politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Polling should be more bottom up rather than top down

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Polling should be more bottom up rather than top down

The 2013/14 political season is now into its third week and from a poll watcher’s point of view there have been a couple of really good innovations which I think will help the process of election forecasting.

Read the full story here

RodCrosby

'We vote for individual MPs'

And, under FPTP, fewer than half of ALL VOTERS get one of their choice...

Any wonder their ratings are so low?

RodCrosby

Sky: assault begins on Nairobi Mall...

edmundintokyo

On topic, I guess the difficulty is that you need to do a hell of a lot of polling to get meaningful results for individual constituencies. If on the other had all you're after is national trends to help predict how incumbents will do in the aggregate compared to the national numbers that everybody traditionally polls, you'd probably have more luck looking at the history than trying to poll it. Maybe if everybody starts doing this now we'll get some meaningful information out of it after a couple of parliaments, when we'll have more to compare the results to.

The exception is LibDem incumbents, who are quite hard to predict based on the national numbers because of the way the voters seem to want to protect them, like ugly-but-endangered birds.

edmundintokyo

Also worth saying that the US do a lot of polling on state level rather than just nationally, but in the last presidential election it turned out to be a less reliable measure of how far the states would swing relative to each other than just assuming they'd behave basically like they did last time.

Scott_P

More fun and games from Labours' Blank Sheet of Unworkable Policies

@toadmeister: RT @StephenMullen: Labour PR Team: "It's not a #jabtax it's a spare vaccine subsidy"

@toadmeister: So if a family on benefits neglects to get the MMR jab and child gets measles Labour will cut their benefit. Who's the nasty party now?

@IsabelHardman: Still, this is a nice new foray for Labour's slogan: it's the One vacciNation Labour party!

Scott_P

@RTaylor_MEP: #Labour will punish poor parents (benefits cut) for not getting kids vaccinated, but wealthier parents unaffected? Is this #Lab13 bar joke?

Unfortunately, this may be under ‘active consideration’ as far as Cruddas is concerned, but no-one else in Labour knows anything about it. The reaction in the bars and parties in Brighton tonight was one of ‘errr, what?’ and a frenzied tapping on phones to find out what was going on.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/09/one-nation-vaccination/

Richard_Tyndall

RodCrosby said:

'We vote for individual MPs'

And, under FPTP, fewer than half of ALL VOTERS get one of their choice...

Any wonder their ratings are so low?

And there is no reason to think that would change under any other system. Getting your second 'choice' even though you didn't want them is no better, particularly in circumstances where you consider all the other alternatives equally as bad compared to your own choice.

WelshJones

tim said:

On topic.
As an aside why don't people rate their Tory MP's as highly, are they crap or is it just that when you put the word Conservative in front of anything it drags the polling down?

Conservatives simply have higher standards (and higher expectations) than other people - particularly LDs, it would seem.
But then, you've always known that high standards are beyond your reach - which is why you're a socialist.

edmundintokyo

Richard_Tyndall said:

RodCrosby said:

'We vote for individual MPs'

And, under FPTP, fewer than half of ALL VOTERS get one of their choice...

Any wonder their ratings are so low?

And there is no reason to think that would change under any other system. Getting your second 'choice' even though you didn't want them is no better, particularly in circumstances where you consider all the other alternatives equally as bad compared to your own choice.

Getting your second choice is a lot better. There's nothing particularly magical about the person who happened to be your first choice in a particular list of candidates. Your first choice for MP is almost definitely not running in your seat and may not be running for election at all, so you're already settling for somebody less than the ideal.

And it's quite common that your strongest preference is actually some way down the ballot paper. For example, I'd often have a hard time choosing between the various liberal-left options (Lab/Lib/Green), so the preference I'm bothered about doesn't kick in until a few places down. We have other people on this site who waver between Con and UKIP, and would be quite happy for either of those to win, and their strong preference is for one of those over any of the liberal-left candidates.

MrJones

If you take MP satisfaction as a balance between national level satisfaction e.g. expenses, policies, one law for them etc, and local level satisfaction e.g. surgery stuff, not an embarrassment on the telly, doesn't bite people at the local fete etc, then (given the very negative national level satisfaction)

either

a) Lab MPs are better at the constituency level activity - housing problems etc

or

b) Con voters are less needful at that level and so weight their local MP's performance more on their national level activity

Just a guess.

redcliffe62

I would like a poll that asks, when you get to the polling booth and realise your vote might contribute to 5 more years of Cameron, does that make you think again or are you happy with that decision based on the last 5 years?

WelshJones

MrJones said:

If you take MP satisfaction as a balance between national level satisfaction e.g. expenses, policies, one law for them etc, and local level satisfaction e.g. surgery stuff, not an embarrassment on the telly, doesn't bite people at the local fete etc, then (given the very negative national level satisfaction)

either

a) Lab MPs are better at the constituency level activity - housing problems etc

or

b) Con voters are less needful at that level and so weight their local MP's performance more on their national level activity

Just a guess.

I think that sums the reality up very well.

MrJones

tim said:

On topic.
Mike makes a good point, polling on crime nationally and "crime in your area" is always hugely different.
When people are asked about crime nationally they reply through the prism of the Daily Mail and Britain is invariably going to hell in a handcart (or "Broken" as one David Cameron used to say when he was using child victims of crime to try and get elected after years of falling crime)
When asked about crime in their local area peoples response is much more rooted in reality.
Same goes for polling on the NHS, theres always higher satisfaction among those who have used it recently than among those who haven't and have got their opinions second hand.

And of course there's immigration

In something of a paradox, while vast majorities view migration as harmful to Britain, few claim that their own neighbourhood is having problems due to migrants. Apparently, much of the opposition to migration comes from general concerns about Britain as a whole rather than from direct, negative experiences in one’s own community.

For example, in an Ipsos-MORI poll commissioned by the Sun newspaper in 2007 only 15% said that migrants are causing problems in their own neighbourhood, while 69% said that migrants were not having a strong local impact, either good or bad (Ipsos MORI 2007). This finding is even more convincing given that the question defined immigrants as “refer[ing] to both illegal and legal immigrants, from the EU or somewhere else". On a related note, the Citizenship Survey 2008-2009 finds that approximately 85% report that in their local area, people of diverse backgrounds get along well. Moreover, residents of London, where migrants are most heavily concentrated by far, are less likely than residents of other regions to favour sharp reductions in migration to the UK. This finding holds even for white UK-born Londoners.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-concern


As an aside why don't people rate their Tory MP's as highly, are they crap or is it just that when you put the word Conservative in front of anything it drags the polling down?

People who can afford to do so move away from high crime areas.

Richard_Tyndall

tim said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

RodCrosby said:

'We vote for individual MPs'

And, under FPTP, fewer than half of ALL VOTERS get one of their choice...

Any wonder their ratings are so low?

And there is no reason to think that would change under any other system. Getting your second 'choice' even though you didn't want them is no better, particularly in circumstances where you consider all the other alternatives equally as bad compared to your own choice.

Your second choice is equally as bad as your fifth choice?
I don't think thats logical.

Someone voting

1.A Labour candidate
2.Vince Cable
3.A Conservative candidate
4.A UKIP candidate

Is making a logical distinction.

As is someone voting for

1.A UKIP candidate
2.Peter Bone
3.Candidate with brain.

Yes I do think that. My view of most politicians is that they are utterly unworthy of voting for so it is extremely unlikely that I would find two on a ballot paper I would consider giving my support to.

The 'choice' presented by a list of preferred candidates is more often than not no choice at all. The appearance of positive choice under those circumstances is simply a smoke screen to allow parties to claim some mandate that they do not deserve.

SMukesh

Personally I wouldn`t support compulsory vaccinations.

But it looks like the Tories are rattled at the first set of policy proposals from Labour as they try feverishly to pick holes in them.But the general gist of Labour positioning will get through to the public eventhough the Tory supporting media will only try to focus on the faults of the policies rather than discussing the merits/demerits of them.

Richard_Tyndall

Thanks Mike for this thread. The idea that you vote for your local MP not for a party is something I have been trying to push for many years. It is unfortunate that the parties themselves have such a vested interest in trying to make it seem otherwise and in trying to change the system to strengthen the position of parties in the system at the cost of local representation.

TGOHF

Polls like this are skewed by the 25% of voters who are Labour and bitter and anythibg Tory is "evil" regardless of performance.

Junk.

Easterross

I disagree with the premis in the thread. In remote and rural seats, people tend to vote for the person. That for example is why my former MP Bob MacLennan was elected as a Labour MP, became an SDP MP and ended his career as a LibDem MP, all in the same seat (although the boundaries latterly grew the seat).

Such areas tend to include the Scottish Highlands, Scottish Borders, Devon and Cornwall. Surprise surpise these areas have always had a disproportionate number of Liberal MPs even when their entire party could fit into a single minibus.

In my experience most people in cities and large towns struggle to know who their MP is. They vote for a party. In Scotland many people in urban seats are represented at Holyrood and Westminster by different parties and don't know which MP or MSP is which.

However if asking the question makes PB LibDems feel they are not looking over a cliff face in just over 18 months (barring any sudden change in circumstances) then let's help them feel comfy.

[Deleted User]

I think the above does reflect that to some degree the Tory party is a bit disconnected from its core voters - hence the rise of UKIP. The core Tory vote is not too excited about gay marriage, windfarms, overseas aid, etc. Dave took his base for granted and went all metrosexual on them. And now he's paying the price.

I expect we'll see more red meat in the run up to 2015. Popular red meat like welfare caps, vetoing of Eurononsense when we get the chance, some targeted tax cuts (business rates anyone?), etc. The Tory position is not unrecoverable, especially as UKIP have been set on 'self destruct' mode just lately. Lynton Crosby will be planning all of this very hard I expect.

felix

Easterross said:

I disagree with the premis in the thread. In remote and rural seats, people tend to vote for the person. That for example is why my former MP Bob MacLennan was elected as a Labour MP, became an SDP MP and ended his career as a LibDem MP, all in the same seat (although the boundaries latterly grew the seat).

Such areas tend to include the Scottish Highlands, Scottish Borders, Devon and Cornwall. Surprise surpise these areas have always had a disproportionate number of Liberal MPs even when their entire party could fit into a single minibus.

In my experience most people in cities and large towns struggle to know who their MP is. They vote for a party. In Scotland many people in urban seats are represented at Holyrood and Westminster by different parties and don't know which MP or MSP is which.

However if asking the question makes PB LibDems feel they are not looking over a cliff face in just over 18 months (barring any sudden change in circumstances) then let's help them feel comfy.

Spot on - I also think that most LD voters are already bucking trends in not voting Tory or Labour - I expect most minority or single issue MPs do pretty well on voter satisfaction but I'm not sure the premise of the thread is correct either however much one might wish it to be so.

edmundintokyo

tim said:

SMukesh said:

Personally I wouldn`t support compulsory vaccinations.

But it looks like the Tories are rattled at the first set of policy proposals from Labour as they try feverishly to pick holes in them.But the general gist of Labour positioning will get through to the public eventhough the Tory supporting media will only try to focus on the faults of the policies rather than discussing the merits/demerits of them.

Looks like it was a paper story and it didn't involve compulsion anyway, despite a majority being in favour of compulsion.

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/04/11/majority-support-compulsory-vaccinations/

Polling often seems to get large majorities in favour of compulsory things and bans on things. But I wonder what would happen if the government actually did them. I'm guessing here, but I reckon these numbers are probably getting inflated by people actually giving their opinions about whether x is good or bad. If they took a bit of time to think about the difference between what people should do and what the government should make people do - as they would if it turned into actual legislation - I reckon these majorities would shrink.

JohnLilburne

tim said:

@ScottP

It works in Australia.
Care to explain in your own words why you think it's unworkable?

http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/subjects/immunising-your-children

hey tim

If you go to http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/subjects/immunising-your-children#a4 you will find there is a conscientious objection form which allows a parent to opt out if they have a "personal, philosophical, religious or medical belief that immunisation should not occur".

SMukesh

tim said:

SMukesh said:

Personally I wouldn`t support compulsory vaccinations.

But it looks like the Tories are rattled at the first set of policy proposals from Labour as they try feverishly to pick holes in them.But the general gist of Labour positioning will get through to the public eventhough the Tory supporting media will only try to focus on the faults of the policies rather than discussing the merits/demerits of them.

Looks like it was a paper story and it didn't involve compulsion anyway, despite a majority being in favour of compulsion.

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/04/11/majority-support-compulsory-vaccinations/

I think the Tory default position is the electorate are mugs.

Regarding the apprentice story,ofcourse the position is open to EU applicants as is every other job in the UK.But in practice,they are likely to go mainly to locals.

MrJones

tim said:

MrJones said:

People who can afford to do so move away from high crime areas.

I must've missed London emptying out and turning into Detroit with falling house prices and rats ruling the streets.

Although of course you don't believe any crime data anyway, it's all a conspiracy by the BBC/Nomenklatura/Zionists/Bankstas to cover up the decimation of the race.

http://www.findahood.com/articles/crime/londons-top-10-most-dangerous-boroughs/8

The property collapse as people flee Westminster,Islington, Hackney, Lambeth, Camden,Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea etc is truly terrifying.

My parents were Labour "commonwealth" types and we lived in one of the areas that was the first to get a lot of immigration.

They got on well with *most* immigrants as well.

However growing up they still moved three times a mile or so up the road away from their home because of a crime problem involving small numbers of individuals in gangs with knives that the media and political class wouldn't admit existed and the police wouldn't deal with because the media wouldn't admit the problem existed.

Assuming it took a year or two of things getting bad before they moved each time that would be only six years out of the eighteen they would have said crime was bad in that area and twelve years where they would have said it was okay where they were and bad elsewhere.

So the points in your original post aren't inconsistent. They're consistent with a continuous drift of people gradually moving away from serious crime problems (involving relatively small numbers of people) that the media and political class won't do anything about because they won't admit those problems exist.

JohnLilburne

SMukesh said:

Regarding the apprentice story,of course the position is open to EU applicants as is every other job in the UK.But in practice,they are likely to go mainly to locals.

Unless, of course, people set up schemes to circumvent the rules, which I would have thought is quite likely.

Also, have you worked out how you are going to prevent companies redesignating all their recent hires as apprentices?

richardDodd

Forced Jabs and yet another Bank Levy .. and they are still having breakfast...Thats Mondays conf stuffed then .. well done.

SMukesh

JohnLilburne said:

SMukesh said:

Regarding the apprentice story,of course the position is open to EU applicants as is every other job in the UK.But in practice,they are likely to go mainly to locals.

Unless, of course, people set up schemes to circumvent the rules, which I would have thought is quite likely.

Also, have you worked out how you are going to prevent companies redesignating all their recent hires as apprentices?

Every scheme can be circumvented but such schemes already exist in other countries where the companies hire an apprentice for every skilled immigrant they take on or they pay into a pooled account which is used to train apprentices.

Ofcourse it creates problems for companies and there may be objections in terms of competitiveness but the scheme is not illegal as the Tories claim.

richardDodd

The Germans tried compulsory tattooing at one time .. if you objected you were shot.. worked a treat for a while

Scrapheap_as_was

Coming soon from Nanny Ed:

1. No free lunches at school if your child has a BMI of 30+.
2. No state pension if you have a caravan and drive slowly in the West Country.
3. No free NHS service for smokers.
4. No tax credits if you don't vote Labour.

All sound, reasonable and progressive policies for a forward looking Britain.

richardDodd

No 1 Action Porpoise..
Looking good for a bingo day

Scrapheap_as_was

tim said:

Here comes ACTION PORPOISE again.

David Cameron ‏@David_Cameron
I'm cutting short a visit to Balmoral to return to Downing St to chair COBRA late this afternoon, dealing with the Kenya terror attacks.

and you were doing so much better trying to defend an actual Labour policy, must be more comfortable to get back to your normal job of Mcbriding.

JohnLilburne

tim said:

Your point?

My point? That your claim that immunisation is compulsory in Australia is bollocks, and that the idea that you need to have your child immunised to claim certain benefits, is likewise bollocks. If you go to the page you linked to, you will find "Some of our payments, such as the Family Tax Benefit Part A supplement, Child Care Benefit and Child Care Rebate, can only be paid for children who have been immunised or have an approved immunisation exemption." (My bold) Further down it defines "approved exemption":

If there is an approved reason why your child is not fully immunised and you want an immunisation exemption, you need to provide us with one of the following from your immunisation provider or doctor:

* an Immunisation exemption for medical reasons (contraindication) form
* an Immunisation exemption by conscientious objection form, or
* a letter explaining why the exemption is necessary

Would enjoy arguing the toss, but unfortunately I have to go to work.

richardDodd

Forced Jabs or lose benefits .. makes the so called bedroom tax look a real sweety..

Plato

Quentin Letts is enjoying Brighton

...Mr Twigg, promising apprenticeships for all those who do not attend university, bulged his eyes. ‘Aspiration for all,’ he hollered.

But when might those apprenticeships happen? Not immediately. Mr Twigg admitted that ‘getting there will be a big, big challenge, none more so than in facing up to the fiscal reality we will inherit. But fiscal reality does not mean losing sight of our long-term vision.’

Translation: ‘Fiscal reality does not stop us making absurd, unworkable, dishonest claims in our party-conference speeches.’

Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper was on cracking form.

She suits a party-conference stage, does Yvette. The House of Commons has proved beyond her in recent months – her oppo’, Theresa May, has outsmarted her repeatedly – but here in front of the Left-lurching party faithful her routine of elfin outrage, all puppy-eyed when she mentions poverty, works well. She accused David Cameron of having it in for disabled people. Er, hang on, did Mr Cameron not himself have a severely disabled son? Miss Cooper also claimed the credit for putting gay marriage through Parliament. See how easily history is rewritten?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2429648/Sunk-policies-Mere-details-mes-braves-QUENTIN-LETTS-stormy-waters-Labour-conference.html#ixzz2fhAOnudB

SquareRoot

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100237262/the-one-nation-labour-balloon-is-punctured-drifting-and-slowly-sinking-can-it-stay-afloat-long-enough/

Scrapheap_as_was

guido's revolting cartoon seems to be 'risque' in another way doesn't it...

Plato

Ed Balls is claiming he knew nothing about Damian McBride - this is LOL funny and very unconvinving.

richardDodd

Wonderful ... the day can only get better... tim called another poster ..Idiotic and empty....
I am so looking forward to today..

Plato

Benedict Brogan
@benedictbrogan
Oh dear @edballsmp. Is that a cock crowing? @BBCr4today

Brilliant

richardDodd

Can we book the Labour Show for a few more days.. it is brilliant so far..

Plato

Jenni Russell in the Times wants EdM to rise to the challenge but makes some good observations about what hasn't happened. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/article3876188.ece

"...in the past three years, Labour has come up with intriguing concepts that it then seems unable or unwilling to explain. Immediately after his speech on responsible capitalism, Mr Miliband couldn’t say how he would distinguish between the predatory capitalists he had attacked and the productive ones he’d praised. He sounded defensive and uncertain. “Squeezed middle” was a ringing phrase that wasn’t accompanied by adequate policies to address it. On Syria or on Falkirk Labour started off taking a principled stand, then descended into muddle as circumstances changed.

Just as importantly, even when Mr Miliband and the Shadow Cabinet have a policy to discuss, they rarely sound as if they own their ideas. Far too often they go into studios with a handful of prepared phrases that they cling to even when pushed, as Mr Miliband did on The Andrew Marr Show yesterday. “Let me explain,” they say, or “Let me be clear,” before simply repeating themselves. It’s as if they’re standing precariously on a rock in the middle of the sea, petrified of falling in if they take a single step in any direction.

This is a deeply ineffective way of practising politics in the fast-response age of Twitter, Facebook and texting. Politicians need to parry and respond to challenges or queries and to do so deftly and quickly because they are sure of their ground. Mr Cameron and much of his Cabinet can do it. So can Nigel Farage, so could Tony Blair..."

Financier

On Thread

From the article:

"Lastly, responses differ depending on whether someone has contacted the MP or not, and, even more importantly, on how satisfied they are with the response they get. Based on data from the 1970s, Ivor Crewe once wrote that familiarity appeared to breed content. Partly. Around 21 per cent of respondents said that they had contacted their MP in “the last two or three years”; among that group the net score was +5 – of those who hadn’t, the net score was -8 – but we also asked whether those who’d contacted the MP were satisfied with the response, and this provoked the biggest differences of all. The graph shows the huge range of responses:

Of those who had contacted their MP and were ‘Very Satisfied’ with the response, 86 per cent said that they were satisfied with the MP, and just 3 per cent were not, a net score of +83. At the other end of the scale, of those who had contacted their MP and were ‘Very Dissatisfied’ with the response, 93 per cent said that they were dissatisfied with their MP, a score of -93.

In other words, the views of those who’ve contacted their local MP about that MP are almost entirely dependent on how satisfactory the contact was. This relationship holds true regardless of the party leanings of the constituent.

Unsatisfactory contact, it would seem, produces a worse outcome than if they had never contacted the MP in the first place."

http://www.totalpolitics.com/opinion/416802/polling-not-love-actually.thtml

Alanbrooke

After "Shitstorm" entering the German dictionary, I think I know what's next - ( from Frankfurter Allgemeine quoting one of the commentators on prime time election coverage ) .

„ Haha, nein - man hat ein fucking Recht darauf, in einem fucking Rechtsstaat mit einer fucking beachteten Verfassung zu leben

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/faz-net-fruehkritik/der-wahlabend-im-fernsehen-neuwahlen-wenn-die-kanzlerin-keinen-koalitionspartner-findet-12586359.html

Certainly different from my O level German course.

Scrapheap_as_was

Patrick Wintour‏@patrickwintour15s
Balls on McBride I dont think world is helped by Gordon Brown saying anything about this. It's in the past. It's irrelevant. It's depressing

I heard Yvette say much the same to Pienaar y'day - it was v bad but it's ancient history now, we've moved on etc etc.

Only problem is the Labour frontbench hasn't, Mr. Brown's boys are now the Leader and the Chancellor-elect and I'd guess 60% of them at least were in the last Labour Cabinet - time has moved on but the vast majority of the people around at the time remain running the potential next Govt..

JosiasJessop

The immunisation thing seems stupid, especially as it would be effective only to people who get benefits. Is there a study into which socio-economic groups are least likely to get their children immunised? I thought it was mainly a middle-class thing?

Scrapheap_as_was

If you earn over £60k but get your kids immunised, do you get back your child benefit?

richardDodd

tim.. wake up son .. the day is getting on and you have a long way to go with your Bingo card
I was comparing compulsions..something that is forced on the individual or a punishment will take place... the Germans of the day were rather extreme ... but it must have started off as an idea on a piece of paper at one time and may even have been laughed at as a stupid idea.

JohnLilburne

tim said:

I've never claimed it's compulsory in Australia, you made that up, its a condition for getting family allowance, and as you point out there are exemptions in certain cases, as there ar in the US and Canada with nursery and university entrance.

On compulsion I've simply posted the polling showing a majority in favour, I'm not personally in favour of compulsion at all.

Oh dear, backpedalling time. You posted "It works in Australia. Care to explain in your own words why you think it's unworkable?". Spent yesterday evening posting why you thought that various sanctions against unimmunised children were sensible. Maybe if you don't agree with compulsion, you should avoid giving that impression.

It appears that what is compulsory in Oz is that you at least record your objection.

What is the phrase? Oh yes. "Idiotic and empty" Suck it up.

Financier

On the TODAY programme R4, it was disclosed that legally the OBR is not allowed to help Ed Balls with his sums, nor with any other political manifesto. Apparently Parliament would have to change the law to allow this.

So his time at Harvard did not improve his arithmetic - thought Alan Johnson resigned from the post of Shadow Chancellor for similar reasons?

Plato

Benjamin Pelc @screwlabour
25 hrs free childcare/week say Labour. How will we pay? Bank levy of course. How many times have they spent that now? news.sky.com/story/1145244/…

Plato

Hilary Benn spent many intv doing the Its In The Past mantra on Saturday - he was entirely unconvincing and sounded rather petulant and prissy which was interesting.

I quite like him but it wasn't his finest hour.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Patrick Wintour‏@patrickwintour15s
Balls on McBride I dont think world is helped by Gordon Brown saying anything about this. It's in the past. It's irrelevant. It's depressing

I heard Yvette say much the same to Pienaar y'day - it was v bad but it's ancient history now, we've moved on etc etc.

Only problem is the Labour frontbench hasn't, Mr. Brown's boys are now the Leader and the Chancellor-elect and I'd guess 60% of them at least were in the last Labour Cabinet - time has moved on but the vast majority of the people around at the time remain running the potential next Govt..

OldKingCole

Financier said:

On Thread

From the article:

"Lastly, responses differ depending on whether someone has contacted the MP or not, and, even more importantly, on how satisfied they are with the response they get. Based on data from the 1970s, Ivor Crewe once wrote that familiarity appeared to breed content. Partly. Around 21 per cent of respondents said that they had contacted their MP in “the last two or three years”; among that group the net score was +5 – of those who hadn’t, the net score was -8 – but we also asked whether those who’d contacted the MP were satisfied with the response, and this provoked the biggest differences of all. The graph shows the huge range of responses:

Of those who had contacted their MP and were ‘Very Satisfied’ with the response, 86 per cent said that they were satisfied with the MP, and just 3 per cent were not, a net score of +83. At the other end of the scale, of those who had contacted their MP and were ‘Very Dissatisfied’ with the response, 93 per cent said that they were dissatisfied with their MP, a score of -93.

In other words, the views of those who’ve contacted their local MP about that MP are almost entirely dependent on how satisfactory the contact was. This relationship holds true regardless of the party leanings of the constituent.

Unsatisfactory contact, it would seem, produces a worse outcome than if they had never contacted the MP in the first place."

http://www.totalpolitics.com/opinion/416802/polling-not-love-actually.thtml

"Unsatisfactory contact, it would seem, produces a worse outcome than if they had never contacted the MP in the first place."

Well known feature of the consumer world. Deal with a complaint well, and the customer will come back happy, and indeed is more likely to recommned the supplier.

Deal with it badly and they'll not only not come back, but tell all their friends to avoid you!

JosiasJessop

tim said:

JosiasJessop said:

The immunisation thing seems stupid, especially as it would be effective only to people who get benefits. Is there a study into which socio-economic groups are least likely to get their children immunised? I thought it was mainly a middle-class thing?

Child benefit is paid up to £60k.
And Dave's childcare tax break up to couples on £300k.
Basing your understanding of a paper story on ScottP's pasting of Toby Young tweets isn't helpful.

But the more people earn, the less of a benefit and necessity the benefits are. Remember, many parents were willing to spend money to take their children abroad to get single jabs. It's easily conceivable that the loss of benefits might actually have the reverse effect on many people to that intended.

It's a shame you based your understanding of the story on a total misunderstanding of the situation in Australia ....

NickPalmer

Easterross said:

I disagree with the premis in the thread. In remote and rural seats, people tend to vote for the person. That for example is why my former MP Bob MacLennan was elected as a Labour MP, became an SDP MP and ended his career as a LibDem MP, all in the same seat (although the boundaries latterly grew the seat).

Such areas tend to include the Scottish Highlands, Scottish Borders, Devon and Cornwall. Surprise surpise these areas have always had a disproportionate number of Liberal MPs even when their entire party could fit into a single minibus.

In my experience most people in cities and large towns struggle to know who their MP is. They vote for a party. In Scotland many people in urban seats are represented at Holyrood and Westminster by different parties and don't know which MP or MSP is which.

However if asking the question makes PB LibDems feel they are not looking over a cliff face in just over 18 months (barring any sudden change in circumstances) then let's help them feel comfy.

This doesn't invalidate the thread header, though I think there's something in it. The cities are much more politicised even than the suburbs. There is a gulf between canvassing in suburban Broxtowe, where "When are the tram works going to finish?" is a typical question and 75% know who you are, and canvassing in London, where it's just as likely to be about Syria. That said, good MPs (and they come in all flavours) do build up a personal reputation - I've met a number of Conservative/LibDem voters in local elections who vote for Jeremy Corbyn because he helped them with something or sends frequent newsletters.

O/T: the German media are pretty unanimous that a Grand Caolition is coming. There is a nod in the direction of a possible CDU-Green pact but it's not seen as likely.

Mick_Pork

It was always possible that little Ed would get buried under the conflicting priorities of the Blairites and Brownites and sink ever further into the morass of inaction, weak ineffectual posturing and terrible personal polling, but that didn't make it likely.

Now it looks likely.

I find it staggering that little Ed and labour watched the tories crash and burn in May after Crosby's disasterous flirting with dog-whistling, yet now little Ed's response to narrowing polling is to try dog-whistling himself??? Incredible.

Even Crosby cut down on that that counterproductive crap when it became all too obvious that, as usual, the last people it helped were those doing it. At Eastleigh and the May locals it quite clearly backfired on the tories and helped the kippers.

So now we have McBride reminding everyone of just how dangerous going down the factionalism route is for labour and little Ed's response seems to be to switch from the Brownite McBride style of discredited spin to the equally divisive Blairite "no-brainer" McTernan and his Australian dog-whistling style of spin?? Genius.

That the PB tories still haven't worked out what is going on is only to be expected.

Clearly nobody at labour HQ has worked out that "no-brainer" McTernan didn't exactly bring peace and harmony to the Australian labor party. Quite the reverse. Nor did his dog-whistling do anything other than help propel Abbot into power and give Australia's labor party one of their worst hammerings ever.

I fear copying Cammie with another vapid and well rehearsed "off the cuff" speech isn't going to cut it this time for little Ed. Dan Hodges is a joke but that certainly doesn't mean little Ed is doing well.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Got to love balanced reporting. Climate change and the BBC:
"This slowdown, or hiatus as the IPCC refers to it, has been leapt upon by climate sceptics to argue that the scientific belief that emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere increases the temperature of the planet, is wrong. "

Ah, the scientific belief. Good to know that we have Science in favour of the argument.

It's a practically Brownite approach to a scienitific debate. When a matter's uncertain it's entirely possible to have opposing sides with valid perspectives.

"The organisation's reputation was also questioned in the Climategate rumpus."

Rumpus? Incidentally, in the link above the word 'rumpus' links to a Guardian article which has the following header:
"The uproar that followed briefly shook the public's faith in global warming science, and prompted investigations that debunked sceptics' allegations that the mails showed the planet wasn't warming."

Oh no! Faith was shaken! Thank god the heretical sceptics were proved wrong yet again and the Earth is warming! [Except there's been a decade or so of no rise in temperatures...]

Jonathan

A large number of people, possibly the majority do not know who their Map is. Outside the top 5 names , recognition is very low.

edmundintokyo

Financier said:

On the TODAY programme R4, it was disclosed

It was disclosed? What is this, a Japanese newspaper? Who actually said it?

SimonStClare

Plato said:

Hilary Benn spent many intv doing the Its In The Past mantra on Saturday - he was entirely unconvincing and sounded rather petulant and prissy which was interesting.

I quite like him but it wasn't his finest hour.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Patrick Wintour‏@patrickwintour15s
Balls on McBride I dont think world is helped by Gordon Brown saying anything about this. It's in the past. It's irrelevant. It's depressing

I heard Yvette say much the same to Pienaar y'day - it was v bad but it's ancient history now, we've moved on etc etc.

Only problem is the Labour frontbench hasn't, Mr. Brown's boys are now the Leader and the Chancellor-elect and I'd guess 60% of them at least were in the last Labour Cabinet - time has moved on but the vast majority of the people around at the time remain running the potential next Govt..

Yup, Tony Benn Jnr tried exactly the same thing, 'all in the past' etc, etc. -and then waffled on about a different subject. – Andrew Neil waited for him to finish his spiel, then calmly contradicted him saying ‘it is not old news, those responsible now sit on the front bench. – Much squirming from Hilary, but not a convincing effort I’m afraid.

Plato

This is just WEIRD

James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers
.@DPMcBride set up fake 'Thatcher office' to convince voters Brown had moved into her old study. But computers and phones weren't connected

Scrapheap_as_was

"It was always possible that little Ed would get buried under the conflicting priorities of the Blairites and Brownites and sink ever further into the morass of inaction, weak ineffectual posturing and terrible personal polling, but that didn't make it likely."

Most unfair - some clear leadership here:

Jim Pickard‏@PickardJE12m
Ed Miliband yesterday on EU ref. "We've set out a very, very clear position on this - but we'll set out our position at the election."

astateofdenmark

The incredible Frau Merkel. 13 years after becoming party leader, 8 years as Chancellor and wins her third consecutive election by a landslide.

astateofdenmark

If a party is judged by the people who support it, then AfD are a left-leaning centrist bunch, in aggregate.

https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/382028578440769536/photo/1

Plato

Question Timer @QuestionTimer
Breaking news - Labour to offer free.. everything in their manifesto. Paid for partly by the rich and the rest, well who cares. #voteLabour

Alanbrooke

NickPalmer said:

Easterross said:

I disagree with the premis in the thread. In remote and rural seats, people tend to vote for the person. That for example is why my former MP Bob MacLennan was elected as a Labour MP, became an SDP MP and ended his career as a LibDem MP, all in the same seat (although the boundaries latterly grew the seat).

Such areas tend to include the Scottish Highlands, Scottish Borders, Devon and Cornwall. Surprise surpise these areas have always had a disproportionate number of Liberal MPs even when their entire party could fit into a single minibus.

In my experience most people in cities and large towns struggle to know who their MP is. They vote for a party. In Scotland many people in urban seats are represented at Holyrood and Westminster by different parties and don't know which MP or MSP is which.

However if asking the question makes PB LibDems feel they are not looking over a cliff face in just over 18 months (barring any sudden change in circumstances) then let's help them feel comfy.

This doesn't invalidate the thread header, though I think there's something in it. The cities are much more politicised even than the suburbs. There is a gulf between canvassing in suburban Broxtowe, where "When are the tram works going to finish?" is a typical question and 75% know who you are, and canvassing in London, where it's just as likely to be about Syria. That said, good MPs (and they come in all flavours) do build up a personal reputation - I've met a number of Conservative/LibDem voters in local elections who vote for Jeremy Corbyn because he helped them with something or sends frequent newsletters.

O/T: the German media are pretty unanimous that a Grand Caolition is coming. There is a nod in the direction of a possible CDU-Green pact but it's not seen as likely.

It has certainly been one of Germany's more interesting elections. The FDP and Pirates both have a spectacular fall from grace. the greens slip back and the AfD comes from nowhere. Most of the parties and countries in Europe will probably need the rest of the week to figure what it means for them. And if they can't cobble together a coalition then the outside chance they have to re-run it.

astateofdenmark

Why does it post the whole picture?

richardDodd

The Lawyers at the ECHR will be rubbing their hands today..Compulsory Immunisation or your rights will be removed and it is not even 9am

john_zims

'Thus it’s a well recorded political fact that LD MPs can often buck the national trend and be difficult to dislodge. The chart above gives a reason – they have much better satisfaction levels.'

Nothing to do with the political fact that until 2010 LD MP's never had a record in government to defend?

Alanbrooke

astateofdenmark said:

If a party is judged by the people who support it, then AfD are a left-leaning centrist bunch, in aggregate.

https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/382028578440769536/photo/1

Isn't that for the first vote though ? certainly on the party lists the AfD did better in the South and East and off CDU\CSU transfer votes.

foxinsoxuk

When she is done with Germany, I would be happy to have her as British PM. After all as an EU applicant...

astateofdenmark said:

The incredible Frau Merkel. 13 years after becoming party leader, 8 years as Chancellor and wins her third consecutive election by a landslide.

Mick_Pork

Scrapheap_as_was said:

"It was always possible that little Ed would get buried under the conflicting priorities of the Blairites and Brownites and sink ever further into the morass of inaction, weak ineffectual posturing and terrible personal polling, but that didn't make it likely."

Most unfair - some clear leadership here:

Jim Pickard‏@PickardJE12m
Ed Miliband yesterday on EU ref. "We've set out a very, very clear position on this - but we'll set out our position at the election."

Not that it's ever going to shift many votes for labour. That isn't the point of it. The primary aim of such a policy would be to put the spotlight firmly on the EU and IN/OUT during the election campaign and hope tory backbenchers start losing their minds over it again while helping boost the kippers.

I presume that is also some of the 'thinking' on the current idiotic dog-whistling from labour. Though the wisdom of trying to shift the political narrative onto parties and issues other than your own after a summer of inaction, is just a bit hard to fathom.

At least wee Dougie helpfully waded in to let it be known that there was splits at the top of the shadow cabinet on this. Almost as helpful to little Ed as he was to sister Wendy.

Financier

edmundintokyo said:

Financier said:

On the TODAY programme R4, it was disclosed

It was disclosed? What is this, a Japanese newspaper? Who actually said it?

I was driving in thick traffic, but it was between 7am and 7.30am in an interview by Evan Davis with a person whose name was drowned out by traffic noise. Check back on iplayer.

Plato

Good leader

"...The Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, has said that Labour will not borrow more, but there is no real sense in the party that it has begun to understand that its vaulting ambitions for Britain are simply not affordable. Labour still sounds most authentically like itself when it is raising taxes and making spending pledges to match. The absence of any programme of reform on health and education, for example, shows how little serious thinking seems to have taken place. Mr Miliband talks in occasionally tough terms, but whenever he offers sight of a policy it is always to reverse a coalition cut.

It will not be enough to retail a list of items in the household budget that are expensive and promise piously to make them more affordable. That is not to minimise the difficulties that many households do face, it is to pour scorn on the notion that Mr Miliband has yet worked out whether he can do anything about it. It is also to point out that, before he will be asked his view on the household budget, he needs to be more persuasive about the nation’s budget. He cannot for ever continue to act as if they in no way relate.

The big question for Mr Miliband at this conference is not that the people of Britain have no money to play with. It is that he hasn’t and he does not yet appear to have understood the implications. > http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article3876214.ece

Morris_Dancer

I forget the precise timing: are these the last pre-referendum conferences?

Edited extra bit: in important news, my post-race analysis/grumbling is up here: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/singapore-post-race-analysis.html

Plato

By-line Damian McBride - I'm sure his mother is proud.

Almost a year after I was sacked from Downing Street, I was killing time in the Tally Ho pub in Finchley when I looked up at the TV, saw my face on Sky News, and thought: ‘Ah b******s, what’s happened now?’

The breaking news banner whooshed up on the bottom of the screen: ‘Darling says “Forces of Hell were unleashed” on him in August 2008.’

And my immediate thought was: ‘Will Alistair ever do one interview where he says something positive about the Labour Party or the economy, or does he set out to create bad headlines every single time?’ I wrote that out as a text message to send to a few old colleagues, stared at it a bit, sank what remained of my pint and pressed delete.

Letting the rage die down, I just sat there thinking: What is it with Alistair Darling?

As far as I was concerned, he was either catastrophically inept or misguided when it came to his public interventions in the press — or he was just totally out for himself...

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2429682/Useless-Darling-just-Damian-McBride-reveals-poor-Alistair-played-martyr-amid-2008-economic-crisis.html#ixzz2fhOPVQyA

Mick_Pork

The CCHQ spin machine is looking as competent as ever.

The Times of London ‏@thetimes 8h

One too many tweets for Cameron? PM favourites tweet mocking Hague from 'offensive' user http://thetim.es/15jBRdt pic.twitter.com/E4Wq0LlLGi

Plato

I thought Damian was in lurve with Gordon - what a bizarre way to show it.

"If Gordon happened to be doing the interview down the line, he’d begin miming acts of extreme violence in my direction, while giving the most desultory answers possible. Even worse, he’d bemoan the BBC’s failure to focus on important issues. When the interview ended, Gordon would unleash a tremendous volley of abuse — usually a stream of unconnected swear words.

I’m convinced he didn’t care that the BBC were still recording at the other end; he actually wanted them to hear. And I’ve always fantasised that someone at the BBC has kept all those clips and carefully spliced them together to play at John Humphrys’s retirement party.

In particular, I admired the professionalism of Nick Robinson (‘Bloody Tory’ was Gordon’s private opinion — but then he thought the BBC was run by Tories) when he delivered a mildly critical post-Budget analysis. All the way through, Gordon would be glowering at him across the desk, and occasionally throwing down his papers or tearing his headset. The worst times were when we had to do rounds of interviews, with one broadcast political editor after another giving him a ten-minute grilling.

This was never far from a Demolition Derby. Gordon wasn’t particularly fond of any of them, and felt downright hostile towards the big three — the BBC’s Robinson, Sky’s Adam Boulton and ITN’s Tom Bradby. On a bad day, after each political editor had finished, Gordon would want to scream a string of foul-mouthed abuse in his face. But I would always stand behind the camera, so when he looked at me, I’d purse my lips and jerk up an admonishing finger, like a stern librarian, and say: ‘Gordon, can I grab you for a moment?’

As soon as I’d taken him into an ante-room, he’d draw breath to begin his tirade. I’d shush him, whispering: ‘It was fine, it was good, you dealt with it well, it’s all OK. And, I know he’s a bastard — he’s a Tory, he can f*** off the next time he asks us for a favour — but let’s just do the next one and get through it.’

The same routine. After every single interview. Every single time.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2429682/Useless-Darling-just-Damian-McBride-reveals-poor-Alistair-played-martyr-amid-2008-economic-crisis.html#ixzz2fhPOuPq7

JosiasJessop

tim said:

JosiasJessop said:

tim said:

JosiasJessop said:

The immunisation thing seems stupid, especially as it would be effective only to people who get benefits. Is there a study into which socio-economic groups are least likely to get their children immunised? I thought it was mainly a middle-class thing?

Child benefit is paid up to £60k.
And Dave's childcare tax break up to couples on £300k.
Basing your understanding of a paper story on ScottP's pasting of Toby Young tweets isn't helpful.

But the more people earn, the less of a benefit and necessity the benefits are. Remember, many parents were willing to spend money to take their children abroad to get single jabs. It's easily conceivable that the loss of benefits might actually have the reverse effect on many people to that intended.

It's a shame you based your understanding of the story on a total misunderstanding of the situation in Australia ....

What has been misunderstood Josias?

I posted this on the previous thread

"I suspect that we'll go down the US/Canadian/Australian route and make nurseries responsible for checking immunisation status
There's some sort of "conscientious objector" status for the hippies and lunatics who end up home schooling in log cabins."

The conscientious objection thing has been discussed on here before regularly when Charles and I were debating the vaccination issue

I think your second paragraph, using words such as 'hippie' and 'lunatics' is pretty much a misunderstanding, and nasty to boot. It's no wonder Labout so comprehensively f'ed this up eleven years ago - there's no attempt to understand and address the reason why parents were concerned; instead you just call them names.

Which is not a particularly mature way of doing things.

redcliffe62

JohnLilburne said:

tim said:

I've never claimed it's compulsory in Australia, you made that up, its a condition for getting family allowance, and as you point out there are exemptions in certain cases, as there ar in the US and Canada with nursery and university entrance.

On compulsion I've simply posted the polling showing a majority in favour, I'm not personally in favour of compulsion at all.

Oh dear, backpedalling time. You posted "It works in Australia. Care to explain in your own words why you think it's unworkable?". Spent yesterday evening posting why you thought that various sanctions against unimmunised children were sensible. Maybe if you don't agree with compulsion, you should avoid giving that impression.

It appears that what is compulsory in Oz is that you at least record your objection.

What is the phrase? Oh yes. "Idiotic and empty" Suck it up.

As someone who had a child who had to be checked for allergies prior to immunisation I can tell you John is right and Tim is wrong on this.

Plato

This is just bizarre. It's like some caricature of a gangsta movie.

"The way he approached — fists balled and face like thunder — I genuinely thought he was coming at me. I took up a defensive stance, with my own fists balled. Not that I planned to hit him. I mean, you don’t ‘plan’ to hit your boss at the best of times, let alone when you’re brand new to the job and he’s the Chancellor. But I thought I might need to defend myself.

Then I thought of a different approach; I just went berserk — kicking a chair over and screaming about the ****ing idiots in the Department of Trade and Industry who’d given us bad advice on OPEC’s intentions. This had an instant effect. Looking at me in alarm, Gordon told me to calm down, and then — with a disapproving glare — picked up the chair. I’d learned an important lesson.

From then on, whenever there was bad news, I’d try to do my Incredible Hulk routine. This meant I had to look angrier than Gordon, even if that was sometimes near impossible.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2429682/Useless-Darling-just-Damian-McBride-reveals-poor-Alistair-played-martyr-amid-2008-economic-crisis.html#ixzz2fhR6NSYO

Alanbrooke

JosiasJessop said:

tim said:

JosiasJessop said:

tim said:

JosiasJessop said:

The immunisation thing seems stupid, especially as it would be effective only to people who get benefits. Is there a study into which socio-economic groups are least likely to get their children immunised? I thought it was mainly a middle-class thing?

Child benefit is paid up to £60k.
And Dave's childcare tax break up to couples on £300k.
Basing your understanding of a paper story on ScottP's pasting of Toby Young tweets isn't helpful.

But the more people earn, the less of a benefit and necessity the benefits are. Remember, many parents were willing to spend money to take their children abroad to get single jabs. It's easily conceivable that the loss of benefits might actually have the reverse effect on many people to that intended.

It's a shame you based your understanding of the story on a total misunderstanding of the situation in Australia ....

What has been misunderstood Josias?

I posted this on the previous thread

"I suspect that we'll go down the US/Canadian/Australian route and make nurseries responsible for checking immunisation status
There's some sort of "conscientious objector" status for the hippies and lunatics who end up home schooling in log cabins."

The conscientious objection thing has been discussed on here before regularly when Charles and I were debating the vaccination issue

I think your second paragraph, using words such as 'hippie' and 'lunatics' is pretty much a misunderstanding, and nasty to boot. It's no wonder Labout so comprehensively f'ed this up eleven years ago - there's no attempt to understand and address the reason why parents were concerned; instead you just call them names.

Which is not a particularly mature way of doing things.

"hippie"

tim has some extreme rightwing views , it's a short step from Toxic Tory to Toxteth Tory ;-)

edmundintokyo

Mick_Pork said:

Not that it's ever going to shift many votes for labour. That isn't the point of it. The primary aim of such a policy would be to put the spotlight firmly on the EU and IN/OUT during the election campaign and hope tory backbenchers start losing their minds over it again while helping boost the kippers.

The political problem with Labour promising a referendum is that the next question they'll be asked will be whether they're going to do a renegotiation as well. They then either say no - which leaves them back at Square 1 where the Eurosceptics are concerned - or end up in a competition with the Tories over who can make the most outlandish promises about the outcome of the hypothetical renegotiation. Then whichever of them is unlucky enough to win the election is going to have explain to the voters that they can't actually deliver on their promise that British fishermen are going to be able to catch all the fish they like or whatever, and the voters are going to be exceedingly peeved.

Plato

Alastair Stewart @alstewitn
@SophyRidgeSky The old Labour government DID play like a team - a team of Nobby Stiles clones.

TGOHF

So Labour policy is carrots for the unemployed and sticks for worried mums.

Go Ed !

edmundintokyo

tim said:

Mick_Pork said:

The CCHQ spin machine is looking as competent as ever.

The Times of London ‏@thetimes 8h

One too many tweets for Cameron? PM favourites tweet mocking Hague from 'offensive' user http://thetim.es/15jBRdt pic.twitter.com/E4Wq0LlLGi

They've got someone covering Daves twitter account when he's asleep apparently.no wonder he wants to change the European Working Time Directive


TBF on Twitter it's easy to favourite things by accident, eg if you mean to do ctrl-f to do a search in the browser but the timing goes wrong and you just hit "f".

Plato

edmundintokyo said:

tim said:

Mick_Pork said:

The CCHQ spin machine is looking as competent as ever.

The Times of London ‏@thetimes 8h

One too many tweets for Cameron? PM favourites tweet mocking Hague from 'offensive' user http://thetim.es/15jBRdt pic.twitter.com/E4Wq0LlLGi

They've got someone covering Daves twitter account when he's asleep apparently.no wonder he wants to change the European Working Time Directive

TBF on Twitter it's easy to favourite things by accident, eg if you mean to do ctrl-f to do a search in the browser but the timing goes wrong and you just hit "f".

I often Favourite things on Twitter - its there to flag posts of interest to read later, not an endorsement of them.

Morris_Dancer

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/console-game-triggers-total-collapse-of-society-2013092379686

surbiton

Plato said:

I thought Damian was in lurve with Gordon - what a bizarre way to show it.

"If Gordon happened to be doing the interview down the line, he’d begin miming acts of extreme violence in my direction, while giving the most desultory answers possible. Even worse, he’d bemoan the BBC’s failure to focus on important issues. When the interview ended, Gordon would unleash a tremendous volley of abuse — usually a stream of unconnected swear words.

In particular, I admired the professionalism of Nick Robinson (‘Bloody Tory’ was Gordon’s private opinion — but then he thought the BBC was run by Tories) when he delivered a mildly critical post-Budget analysis. All the way through, Gordon would be glowering at him across the desk, and occasionally throwing down his papers or tearing his headset. The worst times were when we had to do rounds of interviews, with one broadcast political editor after another giving him a ten-minute grilling.

As soon as I’d taken him into an ante-room, he’d draw breath to begin his tirade. I’d shush him, whispering: ‘It was fine, it was good, you dealt with it well, it’s all OK. And, I know he’s a bastard — he’s a Tory, he can f*** off the next time he asks us for a favour — but let’s just do the next one and get through it.’

The same routine. After every single interview. Every single time.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2429682/Useless-Darling-just-Damian-McBride-reveals-poor-Alistair-played-martyr-amid-2008-economic-crisis.html#ixzz2fhPOuPq7

So, even Gordon knew that the BBC were run by Tories. I thought this was a secret. I will let him know of another one. ITV too ! The Political Editor is now in No.10. His wife works for BBC to balance !

surbiton

OT:

THe headline of this thread runs against the collective wisdom of the PBTories. Their assumption is that the "incumbency dividend" will hand over a massive majority for the Tories. People like Aidan Burley.

SimonStClare

surbiton said:

Plato said:

I thought Damian was in lurve with Gordon - what a bizarre way to show it.

"If Gordon happened to be doing the interview down the line, he’d begin miming acts of extreme violence in my direction, while giving the most desultory answers possible. Even worse, he’d bemoan the BBC’s failure to focus on important issues. When the interview ended, Gordon would unleash a tremendous volley of abuse — usually a stream of unconnected swear words.

In particular, I admired the professionalism of Nick Robinson (‘Bloody Tory’ was Gordon’s private opinion — but then he thought the BBC was run by Tories) when he delivered a mildly critical post-Budget analysis. All the way through, Gordon would be glowering at him across the desk, and occasionally throwing down his papers or tearing his headset. The worst times were when we had to do rounds of interviews, with one broadcast political editor after another giving him a ten-minute grilling.

As soon as I’d taken him into an ante-room, he’d draw breath to begin his tirade. I’d shush him, whispering: ‘It was fine, it was good, you dealt with it well, it’s all OK. And, I know he’s a bastard — he’s a Tory, he can f*** off the next time he asks us for a favour — but let’s just do the next one and get through it.’

The same routine. After every single interview. Every single time.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2429682/Useless-Darling-just-Damian-McBride-reveals-poor-Alistair-played-martyr-amid-2008-economic-crisis.html#ixzz2fhPOuPq7

So, even Gordon knew that the BBC were run by Tories. I thought this was a secret. I will let him of another one. ITV too ! The Political Editor is now in No.10. His wife works for BBC to balance.

Are you not in the least bit concerned that Gordon Brown was a violent and aggressive employer how routine abused his subordinates?

TGOHF

surbiton said:

OT:

THe headline of this thread runs against the collective wisdom of the PBTories. Their assumption is that the "incumbency dividend" will hand over a massive majority for the Tories. People like Aidan Burley.

On the other hand Labour bile and bitterness is probably stacked up in safe red seats.

Bobajob

Plato said:

Benjamin Pelc @screwlabour
25 hrs free childcare/week say Labour. How will we pay? Bank levy of course. How many times have they spent that now? news.sky.com/story/1145244/…

Who is this person you are retweeting?

surbiton

Plato said:

edmundintokyo said:

tim said:

Mick_Pork said:

The CCHQ spin machine is looking as competent as ever.

The Times of London ‏@thetimes 8h

One too many tweets for Cameron? PM favourites tweet mocking Hague from 'offensive' user http://thetim.es/15jBRdt pic.twitter.com/E4Wq0LlLGi

They've got someone covering Daves twitter account when he's asleep apparently.no wonder he wants to change the European Working Time Directive

TBF on Twitter it's easy to favourite things by accident, eg if you mean to do ctrl-f to do a search in the browser but the timing goes wrong and you just hit "f".

I often Favourite things on Twitter - its there to flag posts of interest to read later, not an endorsement of them.

Well tried, Plato. Didn't work !

Mick_Pork

edmundintokyo said:

Mick_Pork said:

Not that it's ever going to shift many votes for labour. That isn't the point of it. The primary aim of such a policy would be to put the spotlight firmly on the EU and IN/OUT during the election campaign and hope tory backbenchers start losing their minds over it again while helping boost the kippers.

The political problem with Labour promising a referendum is that the next question they'll be asked will be whether they're going to do a renegotiation as well. They then either say no - which leaves them back at Square 1 where the Eurosceptics are concerned

Eurosceptics are somewhat unlikely to believe them anyway. A massive chunk of Cammie's backbenchers don't believe him so little Ed is unlikely to fare any better. Just getting it up there as a big issue during the election is enough for labour and helps explain all this absurd 'flirting' with it.

edmundintokyo said:

- or end up in a competition with the Tories over who can make the most outlandish promises about the outcome of the hypothetical renegotiation. Then whichever of them is unlucky enough to win the election is going to have explain to the voters that they can't actually deliver on their promise that British fishermen are going to be able to catch all the fish they like or whatever, and the voters are going to be exceedingly peeved.

A bit like Lisbon then. That certainly annoyed a fair few voters and would anger that group even more so again. But to the extent of putting the likes of a Godfrey Bloom in charge of economic matters when it comes down to a GE vote? Doubtful to say the least.

The kippers are hardly going to portray either side as being trustworthy on the EU during the campaign in the first place. Renegotiation is a fig leaf and will try to be spun as a stunning victory regardless of which side makes the promises. There's also the possibility of a referendum on a referendum (the mandate referendum) if things look particularly bleak.
That would then transition into a referendum proper so the timing can be mucked about to whenever.

Plato

A Libertarian Rebel @A_Liberty_Rebel
After his blatant evasions on @BBCr4today earlier, Balls to update @LiamByrneMP infamous note. Dear Electorate: there's no credibility left

"...But he saved his real righteous indignation for the section of the interview on Damian McBride. ‘To be honest nobody ever came to me and complained about Damian McBride,’ he said. ‘I didn’t pass on those complaints to Gordon Brown. I didn’t complain about Damian McBride, because I don’t think until we saw the revelations in this book, we didn’t know what was going on.’

This sounds a bit implausible: one of the key points about the McBride extracts so far has really been that we did know that this was going on, but that the former spin doctor has brought a vague picture into sharp relief. His revelations haven’t been surprising, even though they have been horrifying. So it’s odd that while everyone else knew vaguely what the book would reveal, Balls claims ignorance entirely.

But the Shadow Chancellor didn’t quite finish there. He said:

‘I didn’t know that Damian McBride was doing personal briefings against ministers. The first time I’d found out was when I saw the test of that hideous email in 2009, and I said to Damian “what have you done? How could it come to this?”.’

So Balls did know something, clearly, by 2009. But his claim that he had no idea McBride was briefing against ministers seems to have left those journalists who were in the lobby at the time with a grim smile on their faces." http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/09/labour-conference-2013-ed-balls-i-didnt-know-mcbride-was-briefing-against-ministers/

edmundintokyo

surbiton said:

OT:

THe headline of this thread runs against the collective wisdom of the PBTories. Their assumption is that the "incumbency dividend" will hand over a massive majority for the Tories. People like Aidan Burley.

A massive majority would be odd as they don't have enough incumbents for a majority, but this stuff is quite hard to poll - apart from LibDem incumbency, which is a bit weird, I'd be more inclined to believe the historical pattern (first-time incumbents get a boost) than the marginals polling.

TOPPING

The OBR is a red herring.

a) they audit and find Lab plans are affordable, say, only with a 150% increase in council tax on homes over £500k.

b) they audit and find they are affordable with a 30% increase in tax on homes over £500k.

So what?

We are still back to the politics of how much Lab would increase council tax on homes > £500k.

JosiasJessop

tim said:

@financier

Rachel Sylvester ‏@RSylvesterTimes
Robert Chote said "clearly an attraction" in OBR assessing all party manifestos when @aliceTTimes and I intrvd him http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/economics/article3246409.ece …

David Aaronovitch ‏@DAaronovitch 1h
Ed B is right. I can't think of a good reason why the coalition shouldn't agree to a change allowing OBR to vet Labour's plans.

Jim Pickard ‏@PickardJE 17m
The widely respected Chote suggested it himself last year. Now says it's possible if Tories back it (and lift OBR budget)

If that happens, then Short Money should be reduced by the same amount.

TGOHF

If Labour want the OBR to review their manifesto can't they pay to cover the costs ??

Scrapheap_as_was

I don't have a problem with the OBR going over Ball's economic numbers - I mean, it might tell everyone where the magic money tree actually resides and/or just how many times you can spend a banker's bonus tax....

Why not - if it adds up, then we as the electorate should know it does.... it would be some achievement mind you.