievable"? That's the same as an 'aspirational' target, right? That it has no chance?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    'I see Andy Murray has got married in Dunblane Cathedral.Apparently in Scotland it is being treated as the wedding of the year. Find it strange that a couple that have been ‘living in sin’ for over six years end up having a white church wedding. It seems rather hypocritical and it surprises me that the clergy agree to carry out such services the effect of which is to bring the church into disrepute.'

    Pulupstar
    'Christ that's out the fifties playbook ! '

    It's actually nothing of the kind. Churches would not have behaved like this in the 70s and 80s.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Ed Miliband and the Curse of the Were-Rabbit on BBC3 right now!

    Bill and Ted on ITV2

    Apparently Nigel Farage is the same age as Keanu Reeves
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,275
    Labour have a real problem now with NHS funding. The conservatives argue that by paying down the debt by 2017-2018 interest payments will be much reduced and growth will be established thereby producing the economic bonus to enable funds to be put into public services and the 8 billion needed by the NHS. Labour do not understand or do not want to understand that if you borrow, spend and tax you delay or even risk the benefit of prudence. Ed Miliband confirmed today that they will not be investing more than the 2.5 billion they have already agreed thereby creating a shortfall of 5.5 billion that NHS England have stated they need. This could be a pivotal moment when labour lose the NHS argument by refusing to provide the funds needed.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    kle4 said:

    Labour sources said most of the £7.5bn would go towards paying down the deficit and described the target as ambitious but achievable.

    "Ambitious but achievable"? That's the same as an 'aspirational' target, right? That it has no chance?

    It's total nonsense, as ever.

    "We will raise money through fines, with no behavioural changes at all by anyone..."
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:

    @GdnPolitics: Labour pledges huge fines on tax avoiders to raise £7.5bn a year http://t.co/yghCCF0R9C

    Sounds great and should be a very popular promise.
    It's questionable whether such an approach would be consistent with Britain's duties under the European Convention on Human Rights.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Labour have a real problem now with NHS funding. The conservatives argue that by paying down the debt by 2017-2018 interest payments will be much reduced and growth will be established thereby producing the economic bonus to enable funds to be put into public services and the 8 billion needed by the NHS. Labour do not understand or do not want to understand that if you borrow, spend and tax you delay or even risk the benefit of prudence. Ed Miliband confirmed today that they will not be investing more than the 2.5 billion they have already agreed thereby creating a shortfall of 5.5 billion that NHS England have stated they need. This could be a pivotal moment when labour lose the NHS argument by refusing to provide the funds needed.

    Speculation Labour will abandon that position on Monday when the manifesto is released
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,782
    I have been thinking that Ed's performance has improved markedly over the last few weeks.

    Yesterday night I went to some friends for dinner and as I left I asked who they thought would win the election? They answered that Labour had a huge problem.

    "What" I asked?

    "Their leader is rubbish".
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    antifrank said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:

    @GdnPolitics: Labour pledges huge fines on tax avoiders to raise £7.5bn a year http://t.co/yghCCF0R9C

    Sounds great and should be a very popular promise.
    It's questionable whether such an approach would be consistent with Britain's duties under the European Convention on Human Rights.
    I don't doubt such arguments will be raised, and that it may well be total nonsense as Scott_P says. Nevertheless, it sounds great, and will an explanation of the details of why it may not be sink in?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    kle4 said:

    antifrank said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:

    @GdnPolitics: Labour pledges huge fines on tax avoiders to raise £7.5bn a year http://t.co/yghCCF0R9C

    Sounds great and should be a very popular promise.
    It's questionable whether such an approach would be consistent with Britain's duties under the European Convention on Human Rights.
    I don't doubt such arguments will be raised, and that it may well be total nonsense as Scott_P says. Nevertheless, it sounds great, and will an explanation of the details of why it may not be sink in?
    It's a good nonsense populist policy. Labour have lots of those already. Their weakness is that they lack credibility to deliver them.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,470
    Scott_P said:

    @GdnPolitics: Labour pledges huge fines on tax avoiders to raise £7.5bn a year http://t.co/yghCCF0R9C

    Huge fines for tax AVOIDANCE? How is that going to work? More like huge legal bills for the government. If they really want to tackle avoidance then slim down the tax code and dump a whole load of abused allowances.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    Part 1 of the equation, requiring the Tories to take 2% off UKIP may be taking place, but Part 2 , involving the LibDems taking 2% off Labour also has to happen before Dave & Co. have any chance of winning the GE.
    Meanwhile, Chris Hanretty & Others' latest 2015 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast shows Labour on 277 seats, just 4 seats behind the Tories on 281. Interestingly, this projection also shows UKIP winning just one very lonely seat, in sharp contrast to some of the smartest bettors on PB.com who rate the Purples a buy on 5 seats.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    justin124 said:


    I see Andy Murray has got married in Dunblane Cathedral.Apparently in Scotland it is being treated as the wedding of the year. Find it strange that a couple that have been ‘living in sin’ for over six years end up having a white church wedding. It seems rather hypocritical and it surprises me that the clergy agree to carry out such services the effect of which is to bring the church into disrepute.

    They are being married in a Presbyterian church. As such it matters not one jot what the "clergy" thinks they are servants, not masters. Policy is set by elders (lay people). That's why the CoS has always been decades ahead of CoE on most social matters.

    It always seem bizarre that people in England believe their established church is in some meaningful way a Protestant church.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Scott_P said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Ed Miliband and the Curse of the Were-Rabbit on BBC3 right now!

    Bill and Ted on ITV2

    Apparently Nigel Farage is the same age as Keanu Reeves
    Woah!
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,275
    Scott_P said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Labour have a real problem now with NHS funding. The conservatives argue that by paying down the debt by 2017-2018 interest payments will be much reduced and growth will be established thereby producing the economic bonus to enable funds to be put into public services and the 8 billion needed by the NHS. Labour do not understand or do not want to understand that if you borrow, spend and tax you delay or even risk the benefit of prudence. Ed Miliband confirmed today that they will not be investing more than the 2.5 billion they have already agreed thereby creating a shortfall of 5.5 billion that NHS England have stated they need. This could be a pivotal moment when labour lose the NHS argument by refusing to provide the funds needed.

    Speculation Labour will abandon that position on Monday when the manifesto is released
    Just confirms that 'chaos' is an apt description for labour if they reject it categorically today then suddenly, in a panic, find the funding on monday
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited April 2015
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Labour have a real problem now with NHS funding. The conservatives argue that by paying down the debt by 2017-2018 interest payments will be much reduced and growth will be established thereby producing the economic bonus to enable funds to be put into public services and the 8 billion needed by the NHS.

    The Conservatives no intention of 'paying down the debt'. They might reduce/eliminate the deficit, but the accumulated debt, and the associated servicing cost (£52 billion a year) will remain.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11339921/David-Cameron-and-the-national-debt-monster-in-three-charts.html
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    Roger said:

    I have been thinking that Ed's performance has improved markedly over the last few weeks.

    Yesterday night I went to some friends for dinner and as I left I asked who they thought would win the election? They answered that Labour had a huge problem.

    "What" I asked?

    "Their leader is rubbish".

    I have yet to meet a single person who has a positive word to say about Ed. A minority of people I know are voting Labour and they have all said they think he is useless. A significant number of work colleagues have criticised him as well, some of whom are Labour leaning. All anecdotal but interesting nonetheless.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    edited April 2015
    justin124 said:


    'I see Andy Murray has got married in Dunblane Cathedral.Apparently in Scotland it is being treated as the wedding of the year. Find it strange that a couple that have been ‘living in sin’ for over six years end up having a white church wedding. It seems rather hypocritical and it surprises me that the clergy agree to carry out such services the effect of which is to bring the church into disrepute.'

    Pulupstar
    'Christ that's out the fifties playbook ! '

    It's actually nothing of the kind. Churches would not have behaved like this in the 70s and 80s.

    CoS first ordained a female minister in 1969. It has always been far more progessive than the psuedo-Roman church down south.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,368
    justin124 said:


    'I see Andy Murray has got married in Dunblane Cathedral.Apparently in Scotland it is being treated as the wedding of the year. Find it strange that a couple that have been ‘living in sin’ for over six years end up having a white church wedding. It seems rather hypocritical and it surprises me that the clergy agree to carry out such services the effect of which is to bring the church into disrepute.'

    Pulupstar
    'Christ that's out the fifties playbook ! '

    It's actually nothing of the kind. Churches would not have behaved like this in the 70s and 80s.

    The Church of Scotland elsewhere in Scotland, I understand, refuses to marry people who have been living together for the past 30 days. However it will marry them if, although they been living together or a year or more, they separate for the 30 days prior to the wedding!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,197
    Scott_P said:

    @GdnPolitics: Labour pledges huge fines on tax avoiders to raise £7.5bn a year http://t.co/yghCCF0R9C

    I notice again they are mixed avoidance with evasion. It is a bit hard to "clamp" down on avoidance when what somebody is doing is legal, unless you make big changes. The problem is what change, as we saw with even what they thought was an easy target non-doms, it gets very complicated very quickly and often complication = more loopholes, as Gordon Brown found as he massively expanded the tax code with no real gains in clamping down on behaviour (in fact he encouraged it).
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    I notice again they are mixed avoidance with evasion. It is a bit hard to "clamp" down on avoidance when what somebody is doing is legal, unless you make big changes. The problem is what change, as we saw with even what they thought was an easy target non-doms, it gets very complicated very quickly and often complication = more loopholes, as Gordon Brown found as he massively expanded the tax code with no real gains in clamping down on behaviour (in fact he encouraged it).

    Maybe Deeds of Variation will be at the top of the list...
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    Poor students.

    An investigation has been launched at a £33,000-a-year school after students were taught the wrong exam text.

    Students at Wellington College, in Berkshire, spent the last year studying a different classic book for their imminent AS-level exam.

    The mistake only came to light when mock papers arrived and no exam questions related to the taught text.

    http://dailym.ai/1HghsXi
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Dair said:

    justin124 said:


    'I see Andy Murray has got married in Dunblane Cathedral.Apparently in Scotland it is being treated as the wedding of the year. Find it strange that a couple that have been ‘living in sin’ for over six years end up having a white church wedding. It seems rather hypocritical and it surprises me that the clergy agree to carry out such services the effect of which is to bring the church into disrepute.'

    Pulupstar
    'Christ that's out the fifties playbook ! '

    It's actually nothing of the kind. Churches would not have behaved like this in the 70s and 80s.

    CoS first ordinated a female minister in 1969. It has always been far more progessive than the psuedo-Roman church down south.
    Or the Roman Church in Scotland ;-)

    Though was it the RCs or the Presbyterians who kept homosexuality illegal in Scotland until 1980?

    It is worth noting that many English Protestant sects had women ministers in the 17th Century.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    MP_SE said:

    Roger said:

    I have been thinking that Ed's performance has improved markedly over the last few weeks.

    Yesterday night I went to some friends for dinner and as I left I asked who they thought would win the election? They answered that Labour had a huge problem.

    "What" I asked?

    "Their leader is rubbish".

    I have yet to meet a single person who has a positive word to say about Ed. A minority of people I know are voting Labour and they have all said they think he is useless. A significant number of work colleagues have criticised him as well, some of whom are Labour leaning. All anecdotal but interesting nonetheless.
    What do they say about the Conservatives?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,275
    As a matter of interest could any of the Scots Nats on this forum advise whether they would back the conservatives move to increase NHS funding by 8 billion as no doubt that would result in a substantial increase for Scotland under the Barnett formula
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    Maybe they went to confession first :confused:
    :j
    justin124 said:


    'I see Andy Murray has got married in Dunblane Cathedral.Apparently in Scotland it is being treated as the wedding of the year. Find it strange that a couple that have been ‘living in sin’ for over six years end up having a white church wedding. It seems rather hypocritical and it surprises me that the clergy agree to carry out such services the effect of which is to bring the church into disrepute.'

    Pulupstar
    'Christ that's out the fifties playbook ! '

    It's actually nothing of the kind. Churches would not have behaved like this in the 70s and 80s.

  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    OldKingCole said:

    justin124 said:


    'I see Andy Murray has got married in Dunblane Cathedral.Apparently in Scotland it is being treated as the wedding of the year. Find it strange that a couple that have been ‘living in sin’ for over six years end up having a white church wedding. It seems rather hypocritical and it surprises me that the clergy agree to carry out such services the effect of which is to bring the church into disrepute.'

    Pulupstar
    'Christ that's out the fifties playbook ! '

    It's actually nothing of the kind. Churches would not have behaved like this in the 70s and 80s.

    The Church of Scotland elsewhere in Scotland, I understand, refuses to marry people who have been living together for the past 30 days. However it will marry them if, although they been living together or a year or more, they separate for the 30 days prior to the wedding!
    A minister has the right to choose who they do and do not marry, however this should follow the guidelines set out by the general assembly, which as far as I know have absolutely no bar on cohabiting couples marrying.

    Moreover, if the minister does refuse or accept they can be removed from their position by the leity of the parish. It may be that there are some communities where they tell their minister not to marry cohabiting couples but I would expect that to be very, very rare and in such hard c conservative communities most will already be Wee Free or similar offshoot.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Dair said:

    justin124 said:


    'I see Andy Murray has got married in Dunblane Cathedral.Apparently in Scotland it is being treated as the wedding of the year. Find it strange that a couple that have been ‘living in sin’ for over six years end up having a white church wedding. It seems rather hypocritical and it surprises me that the clergy agree to carry out such services the effect of which is to bring the church into disrepute.'

    Pulupstar
    'Christ that's out the fifties playbook ! '

    It's actually nothing of the kind. Churches would not have behaved like this in the 70s and 80s.

    CoS first ordinated a female minister in 1969. It has always been far more progessive than the psuedo-Roman church down south.
    Or the Roman Church in Scotland ;-)

    Though was it the RCs or the Presbyterians who kept homosexuality illegal in Scotland until 1980?

    It is worth noting that many English Protestant sects had women ministers in the 17th Century.
    The delayed gay rights were entirely due to the Labour Party which were (and to an extent still are) the political wing of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    glw said:

    Scott_P said:

    @GdnPolitics: Labour pledges huge fines on tax avoiders to raise £7.5bn a year http://t.co/yghCCF0R9C

    Huge fines for tax AVOIDANCE? How is that going to work? More like huge legal bills for the government. If they really want to tackle avoidance then slim down the tax code and dump a whole load of abused allowances.
    A good place to start would be MPs tax perks. Why can they claim food as a tax free expense? Is there going to be a clampdown on them employing family members? The sooner the same tax rules apply to MPs the better.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    peter_from_putney said:

    Part 1 of the equation, requiring the Tories to take 2% off UKIP may be taking place, but Part 2 , involving the LibDems taking 2% off Labour also has to happen before Dave & Co. have any chance of winning the GE.
    Meanwhile, Chris Hanretty & Others' latest 2015 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast shows Labour on 277 seats, just 4 seats behind the Tories on 281. Interestingly, this projection also shows UKIP winning just one very lonely seat, in sharp contrast to some of the smartest bettors on PB.com who rate the Purples a buy on 5 seats.

    The notion that UKIP might only get 1 seat has got me worried. Back in March 2013 I got, via beards, £200 on at 8/1 with Hills that UKIP would get more than one seat. This has been my big banker - guaranteed winnings it seemed. Alas that might not be the case.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,782
    edited April 2015
    Threatening to fine and tax the super rich and the non doms has the great advantage of not only being popular but its also one of the few policies that the Tories cannot trump. As for inventing the figure of £7.5 billion-why not? The Tories have been plucking numbers out of the air all week
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited April 2015
    S
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Poor students.

    An investigation has been launched at a £33,000-a-year school after students were taught the wrong exam text.

    Students at Wellington College, in Berkshire, spent the last year studying a different classic book for their imminent AS-level exam.

    The mistake only came to light when mock papers arrived and no exam questions related to the taught text.

    http://dailym.ai/1HghsXi

    Serves them right ! They should have paid £100,000 a year. Morons !

    The teacher propbably just passed his A levels since qualification is not necessary in these schools.

    Can the parents sue ? Because these type of parents can be very litigious.
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 483
    Dunno if this has already been noted but there's a new YouGov poll that shows Lab 2% ahead
    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5lrvokt1ad/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-100415.pdf
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited April 2015
    Roger said:

    Threatening to fine and tax the super rich and the non doms till the pips squak has the great advantage of not only being popular but also one of the few policies that the Tories cannot trump. As for inventing the figure of £7.5 billion-why not? The Tories have been plucking numbers out of the air all week

    £7.5 billion is £0.5 billion less than the Tories "money from growth" £ 8 billion . Have the forecast growth rates changed in the last week to allow for an additional £8 billion out of nowhere !
  • isamisam Posts: 42,271
    MikeSmithson said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    Part 1 of the equation, requiring the Tories to take 2% off UKIP may be taking place, but Part 2 , involving the LibDems taking 2% off Labour also has to happen before Dave & Co. have any chance of winning the GE.
    Meanwhile, Chris Hanretty & Others' latest 2015 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast shows Labour on 277 seats, just 4 seats behind the Tories on 281. Interestingly, this projection also shows UKIP winning just one very lonely seat, in sharp contrast to some of the smartest bettors on PB.com who rate the Purples a buy on 5 seats.

    The notion that UKIP might only get 1 seat has got me worried. Back in March 2013 I got, via beards, £200 on at 8/1 with Hills that UKIP would get more than one seat. This has been my big banker - guaranteed winnings it seemed. Alas that might not be the case.

    If you want £500@4/5 Ukip get less than 4.5 seats to cover it I will lay that
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Dair said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Dair said:

    justin124 said:


    'I see Andy Murray has got married in Dunblane Cathedral.Apparently in Scotland it is being treated as the wedding of the year. Find it strange that a couple that have been ‘living in sin’ for over six years end up having a white church wedding. It seems rather hypocritical and it surprises me that the clergy agree to carry out such services the effect of which is to bring the church into disrepute.'

    Pulupstar
    'Christ that's out the fifties playbook ! '

    It's actually nothing of the kind. Churches would not have behaved like this in the 70s and 80s.

    CoS first ordinated a female minister in 1969. It has always been far more progessive than the psuedo-Roman church down south.
    Or the Roman Church in Scotland ;-)

    Though was it the RCs or the Presbyterians who kept homosexuality illegal in Scotland until 1980?

    It is worth noting that many English Protestant sects had women ministers in the 17th Century.
    The delayed gay rights were entirely due to the Labour Party which were (and to an extent still are) the political wing of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland.
    My Scots ancestors were Free Presbyterians, and I still have strong leanings that way. The great seperation of 1834 was in essence a class war. Who decides the minister and doctrine? The Laird or the congregation?

    Historically the SNP was much stronger in the areas of Presbyterian Scotland, but recently that seems to have lessened.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,275
    DeClare said:

    Dunno if this has already been noted but there's a new YouGov poll that shows Lab 2% ahead
    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5lrvokt1ad/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-100415.pdf

    Friday nights poll
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,862
    I'm not sure my poor old heart can take this.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,197
    DeClare said:

    Dunno if this has already been noted but there's a new YouGov poll that shows Lab 2% ahead
    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5lrvokt1ad/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-100415.pdf

    That's yesterdays I believe
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,862
    MikeSmithson said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    Part 1 of the equation, requiring the Tories to take 2% off UKIP may be taking place, but Part 2 , involving the LibDems taking 2% off Labour also has to happen before Dave & Co. have any chance of winning the GE.
    Meanwhile, Chris Hanretty & Others' latest 2015 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast shows Labour on 277 seats, just 4 seats behind the Tories on 281. Interestingly, this projection also shows UKIP winning just one very lonely seat, in sharp contrast to some of the smartest bettors on PB.com who rate the Purples a buy on 5 seats.

    The notion that UKIP might only get 1 seat has got me worried. Back in March 2013 I got, via beards, £200 on at 8/1 with Hills that UKIP would get more than one seat. This has been my big banker - guaranteed winnings it seemed. Alas that might not be the case.

    I have a feeling that a shock defeat of Nigel Farage could be the story of election night.

    I also got a text today from a close friend who (although a life-long sympathesiser) has only just joined the Conservatives in the past 12 months. He lives in Tonbridge and is getting a lot of encouragement (pressure?) from his local association to get actively involved and help in Rochester and Strood.

    The Tories really are throwing absolutely everything at Reckless. He is hated.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    DeClare said:

    Dunno if this has already been noted but there's a new YouGov poll that shows Lab 2% ahead
    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5lrvokt1ad/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-100415.pdf

    Et tu the Sun !
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Good evening, everyone.

    In case you missed it earlier, my cunning thoughts on China (including one tip) are up here:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/china-pre-race.html
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Casino_Royale said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    Part 1 of the equation, requiring the Tories to take 2% off UKIP may be taking place, but Part 2 , involving the LibDems taking 2% off Labour also has to happen before Dave & Co. have any chance of winning the GE.
    Meanwhile, Chris Hanretty & Others' latest 2015 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast shows Labour on 277 seats, just 4 seats behind the Tories on 281. Interestingly, this projection also shows UKIP winning just one very lonely seat, in sharp contrast to some of the smartest bettors on PB.com who rate the Purples a buy on 5 seats.

    The notion that UKIP might only get 1 seat has got me worried. Back in March 2013 I got, via beards, £200 on at 8/1 with Hills that UKIP would get more than one seat. This has been my big banker - guaranteed winnings it seemed. Alas that might not be the case.

    I have a feeling that a shock defeat of Nigel Farage could be the story of election night.

    I also got a text today from a close friend who (although a life-long sympathesiser) has only just joined the Conservatives in the past 12 months. He lives in Tonbridge and is getting a lot of encouragement (pressure?) from his local association to get actively involved and help in Rochester and Strood.

    The Tories really are throwing absolutely everything at Reckless. He is hated.
    "Shock" defeat ? How can something that is expected be termed "shocking" ?
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 483
    DeClare said:

    Dunno if this has already been noted but there's a new YouGov poll that shows Lab 2% ahead
    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5lrvokt1ad/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-100415.pdf

    Sorry, just noticed the date, it's yesterday's one. Been thinking it was the 10th all day.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited April 2015
    It
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    DeClare said:

    Dunno if this has already been noted but there's a new YouGov poll that shows Lab 2% ahead
    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5lrvokt1ad/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-100415.pdf

    That's yesterdays I believe
    It is on the top in Wikipedia above Opinium. Do we have Yougov on Friday's. Was this discussed here ?
  • isamisam Posts: 42,271
    Casino_Royale said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    Part 1 of the equation, requiring the Tories to take 2% off UKIP may be taking place, but Part 2 , involving the LibDems taking 2% off Labour also has to happen before Dave & Co. have any chance of winning the GE.
    Meanwhile, Chris Hanretty & Others' latest 2015 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast shows Labour on 277 seats, just 4 seats behind the Tories on 281. Interestingly, this projection also shows UKIP winning just one very lonely seat, in sharp contrast to some of the smartest bettors on PB.com who rate the Purples a buy on 5 seats.

    The notion that UKIP might only get 1 seat has got me worried. Back in March 2013 I got, via beards, £200 on at 8/1 with Hills that UKIP would get more than one seat. This has been my big banker - guaranteed winnings it seemed. Alas that might not be the case.

    I have a feeling that a shock defeat of Nigel Farage could be the story of election night.

    I also got a text today from a close friend who (although a life-long sympathesiser) has only just joined the Conservatives in the past 12 months. He lives in Tonbridge and is getting a lot of encouragement (pressure?) from his local association to get actively involved and help in Rochester and Strood.

    The Tories really are throwing absolutely everything at Reckless. He is hated.
    Good lord

    It's as if things that actually happen don't count on here

    So what?! They threw absolutely everything at him last time... He won at a canter

    The Tory candidate is/was useless , she had to be replaced in a hustings this week by Damian green, while Reckless has been a solid Ukip mp , speaking authoritavely on national TV
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,862
    peter_from_putney said:

    Part 1 of the equation, requiring the Tories to take 2% off UKIP may be taking place, but Part 2 , involving the LibDems taking 2% off Labour also has to happen before Dave & Co. have any chance of winning the GE.
    Meanwhile, Chris Hanretty & Others' latest 2015 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast shows Labour on 277 seats, just 4 seats behind the Tories on 281. Interestingly, this projection also shows UKIP winning just one very lonely seat, in sharp contrast to some of the smartest bettors on PB.com who rate the Purples a buy on 5 seats.

    It's not beyond the realms of possibility that UKIP take *more* seats off Labour than the Tories.

    Imagine a situation where UKIP retained Clacton, but Farage and Reckless lost, and Thurrock was a near miss.

    Meanwhile, Dudley North, Rother Valley and Great Grimsby all fell.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    isam said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    Part 1 of the equation, requiring the Tories to take 2% off UKIP may be taking place, but Part 2 , involving the LibDems taking 2% off Labour also has to happen before Dave & Co. have any chance of winning the GE.
    Meanwhile, Chris Hanretty & Others' latest 2015 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast shows Labour on 277 seats, just 4 seats behind the Tories on 281. Interestingly, this projection also shows UKIP winning just one very lonely seat, in sharp contrast to some of the smartest bettors on PB.com who rate the Purples a buy on 5 seats.

    The notion that UKIP might only get 1 seat has got me worried. Back in March 2013 I got, via beards, £200 on at 8/1 with Hills that UKIP would get more than one seat. This has been my big banker - guaranteed winnings it seemed. Alas that might not be the case.

    I have a feeling that a shock defeat of Nigel Farage could be the story of election night.

    I also got a text today from a close friend who (although a life-long sympathesiser) has only just joined the Conservatives in the past 12 months. He lives in Tonbridge and is getting a lot of encouragement (pressure?) from his local association to get actively involved and help in Rochester and Strood.

    The Tories really are throwing absolutely everything at Reckless. He is hated.
    Good lord

    It's as if things that actually happen don't count on here

    So what?! They threw absolutely everything at him last time... He won at a canter

    The Tory candidate is/was useless , she had to be replaced in a hustings this week by Damian green, while Reckless has been a solid Ukip mp , speaking authoritavely on national TV
    While it's correct to point out they threw everything at him last time and he still won, it is taking place in a new context now. That might not make the difference for the Tories, but it does mean in fairness that the idea cannot be dismissed quite so readily I think.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,368
    edited April 2015
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Dair said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Dair said:

    justin124 said:


    'I see Andy Murray has got married in Dunblane Cathedral.Apparently in Scotland it is being treated as the wedding of the year. Find it strange that a couple that have been ‘living in sin’ for over six years end up having a white church wedding. It seems rather hypocritical and it surprises me that the clergy agree to carry out such services the effect of which is to bring the church into disrepute.'

    Pulupstar
    'Christ that's out the fifties playbook ! '

    It's actually nothing of the kind. Churches would not have behaved like this in the 70s and 80s.

    CoS first ordinated a female minister in 1969. It has always been far more progessive than the psuedo-Roman church down south.
    Or the Roman Church in Scotland ;-)

    Though was it the RCs or the Presbyterians who kept homosexuality illegal in Scotland until 1980?

    It is worth noting that many English Protestant sects had women ministers in the 17th Century.
    The delayed gay rights were entirely due to the Labour Party which were (and to an extent still are) the political wing of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland.
    My Scots ancestors were Free Presbyterians, and I still have strong leanings that way. The great seperation of 1834 was in essence a class war. Who decides the minister and doctrine? The Laird or the congregation?

    Historically the SNP was much stronger in the areas of Presbyterian Scotland, but recently that seems to have lessened.
    I sometimes wonder about the relationship between non-conformist churches and the Peoples Front for the Liberation of Judea (et al)
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,275
    surbiton said:

    It

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    DeClare said:

    Dunno if this has already been noted but there's a new YouGov poll that shows Lab 2% ahead
    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5lrvokt1ad/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-100415.pdf

    That's yesterdays I believe
    It is on the top in Wikipedia above Opinium. Do we have Yougov on Friday's. Was this discussed here ?
    Having one every day I believe but that is last nights sun poll. Assume tonights will be the Sunday Times
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Dair said:

    OldKingCole said:

    justin124 said:


    'I see Andy Murray has got married in Dunblane Cathedral.Apparently in Scotland it is being treated as the wedding of the year. Find it strange that a couple that have been ‘living in sin’ for over six years end up having a white church wedding. It seems rather hypocritical and it surprises me that the clergy agree to carry out such services the effect of which is to bring the church into disrepute.'

    Pulupstar
    'Christ that's out the fifties playbook ! '

    It's actually nothing of the kind. Churches would not have behaved like this in the 70s and 80s.

    The Church of Scotland elsewhere in Scotland, I understand, refuses to marry people who have been living together for the past 30 days. However it will marry them if, although they been living together or a year or more, they separate for the 30 days prior to the wedding!
    A minister has the right to choose who they do and do not marry, however this should follow the guidelines set out by the general assembly, which as far as I know have absolutely no bar on cohabiting couples marrying.

    Moreover, if the minister does refuse or accept they can be removed from their position by the leity of the parish. It may be that there are some communities where they tell their minister not to marry cohabiting couples but I would expect that to be very, very rare and in such hard c conservative communities most will already be Wee Free or similar offshoot.
    I can assure you that there are some Ministers - I am talking about England & Wales here - who would not knowingly marry couples who had aleady had full sexual relations with each other. At the end of the day 'chastity before marriage' is what the Christian Churches are supposed to believe in! Of course many find it impossible to live by that principle but surely such people should not expect the Church to facilitate the hypocrisy of a white wedding. By turning a blind eye the Churches imply that their principles count for nothing and that moral laisser-faire rules ok!
    As for Ministers refusing to marry cohabiting couples being very, very rare I would respectfully suggest that until - say - the 1980s it was very rare for cohabiting couples to marry in church at all!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,534
    If Labour are going to fine people for the perfectly legal act of tax avoidance, would they please list all the other perfectly legal activities they intend to fine us for?
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Evening all and I note Opinium has Tories back on 36% which is the most important thing from my point of view.

    Wonder if in 4 weeks time Survation, Populus, TNS and Panelbase will be looking frantically at their methodology and trying to explain away their abject failure to correctly predict the mood of the country. 9 days left for the 2-3% of Labour and Green voters who aren't registered to vote to get off their arses and register. Doubt many more will bother now. Survation and the others will probably still include them in their polling numbers.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    justin124 said:

    Dair said:

    OldKingCole said:

    justin124 said:


    'I see Andy Murray has got married in Dunblane Cathedral.Apparently in Scotland it is being treated as the wedding of the year. Find it strange that a couple that have been ‘living in sin’ for over six years end up having a white church wedding. It seems rather hypocritical and it surprises me that the clergy agree to carry out such services the effect of which is to bring the church into disrepute.'

    Pulupstar
    'Christ that's out the fifties playbook ! '

    It's actually nothing of the kind. Churches would not have behaved like this in the 70s and 80s.

    The Church of Scotland elsewhere in Scotland, I understand, refuses to marry people who have been living together for the past 30 days. However it will marry them if, although they been living together or a year or more, they separate for the 30 days prior to the wedding!
    A minister has the right to choose who they do and do not marry, however this should follow the guidelines set out by the general assembly, which as far as I know have absolutely no bar on cohabiting couples marrying.

    Moreover, if the minister does refuse or accept they can be removed from their position by the leity of the parish. It may be that there are some communities where they tell their minister not to marry cohabiting couples but I would expect that to be very, very rare and in such hard c conservative communities most will already be Wee Free or similar offshoot.
    I can assure you that there are some Ministers - I am talking about England & Wales here - who would not knowingly marry couples who had aleady had full sexual relations with each other. At the end of the day 'chastity before marriage' is what the Christian Churches are supposed to believe in! Of course many find it impossible to live by that principle but surely such people should not expect the Church to facilitate the hypocrisy of a white wedding. By turning a blind eye the Churches imply that their principles count for nothing and that moral laisser-faire rules ok!
    As for Ministers refusing to marry cohabiting couples being very, very rare I would respectfully suggest that until - say - the 1980s it was very rare for cohabiting couples to marry in church at all!
    "I can assure you that there are some Ministers - I am talking about England & Wales here - who would not knowingly marry couples who had already had full sexual relations with each other."

    Do these Ministers get clients ?

    Is it permissible if these people had sexual relations with other people but not the one they are marrying ?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,942
    I've had enough of minnow's like Survation and Opinium. Time to bring on the big gun's like ICM and Mori.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,862
    isam said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    Part 1 of the equation, requiring the Tories to take 2% off UKIP may be taking place, but Part 2 , involving the LibDems taking 2% off Labour also has to happen before Dave & Co. have any chance of winning the GE.
    Meanwhile, Chris Hanretty & Others' latest 2015 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast shows Labour on 277 seats, just 4 seats behind the Tories on 281. Interestingly, this projection also shows UKIP winning just one very lonely seat, in sharp contrast to some of the smartest bettors on PB.com who rate the Purples a buy on 5 seats.

    The notion that UKIP might only get 1 seat has got me worried. Back in March 2013 I got, via beards, £200 on at 8/1 with Hills that UKIP would get more than one seat. This has been my big banker - guaranteed winnings it seemed. Alas that might not be the case.

    I have a feeling that a shock defeat of Nigel Farage could be the story of election night.

    I also got a text today from a close friend who (although a life-long sympathesiser) has only just joined the Conservatives in the past 12 months. He lives in Tonbridge and is getting a lot of encouragement (pressure?) from his local association to get actively involved and help in Rochester and Strood.

    The Tories really are throwing absolutely everything at Reckless. He is hated.
    Good lord

    It's as if things that actually happen don't count on here

    So what?! They threw absolutely everything at him last time... He won at a canter

    The Tory candidate is/was useless , she had to be replaced in a hustings this week by Damian green, while Reckless has been a solid Ukip mp , speaking authoritavely on national TV

    I'm reporting what I've been told, I'm sorry if you don't like it.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,271
    isam said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    Part 1 of the equation, requiring the Tories to take 2% off UKIP may be taking place, but Part 2 , involving the LibDems taking 2% off Labour also has to happen before Dave & Co. have any chance of winning the GE.
    Meanwhile, Chris Hanretty & Others' latest 2015 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast shows Labour on 277 seats, just 4 seats behind the Tories on 281. Interestingly, this projection also shows UKIP winning just one very lonely seat, in sharp contrast to some of the smartest bettors on PB.com who rate the Purples a buy on 5 seats.

    The notion that UKIP might only get 1 seat has got me worried. Back in March 2013 I got, via beards, £200 on at 8/1 with Hills that UKIP would get more than one seat. This has been my big banker - guaranteed winnings it seemed. Alas that might not be the case.

    If you want £500@4/5 Ukip get less than 4.5 seats to cover it I will lay that
    @Mikesmithson

    Let me know if you want to back the under 4.5 Ukip at 4/5. I'm out now but drop me an email

    It suits me to lay it as I'm in Ukip 3-4 for a few quid at 8/1 so we are both laughing if they get that, you are laughing even more if they get exactly 2
  • saddosaddo Posts: 534
    MarqueeMark said:

    If Labour are going to fine people for the perfectly legal act of tax avoidance, would they please list all the other perfectly legal activities they intend to fine us for?

    No doubt they'll start fining anyone who doesn't vote Labour. Then onto anyone who takes the piss out of Miliband for looking like Wallace. Serious jail time for anyone who mentions Balls and Coopers house flipping.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    Casino_Royale said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    Part 1 of the equation, requiring the Tories to take 2% off UKIP may be taking place, but Part 2 , involving the LibDems taking 2% off Labour also has to happen before Dave & Co. have any chance of winning the GE.
    Meanwhile, Chris Hanretty & Others' latest 2015 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast shows Labour on 277 seats, just 4 seats behind the Tories on 281. Interestingly, this projection also shows UKIP winning just one very lonely seat, in sharp contrast to some of the smartest bettors on PB.com who rate the Purples a buy on 5 seats.

    The notion that UKIP might only get 1 seat has got me worried. Back in March 2013 I got, via beards, £200 on at 8/1 with Hills that UKIP would get more than one seat. This has been my big banker - guaranteed winnings it seemed. Alas that might not be the case.

    I have a feeling that a shock defeat of Nigel Farage could be the story of election night.

    I also got a text today from a close friend who (although a life-long sympathesiser) has only just joined the Conservatives in the past 12 months. He lives in Tonbridge and is getting a lot of encouragement (pressure?) from his local association to get actively involved and help in Rochester and Strood.

    The Tories really are throwing absolutely everything at Reckless. He is hated.
    I think that's right as regards Reckless - given a choice I believe the Tories would prefer to regain Rochester & Strood whilst conceding South Thanet to Farage (where he will be the favourite to win anyway), rather than t' other way around. The question is whether the Blues have a sufficiently strong candidate to take on Reckless, remembering that she took quite a lot of stick at the by-election.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,800
    MikeSmithson said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    Part 1 of the equation, requiring the Tories to take 2% off UKIP may be taking place, but Part 2 , involving the LibDems taking 2% off Labour also has to happen before Dave & Co. have any chance of winning the GE.
    Meanwhile, Chris Hanretty & Others' latest 2015 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast shows Labour on 277 seats, just 4 seats behind the Tories on 281. Interestingly, this projection also shows UKIP winning just one very lonely seat, in sharp contrast to some of the smartest bettors on PB.com who rate the Purples a buy on 5 seats.

    The notion that UKIP might only get 1 seat has got me worried. Back in March 2013 I got, via beards, £200 on at 8/1 with Hills that UKIP would get more than one seat. This has been my big banker - guaranteed winnings it seemed. Alas that might not be the case.

    You're pretty safe Mike.

    I know the electoral system means that in theory you could get a big percentage vote but fail to earn any seats. However in practice it's been far from the case. UKIP on say 10-15% of the vote are presumed to get a couple of seats, but the LDs on the same are presumed to get 25+. It's possible, but there's some likelihood tat the models are wrong.(ell it's certain they're wrong, but some chance in this aspect)

    Overall the opinion polls are likely to be underestimating the Tories and UKIP (more strongly). I think UKIP will make at least one remarkable gain, but unfortunately I think they'll make at best a handful. I say unfortunately because if the LDs finish up with (say) 30 MPs, and UKIP with (say) 6 when the vote shares are massively the other way then it will be damaging to all of us. It won't of course be nearly as damaging as the Scots issue.



  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    edited April 2015
    GIN1138 said:

    I've had enough of minnow's like Survation and Opinium. Time to bring on the big gun's like ICM and Mori.

    Ipsos Mori for definite next week.

    ICM I'm confident we should get that too.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,534
    isam said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    Part 1 of the equation, requiring the Tories to take 2% off UKIP may be taking place, but Part 2 , involving the LibDems taking 2% off Labour also has to happen before Dave & Co. have any chance of winning the GE.
    Meanwhile, Chris Hanretty & Others' latest 2015 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast shows Labour on 277 seats, just 4 seats behind the Tories on 281. Interestingly, this projection also shows UKIP winning just one very lonely seat, in sharp contrast to some of the smartest bettors on PB.com who rate the Purples a buy on 5 seats.

    The notion that UKIP might only get 1 seat has got me worried. Back in March 2013 I got, via beards, £200 on at 8/1 with Hills that UKIP would get more than one seat. This has been my big banker - guaranteed winnings it seemed. Alas that might not be the case.

    I have a feeling that a shock defeat of Nigel Farage could be the story of election night.

    I also got a text today from a close friend who (although a life-long sympathesiser) has only just joined the Conservatives in the past 12 months. He lives in Tonbridge and is getting a lot of encouragement (pressure?) from his local association to get actively involved and help in Rochester and Strood.

    The Tories really are throwing absolutely everything at Reckless. He is hated.
    Good lord

    It's as if things that actually happen don't count on here

    So what?! They threw absolutely everything at him last time... He won at a canter

    The Tory candidate is/was useless , she had to be replaced in a hustings this week by Damian green, while Reckless has been a solid Ukip mp , speaking authoritavely on national TV
    Polling showed huge numbers of Tories having a "holiday shag" with UKIP at the by-election, but returning to the fold at the General. I personally think Reckless is well gone, given how far UKIP are off their autumn peak.

    I also don't see them getting close in Rother Valley or Grimsby.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,862
    surbiton said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    Part 1 of the equation, requiring the Tories to take 2% off UKIP may be taking place, but Part 2 , involving the LibDems taking 2% off Labour also has to happen before Dave & Co. have any chance of winning the GE.
    Meanwhile, Chris Hanretty & Others' latest 2015 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast shows Labour on 277 seats, just 4 seats behind the Tories on 281. Interestingly, this projection also shows UKIP winning just one very lonely seat, in sharp contrast to some of the smartest bettors on PB.com who rate the Purples a buy on 5 seats.

    The notion that UKIP might only get 1 seat has got me worried. Back in March 2013 I got, via beards, £200 on at 8/1 with Hills that UKIP would get more than one seat. This has been my big banker - guaranteed winnings it seemed. Alas that might not be the case.

    I have a feeling that a shock defeat of Nigel Farage could be the story of election night.

    I also got a text today from a close friend who (although a life-long sympathesiser) has only just joined the Conservatives in the past 12 months. He lives in Tonbridge and is getting a lot of encouragement (pressure?) from his local association to get actively involved and help in Rochester and Strood.

    The Tories really are throwing absolutely everything at Reckless. He is hated.
    "Shock" defeat ? How can something that is expected be termed "shocking" ?
    Expectations for UKIP are much higher than GE2010. They've already won two tough by-elections in Tory held seats.

    If their leader, who has a strong national profile and bags of charisma, fails to win Thanet South that is exactly how the media will portray and report it.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,534
    saddo said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    If Labour are going to fine people for the perfectly legal act of tax avoidance, would they please list all the other perfectly legal activities they intend to fine us for?

    No doubt they'll start fining anyone who doesn't vote Labour. Then onto anyone who takes the piss out of Miliband for looking like Wallace. Serious jail time for anyone who mentions Balls and Coopers house flipping.
    Life sentence for not belonging to Unite....

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    edited April 2015
    Casino_Royale said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    Part 1 of the equation, requiring the Tories to take 2% off UKIP may be taking place, but Part 2 , involving the LibDems taking 2% off Labour also has to happen before Dave & Co. have any chance of winning the GE.
    Meanwhile, Chris Hanretty & Others' latest 2015 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast shows Labour on 277 seats, just 4 seats behind the Tories on 281. Interestingly, this projection also shows UKIP winning just one very lonely seat, in sharp contrast to some of the smartest bettors on PB.com who rate the Purples a buy on 5 seats.

    The notion that UKIP might only get 1 seat has got me worried. Back in March 2013 I got, via beards, £200 on at 8/1 with Hills that UKIP would get more than one seat. This has been my big banker - guaranteed winnings it seemed. Alas that might not be the case.

    I have a feeling that a shock defeat of Nigel Farage could be the story of election night.

    I also got a text today from a close friend who (although a life-long sympathesiser) has only just joined the Conservatives in the past 12 months. He lives in Tonbridge and is getting a lot of encouragement (pressure?) from his local association to get actively involved and help in Rochester and Strood.

    The Tories really are throwing absolutely everything at Reckless. He is hated.
    Mark Reckless? Hated by Tories?

    I find that hard to believe

    *Innocent Face*
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,942
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    GIN1138 said:

    I've had enough of minnow's like Survation and Opinium. Time to bring on the big gun's like ICM and Mori.

    Ipsos Mori for definite next week.

    ICM I'm confident we should get that too.
    #coocoocachoo


  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    edited April 2015
    isam said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    Part 1 of the equation, requiring the Tories to take 2% off UKIP may be taking place, but Part 2 , involving the LibDems taking 2% off Labour also has to happen before Dave & Co. have any chance of winning the GE.
    Meanwhile, Chris Hanretty & Others' latest 2015 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast shows Labour on 277 seats, just 4 seats behind the Tories on 281. Interestingly, this projection also shows UKIP winning just one very lonely seat, in sharp contrast to some of the smartest bettors on PB.com who rate the Purples a buy on 5 seats.

    The notion that UKIP might only get 1 seat has got me worried. Back in March 2013 I got, via beards, £200 on at 8/1 with Hills that UKIP would get more than one seat. This has been my big banker - guaranteed winnings it seemed. Alas that might not be the case.

    I have a feeling that a shock defeat of Nigel Farage could be the story of election night.

    I also got a text today from a close friend who (although a life-long sympathesiser) has only just joined the Conservatives in the past 12 months. He lives in Tonbridge and is getting a lot of encouragement (pressure?) from his local association to get actively involved and help in Rochester and Strood.

    The Tories really are throwing absolutely everything at Reckless. He is hated.
    Good lord

    It's as if things that actually happen don't count on here

    So what?! They threw absolutely everything at him last time... He won at a canter

    The Tory candidate is/was useless , she had to be replaced in a hustings this week by Damian green, while Reckless has been a solid Ukip mp , speaking authoritavely on national TV
    Has Kelly Tolhurst been replaced?
    anotherDave said:

    MP_SE said:

    Roger said:

    I have been thinking that Ed's performance has improved markedly over the last few weeks.

    Yesterday night I went to some friends for dinner and as I left I asked who they thought would win the election? They answered that Labour had a huge problem.

    "What" I asked?

    "Their leader is rubbish".

    I have yet to meet a single person who has a positive word to say about Ed. A minority of people I know are voting Labour and they have all said they think he is useless. A significant number of work colleagues have criticised him as well, some of whom are Labour leaning. All anecdotal but interesting nonetheless.
    What do they say about the Conservatives?
    Nothing great to be honest. A mixture of too posh, lost their way but will be voting for them to get a referendum/keep Labour out.

    Quite sad that it seems that a large number of people are completely turned off by politics.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    surbiton said:

    justin124 said:

    Dair said:

    OldKingCole said:

    justin124 said:


    'I see Andy Murray has got married in Dunblane Cathedral.Apparently in Scotland it is being treated as the wedding of the year. Find it strange that a couple that have been ‘living in sin’ for over six years end up having a white church wedding. It seems rather hypocritical and it surprises me that the clergy agree to carry out such services the effect of which is to bring the church into disrepute.'

    Pulupstar
    'Christ that's out the fifties playbook ! '

    It's actually nothing of the kind. Churches would not have behaved like this in the 70s and 80s.

    The Church of Scotland elsewhere in Scotland, I understand, refuses to marry people who have been living together for the past 30 days. However it will marry them if, although they been living together or a year or more, they separate for the 30 days prior to the wedding!
    A minister has the right to choose who they do and do not marry, however this should follow the guidelines set out by the general assembly, which as far as I know have absolutely no bar on cohabiting couples marrying.

    Moreover, if the minister does refuse or accept they can be removed from their position by the leity of the parish. It may be that there are some communities where they tell their minister not to marry cohabiting couples but I would expect that to be very, very rare and in such hard c conservative communities most will already be Wee Free or similar offshoot.
    I can assure you that there are some Ministers - I am talking about England & Wales here - who would not knowingly marry couples who had aleady had full sexual relations with each other. At the end of the day 'chastity before marriage' is what the Christian Churches are supposed to believe in! Of course many find it impossible to live by that principle but surely such people should not expect the Church to facilitate the hypocrisy of a white wedding. By turning a blind eye the Churches imply that their principles count for nothing and that moral laisser-faire rules ok!
    As for Ministers refusing to marry cohabiting couples being very, very rare I would respectfully suggest that until - say - the 1980s it was very rare for cohabiting couples to marry in church at all!
    "I can assure you that there are some Ministers - I am talking about England & Wales here - who would not knowingly marry couples who had already had full sexual relations with each other."

    Do these Ministers get clients ?

    Is it permissible if these people had sexual relations with other people but not the one they are marrying ?
    No the Ministers I have in mind would very strongly disapprove of casual sex - but yes they do conduct wedding services.
  • frpenkridgefrpenkridge Posts: 670
    I beginning to think that these opinion polls are not worthy of the expert analysis this site lavishes on them. It is like running the data from an electron microscope through a quantum computer when studying the entrails of a sheep.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,312
    edited April 2015
    If I were Mike S I would be somewhat apprehensive. It is quite possible that Carswell will be the only UKIP MP.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    justin124 said:

    Dair said:

    OldKingCole said:

    justin124 said:


    'I see Andy Murray has got married in Dunblane Cathedral.Apparently in Scotland it is being treated as the wedding of the year. Find it strange that a couple that have been ‘living in sin’ for over six years end up having a white church wedding. It seems rather hypocritical and it surprises me that the clergy agree to carry out such services the effect of which is to bring the church into disrepute.'

    Pulupstar
    'Christ that's out the fifties playbook ! '

    It's actually nothing of the kind. Churches would not have behaved like this in the 70s and 80s.

    The Church of Scotland elsewhere in Scotland, I understand, refuses to marry people who have been living together for the past 30 days. However it will marry them if, although they been living together or a year or more, they separate for the 30 days prior to the wedding!
    A minister has the right to choose who they do and do not marry, however this should follow the guidelines set out by the general assembly, which as far as I know have absolutely no bar on cohabiting couples marrying.

    Moreover, if the minister does refuse or accept they can be removed from their position by the leity of the parish. It may be that there are some communities where they tell their minister not to marry cohabiting couples but I would expect that to be very, very rare and in such hard c conservative communities most will already be Wee Free or similar offshoot.
    I can assure you that there are some Ministers - I am talking about England & Wales here - who would not knowingly marry couples who had aleady had full sexual relations with each other. At the end of the day 'chastity before marriage' is what the Christian Churches are supposed to believe in! Of course many find it impossible to live by that principle but surely such people should not expect the Church to facilitate the hypocrisy of a white wedding. By turning a blind eye the Churches imply that their principles count for nothing and that moral laisser-faire rules ok!
    As for Ministers refusing to marry cohabiting couples being very, very rare I would respectfully suggest that until - say - the 1980s it was very rare for cohabiting couples to marry in church at all!
    Our local priest refused to marry my sister and her husband for that very reason. Dug his heels in. It ended up with him being sick on the day, and the local Bishop standing in (all prearranged, naturally!)
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Casino_Royale said:

    isam said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    Part 1 of the equation, requiring the Tories to take 2% off UKIP may be taking place, but Part 2 , involving the LibDems taking 2% off Labour also has to happen before Dave & Co. have any chance of winning the GE.
    Meanwhile, Chris Hanretty & Others' latest 2015 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast shows Labour on 277 seats, just 4 seats behind the Tories on 281. Interestingly, this projection also shows UKIP winning just one very lonely seat, in sharp contrast to some of the smartest bettors on PB.com who rate the Purples a buy on 5 seats.

    The notion that UKIP might only get 1 seat has got me worried. Back in March 2013 I got, via beards, £200 on at 8/1 with Hills that UKIP would get more than one seat. This has been my big banker - guaranteed winnings it seemed. Alas that might not be the case.

    I have a feeling that a shock defeat of Nigel Farage could be the story of election night.

    I also got a text today from a close friend who (although a life-long sympathesiser) has only just joined the Conservatives in the past 12 months. He lives in Tonbridge and is getting a lot of encouragement (pressure?) from his local association to get actively involved and help in Rochester and Strood.

    The Tories really are throwing absolutely everything at Reckless. He is hated.
    Good lord

    It's as if things that actually happen don't count on here

    So what?! They threw absolutely everything at him last time... He won at a canter

    The Tory candidate is/was useless , she had to be replaced in a hustings this week by Damian green, while Reckless has been a solid Ukip mp , speaking authoritavely on national TV

    I'm reporting what I've been told, I'm sorry if you don't like it.
    But "The Tories really are throwing absolutely everything at Reckless" is gibberish. What is being done that is not being done by the Tories in every winnable seat? And if it's going to be so effective why don't they just "throw absolutely everything" at the opposition in each of the top 100 marginals and win a landslide? It's like tipping a horse in the National because the Owner/trainer/jockey really, really wants to win the race.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Charles said:

    justin124 said:

    Dair said:

    OldKingCole said:

    justin124 said:


    'I see Andy Murray has got married in Dunblane Cathedral.Apparently in Scotland it is being treated as the wedding of the year. Find it strange that a couple that have been ‘living in sin’ for over six years end up having a white church wedding. It seems rather hypocritical and it surprises me that the clergy agree to carry out such services the effect of which is to bring the church into disrepute.'

    Pulupstar
    'Christ that's out the fifties playbook ! '

    It's actually nothing of the kind. Churches would not have behaved like this in the 70s and 80s.

    The Church of Scotland elsewhere in Scotland, I understand, refuses to marry people who have been living together for the past 30 days. However it will marry them if, although they been living together or a year or more, they separate for the 30 days prior to the wedding!
    A minister has the right to choose who they do and do not marry, however this should follow the guidelines set out by the general assembly, which as far as I know have absolutely no bar on cohabiting couples marrying.

    Moreover, if the minister does refuse or accept they can be removed from their position by the leity of the parish. It may be that there are some communities where they tell their minister not to marry cohabiting couples but I would expect that to be very, very rare and in such hard c conservative communities most will already be Wee Free or similar offshoot.
    I can assure you that there are some Ministers - I am talking about England & Wales here - who would not knowingly marry couples who had aleady had full sexual relations with each other. At the end of the day 'chastity before marriage' is what the Christian Churches are supposed to believe in! Of course many find it impossible to live by that principle but surely such people should not expect the Church to facilitate the hypocrisy of a white wedding. By turning a blind eye the Churches imply that their principles count for nothing and that moral laisser-faire rules ok!
    As for Ministers refusing to marry cohabiting couples being very, very rare I would respectfully suggest that until - say - the 1980s it was very rare for cohabiting couples to marry in church at all!
    Our local priest refused to marry my sister and her husband for that very reason. Dug his heels in. It ended up with him being sick on the day, and the local Bishop standing in (all prearranged, naturally!)
    Charles
    May I ask when that was?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Mr. Mark, I agree entirely. It's cracker to castigate and punish people who are obeying the law. If the law's wrong, change it, don't punish people for being law-abiding.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,312
    MarqueeMark said:

    isam said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    Part 1 of the equation, requiring the Tories to take 2% off UKIP may be taking place, but Part 2 , involving the LibDems taking 2% off Labour also has to happen before Dave & Co. have any chance of winning the GE.
    Meanwhile, Chris Hanretty & Others' latest 2015 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast shows Labour on 277 seats, just 4 seats behind the Tories on 281. Interestingly, this projection also shows UKIP winning just one very lonely seat, in sharp contrast to some of the smartest bettors on PB.com who rate the Purples a buy on 5 seats.

    The notion that UKIP might only get 1 seat has got me worried. Back in March 2013 I got, via beards, £200 on at 8/1 with Hills that UKIP would get more than one seat. This has been my big banker - guaranteed winnings it seemed. Alas that might not be the case.

    I have a feeling that a shock defeat of Nigel Farage could be the story of election night.

    I also got a text today from a close friend who (although a life-long sympathesiser) has only just joined the Conservatives in the past 12 months. He lives in Tonbridge and is getting a lot of encouragement (pressure?) from his local association to get actively involved and help in Rochester and Strood.

    The Tories really are throwing absolutely everything at Reckless. He is hated.
    Good lord

    It's as if things that actually happen don't count on here

    So what?! They threw absolutely everything at him last time... He won at a canter

    The Tory candidate is/was useless , she had to be replaced in a hustings this week by Damian green, while Reckless has been a solid Ukip mp , speaking authoritavely on national TV
    Polling showed huge numbers of Tories having a "holiday shag" with UKIP at the by-election, but returning to the fold at the General. I personally think Reckless is well gone, given how far UKIP are off their autumn peak.

    I also don't see them getting close in Rother Valley or Grimsby.
    Let alone Rotheram. Here's to iSam!
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    Hillary Clinton apparently scheduled to announce her candidacy over the weekend. So 18 months of phoney 'war on women' malarkey that backfired in the midterms last year.

    She doesn't seem to have anything else.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,800
    GIN1138 said:

    I've had enough of minnow's like Survation and Opinium. Time to bring on the big gun's like ICM and Mori.

    As a political bettor I really wonder whether any of the polling companies have a clue. The pitfalls of adjustments bedevil them all, and it's precisely those adjustments that they can't know when to throw out.

    As things stand I think we're on course for a wafer thin Tory win, SNP to have almost total domination in Scotland, LD's to have sufficient numbers to be easily able to book a table in a restaurant, and the Greens to be sufficient to form a meeting.



  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    frpenkridge said:

    I beginning to think that these opinion polls are not worthy of the expert analysis this site lavishes on them. It is like running the data from an electron microscope through a quantum computer when studying the entrails of a sheep.

    It's OK as long as the computer has enough ram :-)
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    Reckless isn't hated by anybody, he's a quiet unassuming bloke, the tories just bitterly resent him defecting because he's so good at his job. The tory candidate is very poor, Carswell is nailed on, Reckless is not far behind.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    Omnium said:

    GIN1138 said:

    I've had enough of minnow's like Survation and Opinium. Time to bring on the big gun's like ICM and Mori.

    As a political bettor I really wonder whether any of the polling companies have a clue. The pitfalls of adjustments bedevil them all, and it's precisely those adjustments that they can't know when to throw out.

    As things stand I think we're on course for a wafer thin Tory win, SNP to have almost total domination in Scotland, LD's to have sufficient numbers to be easily able to book a table in a restaurant, and the Greens to be sufficient to form a meeting.

    This isn't aimed at you.

    But I heard the same arguments levelled against the pollsters during the lead up to the Indyref.

    By and large, most of them got the result well within the margin of error.

    Whilst I understand the difference between a FPTP election and a referendum with a binary choice, that gives me confidence that most of the pollsters will get this election right.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    justin124 said:

    Charles said:



    Our local priest refused to marry my sister and her husband for that very reason. Dug his heels in. It ended up with him being sick on the day, and the local Bishop standing in (all prearranged, naturally!)

    Charles
    May I ask when that was?
    2008.

    It was a little more complicated than that: it is a rural church with one priest shared across three parishes. The priest wanted to close our church, because it was more traditional than he liked (his excuse was that his time was better spent ministering to the poor), but our family teamed up with the local squire to make sure that he wasn't able to do so.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,800
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    Part 1 of the equation, requiring the Tories to take 2% off UKIP may be taking place, but Part 2 , involving the LibDems taking 2% off Labour also has to happen before Dave & Co. have any chance of winning the GE.
    Meanwhile, Chris Hanretty & Others' latest 2015 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast shows Labour on 277 seats, just 4 seats behind the Tories on 281. Interestingly, this projection also shows UKIP winning just one very lonely seat, in sharp contrast to some of the smartest bettors on PB.com who rate the Purples a buy on 5 seats.

    The notion that UKIP might only get 1 seat has got me worried. Back in March 2013 I got, via beards, £200 on at 8/1 with Hills that UKIP would get more than one seat. This has been my big banker - guaranteed winnings it seemed. Alas that might not be the case.

    I have a feeling that a shock defeat of Nigel Farage could be the story of election night.

    I also got a text today from a close friend who (although a life-long sympathesiser) has only just joined the Conservatives in the past 12 months. He lives in Tonbridge and is getting a lot of encouragement (pressure?) from his local association to get actively involved and help in Rochester and Strood.

    The Tories really are throwing absolutely everything at Reckless. He is hated.
    Mark Reckless? Hated by Tories?

    I find that hard to believe

    *Innocent Face*
    If you're a Tory that hates Reckless or Carswell then you're a fool.

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,965
    blackburn63 said:

    Reckless isn't hated by anybody,

    TSE!!
  • woody662woody662 Posts: 255
    Any reports on UKIP activity in general. In my seat they seem to have gone missing since the campaign kicked off.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    justin124 said:

    Dair said:

    OldKingCole said:

    justin124 said:


    'I see Andy Murray has got married in Dunblane Cathedral.Apparently in Scotland it is being treated as the wedding of the year. Find it strange that a couple that have been ‘living in sin’ for over six years end up having a white church wedding. It seems rather hypocritical and it surprises me that the clergy agree to carry out such services the effect of which is to bring the church into disrepute.'

    Pulupstar
    'Christ that's out the fifties playbook ! '

    It's actually nothing of the kind. Churches would not have behaved like this in the 70s and 80s.

    The Church of Scotland elsewhere in Scotland, I understand, refuses to marry people who have been living together for the past 30 days. However it will marry them if, although they been living together or a year or more, they separate for the 30 days prior to the wedding!
    A minister has the right to choose who they do and do not marry, however this should follow the guidelines set out by the general assembly, which as far as I know have absolutely no bar on cohabiting couples marrying.

    Moreover, if the minister does refuse or accept they can be removed from their position by the leity of the parish. It may be that there are some communities where they tell their minister not to marry cohabiting couples but I would expect that to be very, very rare and in such hard c conservative communities most will already be Wee Free or similar offshoot.
    I can assure you that there are some Ministers - I am talking about England & Wales here - who would not knowingly marry couples who had aleady had full sexual relations with each other. At the end of the day 'chastity before marriage' is what the Christian Churches are supposed to believe in! Of course many find it impossible to live by that principle but surely such people should not expect the Church to facilitate the hypocrisy of a white wedding. By turning a blind eye the Churches imply that their principles count for nothing and that moral laisser-faire rules ok!
    As for Ministers refusing to marry cohabiting couples being very, very rare I would respectfully suggest that until - say - the 1980s it was very rare for cohabiting couples to marry in church at all!
    So you wish to impose your English mores on Scotland.

    Typical imperialist.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,368
    justin124 said:

    Dair said:

    OldKingCole said:

    justin124 said:


    'I see Andy Murray has got married in Dunblane Cathedral.Apparently in Scotland it is being treated as the wedding of the year. Find it strange that a couple that have been ‘living in sin’ for over six years end up having a white church wedding. It seems rather hypocritical and it surprises me that the clergy agree to carry out such services the effect of which is to bring the church into disrepute.'

    Pulupstar
    'Christ that's out the fifties playbook ! '

    It's actually nothing of the kind. Churches would not have behaved like this in the 70s and 80s.

    The Church of Scotland elsewhere in Scotland, I understand, refuses to marry people who have been living together for the past 30 days. However it will marry them if, although they been living together or a year or more, they separate for the 30 days prior to the wedding!
    A minister has the right to choose who they do and do not marry, however this should follow the guidelines set out by the general assembly, which as far as I know have absolutely no bar on cohabiting couples marrying.

    Moreover, if the minister does refuse or accept they can be removed from their position by the leity of the parish. It may be that there are some communities where they tell their minister not to marry cohabiting couples but I would expect that to be very, very rare and in such hard c conservative communities most will already be Wee Free or similar offshoot.
    I can assure you that there are some Ministers - I am talking about England & Wales here - who would not knowingly marry couples who had aleady had full sexual relations with each other. At the end of the day 'chastity before marriage' is what the Christian Churches are supposed to believe in! Of course many find it impossible to live by that principle but surely such people should not expect the Church to facilitate the hypocrisy of a white wedding. By turning a blind eye the Churches imply that their principles count for nothing and that moral laisser-faire rules ok!
    As for Ministers refusing to marry cohabiting couples being very, very rare I would respectfully suggest that until - say - the 1980s it was very rare for cohabiting couples to marry in church at all!
    Chastity before marriage has, surely always been fairly unusual, except among people where it was essential to be assured that the first child was that of the husband. I'm pretty sure that in some parts of theese islands some evidence of the brides fertility ws needed before marriage.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025