politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » UKIP drops to 11% as the Tories re-take the lead with Opini
politicalbetting.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)
Comments
-
Sleazy broken Kippers on the slide (usual caveats apply)
But if Dave is to remain in power, he definitely needs to see UKIP down.0 -
The most important finding from Opinium was this
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/5869389536321986560 -
Lazy thinking.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.0 -
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.
0 -
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.Alanbrooke said:
Lazy thinking.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.
0 -
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.0
-
@GdnPolitics: Labour pledges huge fines on tax avoiders to raise £7.5bn a year http://t.co/yghCCF0R9C0
-
How hard is being Prime Minister though ?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.
Home Secretary is the toughest gig in Gov't.
0 -
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.0 -
Sounds great and should be a very popular promise.Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour pledges huge fines on tax avoiders to raise £7.5bn a year http://t.co/yghCCF0R9C
0 -
Ed Miliband and the Curse of the Were-Rabbit on BBC3 right now!0
-
TheScreamingEagles said:
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.Alanbrooke said:
Lazy thinking.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.
there are probably 2-3 times that number of 2010 voters who are just going to sit on their hands and not voteTheScreamingEagles said:
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.Alanbrooke said:
Lazy thinking.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.0 -
I think this is now Sleazy Broken UKIP are Dead as SLAB.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.0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
'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.0 -
Bill and Ted on ITV2Sunil_Prasannan said:Ed Miliband and the Curse of the Were-Rabbit on BBC3 right now!
Apparently Nigel Farage is the same age as Keanu Reeves0 -
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.0
-
It's total nonsense, as ever.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?
"We will raise money through fines, with no behavioural changes at all by anyone..."0 -
It's questionable whether such an approach would be consistent with Britain's duties under the European Convention on Human Rights.kle4 said:
Sounds great and should be a very popular promise.Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour pledges huge fines on tax avoiders to raise £7.5bn a year http://t.co/yghCCF0R9C
0 -
Speculation Labour will abandon that position on Monday when the manifesto is releasedBig_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.
0 -
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".
0 -
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?antifrank said:
It's questionable whether such an approach would be consistent with Britain's duties under the European Convention on Human Rights.kle4 said:
Sounds great and should be a very popular promise.Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour pledges huge fines on tax avoiders to raise £7.5bn a year http://t.co/yghCCF0R9C
0 -
It's a good nonsense populist policy. Labour have lots of those already. Their weakness is that they lack credibility to deliver them.kle4 said:
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?antifrank said:
It's questionable whether such an approach would be consistent with Britain's duties under the European Convention on Human Rights.kle4 said:
Sounds great and should be a very popular promise.Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour pledges huge fines on tax avoiders to raise £7.5bn a year http://t.co/yghCCF0R9C
0 -
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.Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour pledges huge fines on tax avoiders to raise £7.5bn a year http://t.co/yghCCF0R9C
0 -
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.0 -
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.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.
It always seem bizarre that people in England believe their established church is in some meaningful way a Protestant church.0 -
Woah!Scott_P said:
Bill and Ted on ITV2Sunil_Prasannan said:Ed Miliband and the Curse of the Were-Rabbit on BBC3 right now!
Apparently Nigel Farage is the same age as Keanu Reeves0 -
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 mondayScott_P said:
Speculation Labour will abandon that position on Monday when the manifesto is releasedBig_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.
0 -
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.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.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11339921/David-Cameron-and-the-national-debt-monster-in-three-charts.html0 -
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.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".
0 -
CoS first ordained a female minister in 1969. It has always been far more progessive than the psuedo-Roman church down south.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.0 -
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!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.0 -
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_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour pledges huge fines on tax avoiders to raise £7.5bn a year http://t.co/yghCCF0R9C
0 -
Maybe Deeds of Variation will be at the top of the list...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).
0 -
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/1HghsXi0 -
Or the Roman Church in Scotland ;-)Dair said:
CoS first ordinated a female minister in 1969. It has always been far more progessive than the psuedo-Roman church down south.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.
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.0 -
What do they say about the Conservatives?MP_SE said:
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.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".0 -
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 formula0
-
Maybe they went to confession first
:jjustin124 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.0 -
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.OldKingCole said:
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!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.
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.0 -
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.foxinsoxuk said:
Or the Roman Church in Scotland ;-)Dair said:
CoS first ordinated a female minister in 1969. It has always been far more progessive than the psuedo-Roman church down south.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.
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.0 -
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.glw said:
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.Scott_P said:@GdnPolitics: Labour pledges huge fines on tax avoiders to raise £7.5bn a year http://t.co/yghCCF0R9C
0 -
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.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.
0 -
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 week0
-
S
Serves them right ! They should have paid £100,000 a year. Morons !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
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.0 -
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.pdf0 -
£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 !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
0 -
If you want £500@4/5 Ukip get less than 4.5 seats to cover it I will lay thatMikeSmithson said:
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.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.0 -
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?Dair said:
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.foxinsoxuk said:
Or the Roman Church in Scotland ;-)Dair said:
CoS first ordinated a female minister in 1969. It has always been far more progessive than the psuedo-Roman church down south.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.
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.
Historically the SNP was much stronger in the areas of Presbyterian Scotland, but recently that seems to have lessened.0 -
Friday nights pollDeClare 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.pdf0 -
I'm not sure my poor old heart can take this.0
-
That's yesterdays I believeDeClare 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.pdf0 -
I have a feeling that a shock defeat of Nigel Farage could be the story of election night.MikeSmithson said:
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.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.
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.0 -
Et tu the Sun !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.pdf0 -
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.html0 -
"Shock" defeat ? How can something that is expected be termed "shocking" ?Casino_Royale said:
I have a feeling that a shock defeat of Nigel Farage could be the story of election night.MikeSmithson said:
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.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.
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.0 -
Sorry, just noticed the date, it's yesterday's one. Been thinking it was the 10th all day.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.pdf0 -
It
It is on the top in Wikipedia above Opinium. Do we have Yougov on Friday's. Was this discussed here ?FrancisUrquhart said:
That's yesterdays I believeDeClare 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.pdf0 -
Good lordCasino_Royale said:
I have a feeling that a shock defeat of Nigel Farage could be the story of election night.MikeSmithson said:
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.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.
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.
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 TV0 -
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that UKIP take *more* seats off Labour than the Tories.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.
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.0 -
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.isam said:
Good lordCasino_Royale said:
I have a feeling that a shock defeat of Nigel Farage could be the story of election night.MikeSmithson said:
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.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.
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.
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 TV0 -
I sometimes wonder about the relationship between non-conformist churches and the Peoples Front for the Liberation of Judea (et al)foxinsoxuk said:
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?Dair said:
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.foxinsoxuk said:
Or the Roman Church in Scotland ;-)Dair said:
CoS first ordinated a female minister in 1969. It has always been far more progessive than the psuedo-Roman church down south.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.
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.
Historically the SNP was much stronger in the areas of Presbyterian Scotland, but recently that seems to have lessened.0 -
Having one every day I believe but that is last nights sun poll. Assume tonights will be the Sunday Timessurbiton said:It
It is on the top in Wikipedia above Opinium. Do we have Yougov on Friday's. Was this discussed here ?FrancisUrquhart said:
That's yesterdays I believeDeClare 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.pdf0 -
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!Dair said:
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.OldKingCole said:
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!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.
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.
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!
0 -
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?0
-
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.0 -
"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."justin124 said:
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!Dair said:
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.OldKingCole said:
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!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.
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.
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!
Do these Ministers get clients ?
Is it permissible if these people had sexual relations with other people but not the one they are marrying ?0 -
I've had enough of minnow's like Survation and Opinium. Time to bring on the big gun's like ICM and Mori.0
-
isam said:
Good lordCasino_Royale said:
I have a feeling that a shock defeat of Nigel Farage could be the story of election night.MikeSmithson said:
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.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.
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.
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.0 -
@Mikesmithsonisam said:
If you want £500@4/5 Ukip get less than 4.5 seats to cover it I will lay thatMikeSmithson said:
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.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.
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 20 -
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.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?
0 -
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.Casino_Royale said:
I have a feeling that a shock defeat of Nigel Farage could be the story of election night.MikeSmithson said:
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.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.
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.0 -
You're pretty safe Mike.MikeSmithson said:
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.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.
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.
0 -
Ipsos Mori for definite next week.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.
ICM I'm confident we should get that too.0 -
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.isam said:
Good lordCasino_Royale said:
I have a feeling that a shock defeat of Nigel Farage could be the story of election night.MikeSmithson said:
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.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.
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.
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 also don't see them getting close in Rother Valley or Grimsby.0 -
Expectations for UKIP are much higher than GE2010. They've already won two tough by-elections in Tory held seats.surbiton said:
"Shock" defeat ? How can something that is expected be termed "shocking" ?Casino_Royale said:
I have a feeling that a shock defeat of Nigel Farage could be the story of election night.MikeSmithson said:
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.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.
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.
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.
0 -
Life sentence for not belonging to Unite....saddo said:
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.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?
0 -
Mark Reckless? Hated by Tories?Casino_Royale said:
I have a feeling that a shock defeat of Nigel Farage could be the story of election night.MikeSmithson said:
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.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.
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 find that hard to believe
*Innocent Face*0 -
#coocoocachooTheScreamingEagles said:
Ipsos Mori for definite next week.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.
ICM I'm confident we should get that too.
0 -
Has Kelly Tolhurst been replaced?isam said:
Good lordCasino_Royale said:
I have a feeling that a shock defeat of Nigel Farage could be the story of election night.MikeSmithson said:
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.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.
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.
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
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.anotherDave said:
What do they say about the Conservatives?MP_SE said:
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.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".
Quite sad that it seems that a large number of people are completely turned off by politics.
0 -
No the Ministers I have in mind would very strongly disapprove of casual sex - but yes they do conduct wedding services.surbiton said:
"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."justin124 said:
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!Dair said:
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.OldKingCole said:
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!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.
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.
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!
Do these Ministers get clients ?
Is it permissible if these people had sexual relations with other people but not the one they are marrying ?0 -
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.0
-
If I were Mike S I would be somewhat apprehensive. It is quite possible that Carswell will be the only UKIP MP.0
-
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!)justin124 said:
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!Dair said:
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.OldKingCole said:
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!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.
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.
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!0 -
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.Casino_Royale said:isam said:
Good lordCasino_Royale said:
I have a feeling that a shock defeat of Nigel Farage could be the story of election night.MikeSmithson said:
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.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.
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.
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.0 -
CharlesCharles 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!)justin124 said:
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!Dair said:
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.OldKingCole said:
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!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.
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.
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!
May I ask when that was?0 -
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.0
-
Let alone Rotheram. Here's to iSam!MarqueeMark said:
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.isam said:
Good lordCasino_Royale said:
I have a feeling that a shock defeat of Nigel Farage could be the story of election night.MikeSmithson said:
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.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.
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.
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 also don't see them getting close in Rother Valley or Grimsby.
0 -
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.0 -
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.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 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.
0 -
It's OK as long as the computer has enough ram :-)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.
0 -
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.0
-
This isn't aimed at you.Omnium said:
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.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 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.
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.0 -
2008.justin124 said:
CharlesCharles 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!)
May I ask when that was?
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.0 -
If you're a Tory that hates Reckless or Carswell then you're a fool.TheScreamingEagles said:
Mark Reckless? Hated by Tories?Casino_Royale said:
I have a feeling that a shock defeat of Nigel Farage could be the story of election night.MikeSmithson said:
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.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.
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 find that hard to believe
*Innocent Face*
0 -
TSE!!blackburn63 said:Reckless isn't hated by anybody,
0 -
Any reports on UKIP activity in general. In my seat they seem to have gone missing since the campaign kicked off.0
-
So you wish to impose your English mores on Scotland.justin124 said:
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!Dair said:
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.OldKingCole said:
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!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.
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.
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!
Typical imperialist.0 -
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.justin124 said:
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!Dair said:
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.OldKingCole said:
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!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.
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.
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!0
