politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What went wrong with the polling? More starts to emerge but

Scott_P said:

@BBCNormanS: New Govt anti strike laws will make strikes "close to impossible" - TUC

The whole argument frustrates me. The problem isn't really the number of strikes, it's a handful of strikes which have a dramatic impact on the public. But the government isn't going to pivot towards that sort of criterion.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Huzzah.

Strikers should also be forced to recompense their employers for any loss of business during strikes.

This government isn't right wing enough.

Is anti-strike legislation giving you the horn?

@David_Cameron: Tracey Crouch is the new Minister for Sport.

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_P said:

@BBCNormanS: New Govt anti strike laws will make strikes "close to impossible" - TUC

Huzzah.

Strikers should also be forced to recompense their employers for any loss of business during strikes.

This government isn't right wing enough.

Pah.

when will he tackle no win \ no fee ? Lawyers in such cases should be treated as co-litigants and have damages awarded against them.

Lawyers are a bigger cost to business than strikers.

You think he's put Michael Gove into Justice to be nice to Lawyers?

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_P said:

@BBCNormanS: New Govt anti strike laws will make strikes "close to impossible" - TUC

Huzzah.

Strikers should also be forced to recompense their employers for any loss of business during strikes.

This government isn't right wing enough.

Pah.

when will he tackle no win \ no fee ? Lawyers in such cases should be treated as co-litigants and have damages awarded against them.

Lawyers are a bigger cost to business than strikers.

The introduction of fees for frivolous employment tribunal claims was a great step in the right direction for this.

CarlottaVance said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_P said:

@BBCNormanS: New Govt anti strike laws will make strikes "close to impossible" - TUC

Huzzah.

Strikers should also be forced to recompense their employers for any loss of business during strikes.

This government isn't right wing enough.

Pah.

when will he tackle no win \ no fee ? Lawyers in such cases should be treated as co-litigants and have damages awarded against them.

Lawyers are a bigger cost to business than strikers.

You think he's put Michael Gove into Justice to be nice to Lawyers?

I have my hopes, but will judge it by what he does rather than what he says he'll do ( see Osborne )

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scottish National Party MPs are already plotting to bring down flagship Conservative legislation by courting Tory backbenchers, The Telegraph can disclose.


Nicola Sturgeon's Westminster MPs want to block the so-called Snoopers' Charter by courting "libertarian" Tories who have previously opposed Theresa May's terrorist surveillance plans.

They also believe they can gather enough cross-party support to kill off Tory plans to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights.

David Davis was named as a senior Tory backbencher they could court after he triggered a by-election in 2008 over plans for 42-day detention of terrorist suspects without trial.

http://bit.ly/1FaCvdc

The SNP are the official opposition now?
Of course its not a 'snoopers charter' any more than we had a 'bedroom tax'. Can the SNP tell us why they would want to promote a 'Lets Make Life Easy For Terrorists amendment'? Oh yes - they are a bunch of infantile far lefty-CND appeasers.

David Davis' by election was about the greater glorification and future ambition of David Davis. It was not about 42 day detention.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@stephentall: NEW BLOG: Last Thursday, "there was a larger Lib Dem vote movement to Conservatives than to Labour" http://t.co/lrkoqJKQOM

Firewall.

What skewed perceptions most were the LD-Con Ashcroft marginal polls. They gave the false impression of Lib Dem resilience when much derided UNS would have done a far far better job.

I am very much looking forward to reading the good Lord's own post-mortem.

Polls are a snapshot not a prediction. That's what he'll say

A snapshot huh? Still doesn't explain why the lens cap was on....

Scott_P said:

@bbclaurak: Prob worth keeping an eye on @ChukaUmunna this morning....

Leaked video from Umunna HQ 'reaching out to northern voters'

http://youtu.be/PEvbm6ZvJM8

Grandiose said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

JohnO said:

And I wonder if the two Ulster Unionists will take the Tory whip which would increase the majority to 20.

I don't think they will take the whip, but in practice on many of the bills which the SNP (who seem to think they are the official opposition!) would want to sabotage, the Ulster Unionists are likely to vote with the government. Also on some issues, Douglas Carswell will vote with the government. Given the fact that the opposition is split and Labour's bloc is relatively small, I don't think the small majority is too much of a problem at the moment. Of course, by-elections could fairly quickly change that.

Personally I think what the Tories need to avoid is a "pasty tax" moment. For me the "pasty tax" merely hastened an otherwise quiet Tory decline, which was inevitable. Cameron just needs to avoid hastening his party's decline into infighting for long enough to get things done.

What decline?

Governments get people upset with them during mid-term. As Terry Pratchett said "It's not worth doing something unless someone, somewhere, would much rather you weren't doing it"

Judge a government on election results after five years not on mid-term protest polls.

@Richard_Nabavi

'With the LibDem incumbents gone, and the party starting from such a low base in seat terms, there's no going back to the old LibDem way of campaigning.'

I would have thought their main priority would be to try and hang onto the 8 seats they have as several of those are now marginal.

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@stephentall: NEW BLOG: Last Thursday, "there was a larger Lib Dem vote movement to Conservatives than to Labour" http://t.co/lrkoqJKQOM

Firewall.

What skewed perceptions most were the LD-Con Ashcroft marginal polls. They gave the false impression of Lib Dem resilience when much derided UNS would have done a far far better job.

I am very much looking forward to reading the good Lord's own post-mortem.

Polls are a snapshot not a prediction. That's what he'll say

A snapshot huh? Still doesn't explain why the lens cap was on....

Ashcroft was one of those photographers who always chops peoples heads off. I had an aunty who was notorious for that. Big family joke - well it was when you were 12.

JEO said:

JosiasJessop said:

Has anybody heard what the TPD is doing now? We know Ed's off clubbing, but I'd love to know how Reckless is licking his wounds.

Just so I can laugh.

I don't think it's very nice to take joy in other people's suffering. I can understand when it's someone like George Galloway, who stirred up racial tension to benefit from it, but what has Reckless done? As far as I can see he left our party, risking his seat, because he did not agree with the ideological direction we had taken. While I don't agree with that choice, I wish we had more principled people in politics.

Firstly, it's not 'our' party: I'm not a member of any political party, and not particularly a supporter of any of them. I supported the coalition, and quite like David Cameron (although I think I'm going to have less opportunity to defend him against the 'lucky general' calls people used to make).

I nearly voted Lib Dem at the GE (and would have been one of the few poor, deluded people to do so had my Lib Dem candidate not proved himself unable to spell on a leaflet), and I voted Labour in the locals as he was the best of the bunch.

As for Reckless: it is his entire manner. My only knowledge of him before he went over to UKIP was from his presence on the Home Affairs Select Committee, where he royally pi**ed me off on a couple of occasions with the way he questioned people. The way he moved over to UKIP, and some of the things he said afterwards, only concreted my opinion.

And I'm not sure his move was anything to do with principle.

Good riddance to him.

Cyclefree said:

tlg86 said:

I'm think we should seriously consider banning opinion polling. It probably didn't make much difference but there's no getting away from the fact that the state of the GB polls was, theoretically, good for the Tories.

I really wish that we would move away from this idea that the correct response to something we don't like is to ban it. Banning is for those matters where real harm would otherwise be caused. A few wrong opinion polls cause no real harm to anyone other than, perhaps, the amour propre of the pollsters themselves (and, possibly, a few peoples' wallets.......)

... and possibly the wrong government.

Scott_P said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Huzzah.

Strikers should also be forced to recompense their employers for any loss of business during strikes.

This government isn't right wing enough.

Is anti-strike legislation giving you the horn?

By my reckoning, strikes would require a 50.01% vote on at least an 80% turnout to be legal and pass the 40% rule.

I'm up for it, but the unions will not take that lying down. Legal challenge methinks.

Casino_Royale said:

Scott_P said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Huzzah.

Strikers should also be forced to recompense their employers for any loss of business during strikes.

This government isn't right wing enough.

Is anti-strike legislation giving you the horn?

By my reckoning, strikes would require a 50.01% vote on at least an 80% turnout to be legal and pass the 40% rule.

I'm up for it, but the unions will not take that lying down. Legal challenge methinks.

And probably though the European courts where I suspect they'll lose.

Just in time for the referendum :-)

AndreaParma_82 said:

Ah, another thing to wait...Dissolutions Honours List

@politicshome: Labour 'should not appoint peers for next five years' http://t.co/KTltsYco96 http://t.co/V1a3HI7zC0

Jonathan said:

Slackbladder said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

antifrank said:

The Lib Dems should choose as leader whoever is prepared to accept immediately that the hard work of two generations has been destroyed, and that a whole new way is required to build a new party.

I think this is true. The thread has been broken in seats like Twickenham, Eastbourne, Eastleigh, Berwick-upon-Tweed, and of the course the SW constituencies. A lot of these will now become safe Conservative seats. With the LibDem incumbents gone, and the party starting from such a low base in seat terms, there's no going back to the old LibDem way of campaigning.

Like labout and the SNP, there's no easy or quick way back to get those seats, if they even can.

Thing about Scotland, why would you vote labour now? There's no risk in voting SNP, as you know the SNP can always work with labour to kick the tories out if the maths allow.

The LDs have a working formula. Win the council and then win the seat. It ain't quick, but it works. The Blues are not immune from mid term blues. So there will be opportunities in the next parliament.

The biggest problem the LDs face is their activists are getting old.

Jonathan said:

Slackbladder said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

antifrank said:

The Lib Dems should choose as leader whoever is prepared to accept immediately that the hard work of two generations has been destroyed, and that a whole new way is required to build a new party.

I think this is true. The thread has been broken in seats like Twickenham, Eastbourne, Eastleigh, Berwick-upon-Tweed, and of the course the SW constituencies. A lot of these will now become safe Conservative seats. With the LibDem incumbents gone, and the party starting from such a low base in seat terms, there's no going back to the old LibDem way of campaigning.

Like labout and the SNP, there's no easy or quick way back to get those seats, if they even can.

Thing about Scotland, why would you vote labour now? There's no risk in voting SNP, as you know the SNP can always work with labour to kick the tories out if the maths allow.

The LDs have a working formula. Win the council and then win the seat. It ain't quick, but it works. The Blues are not immune from mid term blues. So there will be opportunities in the next parliament.

The biggest problem the LDs face is their activists are getting old.

Apparently the LibDems have had over 8,000 new members join since the election. Labour also getting a boost.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Scott_P said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Huzzah.

Strikers should also be forced to recompense their employers for any loss of business during strikes.

This government isn't right wing enough.

Is anti-strike legislation giving you the horn?

By my reckoning, strikes would require a 50.01% vote on at least an 80% turnout to be legal and pass the 40% rule.

I'm up for it, but the unions will not take that lying down. Legal challenge methinks.

Elephant trap for the new Labour leader.

Does the first thing the new Lab leader want to do is stick up for the unions.

Red Chuka or Red Liz monikers at the ready.

Well that isn't going to wash is it.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Scott_P said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Huzzah.

Strikers should also be forced to recompense their employers for any loss of business during strikes.

This government isn't right wing enough.

Is anti-strike legislation giving you the horn?

By my reckoning, strikes would require a 50.01% vote on at least an 80% turnout to be legal and pass the 40% rule.

I'm up for it, but the unions will not take that lying down. Legal challenge methinks.

Elephant trap for the new Labour leader.

Does the first thing the new Lab leader does is stick up for the unions.

Red Chuka or Red Liz monikers at the ready.

This is one of the reasons the Unions should cut all ties with Labour.

Even though Union support is melting away by the day, Murphy & Co seem intent on not resigning.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/murphy-faces-potentially-fatal-blow-as-unison-considers-calling-for-resig.125764106

I would much rather they stayed in power and led SLAB into what promises to be a brutal campaign for Holyrood 2016, as it stands SLAB would loose virtually all of its constituency seats and be under real pressure at a regional level.

If SLAB wants to have any hope of salvaging as much as possible in 2016 they need a completely different approach, they need to learn lessons from Nicola Sturgeon. Reading Jackie Baillie's comments is depressing, SLAB just don't seem to get it. As ever they need to first release their membership numbers, so that we can see how bad things have got, sadly a fair chunk of SLAB's current membership will be BT Tories who signed up for £1 memberships to help vote Jim Murphy in !!

Grandiose said:

Flightpathl said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scottish National Party MPs are already plotting to bring down flagship Conservative legislation by courting Tory backbenchers, The Telegraph can disclose.


Nicola Sturgeon's Westminster MPs want to block the so-called Snoopers' Charter by courting "libertarian" Tories who have previously opposed Theresa May's terrorist surveillance plans.

They also believe they can gather enough cross-party support to kill off Tory plans to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights.

David Davis was named as a senior Tory backbencher they could court after he triggered a by-election in 2008 over plans for 42-day detention of terrorist suspects without trial.

http://bit.ly/1FaCvdc

The SNP are the official opposition now?
Of course its not a 'snoopers charter' any more than we had a 'bedroom tax'. Can the SNP tell us why they would want to promote a 'Lets Make Life Easy For Terrorists amendment'? Oh yes - they are a bunch of infantile far lefty-CND appeasers.

David Davis' by election was about the greater glorification and future ambition of David Davis. It was not about 42 day detention.

The "Snooper's Charter" is always going to be a compromise. It's a question of amendment, not yes or no.

The British Bill of Rights is going to be interesting. Will they pitch it as continuity, or a revolution? Change (add?) substantive right, or just change process?

The main thing that needs to be done is to bump up priority of free speech.

The US has it right where the first amendment is basically unbreakable. Free speech trumps everything except in the most extreme circumstances. As Voltaire said I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Europe has not been prioritising free speech. A British Bill of Rights needs to make clear more than anything else that we respect free speech as an inviolable right.

Red Liz has just spoken

"Withholding work if you're getting an unfair deal is basic freedom of British people. Labour must oppose latest Tory proposals."

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Scott_P said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Huzzah.

Strikers should also be forced to recompense their employers for any loss of business during strikes.

This government isn't right wing enough.

Is anti-strike legislation giving you the horn?

By my reckoning, strikes would require a 50.01% vote on at least an 80% turnout to be legal and pass the 40% rule.

I'm up for it, but the unions will not take that lying down. Legal challenge methinks.

Elephant trap for the new Labour leader.

Does the first thing the new Lab leader want to do is stick up for the unions.

Red Chuka or Red Liz monikers at the ready.

calum said:

Even though Union support is melting away by the day, Murphy & Co seem intent on not resigning.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/murphy-faces-potentially-fatal-blow-as-unison-considers-calling-for-resig.125764106

I would much rather they stayed in power and led SLAB into what promises to be a brutal campaign for Holyrood 2016, as it stands SLAB would loose virtually all of its constituency seats and be under real pressure at a regional level.

If SLAB wants to have any hope of salvaging as much as possible in 2016 they need a completely different approach, they need to learn lessons from Nicola Sturgeon. Reading Jackie Baillie's comments is depressing, SLAB just don't seem to get it. As ever they need to first release their membership numbers, so that we can see how bad things have got, sadly a fair chunk of SLAB's current membership will be BT Tories who signed up for £1 memberships to help vote Jim Murphy in !!

Best thing for Scotland would be to extinguish SLAB and have SNP vs Tories for the Unionists. A healthy and stable democracy has left v right, not left v left.

Philip_Thompson said:

Grandiose said:

Flightpathl said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scottish National Party MPs are already plotting to bring down flagship Conservative legislation by courting Tory backbenchers, The Telegraph can disclose.


Nicola Sturgeon's Westminster MPs want to block the so-called Snoopers' Charter by courting "libertarian" Tories who have previously opposed Theresa May's terrorist surveillance plans.

They also believe they can gather enough cross-party support to kill off Tory plans to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights.

David Davis was named as a senior Tory backbencher they could court after he triggered a by-election in 2008 over plans for 42-day detention of terrorist suspects without trial.

http://bit.ly/1FaCvdc

The SNP are the official opposition now?
Of course its not a 'snoopers charter' any more than we had a 'bedroom tax'. Can the SNP tell us why they would want to promote a 'Lets Make Life Easy For Terrorists amendment'? Oh yes - they are a bunch of infantile far lefty-CND appeasers.

David Davis' by election was about the greater glorification and future ambition of David Davis. It was not about 42 day detention.

The "Snooper's Charter" is always going to be a compromise. It's a question of amendment, not yes or no.

The British Bill of Rights is going to be interesting. Will they pitch it as continuity, or a revolution? Change (add?) substantive right, or just change process?

The main thing that needs to be done is to bump up priority of free speech.

The US has it right where the first amendment is basically unbreakable. Free speech trumps everything except in the most extreme circumstances. As Voltaire said I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Europe has not been prioritising free speech. A British Bill of Rights needs to make clear more than anything else that we respect free speech as an inviolable right.

The ECHR doesn't do a good job of LGBT rights either, or indeed discrimination in general.

midwinter said:

Jonathan said:

Slackbladder said:

Jonathan said:

Slackbladder said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

antifrank said:

The Lib Dems should choose as leader whoever is prepared to accept immediately that the hard work of two generations has been destroyed, and that a whole new way is required to build a new party.

I think this is true. The thread has been broken in seats like Twickenham, Eastbourne, Eastleigh, Berwick-upon-Tweed, and of the course the SW constituencies. A lot of these will now become safe Conservative seats. With the LibDem incumbents gone, and the party starting from such a low base in seat terms, there's no going back to the old LibDem way of campaigning.

Like labout and the SNP, there's no easy or quick way back to get those seats, if they even can.

Thing about Scotland, why would you vote labour now? There's no risk in voting SNP, as you know the SNP can always work with labour to kick the tories out if the maths allow.

The LDs have a working formula. Win the council and then win the seat. It ain't quick, but it works. The Blues are not immune from mid term blues. So there will be opportunities in the next parliament.

The biggest problem the LDs face is their activists are getting old.

Lib dems just got hammered in the locals too. The question is how 'toxic' the lib dem brand is.

Its possible, but it'll take a hell of a lot of work, time and energy, and how much activists can do.

All good things take work. It's been done before, it can be done again. They need fresh blood so that should be the immediate priority. So a rebrand, dump the barnacles and add some popular stuff should be the priority.

They should also informally align with Labour. When Labour do well, so do the LDs.

Lots of opportunities in the next parliament.

Whilst I don't agree about any alliance with Labour I do believe that if Labour had been in a stronger position the Libs would have performed significantly better.
Ed probably cost them several seats in the South West where people frightened of a Labour government voted for a safer option.

Certainly not an alliance, but move from the futility of bashing each towards a mutually beneficial agenda. There are some basic facts both parties would do well to remember, even with Blair at his peak the LDs have been able to win where Labour never could. And vice versa BTW.

Miliband in Ibiza:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3077300/Showing-six-pack-raving-superclub-cavorting-dancers-Internet-pranksters-imagine-Ed-Miliband-s-Ibiza-trip.html

Philip_Thompson said:

calum said:

Even though Union support is melting away by the day, Murphy & Co seem intent on not resigning.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/murphy-faces-potentially-fatal-blow-as-unison-considers-calling-for-resig.125764106

I would much rather they stayed in power and led SLAB into what promises to be a brutal campaign for Holyrood 2016, as it stands SLAB would loose virtually all of its constituency seats and be under real pressure at a regional level.

If SLAB wants to have any hope of salvaging as much as possible in 2016 they need a completely different approach, they need to learn lessons from Nicola Sturgeon. Reading Jackie Baillie's comments is depressing, SLAB just don't seem to get it. As ever they need to first release their membership numbers, so that we can see how bad things have got, sadly a fair chunk of SLAB's current membership will be BT Tories who signed up for £1 memberships to help vote Jim Murphy in !!

Best thing for Scotland would be to extinguish SLAB and have SNP vs Tories for the Unionists. A healthy and stable democracy has left v right, not left v left.

I suspect it will gradually come to that. The Scottish right currently consisting of Tories, SNP righties ( that means you malcolm ! ) and RoC Libdems won't go on forever without a voice.

Pulpstar said:

Philip_Thompson said:

calum said:

Even though Union support is melting away by the day, Murphy & Co seem intent on not resigning.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/murphy-faces-potentially-fatal-blow-as-unison-considers-calling-for-resig.125764106

I would much rather they stayed in power and led SLAB into what promises to be a brutal campaign for Holyrood 2016, as it stands SLAB would loose virtually all of its constituency seats and be under real pressure at a regional level.

If SLAB wants to have any hope of salvaging as much as possible in 2016 they need a completely different approach, they need to learn lessons from Nicola Sturgeon. Reading Jackie Baillie's comments is depressing, SLAB just don't seem to get it. As ever they need to first release their membership numbers, so that we can see how bad things have got, sadly a fair chunk of SLAB's current membership will be BT Tories who signed up for £1 memberships to help vote Jim Murphy in !!

Best thing for Scotland would be to extinguish SLAB and have SNP vs Tories for the Unionists. A healthy and stable democracy has left v right, not left v left.

I think that process is well under way, seeing as "stopping the Tories" seemed to be SLAB's only message, now the de facto vote to "stop the Tories" is the SNP - SLAB will become an irrelevance. The Scot Cons have a point, and role.

That's the bit I never got with SLAB. They have been fighting the wrong enemy for the last 3 elections, were they really that stupid ?

JEO said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Grandiose said:

Flightpathl said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scottish National Party MPs are already plotting to bring down flagship Conservative legislation by courting Tory backbenchers, The Telegraph can disclose.


Nicola Sturgeon's Westminster MPs want to block the so-called Snoopers' Charter by courting "libertarian" Tories who have previously opposed Theresa May's terrorist surveillance plans.

They also believe they can gather enough cross-party support to kill off Tory plans to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights.

David Davis was named as a senior Tory backbencher they could court after he triggered a by-election in 2008 over plans for 42-day detention of terrorist suspects without trial.

http://bit.ly/1FaCvdc

The SNP are the official opposition now?
Of course its not a 'snoopers charter' any more than we had a 'bedroom tax'. Can the SNP tell us why they would want to promote a 'Lets Make Life Easy For Terrorists amendment'? Oh yes - they are a bunch of infantile far lefty-CND appeasers.

David Davis' by election was about the greater glorification and future ambition of David Davis. It was not about 42 day detention.

The "Snooper's Charter" is always going to be a compromise. It's a question of amendment, not yes or no.

The British Bill of Rights is going to be interesting. Will they pitch it as continuity, or a revolution? Change (add?) substantive right, or just change process?

The main thing that needs to be done is to bump up priority of free speech.

The US has it right where the first amendment is basically unbreakable. Free speech trumps everything except in the most extreme circumstances. As Voltaire said I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Europe has not been prioritising free speech. A British Bill of Rights needs to make clear more than anything else that we respect free speech as an inviolable right.

The US Bill of Rights also bans unreasonable searches, which has caused several judges to rule against the NSA. It's altogether a much better document than the European equivalent.

And if we copied it we would be going back to our own English radical roots: Locke, Milton etc. I really hope that we do it.

@SkyNews: Chuka Umunna Announces Labour Leadership Bid http://t.co/maMNZIu9Se

Scott_P said:

@SkyNews: Chuka Umunna Announces Labour Leadership Bid http://t.co/maMNZIu9Se

Come on Hunt, get a move on.

JEO said:

Flightpathl said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scottish National Party MPs are already plotting to bring down flagship Conservative legislation by courting Tory backbenchers, The Telegraph can disclose.


Nicola Sturgeon's Westminster MPs want to block the so-called Snoopers' Charter by courting "libertarian" Tories who have previously opposed Theresa May's terrorist surveillance plans.

They also believe they can gather enough cross-party support to kill off Tory plans to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights.

David Davis was named as a senior Tory backbencher they could court after he triggered a by-election in 2008 over plans for 42-day detention of terrorist suspects without trial.

http://bit.ly/1FaCvdc

The SNP are the official opposition now?
Of course its not a 'snoopers charter' any more than we had a 'bedroom tax'. Can the SNP tell us why they would want to promote a 'Lets Make Life Easy For Terrorists amendment'? Oh yes - they are a bunch of infantile far lefty-CND appeasers.

David Davis' by election was about the greater glorification and future ambition of David Davis. It was not about 42 day detention.

I do hope we don't go down the Joseph McCarthy route of calling anyone that disagrees with government policy on the issue a terrorist sympathiser.

Or smearing people with McCathyism route either.
Is the legal ability to tap telephones a 'snoopers charter' ?
When we see proposals (ie the 'bedroom tax') deliberately misnamed, then how are we to judge them? Lets hope we do not go down the New Speak route.

Pretty tough challenge for the pollsters. If I were trying to fix this, I'd be worried about four things.

1/ Is it safe to presume that somewhere in my raw data I have, save for the correct processing, the right answer?

2/ Should I expect a poll to foretell the election result at all? Analogously, if you poll football fans at a game at half time and the score's 1-0, what does that tell you about the score at full time, except that it won't be 0-0? Maybe nothing I do with my data can reconcile it to the outcome.

3/ If I do come up with a way of processing the raw data that correctly hindcasts the result, how do I know it's correct for 2020?

4/ Is the correct way to establish public opinion necessarily a poll of public opinion? Rod Crosby came up with a more accurate method of predicting the election outcome that used extrapolation from previous elections, i.e. it did not consider opinion poll data at all.

Ultimately, are pollsters trying to measure or predict something that cannot be predicted or measured? We've seen climate scientists resorting to making the past colder in order to prove that the present is warmer. If an entire academic discipline has to fiddle data to stand up its most basic tenet, is it even safe to presume that opinion polling can work?

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

calum said:

Even though Union support is melting away by the day, Murphy & Co seem intent on not resigning.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/murphy-faces-potentially-fatal-blow-as-unison-considers-calling-for-resig.125764106

I would much rather they stayed in power and led SLAB into what promises to be a brutal campaign for Holyrood 2016, as it stands SLAB would loose virtually all of its constituency seats and be under real pressure at a regional level.

If SLAB wants to have any hope of salvaging as much as possible in 2016 they need a completely different approach, they need to learn lessons from Nicola Sturgeon. Reading Jackie Baillie's comments is depressing, SLAB just don't seem to get it. As ever they need to first release their membership numbers, so that we can see how bad things have got, sadly a fair chunk of SLAB's current membership will be BT Tories who signed up for £1 memberships to help vote Jim Murphy in !!

Best thing for Scotland would be to extinguish SLAB and have SNP vs Tories for the Unionists. A healthy and stable democracy has left v right, not left v left.

I suspect it will gradually come to that. The Scottish right currently consisting of Tories, SNP righties ( that means you malcolm ! ) and RoC Libdems won't go on forever without a voice.

Had the same thought - the LDs have been almost wiped out in Scotland and SLAB cannot compete with the SNP on the left. The natural opposition to the SNP would therefore seem to be the Tories. I can easily see the Tories pick up at least 6-7 seats in Scotland at the next election, especially as they will be seen as the "default" Unionist opposition in many wealthier / rural constituencies that used to be LD.

@NicoHines: Chuka Umunna announces that he is running to be Labour leader in shaky amateur Facebook video. https://t.co/AQlDfyVUaA Authentic

@paulwaugh: Chuka announcement in Swindon cos determined not to make announcement in Westminster to 'get out of the bubble', supporters say

@MrHarryCole: Chuka really reaching out to England. He's managed an hour on the train to Swindon.

An interestimg point on cabinet ministers is the advance of the cabinet office.

The chief secretary to the treasury is no longer a full cabinet minister, so the chancellor of the exchequer is the only full cabinet minister in the treasury. When was the last time this happened?

It would appear that the cabinet office has two cabinet ministers, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Paymaster General (which used to be the no 3 role at the treasury but now is at the cabinet office).

Does this mean that there will be a different central co-ordination of policy given that the quod no longer exists?

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

calum said:

Even though Union support is melting away by the day, Murphy & Co seem intent on not resigning.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/murphy-faces-potentially-fatal-blow-as-unison-considers-calling-for-resig.125764106

I would much rather they stayed in power and led SLAB into what promises to be a brutal campaign for Holyrood 2016, as it stands SLAB would loose virtually all of its constituency seats and be under real pressure at a regional level.

If SLAB wants to have any hope of salvaging as much as possible in 2016 they need a completely different approach, they need to learn lessons from Nicola Sturgeon. Reading Jackie Baillie's comments is depressing, SLAB just don't seem to get it. As ever they need to first release their membership numbers, so that we can see how bad things have got, sadly a fair chunk of SLAB's current membership will be BT Tories who signed up for £1 memberships to help vote Jim Murphy in !!

Best thing for Scotland would be to extinguish SLAB and have SNP vs Tories for the Unionists. A healthy and stable democracy has left v right, not left v left.

I suspect it will gradually come to that. The Scottish right currently consisting of Tories, SNP righties ( that means you malcolm ! ) and RoC Libdems won't go on forever without a voice.

Had the same thought - the LDs have been almost wiped out in Scotland and SLAB cannot compete with the SNP on the left. The natural opposition to the SNP would therefore seem to be the Tories. I can easily see the Tories pick up at least 6-7 seats in Scotland at the next election, especially as they will be seen as the "default" Unionist opposition in many wealthier / rural constituencies that used to be LD.

Perhaps it requires a bit of flexibility, like the Unionist or Federal party. But could they co-opt Danny boy for a re-launch ?

cue nat howls of traitor, wimp, Untermensch etc.

Philip_Thompson said:

Grandiose said:

Flightpathl said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scottish National Party MPs are already plotting to bring down flagship Conservative legislation by courting Tory backbenchers, The Telegraph can disclose.


Nicola Sturgeon's Westminster MPs want to block the so-called Snoopers' Charter by courting "libertarian" Tories who have previously opposed Theresa May's terrorist surveillance plans.

They also believe they can gather enough cross-party support to kill off Tory plans to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights.

David Davis was named as a senior Tory backbencher they could court after he triggered a by-election in 2008 over plans for 42-day detention of terrorist suspects without trial.

http://bit.ly/1FaCvdc

The SNP are the official opposition now?
Of course its not a 'snoopers charter' any more than we had a 'bedroom tax'. Can the SNP tell us why they would want to promote a 'Lets Make Life Easy For Terrorists amendment'? Oh yes - they are a bunch of infantile far lefty-CND appeasers.

David Davis' by election was about the greater glorification and future ambition of David Davis. It was not about 42 day detention.

The "Snooper's Charter" is always going to be a compromise. It's a question of amendment, not yes or no.

The British Bill of Rights is going to be interesting. Will they pitch it as continuity, or a revolution? Change (add?) substantive right, or just change process?

The main thing that needs to be done is to bump up priority of free speech.

The US has it right where the first amendment is basically unbreakable. Free speech trumps everything except in the most extreme circumstances. As Voltaire said I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Europe has not been prioritising free speech. A British Bill of Rights needs to make clear more than anything else that we respect free speech as an inviolable right.

Sounds good but you're dreaming if you think the British Conservatives are going to do anything substantial to protect free speech.

Their main goal is going to avoid creating any new rights that people don't already have. Since they apparently plan to stay in the European Convention on Human Rights, this will in practice mean writing something as close as possible to the European Convention on Human Rights, but calling it British instead of European.

Scott_P said:

@NicoHines: Chuka Umunna announces that he is running to be Labour leader in shaky amateur Facebook video. https://t.co/AQlDfyVUaA Authentic

@paulwaugh: Chuka announcement in Swindon cos determined not to make announcement in Westminster to 'get out of the bubble', supporters say

@MrHarryCole: Chuka really reaching out to England. He's managed an hour on the train to Swindon.

Yeah: an ex-Herbert Smith corporate lawyer whose grandfather was a judge is just the sort of person who will be able to reach out to Labour's missing voters.

I mean I deal with people like him all the time and even I would run a mile in the opposite direction.

Verulamius said:

An interestimg point on cabinet ministers is the advance of the cabinet office.

The chief secretary to the treasury is no longer a full cabinet minister, so the chancellor of the exchequer is the only full cabinet minister in the treasury. When was the last time this happened?

It would appear that the cabinet office has two cabinet ministers, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Paymaster General (which used to be the no 3 role at the treasury but now is at the cabinet office).

Does this mean that there will be a different central co-ordination of policy given that the quod no longer exists?

On a point of order, the PM is first Lord of the Treasury.

Gadfly said:

Scott_P said:

@PickardJE: Liberal Democrats could be renamed ‘the Liberals’ under plans being considered by Tim Farron.

What's wrong with "New Liberal Democrats?"

I think the new eight-piece band should be called 'The Farronettes'.

It has since dawned upon me that this will in fact be a Boy Band :-)

If the EU referendum causes massive problems within the Tory party, could this lead to an early election ?

No doubt some will think this is unlikely, but what if Cameron backs staying in the EU, even if he could not negotiate the changes he wanted.

For example Cameron wants to remove the UK from ECHR and instead have UK courts reviewing Human Rights under a UK bill of rights. Being a member of ECHR is a requirement of all EU member states and this will not be something than can be negotiated away. What happens then ? Will Michael Gove still try to get a UK bill of rights through parliament ? I think it is very unlikely that both Houses of Parliament will vote in favour of such a bill, if it tries to sideline the ECHR. If the Tories cannot get this bill through parliament, then I am not sure where the Tories will be. They will have many Tory backbenchers and Lords deeply unhappy.

I think the EU will still be the big issue that causes the Tories to lose power again. It splits their party more than it does Labour.

Pulpstar said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@stephentall: NEW BLOG: Last Thursday, "there was a larger Lib Dem vote movement to Conservatives than to Labour" http://t.co/lrkoqJKQOM

Firewall.

What skewed perceptions most were the LD-Con Ashcroft marginal polls. They gave the false impression of Lib Dem resilience when much derided UNS would have done a far far better job.

Also they didn't see much incumbency. It would be interesting to compare incumbents to non-incumbents and see how much it helped in practice.

My guess is that a lot of the drop in Labour's vote efficiency will come down to double-incumbency, which also helps explain why Labour's vote became more efficient in 2001, before dropping in the next two elections.

Glad to see that Alistair Burt is restored to Government as Minister of State at Health: it was inexplicable why he was fired (at the last reshuffle or the one before) in the first place.

Clean sweep at Communities and Local Government...hope that's a portend of a less abrasive manner to the poor bloody infantry

Slackbladder said:

Must be the only person ever to chose to go to Swindon.

Same thought crossed my mind. - Stradled between north and south Wiltshire, tis really where the enama tube should go.

TheKitchenCabinet said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_P said:

@SkyNews: Chuka Umunna Announces Labour Leadership Bid http://t.co/maMNZIu9Se

Come on Hunt, get a move on.

Whoever is the next Labour leader will have a nightmare of a task -not just fighting the Conservatives, but also battling to keep the unions within Labour (I think McClusky will be tempted to split and fund a new party) and dealing with UKIP in the North. I cannot see either of Hunt or Chukka doing this, Burnham possibly but at the cost of a drubbing at the 2020 election, as he would be seen as a puppet of the unions and Mid-Staffs will be rehashed again and again.

Hunt, Chukka or Burnham will see Labour replacing the 35% strategy with a 35 seat strategy.....

It's 40 years since the reactionary dinosaur Tories elected a female leader. Labour really needs a female leader next to correct this.

hucks67 said:

For example Cameron wants to remove the UK from ECHR and instead have UK courts reviewing Human Rights under a UK bill of rights. Being a member of ECHR is a requirement of all EU member states and this will not be something than can be negotiated away. What happens then ? Will Michael Gove still try to get a UK bill of rights through parliament ? I think it is very unlikely that both Houses of Parliament will vote in favour of such a bill, if it tries to sideline the ECHR. If the Tories cannot get this bill through parliament, then I am not sure where the Tories will be. They will have many Tory backbenchers and Lords deeply unhappy.

The solution is to pass a weird fudge that doesn't make sense, but sort-of turns European rights into British rights, and sort-of makes some claim about the relationship with the Strasbourg court that doesn't mean much in practice. This is what Grayling proposed and it'll worry a few lawyerly types, but it won't particularly exercise the voters of Nuneaton.