Very Left ( percentage of sample 3.5%): LAB 55, CON 19, GRN 10, UKIP 6, SNP 5, LD 1 Left (15%): ------------------------------------------LAB 72, CON 9, SNP 8, GRN 5, UKIP 3, LD 2 Centre Left (19.5%):------------------------------LAB 47, LD 15, CON 14, SNP 9, UKIP 8, GRN 6 Centre (31.3%): ----------------------------------CON 35, LAB 28, UKIP 18, LD 8, SNP 6, GRN 4 Centre-Right ( 19.7%):---------------------------CON 73, UKIP 15, LAB 5, LD 3, GRN 2, SNP 1 Right (8.4%):---------------------------------------CON 69, UKIP 25, LAB 4, LD 1, others 0 Very Right (2.6%):---------------------------------CON 53, UKIP 25, LAB 15, BNP 8, others 0
There are more people on the Left (38%) than on the Right (30.7%) or the Centre (31.3%), however the Tories are ahead because the Centre-Right is unified behind them while the Centre-Left is not unified behind Labour.
15% of the Very Right support Labour ?
A lot of people have a very idiosyncratic idea of what is left and what is right wing.A girlfriend of mine thought the defining issue was that socialists were opposed to human rights.
Your Girlfriend was very perceptive, Perhaps she had read 'Capitalism and Freedom', by Milton Friedman, or perhaps she was just observing what actually happens when Socialists get in to power e.g. USSR, and Veniswala, rather than the well meant but altimetry dishonest reassurances, they give before the reality's of the states they crate become evident.
Yes, I wonder why they are attacking him personally and his past foreign policy views (leaving NATO will never be labour policy for the foreseeable future) rather than the actual policies.
You may have noticed they are not attacking him directly on anti-austerity !
So both Comres and Yougov have Labour on around the 30% mark it won at the election while the Tories voteshare has increased. The 0.5% swing to the Tories with yougov would see the Conservatives win back Chester and Ealing Central and Acton, Brentford and Isleworth, Wirral West and gain Halifax from Labour at the next election. The 2.5% swing to the Tories with comres would see the Tories win all those seats plus another 14 seats including every seat Ed Miliband gained in 2015 along with seats like Bridgend, Barrow and Furness and Hampstead and Kilburn http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/conservative-targets/
To quote the nice lady from the holiday booking advert, 'Shhhh... Keep it quiet.'
Yes, better allow the left a quiet moment of satisfaction that Corbyn has managed to stay ahead of Foot and Brown even if he is doing worse than Ed
Yes, I wonder why they are attacking him personally and his past foreign policy views (leaving NATO will never be labour policy for the foreseeable future) rather than the actual policies.
Because it's easier, yes, and because there's less risk of them being popular as will undoubtedly be the case for some of his policies at least, but also because he has sold his character on being consistent in word and deed for decades so in fact his past views are much more relevant than a normal politician, because they don't make as much a virtue of rigidly sticking to the same views for decades. If he has in fact changed his views or won't pursue them, given his moralising about sticking to principles, then if it is fair game.
So both Comres and Yougov have Labour on around the 30% mark it won at the election while the Tories voteshare has increased. The 0.5% swing to the Tories with yougov would see the Conservatives win back Chester and Ealing Central and Acton, Brentford and Isleworth, Wirral West and gain Halifax from Labour at the next election. The 2.5% swing to the Tories with comres would see the Tories win all those seats plus another 14 seats including every seat Ed Miliband gained in 2015 along with seats like Bridgend, Barrow and Furness and Hampstead and Kilburn http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/conservative-targets/
The thing that strikes me from those polls is that the LibDems are still doing crap.
Perhaps they wont get a recovery despite not being in office.
They are extinct.
They have an evangelical Xtian as leader. Which might be nice if all the Xtians weren't died in the wool Tories.
They have Alistair Carmichael making headline news for being a liar and charlatan.
Not one single Labour MP has approached them to defect - otherwise you wouldn't have Farron and Cable all over whatever news media will listen to their irrelevance, proclaiming how all these Labour MPs are talking to them.
The Liberals are a Dead Parrot.
Totally agreed. The Lib Dems are used to being a third primary party so they appear permanently on the news and Question Time and other politics programs, trying to portray themselves as the centre option between two extremes. Now they're not just not listened to on shows, they're not even appearing on them anymore.
They're now a minor party not a major one and are frankly irrelevant. The Tories at their nadir were hated and or unpopular but were never irrelevant. Labour at their nadir (and could be again now) were extreme and unelectable but were never irrelevant. For a political party to be irrelevant is to be worse than unpopular, they might as well not exist now.
Either the Liberals find a new reason to exist or they may as well close up shop and disband.
PS does anyone know if Ofcom have formally stripped the Lib Dems (and UKIP?) of their major party status?
Very Left ( percentage of sample 3.5%): LAB 55, CON 19, GRN 10, UKIP 6, SNP 5, LD 1 Left (15%): ------------------------------------------LAB 72, CON 9, SNP 8, GRN 5, UKIP 3, LD 2 Centre Left (19.5%):------------------------------LAB 47, LD 15, CON 14, SNP 9, UKIP 8, GRN 6 Centre (31.3%): ----------------------------------CON 35, LAB 28, UKIP 18, LD 8, SNP 6, GRN 4 Centre-Right ( 19.7%):---------------------------CON 73, UKIP 15, LAB 5, LD 3, GRN 2, SNP 1 Right (8.4%):---------------------------------------CON 69, UKIP 25, LAB 4, LD 1, others 0 Very Right (2.6%):---------------------------------CON 53, UKIP 25, LAB 15, BNP 8, others 0
There are more people on the Left (38%) than on the Right (30.7%) or the Centre (31.3%), however the Tories are ahead because the Centre-Right is unified behind them while the Centre-Left is not unified behind Labour.
15% of the Very Right support Labour ?
A lot of people have a very idiosyncratic idea of what is left and what is right wing.A girlfriend of mine thought the defining issue was that socialists were opposed to human rights.
Your Girlfriend was very perceptive, Perhaps she had read 'Capitalism and Freedom', by Milton Friedman, or perhaps she was just observing what actually happens when Socialists get in to power e.g. USSR, and Veniswala, rather than the well meant but altimetry dishonest reassurances, they give before the reality's of the states they crate become evident.
The choice facing the nation is between two totally different ways of life. And what a prize we have to fight for: no less than the chance to banish from our land the dark, divisive clouds of Marxist socialism and bring together men and women from all walks of life who share a belief in freedom.
- M. H. Thatcher, 13th May 1983.
Thanks Sunil,
What grate words from another very perceptive Lady.
Bloody hell. Only just seen that Japan beat the Saffars in the RWC. That has to be about the greatest shock in the history of sport, doesn't it?
Yup.
I was so tense. They were behind 32-29 in added on time, twice they were awarded penalties, rather than go for the tie they went for the victory.
That was brilliant.
What were the odds you could get on Japan before the match? There have obviously been long-odds winners before, but it would be neat if we could say "you could longer odds on Japan winning than on Japan losing by 100 points" or somesuch. Probably for 100 points you couldn't shorter odds, but I imagine you could for a pretty significant shellacking. Could anyone confirm?
India's first cricket world cup win was at very long odds - I think the last time the Dutch played in a World Cup, they got the same odds as India did in 1983, to put it into perspective. The magnitude of that shock probably has to be ranked higher because they won the entire contest, rather than simply a pool match, and that victory has gone on to completely transform the finances and power structure of world cricket. (Kenya reaching the 2003 semifinals was probably "more unlikely" but ultimately less important.)
Paddy Power had them at 100/1 to win and the handicap market was 43 points in the Saffers favour
Thank you very much. Great guest stint by the way. Did you manage to get Prof O'Hara in yourself or was that from Mike's contact book? Hope to see more from academics on PB.
That is just absurd - representing your country at a World Event is not troughing and taking voters for a ride
I wouldn't say it was troughing, but it's also not "representing your country" - the team is representing the country, not the guys sitting watching them. It's getting some reflected glory from a sporting event, and sports fans uninterested in politics tend in my experience to smile cynically about it.
Politicians of all parties do it, but it's not especially noble or patriotic, and I'm not sure it really does them any favours.
I think the point at issue is that as leader of one of the two major political parties in the UK, certain expectations, duties and responsibilities come along with it. You simply cannot continue the idiosyncrasies, petty foibles and personal tilting at windmills that you practise as an anonymous back bench MP nobody ever heard of.
Where was the shadow sports minister? This last comment from Mr Palmer is typical of what we have become accustomed to. Your reply is correct but it is a wasted effort.
Adam White @adamjoewhite 12h12 hours ago So Corbyn missed an all expenses paid jolly to the rugby in order to attend his constituency advice surgery? What will this monster do next?
He wants to be Prime Minister - that means showing respect to many including people who don't share his views. He is only in his comfort zone when he is with people who support him
A constituency advice surgery is not just for supporters its for constituents who require advice (even Tories)
Jollies are for normal politicians who love troughing and taking voters for a ride IMO.
That is just absurd - representing your country at a World Event is not troughing and taking voters for a ride
Ha - nice little coup for Corbyn; I hope those who publicly slammed him apologise.
Meeting your constituents ? Tories say: What is that ?
On what evidence do you say that. Our two adjacent constituencies in North Wales both have conservative MP's who hold regular constituency meetings and are in the local press all the time. But that's why they were both elected with increased majorities this year
Do they prioritise Rugby freebies over constituents?
You are so out of order
Actually it is very pertinent given the argument over singing a homage to an unelected head of state.
Attending events like the Olympics or RWC is simply freeloading. If a representation of the country should attend, the only choice is the head of state.
And after her sour faced, clear unhappiness at being dragged to the Olympics ceremony, it;s no wonder that no-one wants the Queen at their events.
But the PM and LoTO have no place at the event.
What about if they genuinely enjoy them - like Major at the cricket ?
Cameron likes cricket too. He is fairly knowledgeable about the game. I am sure he likes Rugby. You couldn't be a public school type if you didn't.
He supports "association football" so much that he forgets which team he supports. Mind you having Karren Brady in front of you, he could have been distracted !
If 'the people' want to own the railways can they not buy stock in the operating companies?
the idea is that it is democratically controlled on a one person, one vote basis, not a one pound, one vote basis.
The idea of one person one vote, sounds grate, and to run a contrary I fully support, but to run a railway, it does not work, people do not have the time or inclination to study the internal workings of the railways or any other bissness for that matter, and with only one vote and so many things to consider how the railways operate will get lost in the noise of a GE. however what wont get lost are the special interest groups e.g. Trade Unions, who bit by bit, slowly, and always with a good 'excuse', will gain influence hand have the organisation run in their interests, not those of the traveling public. For examples look at BR, or any of the other nationalised industries.
Bloody hell. Only just seen that Japan beat the Saffars in the RWC. That has to be about the greatest shock in the history of sport, doesn't it?
Yup.
I was so tense. They were behind 32-29 in added on time, twice they were awarded penalties, rather than go for the tie they went for the victory.
That was brilliant.
What were the odds you could get on Japan before the match? There have obviously been long-odds winners before, but it would be neat if we could say "you could longer odds on Japan winning than on Japan losing by 100 points" or somesuch. Probably for 100 points you couldn't shorter odds, but I imagine you could for a pretty significant shellacking. Could anyone confirm?
India's first cricket world cup win was at very long odds - I think the last time the Dutch played in a World Cup, they got the same odds as India did in 1983, to put it into perspective. The magnitude of that shock probably has to be ranked higher because they won the entire contest, rather than simply a pool match, and that victory has gone on to completely transform the finances and power structure of world cricket. (Kenya reaching the 2003 semifinals was probably "more unlikely" but ultimately less important.)
Paddy Power had them at 100/1 to win and the handicap market was 43 points in the Saffers favour
Thank you very much. Great guest stint by the way. Did you manage to get Prof O'Hara in yourself or was that from Mike's contact book? Hope to see more from academics on PB.
Professor O'Hara was down to me. I've been chatting to him for a while and I suggested he put his thoughts down for a PB piece. I hope to see more pieces from him.
Adam White @adamjoewhite 12h12 hours ago So Corbyn missed an all expenses paid jolly to the rugby in order to attend his constituency advice surgery? What will this monster do next?
He wants to be Prime Minister - that means showing respect to many including people who don't share his views. He is only in his comfort zone when he is with people who support him
A constituency advice surgery is not just for supporters its for constituents who require advice (even Tories)
Jollies are for normal politicians who love troughing and taking voters for a ride IMO.
That is just absurd - representing your country at a World Event is not troughing and taking voters for a ride
Actually it is very pertinent given the argument over singing a homage to an unelected head of state.
Neither Cameron nor Corbyn is our head of state.
Attending events like the Olympics or RWC is simply freeloading. If a representation of the country should attend, the only choice is the head of state.
And after her sour faced, clear unhappiness at being dragged to the Olympics ceremony, it;s no wonder that no-one wants the Queen at their events.
But the PM and LoTO have no place at the event.
Since when do you have to be Head of State to be relevant? Cameron is in case you never realised it our Prime Minister. He is your Head of Government. Many countries invite the Head of Government to attend major sporting events to represent the nation, especially when their country is hosting the event.
I think the Australians would be very bemused to discover that only the Queen was allowed to represent Australia at sporting events as Head of State and not the PM as Head of Government.
Bloody hell. Only just seen that Japan beat the Saffars in the RWC. That has to be about the greatest shock in the history of sport, doesn't it?
Yup.
I was so tense. They were behind 32-29 in added on time, twice they were awarded penalties, rather than go for the tie they went for the victory.
That was brilliant.
What were the odds you could get on Japan before the match? There have obviously been long-odds winners before, but it would be neat if we could say "you could longer odds on Japan winning than on Japan losing by 100 points" or somesuch. Probably for 100 points you couldn't shorter odds, but I imagine you could for a pretty significant shellacking. Could anyone confirm?
India's first cricket world cup win was at very long odds - I think the last time the Dutch played in a World Cup, they got the same odds as India did in 1983, to put it into perspective. The magnitude of that shock probably has to be ranked higher because they won the entire contest, rather than simply a pool match, and that victory has gone on to completely transform the finances and power structure of world cricket. (Kenya reaching the 2003 semifinals was probably "more unlikely" but ultimately less important.)
Paddy Power had them at 100/1 to win and the handicap market was 43 points in the Saffers favour
Thank you very much. Great guest stint by the way. Did you manage to get Prof O'Hara in yourself or was that from Mike's contact book? Hope to see more from academics on PB.
Professor O'Hara was down to me. I've been chatting to him for a while and I suggested he put his thoughts down for a PB piece. I hope to see more pieces from him.
So both Comres and Yougov have Labour on around the 30% mark it won at the election while the Tories voteshare has increased. The 0.5% swing to the Tories with yougov would see the Conservatives win back Chester and Ealing Central and Acton, Brentford and Isleworth, Wirral West and gain Halifax from Labour at the next election. The 2.5% swing to the Tories with comres would see the Tories win all those seats plus another 14 seats including every seat Ed Miliband gained in 2015 along with seats like Bridgend, Barrow and Furness and Hampstead and Kilburn http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/conservative-targets/
And the 0.8% swing to Labour shown by Opinium?
Well, to be fair I suppose that would see Labour gain Gower, Derby North, Croydon Central, Vale of Clwyd, Bury North, Morley and Outwood, Thurrock, Plymouth Sutton and Devenport and Brighton Kemptown and Bolton West. Well I suppose it is a start on the way to the 50 they need to be largest party and the 100 for a majority, even if 2/3 polls tonight show a swing the other way http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/labourtargets/
Bloody hell. Only just seen that Japan beat the Saffars in the RWC. That has to be about the greatest shock in the history of sport, doesn't it?
Yup.
I was so tense. They were behind 32-29 in added on time, twice they were awarded penalties, rather than go for the tie they went for the victory.
That was brilliant.
What were the odds you could get on Japan before the match? There have obviously been long-odds winners before, but it would be neat if we could say "you could longer odds on Japan winning than on Japan losing by 100 points" or somesuch. Probably for 100 points you couldn't shorter odds, but I imagine you could for a pretty significant shellacking. Could anyone confirm?
India's first cricket world cup win was at very long odds - I think the last time the Dutch played in a World Cup, they got the same odds as India did in 1983, to put it into perspective. The magnitude of that shock probably has to be ranked higher because they won the entire contest, rather than simply a pool match, and that victory has gone on to completely transform the finances and power structure of world cricket. (Kenya reaching the 2003 semifinals was probably "more unlikely" but ultimately less important.)
Paddy Power had them at 100/1 to win and the handicap market was 43 points in the Saffers favour
Thank you very much. Great guest stint by the way. Did you manage to get Prof O'Hara in yourself or was that from Mike's contact book? Hope to see more from academics on PB.
Professor O'Hara was down to me. I've been chatting to him for a while and I suggested he put his thoughts down for a PB piece. I hope to see more pieces from him.
Top stuff that man. Imbeverate thyself.
I helped bring Keiran to be PB and Mike.
I'm really proud of that too.
The podcasts and Keiran's pieces are a great addition to PB
If 'the people' want to own the railways can they not buy stock in the operating companies?
The operating companies don't own anything - neither tracks nor trains. The State gives them the right to operate for a fixed term. Once their franchises expire, operations can revert to the public sector just like that.
What would you do about the ROSCOs and Open Access operators?
Rolling Stock could be either purchased from the ROSCOs or hired until it is scrapped, with all new stock bought by the state operator. Open access operators can carry on as long as it is on a level playing field.
AIUI the ROSCOs contracts are with the operating company, not the government. They will have the government by the short 'n curlies when it comes to the renegotiation.
Open Access operators will want a level playing field from the government. They may not get it in a nationalised system.
And here's another one: what about freight?
One of the largest owners of the ROSCOs is RBS.
Yeah, they're going to have a potential Corbyn government by the short and curlies.
UK rail freight franchise is operated by German State Railways (DB). Corbyn will upset Mrs Merkel
Surely Germany can't have a State Railway. Surely you mean one of Germany's private rail operators. It's not like Germany or the Dutch or Swedes or Danes could have a successful, profitable, efficient state rail operator.
Bloody hell. Only just seen that Japan beat the Saffars in the RWC. That has to be about the greatest shock in the history of sport, doesn't it?
Yup.
I was so tense. They were behind 32-29 in added on time, twice they were awarded penalties, rather than go for the tie they went for the victory.
That was brilliant.
What were the odds you could get on Japan before the match? There have obviously been long-odds winners before, but it would be neat if we could say "you could longer odds on Japan winning than on Japan losing by 100 points" or somesuch. Probably for 100 points you couldn't shorter odds, but I imagine you could for a pretty significant shellacking. Could anyone confirm?
India's first cricket world cup win was at very long odds - I think the last time the Dutch played in a World Cup, they got the same odds as India did in 1983, to put it into perspective. The magnitude of that shock probably has to be ranked higher because they won the entire contest, rather than simply a pool match, and that victory has gone on to completely transform the finances and power structure of world cricket. (Kenya reaching the 2003 semifinals was probably "more unlikely" but ultimately less important.)
Paddy Power had them at 100/1 to win and the handicap market was 43 points in the Saffers favour
Ugh, I hate missing good odds.
Japan are ranked 13 in the world. They were outsiders but not 100-1.
So both Comres and Yougov have Labour on around the 30% mark it won at the election while the Tories voteshare has increased. The 0.5% swing to the Tories with yougov would see the Conservatives win back Chester and Ealing Central and Acton, Brentford and Isleworth, Wirral West and gain Halifax from Labour at the next election. The 2.5% swing to the Tories with comres would see the Tories win all those seats plus another 14 seats including every seat Ed Miliband gained in 2015 along with seats like Bridgend, Barrow and Furness and Hampstead and Kilburn http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/conservative-targets/
And the 0.8% swing to Labour shown by Opinium?
Well, to be fair I suppose that would see Labour gain Gower, Derby North, Croydon Central, Vale of Clwyd, Bury North, Morley and Outwood, Thurrock, Plymouth Sutton and Devenport and Brighton Kemptown and Bolton West. Well I suppose it is a start on the way to the 50 they need to be largest party and the 100 for a majority, even if 2/3 polls tonight show a swing the other way http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/labourtargets/
It would if the next GE was going to be with the currant seats, but its not, the seats will be of equal size, thus removing the in built Labour advantage. thus even a small swing to Labour would likely still result in an overall Conservative Majority.
Oh and NB @JWisemann, if John McDonnell is conceding that the first week was a bit rough, that his own appointment was controversial within the Labour party and there had been mistakes due to naivety, perhaps you also should start considering whether there might have been blunders.
So both Comres and Yougov have Labour on around the 30% mark it won at the election while the Tories voteshare has increased. The 0.5% swing to the Tories with yougov would see the Conservatives win back Chester and Ealing Central and Acton, Brentford and Isleworth, Wirral West and gain Halifax from Labour at the next election. The 2.5% swing to the Tories with comres would see the Tories win all those seats plus another 14 seats including every seat Ed Miliband gained in 2015 along with seats like Bridgend, Barrow and Furness and Hampstead and Kilburn http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/conservative-targets/
To quote the nice lady from the holiday booking advert, 'Shhhh... Keep it quiet.'
It's the same point. Leave Corbyn and Labour to stew. Just think of all the other people who could be leading labour right now. Who have they got? Corbyn and McDonnell. They are the pair that the loopy fruit loops dingbats are twisting their knickers trying and failing to defend.
If 'the people' want to own the railways can they not buy stock in the operating companies?
The operating companies don't own anything - neither tracks nor trains. The State gives them the right to operate for a fixed term. Once their franchises expire, operations can revert to the public sector just like that.
What would you do about the ROSCOs and Open Access operators?
Rolling Stock could be either purchased from the ROSCOs or hired until it is scrapped, with all new stock bought by the state operator. Open access operators can carry on as long as it is on a level playing field.
AIUI the ROSCOs contracts are with the operating company, not the government. They will have the government by the short 'n curlies when it comes to the renegotiation.
Open Access operators will want a level playing field from the government. They may not get it in a nationalised system.
And here's another one: what about freight?
One of the largest owners of the ROSCOs is RBS.
Yeah, they're going to have a potential Corbyn government by the short and curlies.
UK rail freight franchise is operated by German State Railways (DB). Corbyn will upset Mrs Merkel
Greater Anglia is run by the Dutch equivalent (NS). Which at least makes the Dutch Flyer service reasonably integrated.
Arbello run quite a few franchises including Scotrail.
You should consider the Energy market when thinking about this.
And how much the British Taxpayer is paying to the French Exchequer for a white elephant nuclear power station.
The thing that strikes me from those polls is that the LibDems are still doing crap.
Perhaps they wont get a recovery despite not being in office.
They are extinct.
They have an evangelical Xtian as leader. Which might be nice if all the Xtians weren't died in the wool Tories.
They have Alistair Carmichael making headline news for being a liar and charlatan.
Not one single Labour MP has approached them to defect - otherwise you wouldn't have Farron and Cable all over whatever news media will listen to their irrelevance, proclaiming how all these Labour MPs are talking to them.
The Liberals are a Dead Parrot.
Are you Maggie in disguise?
Now, that brings me to the Liberal Party. I gather that during the last few days there have been some ill-natured jokes about their new symbol, a bird of some kind, adopted by the Liberal Democrats at Blackpool. Politics is a serious business, and one should not lower the tone unduly. So I will say only this of the Liberal Democrat symbol and of the party it symbolises. This is an ex-parrot. It is not merely stunned. It has ceased to be, expired and gone to meet its maker. It is a parrot no more. It has rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. This is a late parrot. And now for something completely different.
- M. H. Thatcher speech to Conservative Party Conference (12 October 1990)
It is sad to think that we will never see her likes again.
Not to mention how crap she was on curtailing benefit culture.
Adam White @adamjoewhite 12h12 hours ago So Corbyn missed an all expenses paid jolly to the rugby in order to attend his constituency advice surgery? What will this monster do next?
He wants to be Prime Minister - that means showing respect to many including people who don't share his views. He is only in his comfort zone when he is with people who support him
A constituency advice surgery is not just for supporters its for constituents who require advice (even Tories)
Jollies are for normal politicians who love troughing and taking voters for a ride IMO.
That is just absurd - representing your country at a World Event is not troughing and taking voters for a ride
Ha - nice little coup for Corbyn; I hope those who publicly slammed him apologise.
Meeting your constituents ? Tories say: What is that ?
On what evidence do you say that. Our two adjacent constituencies in North Wales both have conservative MP's who hold regular constituency meetings and are in the local press all the time. But that's why they were both elected with increased majorities this year
Do they prioritise Rugby freebies over constituents?
You are so out of order
Actually it is very pertinent given the argument over singing a homage to an unelected head of state.
Neither Cameron nor Corbyn is our head of state.
Attending events like the Olympics or RWC is simply freeloading. If a representation of the country should attend, the only choice is the head of state.
And after her sour faced, clear unhappiness at being dragged to the Olympics ceremony, it;s no wonder that no-one wants the Queen at their events.
But the PM and LoTO have no place at the event.
What about if they genuinely enjoy them - like Major at the cricket ?
Buy a ticket?
Or in Major's case use your position to gain an honorary membership and never buy a ticket again.
Actually it is very pertinent given the argument over singing a homage to an unelected head of state.
Neither Cameron nor Corbyn is our head of state.
Attending events like the Olympics or RWC is simply freeloading. If a representation of the country should attend, the only choice is the head of state.
And after her sour faced, clear unhappiness at being dragged to the Olympics ceremony, it;s no wonder that no-one wants the Queen at their events. But the PM and LoTO have no place at the event.
Sour faced? She parachuted in from a helicopter escorted by James Bond! Your miserable effort is not even a nice try.
The political leaders were invited. Suck it up you sad pathetic fart of a not so human being.
I heard a rumour that it wasn't really her.
But, shhh, don;'t tell anyone or you might get a knock at the door.
What about if they genuinely enjoy them - like Major at the cricket ?
Cameron likes cricket too. He is fairly knowledgeable about the game. I am sure he likes Rugby. You couldn't be a public school type if you didn't.
Isn't Eton a football (as in soccer) school? I'm pretty sure I read that years ago and was surprised.
I don't think any Scottish private schools are football schools, which kinda annoyed me as I'd rather have played football even if it meant going to a public school.
What about if they genuinely enjoy them - like Major at the cricket ?
Cameron likes cricket too. He is fairly knowledgeable about the game. I am sure he likes Rugby. You couldn't be a public school type if you didn't.
Isn't Eton a football (as in soccer) school? I'm pretty sure I read that years ago and was surprised.
I don't think any Scottish private schools are football schools, which kinda annoyed me as I'd rather have played football even if it meant going to a public school.
So both Comres and Yougov have Labour on around the 30% mark it won at the election while the Tories voteshare has increased. The 0.5% swing to the Tories with yougov would see the Conservatives win back Chester and Ealing Central and Acton, Brentford and Isleworth, Wirral West and gain Halifax from Labour at the next election. The 2.5% swing to the Tories with comres would see the Tories win all those seats plus another 14 seats including every seat Ed Miliband gained in 2015 along with seats like Bridgend, Barrow and Furness and Hampstead and Kilburn http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/conservative-targets/
And the 0.8% swing to Labour shown by Opinium?
Well, to be fair I suppose that would see Labour gain Gower, Derby North, Croydon Central, Vale of Clwyd, Bury North, Morley and Outwood, Thurrock, Plymouth Sutton and Devenport and Brighton Kemptown and Bolton West. Well I suppose it is a start on the way to the 50 they need to be largest party and the 100 for a majority, even if 2/3 polls tonight show a swing the other way http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/labourtargets/
It would if the next GE was going to be with the currant seats, but its not, the seats will be of equal size, thus removing the in built Labour advantage. thus even a small swing to Labour would likely still result in an overall Conservative Majority.
Do you mean 'currant' as in currant bun - or 'current' as in present or existing?
So both Comres and Yougov have Labour on around the 30% mark it won at the election while the Tories voteshare has increased. The 0.5% swing to the Tories with yougov would see the Conservatives win back Chester and Ealing Central and Acton, Brentford and Isleworth, Wirral West and gain Halifax from Labour at the next election. The 2.5% swing to the Tories with comres would see the Tories win all those seats plus another 14 seats including every seat Ed Miliband gained in 2015 along with seats like Bridgend, Barrow and Furness and Hampstead and Kilburn http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/conservative-targets/
And the 0.8% swing to Labour shown by Opinium?
Well, to be fair I suppose that would see Labour gain Gower, Derby North, Croydon Central, Vale of Clwyd, Bury North, Morley and Outwood, Thurrock, Plymouth Sutton and Devenport and Brighton Kemptown and Bolton West. Well I suppose it is a start on the way to the 50 they need to be largest party and the 100 for a majority, even if 2/3 polls tonight show a swing the other way http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/labourtargets/
It would if the next GE was going to be with the currant seats, but its not, the seats will be of equal size, thus removing the in built Labour advantage. thus even a small swing to Labour would likely still result in an overall Conservative Majority.
Indeed, thus all 3 polls then would see a clear Tory majority and most likely a small further swing to Cameron
PS does anyone know if Ofcom have formally stripped the Lib Dems (and UKIP?) of their major party status?
For some reason no, they don;t appear to have lost it yet.
But they kept it in Scotland despite their complete destruction in 2011. Arguably their MPs at Westminster made that an acceptable decision.
But now, it just seems as if all the placemen that the Liberals have been able to create thanks to their 5 years of coalition are propping them up. They have over 150 Lords which just shows how far the UK has to go to become a democracy.
I suspect OFCOM won't throw them out until after the next General Election. It is a joke.
If 'the people' want to own the railways can they not buy stock in the operating companies?
The operating companies don't own anything - neither tracks nor trains. The State gives them the right to operate for a fixed term. Once their franchises expire, operations can revert to the public sector just like that.
What would you do about the ROSCOs and Open Access operators?
Rolling Stock could be either purchased from the ROSCOs or hired until it is scrapped, with all new stock bought by the state operator. Open access operators can carry on as long as it is on a level playing field.
AIUI the ROSCOs contracts are with the operating company, not the government. They will have the government by the short 'n curlies when it comes to the renegotiation.
Open Access operators will want a level playing field from the government. They may not get it in a nationalised system.
And here's another one: what about freight?
One of the largest owners of the ROSCOs is RBS.
Yeah, they're going to have a potential Corbyn government by the short and curlies.
UK rail freight franchise is operated by German State Railways (DB). Corbyn will upset Mrs Merkel
Surely Germany can't have a State Railway. Surely you mean one of Germany's private rail operators. It's not like Germany or the Dutch or Swedes or Danes could have a successful, profitable, efficient state rail operator.
Such things are not possible!
Germany has a unified railway. Our railway is overwhelmingly steate controlled. Track signals stations. The trains are private. Why change? Who will pay for all the private rolling stock. Last may there was a massive garman rail strike.
Actually it is very pertinent given the argument over singing a homage to an unelected head of state.
Neither Cameron nor Corbyn is our head of state.
Attending events like the Olympics or RWC is simply freeloading. If a representation of the country should attend, the only choice is the head of state.
And after her sour faced, clear unhappiness at being dragged to the Olympics ceremony, it;s no wonder that no-one wants the Queen at their events.
But the PM and LoTO have no place at the event.
Since when do you have to be Head of State to be relevant? Cameron is in case you never realised it our Prime Minister. He is your Head of Government. Many countries invite the Head of Government to attend major sporting events to represent the nation, especially when their country is hosting the event.
I think the Australians would be very bemused to discover that only the Queen was allowed to represent Australia at sporting events as Head of State and not the PM as Head of Government.
Then the Australians should get their own Head of State (and if they want make it the Head of Government). It is rather pathetic that they don't.
That;s the point of a Head of State - the representative of the country., encompassing and ideally apolitical (I know it doesn't always work that way)
The Germans and Irish have this right. It is a good example to follow.
Sunday Times: Intelligence chiefs revealed that Corbyn would receive only “restricted access” to intelligence through the police and security services
If this is true it is a disgrace.
Whether he may be an intelligence leak or not, it is not up to the intelligence services to make political decisions.
It's not a political decision. The intel folks are charged with safeguarding intel. It is not unprecedented
And it is still wrong.
If a Putinist is elected to an office that requires full disclosure, the intelligence services must disclose. They do not decide who is and is not worthy of information. Their job is to collect the information and provide the evidence to the people our constitution says deserve that. And certain services to maintain that if it is decided they should use those services.
Currently that is the PM and Cabinet, the LoTO and Shadow Cabinet and the House leader of the third party.
The Intelligence services are not there to keep us safe. There are there to provide the information and other services that our elected politicians use to keep us safe. Nothing else.
So both Comres and Yougov have Labour on around the 30% mark it won at the election while the Tories voteshare has increased. The 0.5% swing to the Tories with yougov would see the Conservatives win back Chester and Ealing Central and Acton, Brentford and Isleworth, Wirral West and gain Halifax from Labour at the next election. The 2.5% swing to the Tories with comres would see the Tories win all those seats plus another 14 seats including every seat Ed Miliband gained in 2015 along with seats like Bridgend, Barrow and Furness and Hampstead and Kilburn http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/conservative-targets/
And the 0.8% swing to Labour shown by Opinium?
Well, to be fair I suppose that would see Labour gain Gower, Derby North, Croydon Central, Vale of Clwyd, Bury North, Morley and Outwood, Thurrock, Plymouth Sutton and Devenport and Brighton Kemptown and Bolton West. Well I suppose it is a start on the way to the 50 they need to be largest party and the 100 for a majority, even if 2/3 polls tonight show a swing the other way http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/labourtargets/
It would if the next GE was going to be with the currant seats, but its not, the seats will be of equal size, thus removing the in built Labour advantage. thus even a small swing to Labour would likely still result in an overall Conservative Majority.
Do you mean 'currant' as in currant bun - or 'current' as in present or existing?
Justin,
My apologies for my spelling, I am dyslexic, and often do not spend as much time as I should checking the spelling, so as to not delay my replies. I hope it has not coursed you to much confusion.
So both Comres and Yougov have Labour on around the 30% mark it won at the election while the Tories voteshare has increased. The 0.5% swing to the Tories with yougov would see the Conservatives win back Chester and Ealing Central and Acton, Brentford and Isleworth, Wirral West and gain Halifax from Labour at the next election. The 2.5% swing to the Tories with comres would see the Tories win all those seats plus another 14 seats including every seat Ed Miliband gained in 2015 along with seats like Bridgend, Barrow and Furness and Hampstead and Kilburn http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/conservative-targets/
And the 0.8% swing to Labour shown by Opinium?
Well, to be fair I suppose that would see Labour gain Gower, Derby North, Croydon Central, Vale of Clwyd, Bury North, Morley and Outwood, Thurrock, Plymouth Sutton and Devenport and Brighton Kemptown and Bolton West. Well I suppose it is a start on the way to the 50 they need to be largest party and the 100 for a majority, even if 2/3 polls tonight show a swing the other way http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/labourtargets/
It would if the next GE was going to be with the currant seats, but its not, the seats will be of equal size, thus removing the in built Labour advantage. thus even a small swing to Labour would likely still result in an overall Conservative Majority.
Do you mean 'currant' as in currant bun - or 'current' as in present or existing?
Justin,
My apologies for my spelling, I am dyslexic, and often do not spend as much time as I should checking the spelling, so as to not delay my replies. I hope it has not coursed you to much confusion.
My apologies that you keep getting called out on this as a quip.
There's a place for giggling at amusing typos, but not for this once we know - I hope this will calm down soon.
If people genuinely didn't like privatised railways, they wouldn't ride on them.
(Interestingly, across Western Europe, rail privatisation - or commercialisation, like Sweden - has correlated pretty perfectly with increased passenger trends.)
Comments
They're now a minor party not a major one and are frankly irrelevant. The Tories at their nadir were hated and or unpopular but were never irrelevant. Labour at their nadir (and could be again now) were extreme and unelectable but were never irrelevant. For a political party to be irrelevant is to be worse than unpopular, they might as well not exist now.
Either the Liberals find a new reason to exist or they may as well close up shop and disband.
PS does anyone know if Ofcom have formally stripped the Lib Dems (and UKIP?) of their major party status?
What grate words from another very perceptive Lady.
I think the Australians would be very bemused to discover that only the Queen was allowed to represent Australia at sporting events as Head of State and not the PM as Head of Government.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/labourtargets/
I'm really proud of that too.
The podcasts and Keiran's pieces are a great addition to PB
Such things are not possible!
Japan are ranked 13 in the world. They were outsiders but not 100-1.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/20/jeremy-corbyn-labour-first-week
Oh and NB @JWisemann, if John McDonnell is conceding that the first week was a bit rough, that his own appointment was controversial within the Labour party and there had been mistakes due to naivety, perhaps you also should start considering whether there might have been blunders.
You should consider the Energy market when thinking about this.
And how much the British Taxpayer is paying to the French Exchequer for a white elephant nuclear power station.
Not to mention how crap she was on curtailing benefit culture.
Or in Major's case use your position to gain an honorary membership and never buy a ticket again.
But, shhh, don;'t tell anyone or you might get a knock at the door.
Whether he may be an intelligence leak or not, it is not up to the intelligence services to make political decisions.
I don't think any Scottish private schools are football schools, which kinda annoyed me as I'd rather have played football even if it meant going to a public school.
But they kept it in Scotland despite their complete destruction in 2011. Arguably their MPs at Westminster made that an acceptable decision.
But now, it just seems as if all the placemen that the Liberals have been able to create thanks to their 5 years of coalition are propping them up. They have over 150 Lords which just shows how far the UK has to go to become a democracy.
I suspect OFCOM won't throw them out until after the next General Election. It is a joke.
Last may there was a massive garman rail strike.
That;s the point of a Head of State - the representative of the country., encompassing and ideally apolitical (I know it doesn't always work that way)
The Germans and Irish have this right. It is a good example to follow.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/09/18/nr-kiss-cam-braves-jimmy-carter.cnn/video/playlists/good-stuff/
If a Putinist is elected to an office that requires full disclosure, the intelligence services must disclose. They do not decide who is and is not worthy of information. Their job is to collect the information and provide the evidence to the people our constitution says deserve that. And certain services to maintain that if it is decided they should use those services.
Currently that is the PM and Cabinet, the LoTO and Shadow Cabinet and the House leader of the third party.
The Intelligence services are not there to keep us safe. There are there to provide the information and other services that our elected politicians use to keep us safe. Nothing else.
My apologies for my spelling, I am dyslexic, and often do not spend as much time as I should checking the spelling, so as to not delay my replies. I hope it has not coursed you to much confusion.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/Nederlandse_spoorwegen_logo.svg
NS currently run four UK rail franchises, on behalf of the Dutch taxpayer who get the benefit or all profits.
There's a place for giggling at amusing typos, but not for this once we know - I hope this will calm down soon.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPUNajuWgAAmGZw.jpg
If people genuinely didn't like privatised railways, they wouldn't ride on them.
(Interestingly, across Western Europe, rail privatisation - or commercialisation, like Sweden - has correlated pretty perfectly with increased passenger trends.)