politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Looking back to those final GE15 phone polls one thing stan
Comments
-
They'll be taking in plates of chips (known in Scotland as 'cooked vegetable snacks') next week.LadyBucket said:I see the Scots Nats are taking plastic cups of water into the HOC now!!!
I'm not impressed with any of them so far, they seem pretty 'low-grade.' I wonder how long it will be before they get fed up with being watched constantly by their 'minders' i.e. Salmond, Robertson and the other macho characters?
One only has to look at rising unemployment numbers north of the border to understand how poorly the Scots are represented in both Parliaments.0 -
The overly cynical part of me did wonder how many people on zero hours contracts were going to be pleasantly surprised by the late offer of fifteen hours work on the first Thursday in May...Speedy said:In conclusion, Labour lost because old rich people have significantly higher turnouts than poor young people, a major factor is that elections are on a working day instead of a weekend day like most countries, and that favours the wealthy and the old who have more time to vote.
0 -
That's why it would be an absolute hammering for him to fail to beat them.Dair said:
Be fair. He can at least expect to beat the Liberal Democrats.OblitusSumMe said:
I would love to see Galloway get absolutely hammered in the London Mayoral election, and finish no higher than sixth.dr_spyn said:Galloway wants to have a go at being London Mayor.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-05-28/george-galloway-to-stand-for-mayor-of-london/0 -
Simon Hughes might have a go. He is well known and well liked and not toxic.antifrank said:
Some former London Lib Dem MPs might decide to give the Mayoral election a shot. The likes of Lynne Featherstone are personally liked and it's hardly as if the two main parties have put up any electrifying candidates yet.MarqueeMark said:
Maybe. Presumably the London Mayoral election is on the new, cleansed electoral roll? I have a suspicion that may hurt George''s key demographic...Dair said:
Be fair. He can at least expect to beat the Liberal Democrats.OblitusSumMe said:
I would love to see Galloway get absolutely hammered in the London Mayoral election, and finish no higher than sixth.dr_spyn said:Galloway wants to have a go at being London Mayor.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-05-28/george-galloway-to-stand-for-mayor-of-london/0 -
Michael White will be along shortly to demand Blatter gets another chance is it's all just a witch hunt against him.antifrank said:
That's very naughty of you, Mr Flashman (deceased). Earlier this afternoon it was made quite clear that leaking a document that is disobliging of the SNP is considerably more serious than presiding over an institutionally corrupt international organisation.TGOHF said:
Nats still flogging this dead horse ?Carnyx said:
Thanks, that's interesting.Tissue_Price said:FPT: So it looks like there's going to be an electoral petition against Carmichael - here's a nice summary of its chance of succeeding. Short answer: thin but not zero.
http://schooloflaw.academicblogs.co.uk/2015/05/28/the-people-versus-carmichael-what-would-have-to-be-proven-for-legal-action-to-succeed/0 -
Rail workers to strike in June:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-329207940 -
Sandpit said:
Interesting, could either split the vote or lose his deposit. Hopefully the latter, we need fewer Galloways and Lutfur Rahmans in our politics.dr_spyn said:Galloway wants to have a go at being London Mayor.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-05-28/george-galloway-to-stand-for-mayor-of-london/
Hear, hear!! He can F right off. I don't want this beautiful City of mine to be polluted by people like him.
0 -
Miss Cyclefree, quite. Galloway losing, by a large margin, was the single best result of the election.0
-
It would be the straight choice.Barnesian said:
Simon Hughes might have a go. He is well known and well liked and not toxic.antifrank said:
Some former London Lib Dem MPs might decide to give the Mayoral election a shot. The likes of Lynne Featherstone are personally liked and it's hardly as if the two main parties have put up any electrifying candidates yet.MarqueeMark said:
Maybe. Presumably the London Mayoral election is on the new, cleansed electoral roll? I have a suspicion that may hurt George''s key demographic...Dair said:
Be fair. He can at least expect to beat the Liberal Democrats.OblitusSumMe said:
I would love to see Galloway get absolutely hammered in the London Mayoral election, and finish no higher than sixth.dr_spyn said:Galloway wants to have a go at being London Mayor.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-05-28/george-galloway-to-stand-for-mayor-of-london/0 -
Balls made a pair.Morris_Dancer said:Miss Cyclefree, quite. Galloway losing, by a large margin, was the single best result of the election.
0 -
How is the Galloway "The Election wuz robbed and I demand a rerun" legal action going?MarkHopkins said:
Balls made a pair.Morris_Dancer said:Miss Cyclefree, quite. Galloway losing, by a large margin, was the single best result of the election.
0 -
That is a highly regrettable comment. You have been most unwise, sir. Most unwise.MattW said:
How is the Galloway "The Election wuz robbed and I demand a rerun" legal action going?MarkHopkins said:
Balls made a pair.Morris_Dancer said:Miss Cyclefree, quite. Galloway losing, by a large margin, was the single best result of the election.
0 -
Here's a straight choice in Anglesey from 1955:notme said:
It would be the straight choice.Barnesian said:
Simon Hughes might have a go. He is well known and well liked and not toxic.antifrank said:
Some former London Lib Dem MPs might decide to give the Mayoral election a shot. The likes of Lynne Featherstone are personally liked and it's hardly as if the two main parties have put up any electrifying candidates yet.MarqueeMark said:
Maybe. Presumably the London Mayoral election is on the new, cleansed electoral roll? I have a suspicion that may hurt George''s key demographic...Dair said:
Be fair. He can at least expect to beat the Liberal Democrats.OblitusSumMe said:
I would love to see Galloway get absolutely hammered in the London Mayoral election, and finish no higher than sixth.dr_spyn said:Galloway wants to have a go at being London Mayor.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-05-28/george-galloway-to-stand-for-mayor-of-london/
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CF9uiMPWYAAL-Mu.jpg
Remember, no party identifiers on the ballot paper then!0 -
Mr. Hopkins, watching that live was rather splendid.
In unrelated news, been present-shopping for junior relatives. A tiny Spongebob Lego set costs more than The Witcher 3! Bloody outrageous.0 -
Prof Tomkins on the Scotland Bill:
If Scottish Ministers do not like the tax and spend decisions taken by the United Kingdom Government in Westminster, the Smith Commission Agreement — and now today’s Bill — gives them the power to do something about it. In short, they will be able to put our money where their mouths are. They can fill what they perceive to be gaps in public spending on welfare and social security. They can create new benefits. They can top-up, for Scots, even those benefits which continue to be reserved to Westminster. And they have the tax powers to pay for it all. This is why the Prime Minister said yesterday that it is finally time for the SNP to put up or shut up. At last, we can move the argument on from nationalists’ bleating that they don’t have sufficient powers to a forensic examination of how they choose to use their powers.
https://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/the-smith-commission-agreement-and-the-scotland-bill/0 -
Network Rail should cut their staffing costs by an amount equal to the fines that will have to be paid to the TOCs.Morris_Dancer said:Rail workers to strike in June:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32920794
0 -
On the subject of ex-Lib Dem MPs, Steve Webb revealed a fascinating what-might-have been:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8851d280-fb0a-11e4-84f3-00144feab7de.html#axzz3bMIGYzt2
"Mr Webb also revealed he had been asked to consider running for the Liberal Democrat leadership after Nick Clegg stepped down, but as a non-MP cannot do so."0 -
Gorgeous George is running for Mayor of London.MattW said:
How is the Galloway "The Election wuz robbed and I demand a rerun" legal action going?MarkHopkins said:
Balls made a pair.Morris_Dancer said:Miss Cyclefree, quite. Galloway losing, by a large margin, was the single best result of the election.
0 -
Does that explain why you have yet to wish Carmen a Happy Birthday?Morris_Dancer said:In unrelated news, been present-shopping for junior relatives.
@GustavoYacaman: Hoy cumple 27 años esta obra de arte. Que les parece @CarmenJorda? Wapaaaaaaa http://t.co/bJQthyh2Q70 -
Mr. P, bah. Sutil's girlfriend's better.
In all seriousness, Jorda getting that gig is a backwards step for women in F1 because she got it on looks, not merit [her racing record is, apparently, not that impressive]. Simona de Silvestro as a Sauber driver would've been nicer to see. Danica Patrick is not a favourite but also not ruled out as a Haas driver next year.0 -
Epic Blatter press conference live now.
@BBCJonSopel: People hold me responsible, but i can't watch everything. However I am responsible for fixing it - the kernel of #Blatter argument #FIFA0 -
@alstewitn: #FIFAIL Clear, at last; it was, & is, everyone else. A 'not me Guv' defence from Mr Blatter.
@BBCJonSopel: "We now must earn trust back," says #Blatter - clearly implying with him remaining at the head of #FIFA0 -
http://order-order.com/2015/05/28/cooper-overtakes-burnham-in-labour-mp-declarations-race/
URL says it all - betfair 7.2. If Cooper can beat Kendall she wins.0 -
The reason she singled out Carmichael’s alleged dishonesty, rather than his breach of confidentiality, is because she doesn’t want anyone to focus on the substance of the memo. Why? Because it was almost certainly an accurate account of what she said to the French ambassador. More fundamentally, it’s hypocritical of the SNP leader to complain about duplicity, given her party’s conduct in the run-up to the referendum.TGOHF said:
Toby Young goes a bit further than that...antifrank said:
That's very naughty of you, Mr Flashman (deceased). Earlier this afternoon it was made quite clear that leaking a document that is disobliging of the SNP is considerably more serious than presiding over an institutionally corrupt international organisation.TGOHF said:
Nats still flogging this dead horse ?Carnyx said:
Thanks, that's interesting.Tissue_Price said:FPT: So it looks like there's going to be an electoral petition against Carmichael - here's a nice summary of its chance of succeeding. Short answer: thin but not zero.
http://schooloflaw.academicblogs.co.uk/2015/05/28/the-people-versus-carmichael-what-would-have-to-be-proven-for-legal-action-to-succeed/
http://www.spectator.co.uk/life/status-anxiety/9541262/nicola-sturgeon-protests-too-much-about-alistair-carmichael/
"The SNP is, by some margin, the most dishonest party in Britain."
How has Sturgeon got away with what was "almost certainly an accurate account of what she said to the French ambassador."? Namely that she would prefer Cameron to remain as PM.0 -
Mr. Price, the shadow of Balls looms over Labour's head.0
-
I don't think Ed Balls is actually that badly regarded by the country at large. Regardless, the sins of the husband should not be laid upon his wife.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Price, the shadow of Balls looms over Labour's head.
0 -
Sounds like teabagging to meMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Price, the shadow of Balls looms over Labour's head.
NSFW.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=teabagging
0 -
Not sure that means very much - it looks like Andy, Yvette and Liz are all on course to get the 35 nominations they need (I suspect Mary Creagh isn't). Once they've got enough, the MPs no longer matter very much: each of the three front-runners will have a credible set of MP backers, and none looks so far ahead on MPs as to crowd out the others. That means the result hinges on how they perform in the hustings, how their political positioning goes down with the Labour/union electorate, how well organised their campaigns are amongst party members, and what the unions do.Tissue_Price said:http://order-order.com/2015/05/28/cooper-overtakes-burnham-in-labour-mp-declarations-race/
URL says it all - betfair 7.2. If Cooper can beat Kendall she wins.0 -
Mr. Price, I agree. But the one-liner demanded to be written.0
-
I think Creagh will also be on the ballot, because Burnham and Cooper will want her there to take some of the wind out of Kendall's sails. Hence, they'll be encouraging their spares to nominate Creagh.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not sure that means very much - it looks like Andy, Yvette and Liz are all on course to get the 35 nominations they need (I suspect Mary Creagh isn't). Once they've got enough, the MPs no longer matter very much: each of the three front-runners will have a credible set of MP backers, and none looks so far ahead on MPs as to crowd out the others. That means the result hinges on how they perform in the hustings, how well organised their campaigns are amongst party members, and what the unions do.Tissue_Price said:http://order-order.com/2015/05/28/cooper-overtakes-burnham-in-labour-mp-declarations-race/
URL says it all - betfair 7.2. If Cooper can beat Kendall she wins.0 -
Hopi Sen has a theory that Steve Webb is the architect of the Tory majority.antifrank said:On the subject of ex-Lib Dem MPs, Steve Webb revealed a fascinating what-might-have been:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8851d280-fb0a-11e4-84f3-00144feab7de.html#axzz3bMIGYzt2
"Mr Webb also revealed he had been asked to consider running for the Liberal Democrat leadership after Nick Clegg stepped down, but as a non-MP cannot do so."
His pension changes and proposals are what made pensioners and the soon to be pensioners voted so overwhelmingly Tory0 -
Envy of the world. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-32904599
Patients were kept like "animals" at a Denbighshire mental health ward, relatives have said. In the report, families described seeing patients "constantly crawling on dirty floors" and being "like a zombie...drugged up". A family told the report's author they found a relative in bed "in a pool of stale urine and it's so stale it was brown".0 -
Doesn't the fact that it's AV mean they'd get no advantage from a fourth also-ran candidate?ThomasNashe said:I think Creagh will also be on the ballot, because Burnham and Cooper will want her there to take some of the wind out of Kendall's sails. Hence, they'll be encouraging their spares to nominate Creagh.
0 -
Apparently Burnham is going to lend Creagh the required nominations. What a hero.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not sure that means very much - it looks like Andy, Yvette and Liz are all on course to get the 35 nominations they need (I suspect Mary Creagh isn't). Once they've got enough, the MPs no longer matter very much: each of the three front-runners will have a credible set of MP backers, and none looks so far ahead on MPs as to crowd out the others. That means the result hinges on how they perform in the hustings, how their political positioning goes down with the Labour/union electorate, how well organised their campaigns are amongst party members, and what the unions do.Tissue_Price said:http://order-order.com/2015/05/28/cooper-overtakes-burnham-in-labour-mp-declarations-race/
URL says it all - betfair 7.2. If Cooper can beat Kendall she wins.
I agree the nominations aren't all that important. All the more reason to be surprised at Cooper's price, imo.0 -
"Here are some votes for you, a guaranteed loser who will split the female vote." - hero indeed.Tissue_Price said:Apparently Burnham is going to lend Creagh the required nominations. What a hero.
0 -
I'm not sure I would go that far. Both she and the ambassador (who doesn't appear to have any reason to lie) have said it's wrong.logical_song said:
The reason she singled out Carmichael’s alleged dishonesty, rather than his breach of confidentiality, is because she doesn’t want anyone to focus on the substance of the memo. Why? Because it was almost certainly an accurate account of what she said to the French ambassador. More fundamentally, it’s hypocritical of the SNP leader to complain about duplicity, given her party’s conduct in the run-up to the referendum.
How has Sturgeon got away with what was "almost certainly an accurate account of what she said to the French ambassador."? Namely that she would prefer Cameron to remain as PM.
However, if she didn't think what the memo actually said, then she's an idiot anyway. Why she thinks that stating the blindingly obvious is somehow damaging I don't know. Doesn't say much for her opinion of the average intelligence and sophistication of Scottish voters.
It's hard to imagine Carmichael would have been in even the slightest trouble if he hadn't lied about it.0 -
I've seen another showing the Tories ahead with the over 55s, level with Labour on the 45-55s, and behind slightly on the 35-45s.AndyJS said:According to ComRes the Tories won only one age group, the 65+s, but that was enough to give the party a 6.6% lead overall:
http://www.comres.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/POLLWATCH-Turnout-at-GE2015-AGE-1024x724.jpg0 -
Oh, Blatter
But he said that although many held him "ultimately responsible" for Fifa's actions, he could "not monitor everyone all of the time"
Technically true, at leas potentially, but rather missing the point that when so many 'individuals' of Fifa across many decades are accused and in some cases pleading guilty to charges suggesting the the problems are endemic to the organisation, pleading ignorance no longer works as it instead suggests at best the man is entirely and grossly incompetent.
We shall see if the problem is a few apples or the entire orchard in time, but neither reflects well on him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-329231040 -
Good. I want to hear from all four candidates, and get a full choice on who to vote for.ThomasNashe said:
I think Creagh will also be on the ballot, because Burnham and Cooper will want her there to take some of the wind out of Kendall's sails. Hence, they'll be encouraging their spares to nominate Creagh.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not sure that means very much - it looks like Andy, Yvette and Liz are all on course to get the 35 nominations they need (I suspect Mary Creagh isn't). Once they've got enough, the MPs no longer matter very much: each of the three front-runners will have a credible set of MP backers, and none looks so far ahead on MPs as to crowd out the others. That means the result hinges on how they perform in the hustings, how well organised their campaigns are amongst party members, and what the unions do.Tissue_Price said:http://order-order.com/2015/05/28/cooper-overtakes-burnham-in-labour-mp-declarations-race/
URL says it all - betfair 7.2. If Cooper can beat Kendall she wins.0 -
It would be good for no more than 35 nominations to be the rule for Lab nominations, as since we won't know how the MP votes tally up in the actual contest (I believe that's correct?) unlike last time, we won't know how much parliamentary support each has, and while nominations give some indication of that if it's a lot, it does paint a fairly newcomer who could in theory prove a revelation and convince loads of people in the campaign as not having MP support.0
-
There's something fishy about that 55-64 group. Completely out of trend, and counter to a lot of other polls.Casino_Royale said:
I've seen another showing the Tories ahead with the over 55s, level with Labour on the 45-55s, and behind slightly on the 35-45s.AndyJS said:According to ComRes the Tories won only one age group, the 65+s, but that was enough to give the party a 6.6% lead overall:
http://www.comres.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/POLLWATCH-Turnout-at-GE2015-AGE-1024x724.jpg0 -
Yes, but it'll help Burnham and Copper to be facing two rather than one 'change' candidates. So, as the withdrawals of Umunna and Hunt were good news for Kendall, the survival of Creagh would be bad news for her.Richard_Nabavi said:
Doesn't the fact that it's AV mean they'd get no advantage from a fourth also-ran candidate?ThomasNashe said:I think Creagh will also be on the ballot, because Burnham and Cooper will want her there to take some of the wind out of Kendall's sails. Hence, they'll be encouraging their spares to nominate Creagh.
0 -
What are the rules on Conservative nominations, out of interest? I seem to remember David Davis got dozens last time around (admittedly it was a while ago).kle4 said:It would be good for no more than 35 nominations to be the rule for Lab nominations, as since we won't know how the MP votes tally up in the actual contest (I believe that's correct?) unlike last time, we won't know how much parliamentary support each has, and while nominations give some indication of that if it's a lot, it does paint a fairly newcomer who could in theory prove a revelation and convince loads of people in the campaign as not having MP support.
0 -
For Creagh to be a change candidate she'd need to actually articulate something. She'd just be a token candidate and wouldn't have much impact on the dynamics of the campaign. She'd be as likely to take some of the 'time for a female leader' vote off Cooper as to damage Kendall's support.ThomasNashe said:
Yes, but it'll help Burnham and Copper to be facing two rather than one 'change' candidates. So, as the withdrawals of Umunna and Hunt were good news for Kendall, the survival of Creagh would be bad news for her.Richard_Nabavi said:
Doesn't the fact that it's AV mean they'd get no advantage from a fourth also-ran candidate?ThomasNashe said:I think Creagh will also be on the ballot, because Burnham and Cooper will want her there to take some of the wind out of Kendall's sails. Hence, they'll be encouraging their spares to nominate Creagh.
0 -
If you are 55 this year, you were born in 1960 and were 19 in 1979. It contains a lot of the generation that were students during Fatcha.Anorak said:
There's something fishy about that 55-64 group. Completely out of trend, and counter to a lot of other polls.Casino_Royale said:
I've seen another showing the Tories ahead with the over 55s, level with Labour on the 45-55s, and behind slightly on the 35-45s.AndyJS said:According to ComRes the Tories won only one age group, the 65+s, but that was enough to give the party a 6.6% lead overall:
http://www.comres.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/POLLWATCH-Turnout-at-GE2015-AGE-1024x724.jpg
Different pollsters do the groupings differently, but there's a bit (red) wedge where Tory support drops, after having increased with each age group.0 -
I believe someone mentioned they only need 2 nominations to stand, then a series of ballots to whittle however many candidates down to a final 2. I suppose an upper limit on nominations didn't matter because unlike the Labour 2010 contest there was not going to be any controversy about the party and MPs not voting for the winner, and in fact there is technically no controversy about that for Labour now, with the rules change, it's just because of last time it may be focused on and the higher bar for nominations make it seem more vital.ydoethur said:
What are the rules on Conservative nominations, out of interest? I seem to remember David Davis got dozens last time around (admittedly it was a while ago).kle4 said:It would be good for no more than 35 nominations to be the rule for Lab nominations, as since we won't know how the MP votes tally up in the actual contest (I believe that's correct?) unlike last time, we won't know how much parliamentary support each has, and while nominations give some indication of that if it's a lot, it does paint a fairly newcomer who could in theory prove a revelation and convince loads of people in the campaign as not having MP support.
0 -
I've seen that theory. It has a basic flaw. The major pension reforms were hatched in the Treasury and Steve Webb reputedly knew nothing about them in advance of the 2014 budget, though in an impressive reversal of most clothes-stealing in the coalition, he managed to take ownership of them the moment he realised how popular they were going to be.TheScreamingEagles said:
Hopi Sen has a theory that Steve Webb is the architect of the Tory majority.antifrank said:On the subject of ex-Lib Dem MPs, Steve Webb revealed a fascinating what-might-have been:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8851d280-fb0a-11e4-84f3-00144feab7de.html#axzz3bMIGYzt2
"Mr Webb also revealed he had been asked to consider running for the Liberal Democrat leadership after Nick Clegg stepped down, but as a non-MP cannot do so."
His pension changes and proposals are what made pensioners and the soon to be pensioners voted so overwhelmingly Tory0 -
They just need a nominator & a seconder. But only two candidates end up getting put to the membership.ydoethur said:
What are the rules on Conservative nominations, out of interest? I seem to remember David Davis got dozens last time around (admittedly it was a while ago).kle4 said:It would be good for no more than 35 nominations to be the rule for Lab nominations, as since we won't know how the MP votes tally up in the actual contest (I believe that's correct?) unlike last time, we won't know how much parliamentary support each has, and while nominations give some indication of that if it's a lot, it does paint a fairly newcomer who could in theory prove a revelation and convince loads of people in the campaign as not having MP support.
0 -
Huh. Interesting theory. Basically it's Ben Elton's faultBannedInParis said:
If you are 55 this year, you were born in 1960 and were 19 in 1979. It contains a lot of the generation that were students during Fatcha.Anorak said:
There's something fishy about that 55-64 group. Completely out of trend, and counter to a lot of other polls.Casino_Royale said:
I've seen another showing the Tories ahead with the over 55s, level with Labour on the 45-55s, and behind slightly on the 35-45s.AndyJS said:According to ComRes the Tories won only one age group, the 65+s, but that was enough to give the party a 6.6% lead overall:
http://www.comres.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/POLLWATCH-Turnout-at-GE2015-AGE-1024x724.jpg
Different pollsters do the groupings differently, but there's a bit (red) wedge where Tory support drops, after having increased with each age group.
0 -
Regarding the EU - this is what noted fruitcake Steve Hilton has to say about it in the Spectator:
'Renegotiating our membership of the EU is, to Hilton, very much part of it. I ask him about a study he is said to have commissioned, which looked at how much of government work is conducted at the behest of Brussels. Is it true that a third of what No. 10 did had nothing to do with the Prime Minister’s agenda?
‘No, it was the other way round,’ he says. ‘Only a third was our agenda. The rest wasn’t. You read about that theory, and it is pretty staggering when you get into government.’'
Only a 3rd. That situation is insupportable, all the more because the electorate have no idea, and politicians, the media, and a minority of idiot supporters have connived to portray Europe as a 'side issue', and something we shouldn't be 'obsessed' with.0 -
All you need to get on the political ladder up there is three months party membership and a Primark polyester trouser suit.LadyBucket said:I see the Scots Nats are taking plastic cups of water into the HOC now!!!
I'm not impressed with any of them so far, they seem pretty 'low-grade.' I wonder how long it will be before they get fed up with being watched constantly by their 'minders' i.e. Salmond, Robertson and the other macho characters?
Never mind the minders, surely it won't be long before their constituents realise just how crap they are. The hordes of wiped-out ScotsLab were too complacent but probably somewhat more competent.
0 -
I set off for work at 5:45am each weekday, I don't receive a penny in benefits and I never open my front curtains. I live in a ground floor flat in a terraced house. My only front window is my bedroom so I'm not going to open the curtains to that. I just open my back curtains which only look out onto my garden. I don't really care if it looks to the outside world like I'm a layabout. I know that I'm working hard 10 to 12 hours a day.CarlottaVance said:People with their blinds down?
0 -
It's going to be a long campaign and there will be plenty of time for articulating a vision. As things stand I would vote for Kendall, but I will listen closely to what all the candidates have to say, and I may change my mind. I also have no notion at the moment about who I'd be voting for as second or third preference.williamglenn said:
For Creagh to be a change candidate she'd need to actually articulate something. She'd just be a token candidate and wouldn't have much impact on the dynamics of the campaign. She'd be as likely to take some of the 'time for a female leader' vote off Cooper as to damage Kendall's support.ThomasNashe said:
Yes, but it'll help Burnham and Copper to be facing two rather than one 'change' candidates. So, as the withdrawals of Umunna and Hunt were good news for Kendall, the survival of Creagh would be bad news for her.Richard_Nabavi said:
Doesn't the fact that it's AV mean they'd get no advantage from a fourth also-ran candidate?ThomasNashe said:I think Creagh will also be on the ballot, because Burnham and Cooper will want her there to take some of the wind out of Kendall's sails. Hence, they'll be encouraging their spares to nominate Creagh.
0 -
Even if they are crap (and calm down any SNP watchers I'm not saying they are, as I have no idea), I think that's pretty optimistic thinking for the anti-SNP crowd, that 'surely' people will notice and get fed up before too long. For one thing, the pro-SNP wave is still riding very high and will carry a lot of crap before it begins to be diminished, and for another, many no doubt crap MPs have managed to retain seats for very long periods. Most people won't encounter their MP, and unless there is some major disaster, it might take an awful lot before general awareness of an MPs ineptness sinks through to most people. With many SNP seats now pretty darn comfortable excepting any swings of sizable proportions (not out of the question given recent history, but not something that can be relied upon), a crap MP might just have their majority dented as a warning shot to the party to replace them before the seat is actually at risk again.SirBenjamin said:
... surely it won't be long before their constituents realise just how crap they are.LadyBucket said:I see the Scots Nats are taking plastic cups of water into the HOC now!!!
I'm not impressed with any of them so far, they seem pretty 'low-grade.' I wonder how long it will be before they get fed up with being watched constantly by their 'minders' i.e. Salmond, Robertson and the other macho characters?0 -
Rumors that Ukraine has just defaulted on it's debt.
Will Greece make it the second country in the next few days?0 -
Ipsos Mori had Labour only ahead with 34 and under. That said I do believe in the baby boomers being a left leaning cohort, the ones who thought Blair was cool.Casino_Royale said:
I've seen another showing the Tories ahead with the over 55s, level with Labour on the 45-55s, and behind slightly on the 35-45s.AndyJS said:According to ComRes the Tories won only one age group, the 65+s, but that was enough to give the party a 6.6% lead overall:
http://www.comres.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/POLLWATCH-Turnout-at-GE2015-AGE-1024x724.jpg0 -
New Yvette's supporters unveiled
Liam Byrne
Ruth Cadbury
Judith Cummins
Virenda Sharma
Marie Rimmer
0 -
Just when you thought it wasn't possible for Ben Harris-Quinney to be an even bigger bellend than he was during the campaign.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/05/28/vile-homophobe-tory-councillor-goes-on-anti-gay-rant-at-the-kremlin/0 -
Has anyone noticed that Yvette Cooper is concentrating on nominations at the nominations stage, and seems to be doing so rather effectively?
Presumably when it comes to the engaging with the wider membership stage she will start concentrating more on that. If she turns out to be as effective at that as she is at the getting nominations part of the process, she should be favourite, not 6/1 outsider.0 -
On topic, one final thought, if Labour's ground game had been half decent they might have got these non voters out to vote.0
-
@Spectator_CH: Labour could U-turn on the benefit cap http://t.co/oGflRWhRV20
-
I am shocked, shocked that Prof Tomkins thinks it's time for the SNP to shut up and be destroyed. An amazing change of pace for him.CarlottaVance said:Prof Tomkins on the Scotland Bill:
If Scottish Ministers do not like the tax and spend decisions taken by the United Kingdom Government in Westminster, the Smith Commission Agreement — and now today’s Bill — gives them the power to do something about it. In short, they will be able to put our money where their mouths are. They can fill what they perceive to be gaps in public spending on welfare and social security. They can create new benefits. They can top-up, for Scots, even those benefits which continue to be reserved to Westminster. And they have the tax powers to pay for it all. This is why the Prime Minister said yesterday that it is finally time for the SNP to put up or shut up. At last, we can move the argument on from nationalists’ bleating that they don’t have sufficient powers to a forensic examination of how they choose to use their powers.
https://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/the-smith-commission-agreement-and-the-scotland-bill/0 -
That may be something in that. It's already been speculated she may attempt to be the 'middle' candidate of the frontrunners, and it does feel noticeable that Kendall and Burnham made the biggest initial splashes, despite Cooper having as much of a big profile as Burnham (theoretically - she's been pretty invisible for years), but that perhaps she can time things right for emerging as the clear frontrunner as the start of the actual campaign nears, without any risk of trying too much too soon and crashing and burning.antifrank said:Has anyone noticed that Yvette Cooper is concentrating on nominations at the nominations stage, and seems to be doing so rather effectively?
Presumably when it comes to the engaging with the wider membership stage she will start concentrating more on that. If she turns out to be as effective at that as she is at the getting nominations part of the process, she should be favourite, not 6/1 outsider.0 -
According to the last paragraph of this article, she's already ahead on organising her campaign amongst members as well:antifrank said:Has anyone noticed that Yvette Cooper is concentrating on nominations at the nominations stage, and seems to be doing so rather effectively?
Presumably when it comes to the engaging with the wider membership stage she will start concentrating more on that. If she turns out to be as effective at that as she is at the getting nominations part of the process, she should be favourite, not 6/1 outsider.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/05/yvette-coopers-policy-interventions-should-spice-up-the-labour-leadership-contest/
0 -
I don't know what you could possibly mean by that.TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, one final thought, if Labour's ground game had been half decent they might have got these non voters out to vote.
0 -
She doesn't need to make a big splash at the outset. It's a marathon, not a sprint.kle4 said:
That may be something in that. It's already been speculated she may attempt to be the 'middle' candidate of the frontrunners, and it does feel noticeable that Kendall and Burnham made the biggest initial splashes, despite Cooper having as much of a big profile as Burnham (theoretically - she's been pretty invisible for years), but that perhaps she can time things right for emerging as the clear frontrunner as the start of the actual campaign nears, without any risk of trying too much too soon and crashing and burning.antifrank said:Has anyone noticed that Yvette Cooper is concentrating on nominations at the nominations stage, and seems to be doing so rather effectively?
Presumably when it comes to the engaging with the wider membership stage she will start concentrating more on that. If she turns out to be as effective at that as she is at the getting nominations part of the process, she should be favourite, not 6/1 outsider.
By any definition Yvette Cooper is a serious contender and she will be on the ballot paper. If she can get on the ballot paper nominated by a sizeable proportion of the Labour Parliamentary party, she will automatically command serious attention. That is what she is working on now, and her work seems to be bearing fruit with a wide range of MPs supporting her from across the party.
6/1 is absurd. Right now 2/1 would feel generous to me.0 -
I can't remember a single Labour activist hyping up their ground game on PB before the election.RobD said:
I don't know what you could possibly mean by that.TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, one final thought, if Labour's ground game had been half decent they might have got these non voters out to vote.
Happy to be corrected.0 -
Cadbury is my MP. A full-on fatcha-hating loon. Surprised she hasn't swung behind Burnham. Wonder what she's been promised...AndreaParma_82 said:New Yvette's supporters unveiled
Liam Byrne
Ruth Cadbury
Judith Cummins
Virenda Sharma
Marie Rimmer0 -
Mr. Eagles, Ed Miliband did sterling work frightening off the voters.0
-
Crazy price, you wonder if people are putting too much emphasis on her past health issues.antifrank said:
She doesn't need to make a big splash at the outset. It's a marathon, not a sprint.kle4 said:
That may be something in that. It's already been speculated she may attempt to be the 'middle' candidate of the frontrunners, and it does feel noticeable that Kendall and Burnham made the biggest initial splashes, despite Cooper having as much of a big profile as Burnham (theoretically - she's been pretty invisible for years), but that perhaps she can time things right for emerging as the clear frontrunner as the start of the actual campaign nears, without any risk of trying too much too soon and crashing and burning.antifrank said:Has anyone noticed that Yvette Cooper is concentrating on nominations at the nominations stage, and seems to be doing so rather effectively?
Presumably when it comes to the engaging with the wider membership stage she will start concentrating more on that. If she turns out to be as effective at that as she is at the getting nominations part of the process, she should be favourite, not 6/1 outsider.
By any definition Yvette Cooper is a serious contender and she will be on the ballot paper. If she can get on the ballot paper nominated by a sizeable proportion of the Labour Parliamentary party, she will automatically command serious attention. That is what she is working on now, and her work seems to be bearing fruit with a wide range of MPs supporting her from across the party.
6/1 is absurd. Right now 2/1 would feel generous to me.0 -
Not supporting the man, but how is that a 'vile homophobic rant'. The journalist must live quite a sheltered lifeTheScreamingEagles said:Just when you thought it wasn't possible for Ben Harris-Quinney to be an even bigger bellend than he was during the campaign.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/05/28/vile-homophobe-tory-councillor-goes-on-anti-gay-rant-at-the-kremlin/
0 -
It's surprising to note how optimistic the Liberals were in 1913 that they would win several of the seats Labour currently held because of the 'low grade' of MP it produced.kle4 said:
Even if they are crap (and calm down any SNP watchers I'm not saying they are, as I have no idea), I think that's pretty optimistic thinking for the anti-SNP crowd, that 'surely' people will notice and get fed up before too long. For one thing, the pro-SNP wave is still riding very high and will carry a lot of crap before it begins to be diminished, and for another, many no doubt crap MPs have managed to retain seats for very long periods. Most people won't encounter their MP, and unless there is some major disaster, it might take an awful lot before general awareness of an MPs ineptness sinks through to most people. With many SNP seats now pretty darn comfortable excepting any swings of sizable proportions (not out of the question given recent history, but not something that can be relied upon), a crap MP might just have their majority dented as a warning shot to the party to replace them before the seat is actually at risk again.SirBenjamin said:
... surely it won't be long before their constituents realise just how crap they are.LadyBucket said:I see the Scots Nats are taking plastic cups of water into the HOC now!!!
I'm not impressed with any of them so far, they seem pretty 'low-grade.' I wonder how long it will be before they get fed up with being watched constantly by their 'minders' i.e. Salmond, Robertson and the other macho characters?
When the next multiparty election was held, in 1922, Labour got 142 seats. Still the Liberals, with 163 in total, thought it would not last.
By 1925, the Liberals had a grand total of 40 seats...there or thereabouts they have stayed for the last 90 years.
I am not saying that the SNP candidates are brilliant - I don't know enough either way to judge. What I do say is that simply waiting for a party of protest to implode rather removing the causes of that protest is about as likely to be effective as King Cnut's famous coastal erosion prevention strategy.0 -
I agree. I have not understood her odds from day one of the contest. She used to top the poll of MPs every year and so be automatically in shadow cabinet. Plus, presumably, the old Balls/Brown networks are humming like mad in the background now. I'm not saying she can't be beaten, but the odds seem wrong to me.antifrank said:
She doesn't need to make a big splash at the outset. It's a marathon, not a sprint.kle4 said:
That may be something in that. It's already been speculated she may attempt to be the 'middle' candidate of the frontrunners, and it does feel noticeable that Kendall and Burnham made the biggest initial splashes, despite Cooper having as much of a big profile as Burnham (theoretically - she's been pretty invisible for years), but that perhaps she can time things right for emerging as the clear frontrunner as the start of the actual campaign nears, without any risk of trying too much too soon and crashing and burning.antifrank said:Has anyone noticed that Yvette Cooper is concentrating on nominations at the nominations stage, and seems to be doing so rather effectively?
Presumably when it comes to the engaging with the wider membership stage she will start concentrating more on that. If she turns out to be as effective at that as she is at the getting nominations part of the process, she should be favourite, not 6/1 outsider.
By any definition Yvette Cooper is a serious contender and she will be on the ballot paper. If she can get on the ballot paper nominated by a sizeable proportion of the Labour Parliamentary party, she will automatically command serious attention. That is what she is working on now, and her work seems to be bearing fruit with a wide range of MPs supporting her from across the party.
6/1 is absurd. Right now 2/1 would feel generous to me.0 -
That is odd. Why, simple following this link reveals the HUGE number of times it was stated how utterly superior Labour's ground game was.TheScreamingEagles said:
I can't remember a single Labour activist hyping up their ground game on PB before the election.RobD said:
I don't know what you could possibly mean by that.TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, one final thought, if Labour's ground game had been half decent they might have got these non voters out to vote.
Happy to be corrected.0 -
Yet Labour were so very proud of their ground game. Activists in all those marginals, red banners everywhere, all that enthusiasm. The Tories by contrast did a passable impression of Bilbo Baggins - only visible at rare intervals. Speaking as somebody who lived in a crucial swing marginal, the difference was staggering.RobD said:
I don't know what you could possibly mean by that.TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, one final thought, if Labour's ground game had been half decent they might have got these non voters out to vote.
And yet, I use the past tense because despite all that this is now a fairly safe Tory seat. So what does that say about what effect actual campaigns have on voting?0 -
As a scientist you and Sunil will appreciate thisRobD said:
Not supporting the man, but how is that a 'vile homophobic rant'. The journalist must live quite a sheltered lifeTheScreamingEagles said:Just when you thought it wasn't possible for Ben Harris-Quinney to be an even bigger bellend than he was during the campaign.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/05/28/vile-homophobe-tory-councillor-goes-on-anti-gay-rant-at-the-kremlin/
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/movie-scientsts/35486/20-excellent-scientists-in-mainstream-film-and-tv0 -
Irony doesn't travel well on the interwebAnorak said:
That is odd. Why, simple following this link reveals the HUGE number of times it was stated how utterly superior Labour's ground game was.TheScreamingEagles said:
I can't remember a single Labour activist hyping up their ground game on PB before the election.RobD said:
I don't know what you could possibly mean by that.TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, one final thought, if Labour's ground game had been half decent they might have got these non voters out to vote.
Happy to be corrected.0 -
Messina and Crosby had the superior algorithms that helped them target the crucial voters via direct mail and the Internet/social mediaydoethur said:
Yet Labour were so very proud of their ground game. Activists in all those marginals, red banners everywhere, all that enthusiasm. The Tories by contrast did a passable impression of Bilbo Baggins - only visible at rare intervals. Speaking as somebody who lived in a crucial swing marginal, the difference was staggering.RobD said:
I don't know what you could possibly mean by that.TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, one final thought, if Labour's ground game had been half decent they might have got these non voters out to vote.
And yet, I use the past tense because despite all that this is now a fairly safe Tory seat. So what does that say about what effect actual campaigns have on voting?0 -
Mr. Eagles, are you saying that carving six incredibly vague promises on limestone is somehow an outdated form of campaigning?0
-
And I received a grand total of ONE communication from them (and it was cyclostyled rubbish). If I am not a crucial swing voter - young, professional, highly educated, in employment, voted in every election since 2001 including parish council elections - I absolutely don't know what I am.TheScreamingEagles said:
Messina and Crosby had the superior algorithms that helped them target the crucial voters via direct mail and the Internet/social mediaydoethur said:
Yet Labour were so very proud of their ground game. Activists in all those marginals, red banners everywhere, all that enthusiasm. The Tories by contrast did a passable impression of Bilbo Baggins - only visible at rare intervals. Speaking as somebody who lived in a crucial swing marginal, the difference was staggering.RobD said:
I don't know what you could possibly mean by that.TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, one final thought, if Labour's ground game had been half decent they might have got these non voters out to vote.
And yet, I use the past tense because despite all that this is now a fairly safe Tory seat. So what does that say about what effect actual campaigns have on voting?
The suggestion that this somehow impacted on the result is I am afraid simply not convincing. Whatever the reasons, we have to look elsewhere.0 -
I am shocked, sir. Truly shocked.Anorak said:
That is odd. Why, simple following this link reveals the HUGE number of times it was stated how utterly superior Labour's ground game was.TheScreamingEagles said:
I can't remember a single Labour activist hyping up their ground game on PB before the election.RobD said:
I don't know what you could possibly mean by that.TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, one final thought, if Labour's ground game had been half decent they might have got these non voters out to vote.
Happy to be corrected.
0 -
You say that, but anyone hitting 65 now would have been in their 30s during the Thatcher revolution. I don't recall that group being raving for her back then, yet the Tories now have whopping leads with that group. You could make similar observations about teenagers in the 60s and the 'summer of love' generation.FalseFlag said:
Ipsos Mori had Labour only ahead with 34 and under. That said I do believe in the baby boomers being a left leaning cohort, the ones who thought Blair was cool.Casino_Royale said:
I've seen another showing the Tories ahead with the over 55s, level with Labour on the 45-55s, and behind slightly on the 35-45s.AndyJS said:According to ComRes the Tories won only one age group, the 65+s, but that was enough to give the party a 6.6% lead overall:
http://www.comres.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/POLLWATCH-Turnout-at-GE2015-AGE-1024x724.jpg
The whole cohort has (in general) moved sharply Right as it has aged.0 -
When is the Edstone going to be sold? It could be a real money-spinner for Labour.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, are you saying that carving six incredibly vague promises on limestone is somehow an outdated form of campaigning?
0 -
It may well have contributed in some areas for all we know, but I do wonder if the result falling their way means a lot more is being ascribed to it than is deserved. It may be that the underlying factors in the general public consciousness which aided the Tories - high ratings on the economy etc - simply ended up being even more effective in the crucial seats than anyone expected, and the campaigning was as limited in effectiveness as everyone anticipated, it just didn't matter.ydoethur said:
And I received a grand total of ONE communication from them (and it was cyclostyled rubbish). If I am not a crucial swing voter - young, professional, highly educated, in employment, voted in every election since 2001 including parish council elections - I absolutely don't know what I am.TheScreamingEagles said:
Messina and Crosby had the superior algorithms that helped them target the crucial voters via direct mail and the Internet/social mediaydoethur said:
Yet Labour were so very proud of their ground game. Activists in all those marginals, red banners everywhere, all that enthusiasm. The Tories by contrast did a passable impression of Bilbo Baggins - only visible at rare intervals. Speaking as somebody who lived in a crucial swing marginal, the difference was staggering.RobD said:
I don't know what you could possibly mean by that.TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, one final thought, if Labour's ground game had been half decent they might have got these non voters out to vote.
And yet, I use the past tense because despite all that this is now a fairly safe Tory seat. So what does that say about what effect actual campaigns have on voting?
The suggestion that this somehow impacted on the result is I am afraid simply not convincing. Whatever the reasons, we have to look elsewhere.
If it really was down to those two, then they deserve a much higher commission than whatever they got this time.0 -
It continues to astonish me that the Loyalist media and political types continue to fail to address their own issues and try to continue with "SNP Bad" even when it is obvious to everyone that the tactic is simply not working.Alistair said:
I am shocked, shocked that Prof Tomkins thinks it's time for the SNP to shut up and be destroyed. An amazing change of pace for him.CarlottaVance said:Prof Tomkins on the Scotland Bill:
If Scottish Ministers do not like the tax and spend decisions taken by the United Kingdom Government in Westminster, the Smith Commission Agreement — and now today’s Bill — gives them the power to do something about it. In short, they will be able to put our money where their mouths are. They can fill what they perceive to be gaps in public spending on welfare and social security. They can create new benefits. They can top-up, for Scots, even those benefits which continue to be reserved to Westminster. And they have the tax powers to pay for it all. This is why the Prime Minister said yesterday that it is finally time for the SNP to put up or shut up. At last, we can move the argument on from nationalists’ bleating that they don’t have sufficient powers to a forensic examination of how they choose to use their powers.
https://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/the-smith-commission-agreement-and-the-scotland-bill/
Having now watched several of the Maiden Speeches of the SNP's new MPs as well as today's Adjournment debate on Trident, they should be getting very, very worried about the calibre of their new opponents. If they continue with their current strategy of "SNP Bad" and assuming the new MPs will embarrass Scotland, they are in for a substantial shock over the coming years.0 -
Perhaps their algorithms correctly identified you as an unpersuadable curmudgeon who wasn't worth the hassle?ydoethur said:And I received a grand total of ONE communication from them (and it was cyclostyled rubbish). If I am not a crucial swing voter - young, professional, highly educated, in employment, voted in every election since 2001 including parish council elections - I absolutely don't know what I am. .
0 -
Well, RobD got it. Or have we reached the point where no-one is quite sure who is being sarcastic and who is not?TheScreamingEagles said:
Irony doesn't travel well on the interwebAnorak said:
That is odd. Why, simple following this link reveals the HUGE number of times it was stated how utterly superior Labour's ground game was.TheScreamingEagles said:
I can't remember a single Labour activist hyping up their ground game on PB before the election.RobD said:
I don't know what you could possibly mean by that.TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, one final thought, if Labour's ground game had been half decent they might have got these non voters out to vote.
Happy to be corrected.-1 -
Pretty sure I have a higher h-index than all of them..TheScreamingEagles said:
As a scientist you and Sunil will appreciate thisRobD said:
Not supporting the man, but how is that a 'vile homophobic rant'. The journalist must live quite a sheltered lifeTheScreamingEagles said:Just when you thought it wasn't possible for Ben Harris-Quinney to be an even bigger bellend than he was during the campaign.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/05/28/vile-homophobe-tory-councillor-goes-on-anti-gay-rant-at-the-kremlin/
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/movie-scientsts/35486/20-excellent-scientists-in-mainstream-film-and-tv 0 -
Mr. Antifrank, who knows?
If I were Cameron I'd buy it and stick it outside the front door to Number Ten to cheer himself up whenever things are a bit tricky.0 -
What seat do you live in?ydoethur said:
And I received a grand total of ONE communication from them (and it was cyclostyled rubbish). If I am not a crucial swing voter - young, professional, highly educated, in employment, voted in every election since 2001 including parish council elections - I absolutely don't know what I am.TheScreamingEagles said:
Messina and Crosby had the superior algorithms that helped them target the crucial voters via direct mail and the Internet/social mediaydoethur said:
Yet Labour were so very proud of their ground game. Activists in all those marginals, red banners everywhere, all that enthusiasm. The Tories by contrast did a passable impression of Bilbo Baggins - only visible at rare intervals. Speaking as somebody who lived in a crucial swing marginal, the difference was staggering.RobD said:
I don't know what you could possibly mean by that.TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, one final thought, if Labour's ground game had been half decent they might have got these non voters out to vote.
And yet, I use the past tense because despite all that this is now a fairly safe Tory seat. So what does that say about what effect actual campaigns have on voting?
The suggestion that this somehow impacted on the result is I am afraid simply not convincing. Whatever the reasons, we have to look elsewhere.0 -
Even if the Right is not as, well, Right, as it was back then (I don't know if that's true, but it'd be interesting to see how different they are) and so might seem more appealing to those people, I love the idea that they were told then they would turn more Right as they aged, and I bet they were horrified and offended at the very idea, from the more angry lefties at any rate.Casino_Royale said:
You say that, but anyone hitting 65 now would have been in their 30s during the Thatcher revolution. I don't recall that group being raving for her back then, yet the Tories now have whopping leads with that group. You could make similar observations about teenagers in the 60s and the 'summer of love' generation.FalseFlag said:
Ipsos Mori had Labour only ahead with 34 and under. That said I do believe in the baby boomers being a left leaning cohort, the ones who thought Blair was cool.Casino_Royale said:
I've seen another showing the Tories ahead with the over 55s, level with Labour on the 45-55s, and behind slightly on the 35-45s.AndyJS said:According to ComRes the Tories won only one age group, the 65+s, but that was enough to give the party a 6.6% lead overall:
http://www.comres.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/POLLWATCH-Turnout-at-GE2015-AGE-1024x724.jpg
The whole cohort has (in general) moved sharply Right as it has aged.0 -
Mr Dancer, I'd put it next to Alex Salmond's effort. If we got any more, we could build a modern henge of politicians' promises.0
-
About a week or so ago Yvette Cooper looked like yesterday's candidate, with the contest being a straight Burnham vs Kendall (Unions vs Blairite) struggle for the soul of the Labour party.TheScreamingEagles said:
Crazy price, you wonder if people are putting too much emphasis on her past health issues.antifrank said:
She doesn't need to make a big splash at the outset. It's a marathon, not a sprint.kle4 said:
That may be something in that. It's already been speculated she may attempt to be the 'middle' candidate of the frontrunners, and it does feel noticeable that Kendall and Burnham made the biggest initial splashes, despite Cooper having as much of a big profile as Burnham (theoretically - she's been pretty invisible for years), but that perhaps she can time things right for emerging as the clear frontrunner as the start of the actual campaign nears, without any risk of trying too much too soon and crashing and burning.antifrank said:Has anyone noticed that Yvette Cooper is concentrating on nominations at the nominations stage, and seems to be doing so rather effectively?
Presumably when it comes to the engaging with the wider membership stage she will start concentrating more on that. If she turns out to be as effective at that as she is at the getting nominations part of the process, she should be favourite, not 6/1 outsider.
By any definition Yvette Cooper is a serious contender and she will be on the ballot paper. If she can get on the ballot paper nominated by a sizeable proportion of the Labour Parliamentary party, she will automatically command serious attention. That is what she is working on now, and her work seems to be bearing fruit with a wide range of MPs supporting her from across the party.
6/1 is absurd. Right now 2/1 would feel generous to me.
I still don't particularly see what Yvette Cooper stands for, but not being a Blairite and not being Len McCluskey's homunculus might be enough. After all Ed Miliband pretty much won the leadership by not being a Blairite (ie David Miliband) and not being a Brownite (ie Ed Balls).0 -
Ah, I was playing along with TSE's joke. We ribbed (in absentia) IOS relentlessly regarding his protestations about Labour's ground game.Anorak said:
Well, RobD got it. Or have we reached the point where no-one is quite sure who is being sarcastic and who is not?TheScreamingEagles said:
Irony doesn't travel well on the interwebAnorak said:
That is odd. Why, simple following this link reveals the HUGE number of times it was stated how utterly superior Labour's ground game was.TheScreamingEagles said:
I can't remember a single Labour activist hyping up their ground game on PB before the election.RobD said:
I don't know what you could possibly mean by that.TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, one final thought, if Labour's ground game had been half decent they might have got these non voters out to vote.
Happy to be corrected. 0 -
Cannock Chase.RobD said:
What seat do you live in?ydoethur said:
And I received a grand total of ONE communication from them (and it was cyclostyled rubbish). If I am not a crucial swing voter - young, professional, highly educated, in employment, voted in every election since 2001 including parish council elections - I absolutely don't know what I am.TheScreamingEagles said:
Messina and Crosby had the superior algorithms that helped them target the crucial voters via direct mail and the Internet/social mediaydoethur said:
Yet Labour were so very proud of their ground game. Activists in all those marginals, red banners everywhere, all that enthusiasm. The Tories by contrast did a passable impression of Bilbo Baggins - only visible at rare intervals. Speaking as somebody who lived in a crucial swing marginal, the difference was staggering.RobD said:
I don't know what you could possibly mean by that.TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, one final thought, if Labour's ground game had been half decent they might have got these non voters out to vote.
And yet, I use the past tense because despite all that this is now a fairly safe Tory seat. So what does that say about what effect actual campaigns have on voting?
The suggestion that this somehow impacted on the result is I am afraid simply not convincing. Whatever the reasons, we have to look elsewhere.0 -
Out of curiosity, what hassle is involved in telling a computer to add another name to a mailshot?Richard_Nabavi said:
Perhaps their algorithms correctly identified you as an unpersuadable curmudgeon who wasn't worth the hassle?ydoethur said:And I received a grand total of ONE communication from them (and it was cyclostyled rubbish). If I am not a crucial swing voter - young, professional, highly educated, in employment, voted in every election since 2001 including parish council elections - I absolutely don't know what I am. .
0 -
SNP protester who confronted Murphy & Balls up on criminal charges
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/u/serial-protester-facing-criminal-charges-for-jim-murphy-hijackings-lawyer-claims.1432817396
"would be charged and reported to the procurator fiscal for breaches of section 38 and section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act 2010."
Seems a lovely chap as well..0 -
Italics, the font of sarcasm.Anorak said:
Well, RobD got it. Or have we reached the point where no-one is quite sure who is being sarcastic and who is not?TheScreamingEagles said:
Irony doesn't travel well on the interwebAnorak said:
That is odd. Why, simple following this link reveals the HUGE number of times it was stated how utterly superior Labour's ground game was.TheScreamingEagles said:
I can't remember a single Labour activist hyping up their ground game on PB before the election.RobD said:
I don't know what you could possibly mean by that.TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, one final thought, if Labour's ground game had been half decent they might have got these non voters out to vote.
Happy to be corrected.0
