Undefined discussion subject.
Comments
-
I tuned into the r4 today prog first thing and was met with "Miliband blames Cameron for the hundreds drowning in the med because of the lack of post conflict planning...."
It is amazing at the level of brass cheek of Labour on this to conveniently forget the hundreds of thousands killed in Iraq because of the lack of post conflict planning.... By a LAYBOUR Government.0 -
I was only 2 then thoughantifrank said:
Dennis Healey accused Margaret Thatcher in 1983 of glorying in slaughter. We haven't reached that point yet.Pulpstar said:This is Ed's HIV moment isn't it ? A desperate attempt to get the SNP off the agenda, point scoring off the back of a human tragedy (I agree with Nick Clegg on this one)
I honestly can't remember a General Election so visceral and downright nasty. Gutter stuff all round.
0 -
I've been polled twice in month and just signed back up again after 2yrs away.GeoffH said:
"YG you can explain by stale polling panel & evidence for v little churn."
I have been polled by YouGov at least 4 times during this campaign.
I find myself on the 3rd and 4th occasion shifting nuanced answers (where they can be) to YG's questions to the non-nuanced, absolute positions. ie from moderately support to completely support, thinking 'didn't you hear me the first time?'
I wonder if this may be a more widespread reaction to being repeatedly asked the same question? And if so, if it explains why positions on YG become more entrenched and less likely to reveal small movements in wider opinion that the other pollsters may have found?0 -
She might struggle, not being an MP. Salmond, on the other hand............Sunil_Prasannan said:
Nicola 4 PM!Nemtynakht said:
Galloway will have a goTabman said:
Lady Hermon for PM!Greenwich_Floater said:What happens if we get the following: -
Con 280
Lab 260
SNP 52
LD 20
UKIP 5
NI 18
Others 5
Dave, realising that he can't form a government resigns and leaves it to Ed.
Ed, manages to cobble a barely workable agreement, but in a moment of foresight, realises that such a government could lead to the long term destruction of the Labour party, also resigns.
Does Salmond try to form a government (with LAB S&C) and become PM or is that just too ridiculous and we would have to have another election.
(I'd prefer Viscount Thurso but you can't always get what you want)
(only kidding!
)0 -
Is he standing again? I've no idea which his seat is.FrancisUrquhart said:
It cost Bryne a lot. And it also set a narrative. The note in itself isn't the big deal, but Labour then spent 4+ years opposing all cuts, bangings on about too far too fast and basically reinforcing that narrative.kle4 said:
I bet Liam Bryne has taken a lot of stick in Labour circles for his attempt at being funny 5 years ago. I don't know that it has actually cost them anything, but it's always provided an easy counter for the coalition to fall back on.dr_spyn said:0 -
Agreed. Very ugly and nasty.Pulpstar said:This is Ed's HIV moment isn't it ? A desperate attempt to get the SNP off the agenda, point scoring off the back of a human tragedy (I agree with Nick Clegg on this one)
I honestly can't remember a General Election so visceral and downright nasty. Gutter stuff all round.0 -
How does this bet basket arb of conservative constituencies vs labour most seats sound?
Labour most seats @ 3.60
Conservatives to win (stake split between them);
Taunton Deane @ 1.57
Warwick & Leamington @ 1.53
Bristol NW @ 1.53
Great Yarmouth @ 1.73
Worcester @ 1.73
Vale of Glamorgan @ 1.40
I guess my question is, can the tories win the most seats if they don't hold these constituencies? Of course, I know they can, but if the tories end up on 265 seats, will any of these^ not be in them?
Are there any other constituencies around the 1/2 mark which are worth substituting?0 -
Ah, yes I forgot! Um, OK she just needs a by-election, thenGreenwich_Floater said:
She might struggle, not being an MP. Salmond, on the other hand............Sunil_Prasannan said:
Nicola 4 PM!Nemtynakht said:
Galloway will have a goTabman said:
Lady Hermon for PM!Greenwich_Floater said:What happens if we get the following: -
Con 280
Lab 260
SNP 52
LD 20
UKIP 5
NI 18
Others 5
Dave, realising that he can't form a government resigns and leaves it to Ed.
Ed, manages to cobble a barely workable agreement, but in a moment of foresight, realises that such a government could lead to the long term destruction of the Labour party, also resigns.
Does Salmond try to form a government (with LAB S&C) and become PM or is that just too ridiculous and we would have to have another election.
(I'd prefer Viscount Thurso but you can't always get what you want)
(only kidding! ) 0 -
Do the two Alexanders, Danny and Douglas, not understand that they are heading towards HoC exit in their own constituency? Is spending time in the UK media going to help them connect with their voters?0
-
Danny at least presumably knew he had no chance for a long time, so maybe he's trying to help the party on his way out rather than futilely save himself.TCPoliticalBetting said:Do the two Alexanders, Danny and Douglas, not understand that they are heading towards HoC exit in their own constituency? Is spending time in the UK media going to help them connect with their voters?
0 -
Floater
"All true but Labour needs votes so sod the truth"
Anyone who posts as many supercilious comments on other posters as you should surely be expected to post SOMETHING of interest occasionally?0 -
LOL! Revisit that in a couple of years' time, if (God forbid) I do get a chance to be shown right.edmundintokyo said:Yup, he'll be good.
Not comparable. In Iraq we DID put boots on the ground, and many British and of course US lives were lost. So of course it's consistent for those who supported the principle to point out that the post-invasion campaign was badly screwed up.edmundintokyo said:
BTW, today's speech as reported mentions that Labour supported the bombing. The complaint is that the government(s) then bollocksed up the peace. I suspect this is a load of old cobblers and the thing was doomed from the start (hence my question upthread) but it's a coherent position. It's the same position that oppositions that voted for the Iraq war took when the aftermath went pear-shaped; I haven't tried to chase it up, but it was probably what the Tories said about Iraq.
In contrast, Ed Miliband opposed any post-bombing intervention. He now seems to be trying to rewrite history, as he did with Syria. His lack of integrity can no longer be in doubt.0 -
If it was land-based migration then it wouldn't be in the news. It's only in the news because the migration is happening via boats that are sinking. You and I both know the politicians wouldn't care otherwise.Richard_Nabavi said:
Sure, but the point is Libya is a transit point. If it wasn't Libya it would be somewhere else. Libya is a red herring, it's not the cause of the migration.OblitusSumMe said:Not that I'm a fan of Miliband's posturing on this, but there is a reason the boats are departing from Libya rather than Morocco, and it's not because they fancy a longer voyage across the Mediterranean.
The origin of the migrants themselves is not so much the issue.
That's why Libya is important.0 -
The underlying cause of the migration is that a life in Europe is nicer than a life in Africa or the Middle East. Whether specific migrants are refugees or economic migrants is frequently a very blurry distinction.Richard_Nabavi said:
Sure, but the point is Libya is a transit point. If it wasn't Libya it would be somewhere else. Libya is a red herring, it's not the cause of the migration.OblitusSumMe said:Not that I'm a fan of Miliband's posturing on this, but there is a reason the boats are departing from Libya rather than Morocco, and it's not because they fancy a longer voyage across the Mediterranean.
The origin of the migrants themselves is not so much the issue.
The ultimate logic of the situation is that we either send proper boats to pick up would be migrants, or we do everything we can to stop the boats.
Focusing on the "evil people smugglers" is a lazy answer which cloaks the speaker in a veneer of morality in an attempt to avoid answering the underlying question.0 -
AhahahaPong said:How does this bet basket arb of the conservatives constituencies vs labour most seats sound?
Labour most seats @ 3.65
Conservatives to win (stake split between them);
Taunton Deane @ 1.57
Warwick & Leamington @ 1.53
Bristol NW @ 1.53
Great Yarmouth @ 1.73
Worcester @ 1.73
Vale of Glamorgan @ 1.40
I guess my question is, can the tories win the most seats if they don't hold ^ ? Are there any other constituencies around the 1/2 mark which are worth substituting?
I am on all those Conservative seats and long Ed PM, long Con seats.
Yep - Go ahead.
Aberconwy @ 4-9 is another. Given the Plaid surge and small welsh swing I doubt Labour will get this.0 -
Looks to me like only one party is using dead refugees to score political points this morning and it is not Labour.0
-
On Sunday, hope to publish an ELBOW graph showing weekly Labour % leads since August not just in the "traditional" topline ELBOW aggregator, but also for Lab leads using just YouGov polls and a third plot for non-YouGov only polls!
It's "interesting" - if only I can decide on a nice colour scheme for each of the three lines - keep changing it!0 -
Miliband has reached a new low today..he should be ashamed of himself...as should the Party he leads because they no doubt approve of what he is saying0
-
If Ed has been SO concerned about the situation in Libya, why has he not been banging on about in Parliament, how many times has he brought it up at PMQ, where is it in the manifesto, why has it only just been brought up in the campaign.
Could it be that the gimp-faced twerk has spotted an opportunity on the back of a tradegy.
Ed, you are either a very unsavoury person, or you are guilty of taking up very poor advice from aides. Either way, it doesn't make you attractive to the electorate.
Tories, play this one the right way and it could be a bigger vote winner than Scotland.0 -
Is there something in the water today?Innocent_Abroad said:
That is certainly so, as far as it goes.Life_ina_market_town said:
Returns in a local government election may only be questioned by way of election petition (Representation of the People Act 1983, s. 127). The petition must be brought by four or more persons entitled to vote in the election (s. 128(1)). The parties to an election petition are obliged to pay the costs of the petition in such manner and proportion as the election court may determine (s. 154(1)).tlg86 said:Off topic, but can someone explain why it "took four local individuals in this case to risk a legal bill of hundreds of thousands of pounds to get this election overturned"?
On a wider view, I daresay there was a very understandable reluctance to do or to condone anything which might turn into a recruiting sergeant for terrorist outfits - and let's be in no doubt that that's what the disqualification of Lutfur Rahman has achieved.
Seriously?
So certain elements of society are nigh on untouchable "in case it acts as a recruiting sergeant"
Well, its a view - a bonkers , perverted view but a view all the same.0 -
@tnewtondunn: Opinium poll for RIAS: Tories have a 12 point lead among over 50s; Con 41%, Lab 29%, UKIP 14%, LD 7%, Grn 4%. Most likely age group to vote.0
-
@IsabelHardman: So according to Labour’s own briefing, the party talked a lot about Libya in 2011 (unsurprisingly), then silent about it till February 2015Greenwich_Floater said:If Ed has been SO concerned about the situation in Libya, why has he not been banging on about in Parliament, how many times has he brought it up at PMQ, where is it in the manifesto, why has it only just been brought up in the campaign.
Could it be that the gimp-faced twerk has spotted an opportunity on the back of a tradegy.
Ed, you are either a very unsavoury person, or you are guilty of taking up very poor advice from aides. Either way, it doesn't make you attractive to the electorate.
Tories, play this one the right way and it could be a bigger vote winner than Scotland.0 -
As a tiny, tiny spoiler for PB Tories, last week's figure for Non-YouGovs was the first time they showed a Tory lead in ELBOW.0
-
Well it would to you.....SouthamObserver said:Looks to me like only one party is using dead refugees to score political points this morning and it is not Labour.
0 -
In which case I'd have to salute his courage, strength and indefatigability; not to mention chutzpah.Nemtynakht said:
Galloway will have a goTabman said:
Lady Hermon for PM!Greenwich_Floater said:What happens if we get the following: -
Con 280
Lab 260
SNP 52
LD 20
UKIP 5
NI 18
Others 5
Dave, realising that he can't form a government resigns and leaves it to Ed.
Ed, manages to cobble a barely workable agreement, but in a moment of foresight, realises that such a government could lead to the long term destruction of the Labour party, also resigns.
Does Salmond try to form a government (with LAB S&C) and become PM or is that just too ridiculous and we would have to have another election.
(I'd prefer Viscount Thurso but you can't always get what you want)
0 -
It's not a coherent position because one (of many) things we learned in Afghan/Iraq is that "troops in" is no longer a peace-keeping, berets on, COIN ops type of strategy.edmundintokyo said:
Yup, he'll be good.Richard_Nabavi said:Anyone out there who still, despite all the evidence, thinks Ed is fit to be PM?
Ed Miliband 21 March 2011 ·
I support British intervention in Libya for 3 reasons: it is a just cause, with a feasible plan, and has international support.
https://www.facebook.com/edmiliband/posts/202722219746747
Ed Miliband, in parliament, 21 March 2011:
There is international consent, a just cause and a feasible mission, but we also need—this is very important—to maintain public support here at home, because this House is not just contemplating expressing its support for an international resolution; it is discussing its position on the use of armed forces. We are a generous and compassionate people, but there will no doubt be some people in the country—indeed, we have heard it in parts of this House—wondering whether it really needs to be us, now, at this time. It is a valid and important question, but in the end, as well as there being the geopolitical questions that the Prime Minister raised, we have to make a judgment about our role in the world and our duty to others. Where there is just cause, where feasible action can be taken, and where there is international consent, are we really saying that we should be a country that stands by and does nothing? In my view, that would be a dereliction of our duty, our history, and our values. Let us not forget that those who have risen up against Colonel Gaddafi are part of a wider movement for reform and democracy that we are seeing across north Africa. We cannot and should not abandon them.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110321/debtext/110321-0002.htm
BTW, today's speech as reported mentions that Labour supported the bombing. The complaint is that the government(s) then bollocksed up the peace. I suspect this is a load of old cobblers and the thing was doomed from the start (hence my question upthread) but it's a coherent position. It's the same position that oppositions that voted for the Iraq war took when the aftermath went pear-shaped; I haven't tried to chase it up, but it was probably what the Tories said about Iraq.
With no existing infrastructure or civil authority to support, as is the case in Libya, troops must nation-build. Which of course they can't. But they must be plentiful enough so that nation-building can occur. Hundreds of thousands would be about right.
And that is simply a commitment that no one today is prepared to make. They never were, in fact.
So Ed castigating Dave for losing the peace, when it is not within his gift or ability to do so, is the equivalent of blaming him for not eradicating global poverty.0 -
I see Ed was unusually eloquent in favour of intervening in Libya.Richard_Nabavi said:Anyone out there who still, despite all the evidence, thinks Ed is fit to be PM?
Ed Miliband 21 March 2011 ·
I support British intervention in Libya for 3 reasons: it is a just cause, with a feasible plan, and has international support.
https://www.facebook.com/edmiliband/posts/202722219746747
Ed Miliband, in parliament, 21 March 2011:
There is international consent, a just cause and a feasible mission, but we also need—this is very important—to maintain public support here at home, because this House is not just contemplating expressing its support for an international resolution; it is discussing its position on the use of armed forces. We are a generous and compassionate people, but there will no doubt be some people in the country—indeed, we have heard it in parts of this House—wondering whether it really needs to be us, now, at this time. It is a valid and important question, but in the end, as well as there being the geopolitical questions that the Prime Minister raised, we have to make a judgment about our role in the world and our duty to others. Where there is just cause, where feasible action can be taken, and where there is international consent, are we really saying that we should be a country that stands by and does nothing? In my view, that would be a dereliction of our duty, our history, and our values. Let us not forget that those who have risen up against Colonel Gaddafi are part of a wider movement for reform and democracy that we are seeing across north Africa. We cannot and should not abandon them.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110321/debtext/110321-0002.htm
Or in other words: "Am I tough enough? Hell Yes!"0 -
Guido also mentions that one of the Ghaddafi sons once gave the "Ralph Miliband Lecture" at LSE..
0 -
It's moved the agenda off the SNP though...SouthamObserver said:Looks to me like only one party is using dead refugees to score political points this morning and it is not Labour.
0 -
That's an angle. Who are RIAS??TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
On the bright side for Labour and Ed, no one is talking about the SNP, on the downside, some are talking about him being a total asshat0
-
That is a strong contender for the maddest post you've ever made!SouthamObserver said:Looks to me like only one party is using dead refugees to score political points this morning and it is not Labour.
You do know who this Ed Miliband guy who raised the issue and blamed Cameron is, right? Perhaps you should look him up on Wikipedia and find out which party he belongs to.0 -
I don't completely disagree with your main point but not having somebody trying to cut your head off because of your religion is a kind-of turbo-charged meaning of the word "nicer".Tissue_Price said:
The underlying cause of the migration is that a life in Europe is nicer than a life in Africa or the Middle East. Whether specific migrants are refugees or economic migrants is frequently a very blurry distinction.Richard_Nabavi said:
Sure, but the point is Libya is a transit point. If it wasn't Libya it would be somewhere else. Libya is a red herring, it's not the cause of the migration.OblitusSumMe said:Not that I'm a fan of Miliband's posturing on this, but there is a reason the boats are departing from Libya rather than Morocco, and it's not because they fancy a longer voyage across the Mediterranean.
The origin of the migrants themselves is not so much the issue.
The ultimate logic of the situation is that we either send proper boats to pick up would be migrants, or we do everything we can to stop the boats.
Focusing on the "evil people smugglers" is a lazy answer which cloaks the speaker in a veneer of morality in an attempt to avoid answering the underlying question.0 -
I am sure Mike's instincts are sound and the polls are beginning to shift in the direction of the Tories. But I noticed a curious thing about the data in this table. The average of the Tory and the Labour share of the vote is identical. And by that, I mean to an infinite number of decimal places. It is as dead as a dead heat gets. The standard deviations of the two sets of data are pretty similar too, though not exactly the same. Whatever the numbers really mean, there isn't much sign of a difference showing yet from a statistical point of view.0
-
For less than a day and doesn't paint Labour in a nice light. That's not moving the game your way IMHO.Pulpstar said:
It's moved the agenda off the SNP though...SouthamObserver said:Looks to me like only one party is using dead refugees to score political points this morning and it is not Labour.
0 -
Send boats to pick them up and take them back to where they got on the boat or a place set up to detain would be migrants to determine whether they are refugees or chancersTissue_Price said:
The underlying cause of the migration is that a life in Europe is nicer than a life in Africa or the Middle East. Whether specific migrants are refugees or economic migrants is frequently a very blurry distinction.Richard_Nabavi said:
Sure, but the point is Libya is a transit point. If it wasn't Libya it would be somewhere else. Libya is a red herring, it's not the cause of the migration.OblitusSumMe said:Not that I'm a fan of Miliband's posturing on this, but there is a reason the boats are departing from Libya rather than Morocco, and it's not because they fancy a longer voyage across the Mediterranean.
The origin of the migrants themselves is not so much the issue.
The ultimate logic of the situation is that we either send proper boats to pick up would be migrants, or we do everything we can to stop the boats.
Focusing on the "evil people smugglers" is a lazy answer which cloaks the speaker in a veneer of morality in an attempt to avoid answering the underlying question.0 -
Similar to SagaSunil_Prasannan said:
That's an angle. Who are RIAS??TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Insurance group for older peopleSunil_Prasannan said:
That's an angle. Who are RIAS??TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Was that before or after St Tony visited him in his desert tent?TGOHF said:Guido also mentions that one of the Ghaddafi sons once gave the "Ralph Miliband Lecture" at LSE..
0 -
And that is up against some pretty stiff competition.Richard_Nabavi said:
That is a strong contender for the maddest post you've ever made!SouthamObserver said:Looks to me like only one party is using dead refugees to score political points this morning and it is not Labour.
to.0 -
In fact the polls aren't beginning to shift to the Tories that is an illusion.Recidivist said:I am sure Mike's instincts are sound and the polls are beginning to shift in the direction of the Tories. But I noticed a curious thing about the data in this table. The average of the Tory and the Labour share of the vote is identical. And by that, I mean to an infinite number of decimal places. It is as dead as a dead heat gets. The standard deviations of the two sets of data are pretty similar too, though not exactly the same. Whatever the numbers really mean, there isn't much sign of a difference showing yet from a statistical point of view.
They are down in comparable polls every day this week0 -
Welcome to the site, Mr. H and Mr. Recidivist.0
-
Our two main parties have done all they can for decade after decade to block PR. Labour currently benefits most from FPTP. They deserve this result!Greenwich_Floater said:What happens if we get the following: -
Con 280
Lab 260
SNP 52
LD 20
UKIP 5
NI 18
Others 5
Dave, realising that he can't form a government resigns and leaves it to Ed.
Ed, manages to cobble a barely workable agreement, but in a moment of foresight, realises that such a government could lead to the long term destruction of the Labour party, also resigns.
Does Salmond try to form a government (with LAB S&C) and become PM or is that just too ridiculous and we would have to have another election.
But isn't Cam allowed to carry on until he loses a vote in the H of C? If he was sensible, moderate and selective in his proposed legislation, he'd receive support from LD, NI, most Others. Result = 323 against 317. (Unless Bone, Chope et al rebel).
Sir Humphrey may even have written more of Britain's, er, unwritten constitution to cater for just such an outcome.
Also I don't think the SNP would dare vote down a EdM government for fear of losing seats in a second 2015 election. EdM would be criticised for not taking over from Cam, so he'd take over. He might form a 'minority coalition' with LDs, especially if by some good fortune Clegg, Alexander and Laws have all gone.0 -
SO is becoming ever more irrational and partisan as the election approaches. A shame because he's usually an excellent poster whose musings I always look forward to and take the time to read in detail.Richard_Nabavi said:
That is a strong contender for the maddest post you've ever made!SouthamObserver said:Looks to me like only one party is using dead refugees to score political points this morning and it is not Labour.
You do know who this Ed Miliband guy who raised the issue and blamed Cameron is, right? Perhaps you should look him up on Wikipedia and find out which party he belongs to.0 -
OT Can anyone recommend a track recognition app that works with older tunes? I find TrackID wanting here and Shazam worse.0
-
Richard you have no idea what Miliband said because he has not said it yet. The Tories are saying he is blaming Cameron for the dead in the Mediterranean because they do not wish to have a light shone on their failures over Libya and in engaging generally with the international community. You can get on your high horse of synthetic rage if you like - I know there is nothing you like more than accusing Labour and Ed of immorality and evil - but I am afraid that foreign policy is a legitimate subject for discussion during a general election campaign.Richard_Nabavi said:
That is a strong contender for the maddest post you've ever made!SouthamObserver said:Looks to me like only one party is using dead refugees to score political points this morning and it is not Labour.
You do know who this Ed Miliband guy who raised the issue and blamed Cameron is, right? Perhaps you should look him up on Wikipedia and find out which party he belongs to.
0 -
True enough - I for that reason I still think Lab most seats is the most likely outcome - but I think Mike is right to point out 4 Con leads of +4 is still significant. They've struggled to get more than 1 poll with a lead above 1-2, and now 4 in a week of 4+. We're still looking at a statistical tie, but the confluence of larger Con leads does give them some basis for hoping for such a lead on the day itself, whereas before it was pure speculation.Recidivist said:I am sure Mike's instincts are sound and the polls are beginning to shift in the direction of the Tories. But I noticed a curious thing about the data in this table. The average of the Tory and the Labour share of the vote is identical. And by that, I mean to an infinite number of decimal places. It is as dead as a dead heat gets. The standard deviations of the two sets of data are pretty similar too, though not exactly the same. Whatever the numbers really mean, there isn't much sign of a difference showing yet from a statistical point of view.
It might not happen. We could have a bunch of larger Lab leads today and tomorrow (Lab lead by 3 in one of the latest ones in any case), but even if it is a small thing, those 4 Con leads of +4 give them something to pin their hopes on at least.0 -
Total and utter disgrace, morons like Southam will still vote for him but anyone with a brain cell can see him for what he really is.richardDodd said:Miliband has reached a new low today..he should be ashamed of himself...as should the Party he leads because they no doubt approve of what he is saying
0 -
Birmingham Hodge Hill, UK polling report has Lib Dem and UKIP candidates also standing.Plato said:
Is he standing again? I've no idea which his seat is.
FrancisUrquhart said:
It cost Bryne a lot. And it also set a narrative. The note in itself isn't the big deal, but Labour then spent 4+ years opposing all cuts, bangings on about too far too fast and basically reinforcing that narrative.kle4 said:
I bet Liam Bryne has taken a lot of stick in Labour circles for his attempt at being funny 5 years ago. I don't know that it has actually cost them anything, but it's always provided an easy counter for the coalition to fall back on.dr_spyn said:0 -
Yes, 'entrenchment' , as you put it, is certainly likely. In a genuinely random sample, a lot of people won't have had any real opinion on some issues. Asking once will make them think a bit about it and push some of these to a 'fairly concerned' type of answer. Repeat questions will often harden some of that support for a number of reasons.GeoffH said:"YG you can explain by stale polling panel & evidence for v little churn."
I have been polled by YouGov at least 4 times during this campaign.
I find myself on the 3rd and 4th occasion shifting nuanced answers (where they can be) to YG's questions to the non-nuanced, absolute positions. ie from moderately support to completely support, thinking 'didn't you hear me the first time?'
I wonder if this may be a more widespread reaction to being repeatedly asked the same question? And if so, if it explains why positions on YG become more entrenched and less likely to reveal small movements in wider opinion that the other pollsters may have found?0 -
Phil three names does not back up his opinions. That's the point of Wings. everything is fact checked and backed up. Phil is just a Rangers hating arse who loves the sound of his own voice.TGOHF said:
Not me - and I'd say apart from a couple of bammers who got into trouble at a match in Israel then that isn't true - well not since the end of WW2.Carnyx said:
A regular poster replied to one of my initial postings on this site - PB - by presenting evidence that Celtic fans were a bunch of mass Nazi-saluting types.TGOHF said:
I find it incredible that various Nats on here use that site as some sort of basis for any sane argument. Given the blogger's views on topics such as Hillsborough and 9/11 etc. I very much doubt anyone outside the cult is going to anywhere near it..Carnyx said:
I pointed out to you yesterday that that collaborator tweet was a reference to a satirical website - though neither were in particularly good taste. And linked you to an analysis which raised serious issues about Kezia Dugdale and SLAB's good faith in such matters.Roger said:A pretty big story coming out from Edinburgh. The ugly face of nationalism
"NICOLA Sturgeon has refused to sack the SNP’s Edinburgh South candidate Neil Hay after he was unmasked as a cybernat who likened pro-UK supporters to Nazi collaborators and said elderly voters could “barely remember their own names”.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/kezia-dugdale-wants-tweeting-snp-candidate-sacked-1-3751722
http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-serious-case-of-hypocrisy/
(Come to think of it, was it you who posted that? I can't remember. Apologies if not.)
The pro-republican element have a similar blogger who has obtained similar messiah status - a failed social worker who fled to Ireland - full of similar "facts" and "sources" but lasted just 2 days when a proper newspaper signed him up and was binned in disgrace.
Surprised the National haven't signed the Reverend up - seems a perfect match ?0 -
Can you point me to the bit in Ed's speech where he blames Cameron for the deaths in the Mediterranean?Casino_Royale said:
SO is becoming ever more irrational and partisan as the election approaches. A shame because he's usually an excellent poster whose musings I always look forward to and take the time to read in detail.Richard_Nabavi said:
That is a strong contender for the maddest post you've ever made!SouthamObserver said:Looks to me like only one party is using dead refugees to score political points this morning and it is not Labour.
You do know who this Ed Miliband guy who raised the issue and blamed Cameron is, right? Perhaps you should look him up on Wikipedia and find out which party he belongs to.
I am enjoying be called irrational and partisan by a selection of Tory cheerleaders who have spent the last few years berating Ed and the Labour party.
0 -
That and five years of "Dave isn't winning here...."Recidivist said:I am sure Mike's instincts are sound........
0 -
Pin head dancing...Tom Baldwin sent out a briefing late last night which clearly states what Miliband position is on this. Are you now saying that Baldwin wrote this without consulting Ed?SouthamObserver said:
Richard you have no idea what Miliband said because he has not said it yet. The Tories are saying he is blaming Cameron for the dead in the Mediterranean because they do not wish to have a light shone on their failures over Libya and in engaging generally with the international community. You can get on your high horse of synthetic rage if you like - I know there is nothing you like more than accusing Labour and Ed of immorality and evil - but I am afraid that foreign policy is a legitimate subject for discussion during a general election campaign.Richard_Nabavi said:
That is a strong contender for the maddest post you've ever made!SouthamObserver said:Looks to me like only one party is using dead refugees to score political points this morning and it is not Labour.
You do know who this Ed Miliband guy who raised the issue and blamed Cameron is, right? Perhaps you should look him up on Wikipedia and find out which party he belongs to.0 -
It was true, but still an attempt to be funny. A lot of good jokes are true. I'm sure David Laws received a proper report from a civil servant setting out that there was no money in more formal language and detail.logical_song said:0 -
Why not use solid, dashed and dotted lines?Sunil_Prasannan said:On Sunday, hope to publish an ELBOW graph showing weekly Labour % leads since August not just in the "traditional" topline ELBOW aggregator, but also for Lab leads using just YouGov polls and a third plot for non-YouGov only polls!
It's "interesting" - if only I can decide on a nice colour scheme for each of the three lines - keep changing it!0 -
Show us your SPUDs!isam said:
In fact the polls aren't beginning to shift to the Tories that is an illusion.Recidivist said:I am sure Mike's instincts are sound and the polls are beginning to shift in the direction of the Tories. But I noticed a curious thing about the data in this table. The average of the Tory and the Labour share of the vote is identical. And by that, I mean to an infinite number of decimal places. It is as dead as a dead heat gets. The standard deviations of the two sets of data are pretty similar too, though not exactly the same. Whatever the numbers really mean, there isn't much sign of a difference showing yet from a statistical point of view.
They are down in comparable polls every day this week0 -
We need to further split down NI here.rural_voter said:What happens if we get the following: -
Con 280
Lab 260
SNP 52
LD 20
UKIP 5
NI 18
Others 5
...
But isn't Cam allowed to carry on until he loses a vote in the H of C? If he was sensible, moderate and selective in his proposed legislation, he'd receive support from LD, NI, most Others. Result = 323 against 317. (Unless Bone, Chope et al rebel).
9 DUP I think is the expected return (Perhaps the least volatile of all the parties)
5 Sinn Fein
3 SDLP
1 Sylvia
And others:
1 Galloway
3 Plaid perhaps
1 Green.
You can obviously ignore Sinn Fein - but SDLP won't support a Conservative Gov't, particularly not one working with the DUP I'd have thought.
Plaid are in the SNP block. THe Greens won't support the Conservatives.
So
Con + LD + DUP = 309.
Lab + SNP + Plaid = 315.
That's enough as the SDLP, Greens and Galloway won't vote against a LAB Queen's speech.0 -
Thnx, Sir.OblitusSumMe said:
Birmingham Hodge Hill, UK polling report has Lib Dem and UKIP candidates also standing.
Plato said:Is he standing again? I've no idea which his seat is.
FrancisUrquhart said:
It cost Bryne a lot. And it also set a narrative. The note in itself isn't the big deal, but Labour then spent 4+ years opposing all cuts, bangings on about too far too fast and basically reinforcing that narrative.kle4 said:
I bet Liam Bryne has taken a lot of stick in Labour circles for his attempt at being funny 5 years ago. I don't know that it has actually cost them anything, but it's always provided an easy counter for the coalition to fall back on.dr_spyn said:0 -
Tempting! Tempting!OblitusSumMe said:
Why not use solid, dashed and dotted lines?Sunil_Prasannan said:On Sunday, hope to publish an ELBOW graph showing weekly Labour % leads since August not just in the "traditional" topline ELBOW aggregator, but also for Lab leads using just YouGov polls and a third plot for non-YouGov only polls!
It's "interesting" - if only I can decide on a nice colour scheme for each of the three lines - keep changing it! 0 -
He seems to have briefed the BBC about it:SouthamObserver said:Richard you have no idea what Miliband said because he has not said it yet.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32441968
But, yes, if it turns out that he says the opposite of what is being reported, I shall retract what I said.0 -
Dave didn't "win" in 2010 - um, strictly speaking!CarlottaVance said:
That and five years of "Dave isn't winning here...."Recidivist said:I am sure Mike's instincts are sound........
0 -
Latest forecast for 7th May 1200 UTC
Dry in the north, period of rain possible in the south.
Normal temps, cooler on east coast and under any rain in the south.
Verification chance @ +312 hours (2% to 4%)0 -
@DPJHodges: Even by the standards of his previous, (rare), foreign policy pronouncements, this speech by Ed Miliband is breathtaking in its hypocrisy.0
-
TheScreamingEagles said:
Insurance group for older peopleSunil_Prasannan said:
That's an angle. Who are RIAS??TheScreamingEagles said:
Thanks, thought it was some Johnny-come-lately pollster!nigel4england said:
Similar to SagaSunil_Prasannan said:
That's an angle. Who are RIAS??TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
I think Cameron will favour a coalition if he can get away with it. Minority government is very difficult - back bench rebellions can create havoc.TGOHF said:
I'd say LD -Con up to 315 maybe 320.Tissue_Price said:
6/1 at Ladbrokes. Is this about right for the possible Tory government outcomes, do you think?TGOHF said:Cam PM after the election 2.3 and next gov LD-Con coalition at 6.6 are value.
290-310 = LD-Con
310-325 = Con Min
326+ = Con Maj0 -
Ha oh am I that transparent?!Lestuh said:
Show us your SPUDs!isam said:
In fact the polls aren't beginning to shift to the Tories that is an illusion.Recidivist said:I am sure Mike's instincts are sound and the polls are beginning to shift in the direction of the Tories. But I noticed a curious thing about the data in this table. The average of the Tory and the Labour share of the vote is identical. And by that, I mean to an infinite number of decimal places. It is as dead as a dead heat gets. The standard deviations of the two sets of data are pretty similar too, though not exactly the same. Whatever the numbers really mean, there isn't much sign of a difference showing yet from a statistical point of view.
They are down in comparable polls every day this week
After the next poll I will update0 -
We have a pretty good idea:SouthamObserver said:
Richard you have no idea what Miliband said because he has not said it yet. The Tories are saying he is blaming Cameron for the dead in the Mediterranean because they do not wish to have a light shone on their failures over Libya and in engaging generally with the international community. You can get on your high horse of synthetic rage if you like - I know there is nothing you like more than accusing Labour and Ed of immorality and evil - but I am afraid that foreign policy is a legitimate subject for discussion during a general election campaign.Richard_Nabavi said:
That is a strong contender for the maddest post you've ever made!SouthamObserver said:Looks to me like only one party is using dead refugees to score political points this morning and it is not Labour.
You do know who this Ed Miliband guy who raised the issue and blamed Cameron is, right? Perhaps you should look him up on Wikipedia and find out which party he belongs to.
“Since the action, the failure of post-conflict planning has become obvious. David Cameron was wrong to assume that Libya’s political culture and institutions could be left to evolve and transform on their own. What we have seen in Libya is that when tensions over power and resources began to emerge, they simply reinforced deep-seated ideological and ethnic fault lines in the country, meaning the hopes of the revolutionary uprisings quickly began to unravel.
“The tragedy is that this could have been anticipated. It should have been avoided. And Britain could have played its part in ensuring the international community stood by the people of Libya in practice rather than standing behind the unfounded hopes of potential progress only in principle.”
theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/23/ed-miliband-small-minded-isolationism-damaged-british-influence
ie he is conflating Libya, the people of Libya, the migrants (who of course come from many countries) and Dave's foreign policy.
If you think that is not blaming Dave, and witness the reaction this morning in the media, then you must think he is a total idiot. And I'm sure you don't think that.0 -
I do not think it fair to criticise people for responding to words not already said yet - there's a reason parties set out in detail what they plan to say, sometimes with full quotes, before they ever say it (or even if they don't get around to saying it anywhere). They do it to set the narrative and have people out there ready to defend and promote what they say, even prepare the ground for their comments (and IIRC there have been some instances where the actual words then change based on reaction to trailed comment about it - something about Tesco being named in a speech by Ed M, but it was criticised, so it was not in his actual words when spoken?).SouthamObserver said:
Richard you have no idea what Miliband said because he has not said it yet.Richard_Nabavi said:
That is a strong contender for the maddest post you've ever made!SouthamObserver said:Looks to me like only one party is using dead refugees to score political points this morning and it is not Labour.
You do know who this Ed Miliband guy who raised the issue and blamed Cameron is, right? Perhaps you should look him up on Wikipedia and find out which party he belongs to.
Parties announce what they are planning to talk about and say, what the general thrust of their comments will be, and they know their supporters will be backing them up before they even say it, and their opponents will be critical of it. It's totally normal.
We can only criticise people reacting to the reported summary of his comments, before he has made them, and interpreting it widely at times, if we have done the same for every time people respond to speeches ahead of time. I feel very confident in saying that not a single person on here has never done that, including me.
0 -
I have heavily criticised Cameron for years on here switched my vote to UKIP on November and, up until very recently, was planning to vote that way. It's the sheer terror at the thought of Miliband having any power in this country that has brought me back to the Tories.SouthamObserver said:
Can you point me to the bit in Ed's speech where he blames Cameron for the deaths in the Mediterranean?Casino_Royale said:
SO is becoming ever more irrational and partisan as the election approaches. A shame because he's usually an excellent poster whose musings I always look forward to and take the time to read in detail.Richard_Nabavi said:
That is a strong contender for the maddest post you've ever made!SouthamObserver said:Looks to me like only one party is using dead refugees to score political points this morning and it is not Labour.
You do know who this Ed Miliband guy who raised the issue and blamed Cameron is, right? Perhaps you should look him up on Wikipedia and find out which party he belongs to.
I am enjoying be called irrational and partisan by a selection of Tory cheerleaders who have spent the last few years berating Ed and the Labour party.
I have also criticised the Tories strategy, policy and approach and complacency towards Miliband. Often in the strongest possible terms. If you don't believe me, go back and read my archived posts.
So don't 'Tory cheerleader' me.
0 -
"The BBC's assistant political editor Norman Smith said Labour were making clear that they were not blaming the prime minister for the recent deaths in the Mediterranean."Richard_Nabavi said:
He seems to have briefed the BBC about it:SouthamObserver said:Richard you have no idea what Miliband said because he has not said it yet.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32441968
But, yes, if it turns out that he says the opposite of what is being reported, I shall retract what I said.
0 -
The problem with Stuart Campbell is that, from everything I can decypher, he is a pretty obnoxious and nasty human being.Carnyx said:
Thanks for the comments, good food for thought.Alistair said:
Campbell's comments on Hillsborough are idiotic, properly stupid. They are based on him trying to equate a crowd at a music gig with the crush that developed at Hillsborough and assuming the dynamics are the same, which they are not. For the individuals in the crowd to take the action he wanted them to take they would have to have been psychic. His view is also fundamentally illogical - that the crush was formed by fans pushing one another and that it would have been stopped if only the fans had pushed one another.Carnyx said:
A regular poster replied to one of my initial postings on this site - PB - by presenting evidence that Celtic fans were a bunch of mass Nazi-saluting types.
(Come to think of it, was it you who posted that? I can't remember. Apologies if not.)
But that was - I hope - meant fully in irony/satire, as I thought at the time (though deliberately concealed in the hope I'd fall for it).
I've had a look back in the light of your specific remarks, nevertheless. The Wings 9/11 comment was very plainly ironic - and very obviously so. Even his least best Twitterfriend Duncan Hothershall of SLAB had to go on Twitter to agree. And as far as Hillsborough was concerned his remarks seem accurate enough - that members of the crowd itself had caused the deaths by its pushing from the back - but that the police and the coverup had also to be severely criticised. If you run a check for Hillsborough on his site you'll find some interesting stuff, not least that he's had a retraction, apology and damages for similar accusations from newspapers.
However, the much more important point which JPJ2 also made is that you don't actually need to worry about his opinions. He is so careful to present and document the evidence, very often from opposition sources - which is why I sometimes link to his site though I know that some on here can't bear it.
None of which has any bearing on the fact that he has correctly pointed out that Kezia Dugdale is an enormous hypocrite of gargantuan proportions.
However, he is also a very, very good journalist. He is a rarity in any media these days in that he fact checks and provides supporting evidence. His pieces are generally reliable.
Which is why the Unionists attack the man. The trouble with Scotland supporters is they try to defend the man who is often indefensible instead of just accepting the man is an arse and pointing out that the journalism still stands.0 -
The next Government may well be minority coalition !PeterC said:
I think Cameron will favour a coalition if he can get away with it. Minority government is very difficult - back bench rebellions can create havoc.TGOHF said:
I'd say LD -Con up to 315 maybe 320.Tissue_Price said:
6/1 at Ladbrokes. Is this about right for the possible Tory government outcomes, do you think?TGOHF said:Cam PM after the election 2.3 and next gov LD-Con coalition at 6.6 are value.
290-310 = LD-Con
310-325 = Con Min
326+ = Con Maj0 -
@PopulusPolls: Latest Populus VI: Lab 35 (+1), Con 32 (-), LD 8 (-1), UKIP 14 (-1), Greens 5 (+1), Others 6 (-). Tables here: http://t.co/bouoHTHpey0
-
You need to pay closer attention. The pollster was OpiniumSunil_Prasannan said:TheScreamingEagles said:
Insurance group for older peopleSunil_Prasannan said:
That's an angle. Who are RIAS??TheScreamingEagles said:
Thanks, thought it was some Johnny-come-lately pollster!nigel4england said:
Similar to SagaSunil_Prasannan said:
That's an angle. Who are RIAS??TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
No Friday morning Populus ?0
-
Six of the thirteen polls in the table are from YouGov. Statistics are meaningless unless you deal with that sort of bias.Recidivist said:I am sure Mike's instincts are sound and the polls are beginning to shift in the direction of the Tories. But I noticed a curious thing about the data in this table. The average of the Tory and the Labour share of the vote is identical. And by that, I mean to an infinite number of decimal places. It is as dead as a dead heat gets. The standard deviations of the two sets of data are pretty similar too, though not exactly the same. Whatever the numbers really mean, there isn't much sign of a difference showing yet from a statistical point of view.
0 -
He might do Minority Coalition if CON-LD can get to 320 and get assurance that DUP and UKIP won't bring down the big votes.PeterC said:
I think Cameron will favour a coalition if he can get away with it. Minority government is very difficult - back bench rebellions can create havoc.TGOHF said:
I'd say LD -Con up to 315 maybe 320.Tissue_Price said:
6/1 at Ladbrokes. Is this about right for the possible Tory government outcomes, do you think?TGOHF said:Cam PM after the election 2.3 and next gov LD-Con coalition at 6.6 are value.
290-310 = LD-Con
310-325 = Con Min
326+ = Con Maj
Would still be weak though and probably needs 295 seats, so needs all but the very best phone polls for the tories to be badly wrong (or a shift to them, which is possible the way Ed is going today).
0 -
EICIPM with a a majority perhaps?Scott_P said:@PopulusPolls: Latest Populus VI: Lab 35 (+1), Con 32 (-), LD 8 (-1), UKIP 14 (-1), Greens 5 (+1), Others 6 (-). Tables here: http://t.co/bouoHTHpey
0 -
That is what they are saying now....Tom Baldwin sent a briefing on behalf of Ed, saying something different and hence the media reports.SouthamObserver said:
"The BBC's assistant political editor Norman Smith said Labour were making clear that they were not blaming the prime minister for the recent deaths in the Mediterranean."Richard_Nabavi said:
He seems to have briefed the BBC about it:SouthamObserver said:Richard you have no idea what Miliband said because he has not said it yet.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32441968
But, yes, if it turns out that he says the opposite of what is being reported, I shall retract what I said.0 -
After the had done it.SouthamObserver said:
"The BBC's assistant political editor Norman Smith said Labour were making clear that they were not blaming the prime minister for the recent deaths in the Mediterranean."Richard_Nabavi said:
He seems to have briefed the BBC about it:SouthamObserver said:Richard you have no idea what Miliband said because he has not said it yet.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32441968
But, yes, if it turns out that he says the opposite of what is being reported, I shall retract what I said.0 -
How generous of them.SouthamObserver said:
"The BBC's assistant political editor Norman Smith said Labour were making clear that they were not blaming the prime minister for the recent deaths in the Mediterranean."Richard_Nabavi said:
He seems to have briefed the BBC about it:SouthamObserver said:Richard you have no idea what Miliband said because he has not said it yet.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32441968
But, yes, if it turns out that he says the opposite of what is being reported, I shall retract what I said.
Clearly, they see they've made a major and extremely distasteful blunder, and are trying to row back from it. It's hard to reconcile that rowing back with what Douglas Alexander said on the Today programme, though.0 -
35% strategy looking go for Ed.Scott_P said:@PopulusPolls: Latest Populus VI: Lab 35 (+1), Con 32 (-), LD 8 (-1), UKIP 14 (-1), Greens 5 (+1), Others 6 (-). Tables here: http://t.co/bouoHTHpey
0 -
Unless Labour do pretty well in England, it does seem as though even a Rainbow Coalition might not make it to the nominal majority stage (323), and as a determined negative interpreter of Tory chances, I cannot see them doing better than that, so its either minority coalition, simple minority (with rainbow confidence and supply), or a grand coalition majority. The latter is not going to happen, so one of the former two.Pulpstar said:
The next Government may well be minority coalition !PeterC said:
I think Cameron will favour a coalition if he can get away with it. Minority government is very difficult - back bench rebellions can create havoc.TGOHF said:
I'd say LD -Con up to 315 maybe 320.Tissue_Price said:
6/1 at Ladbrokes. Is this about right for the possible Tory government outcomes, do you think?TGOHF said:Cam PM after the election 2.3 and next gov LD-Con coalition at 6.6 are value.
290-310 = LD-Con
310-325 = Con Min
326+ = Con Maj
0 -
The 'phone polls are trending towards Jack's ARSE. Very important point!!Greenwich_Floater said:
He might do Minority Coalition if CON-LD can get to 320 and get assurance that DUP and UKIP won't bring down the big votes.PeterC said:
I think Cameron will favour a coalition if he can get away with it. Minority government is very difficult - back bench rebellions can create havoc.TGOHF said:
I'd say LD -Con up to 315 maybe 320.Tissue_Price said:
6/1 at Ladbrokes. Is this about right for the possible Tory government outcomes, do you think?TGOHF said:Cam PM after the election 2.3 and next gov LD-Con coalition at 6.6 are value.
290-310 = LD-Con
310-325 = Con Min
326+ = Con Maj
Would still be weak though and probably needs 295 seats, so needs all but the very best phone polls for the tories to be badly wrong (or a shift to them, which is possible the way Ed is going today).
0 -
On 5 live this morning, they were reporting that the original speech had been rewritten as Ed and his aides have had to back down in the face of a backlash.
doesn't mean the original speech didn't exist.0 -
35% have no brain cells?nigel4england said:
Total and utter disgrace, morons like Southam will still vote for him but anyone with a brain cell can see him for what he really is.richardDodd said:Miliband has reached a new low today..he should be ashamed of himself...as should the Party he leads because they no doubt approve of what he is saying
Only right wing PBers have brains and can call posters who argue that foreign policy is a legitimate subject for discussion during a general election campaign Morons!
FairyNuff
This Government has learnt nothing about Libya from Blairs Iraq failings.
Its all about post war as Ed pointed out in Parliament 8 WEEKS AGO0 -
Vote Labour to keep out the SNP and avoid a COALITION OF CHAOS etc etc.murali_s said:
EICIPM with a a majority perhaps?Scott_P said:@PopulusPolls: Latest Populus VI: Lab 35 (+1), Con 32 (-), LD 8 (-1), UKIP 14 (-1), Greens 5 (+1), Others 6 (-). Tables here: http://t.co/bouoHTHpey
0 -
So who to believe? Panelbase, YouGov and Populus or Survation and ComRes?0
-
So much for the polls convergingScott_P said:@PopulusPolls: Latest Populus VI: Lab 35 (+1), Con 32 (-), LD 8 (-1), UKIP 14 (-1), Greens 5 (+1), Others 6 (-). Tables here: http://t.co/bouoHTHpey
0 -
Give Sky a call, they've got it wrong too.SouthamObserver said:
Can you point me to the bit in Ed's speech where he blames Cameron for the deaths in the Mediterranean?Casino_Royale said:
SO is becoming ever more irrational and partisan as the election approaches. A shame because he's usually an excellent poster whose musings I always look forward to and take the time to read in detail.Richard_Nabavi said:
That is a strong contender for the maddest post you've ever made!SouthamObserver said:Looks to me like only one party is using dead refugees to score political points this morning and it is not Labour.
You do know who this Ed Miliband guy who raised the issue and blamed Cameron is, right? Perhaps you should look him up on Wikipedia and find out which party he belongs to.
I am enjoying be called irrational and partisan by a selection of Tory cheerleaders who have spent the last few years berating Ed and the Labour party.
'Labour Accuses PM Over Migrant Boat Deaths'
http://news.sky.com/story/1471399/labour-accuses-pm-over-migrant-boat-deaths0 -
If Labour get 35% I will eat my 10 gallon Stetson.bigjohnowls said:
35% have no brain cells?nigel4england said:
Total and utter disgrace, morons like Southam will still vote for him but anyone with a brain cell can see him for what he really is.richardDodd said:Miliband has reached a new low today..he should be ashamed of himself...as should the Party he leads because they no doubt approve of what he is saying
0 -
ICM, they have never let me down in a general election.antifrank said:So who to believe? Panelbase, YouGov and Populus or Survation and ComRes?
0 -
I can assure you that the verification probability for the forecast you have provided is considerably higher than 4%.Greenwich_Floater said:Latest forecast for 7th May 1200 UTC
Dry in the north, period of rain possible in the south.
Normal temps, cooler on east coast and under any rain in the south.
Verification chance @ +312 hours (2% to 4%)0 -
Alex Salmond did one about writing Labour's budget...kle4 said:
A lot of good jokes are true.logical_song said:0 -
Populus LOL.
Somebody's reputation is going to get a hell of a shellacking after this.
Who is it?
You pays yer money and you takes yer choice.
0 -
I for one am holding back judgement until later as I haven't read the whole story yet, but I would also point out that a quote like that can be pretty meaningless. One of the oldest political tricks is to indicate your opponent is to blame for something or has a terrible position on something, while including a comment to the effect that you are not blaming them for that. Will his speech give the impression he is blaming the PM for the deaths (to people who are not Tory partisans in any case), even if he slips in a comment about not blaming him, that is the key for me? Speechwriters should be good enough to toe that line, so we shall see.SouthamObserver said:
"The BBC's assistant political editor Norman Smith said Labour were making clear that they were not blaming the prime minister for the recent deaths in the Mediterranean."Richard_Nabavi said:
He seems to have briefed the BBC about it:SouthamObserver said:Richard you have no idea what Miliband said because he has not said it yet.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32441968
But, yes, if it turns out that he says the opposite of what is being reported, I shall retract what I said.
0
