politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CON lead by 11 in first post-GE15 voting poll but governmen
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CON lead by 11 in first post-GE15 voting poll but government approval at minus 5
First YouGov/Sun GE20 voting poll after the election
Con 41 Lab 30 LD 7 UKIP 13 GRN 4
0
Comments
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Final-MoS-Post-election-poll-1c0d2h7.pdf
Con: 40%, Lab:31%, LD:6%, UKIP: 12%, SNP: 5%
I was just wondering what would have happened if Blair had not called the 2001 and 2005 elections at four year terms, instead of five years. We would have had an election in 2002 (Labour win), 2007 (just before the crash, Labour win) and 2012.
It is easy to see that Labour might still be in power.
The scum who puts the reputation of a trust ahead of patient welfare.
2002 is pretty much the same result, with the same power struggle going on. I don't think Tories would have gone for the moderniser in 2002, so IDS gets his turn. However, what saw him removed in 2004(?) happens, with Howard leading calls for an open debate as to the future of the Conservatives, and Cameron wins in 2005, formally taking the reins in early 2006.
Assuming Blair --> Brown at approximately the same time (and I'd suggest it happens slightly earlier in this timeline), we're talking an election at around the time of the Brown Bounce/Bottle, so I'd happily argue that the reasons he bottled it stand up - he wins on a significantly reduced minority. Crash hits in much the same way, expenses hit in much the same way, they're deeply unpopular in 2010 and Eurozone went into recession in 2012, a double dip that we narrowly avoided.
I think you're looking at Labour's version of 1997 in 2012 in those circumstances.
I'm not sure too much work will be getting done this afternoon now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neboRTpRbbU
Shorter video here by someone else, the soup can be inspected at 4:14 on
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrd7qtasidc
[edited - I muddled the two]
Actually, it seems to be a rather runny black pudding ...
She somehow came over as a four-year-old arguing with her parent ... "But why, mummy, why?"
Can one of the legal people on here explain what the HRA added apart from allowing Strasbourg courts to contest decisions of UK courts?
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/southern-discomfort-does-it-matter-andy-burnham-cant-get-support-mps-south
Perhaps there were expecting the gov to have done more?
Number of babies eaten: 0
Number of Scots pushed into the sea: 0
Number of disabled people crushed underfoot: 0
It's not much, is it?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11643323/The-electoral-reform-lobby-needs-to-sober-up.html
But would need to check properly.
Approve 39 (nc)
Disapprove 44 (-4)
Perhaps a few people who didn't approve of the Coalition government are waiting to see how Cameron does on his own, while the majority of people see a great deal of continuity.
Je Suis Dan
The 1998 Act incorporated certain (but not all) convention rights into domestic law. Those convention rights are to be construed having regard to Strasbourg case law (s. 2(1)). All legislation, so far as is possible to do so, must be construed compatibly with the Convention (s. 3). If legislation is incompatible with the convention, the court can so declare, although this does not affect the validity of the legislation (s. 4). Unless compelled to do so by primary legislation, it is unlawful and a breach of statutory duty for a public authority to act contrary to an individual's convention rights (ss. 6-7).
The 1998 Act has therefore made a substantial difference. The Strasbourg Court, however, impugned judgments of our courts before it entered into force. In Smith & Grady v United Kingdom (2000) 29 EHRR 493, 542-544, for example, it held that the limited scope for questioning a decision's substance in English administrative law, stated by the Court of Appeal in R v Ministry of Defence, Ex Parte Smith [1996] QB 57, violated the applicants' right to an effective remedy under article 13 of the Convention.
Labour’s next leader should look to David Cameron, not Tony Blair
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/01/labour-leader-cameron-not-blair
It won't be "heir to Blair".
How about "Leading on from Cameron".
Hmm. Not quite as catchy.
European Commission president claims Brexit "not desired by British" and David Cameron is using referendum to tie Britain to Europe permanently
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11643101/Britain-will-not-vote-to-leave-EU-says-Juncker.html
Before Labour finds it’s next leader, it needs to find its George Osborne – and fast
http://labourlist.org/2015/05/before-labour-finds-its-next-leader-it-needs-to-find-its-george-osborne-and-fast/
1. IS apparently capturing the port at Sirte on the Libyan coast - only a few hours away from the Italian mainland and, obviously, making it much easier for them to import/export arms/people etc.
2. The US Defence Secretary talking about UK's weakening defence role this morning.
How the Western world deals with IS seems to me to be one of the key issues of the next few years and yet there seems to be no strategy whatsoever, or none that appears to be working, anyway.
He mentioned an Islington North (?) CLP meeting, I wonder who the nominees were.
(2) They think cutting it won't cost votes, but a failure to spend more on something else will
(3) Using armed force is politically risky and gives no guarantees of success or plaudits
(4) It risks bringing tragedy closer to home in a way that's more politically damaging than letting it happen to people in faraway lands of which we know little and have little in common
O/T Sad to hear of the death of Beau Biden from cancer yesterday at 45, the Vice President's son was attorney general of Delaware and tipped for the governorship as well as an Iraq War vet
Whoever it was from the Green Party speaking inordinately good sense on the wireless just now...
"not x% of GDP but we need to perform a strategic review, to decide what and who we want to be in the world and then work out how much it will cost, which could be more or less than 2%."
OK I don't agree with the Green Party's trident position, etc, but it seems an entirely reasonable approach.
Green Party defence spokesman, Rachel Johnson, was it? (oh how glorious that would be...)
(5) Even if we spent twice as much, what would we actually be able to do that we and our allies can't do at the moment?
It's not lack of kit or personnel that is preventing the West confronting IS.
Thanks Nick. For some reason I had it in my head it was yesterday, but there will be a raft on Wednesday & Thursday this week which will bring us close to all nominated. That being said, in terms of the final numbers, the bar is so low the last few nominations could be important and are most likely to be out of sympathy.
If we'd properly funded the 1998 SDR to meets its stated objectives, and maintained that funding, then I'd agree with you.
IS haven't made their gains using the tactics, skills, materiel or numbers to make a conventional assault on Europe (where the population would be far from welcoming).
The EU will accept more change if it believes that the end result will be a permanent deal. It won't go far out of its way if it believes that Britain is going to be looking for new concessions in five years' time. By bigging up Britain's willingness to become good Europeans, Jean-Claude Juncker is looking to persuade others to show greater flexibility.
Paras haven't done a parachute drop into combat since Suez and the RAF haven't shot down an enemy plane since either Korea or WW2.
All three of them are military show ponies.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11642595/Break-up-the-RAF-and-stop-buying-British.html
Maybe we can sell the carriers to China too, could even build more for them.
Number of cases against the United Kingdom allocated to a Chamber of the Strasbourg Court in 1999: 429.
Number of cases against the United Kingdom allocated to a Chamber of the Strasbourg Court in 2010: 2766.
[Donald et al., The UK and the European Court of Human Rights, EHRC Research Report no. 83, p. 31, table 4.1]
@JamesClayton5: So Sturgeon has said she won't stand on same platform with Tories in EU ref.... only Salmond said he would http://t.co/C48OdQC0Ui
If you are a pacificist, just say so. If you think we don't need anything than a nuclear umbrella, I think you are sorely wrong.
I honestly don't know what the answer is but I'm pretty certain that putting our fingers in our ears and hoping that the bad people will go away is not the answer. Sooner or later a confrontation of some kind is going to happen. A march through Paris (or Rome or London or Berlin or Tunis or wherever) and Twitter expressions of solidarity will not be sufficient.
Trident has a role beyond actually being used.
Trident might have been and might still be used on a different history arc.
Thus the fact that Trident has not been used is not compelling as a reason to get rid of it.
I think our nuclear defence is one of the key reasons why the West is strategically secure.
But we should have more mayoralty polls!!
Jobs not guns. I was amused to read Cameron being praised for his pacifism.