Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Even if the Tories clawed back all of their 2010 voters wh

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited July 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Even if the Tories clawed back all of their 2010 voters who’ve switched to LAB the most they’d put on less than 2pc

There’s a new Populus online poll out – the third in just eight days – and all the fieldwork took place over the weekend. The figures with changes on Friday’s poll are LAB 39 (↔); CON 32 (↑1); LD 12 (↔); UKIP 9 (↓1).

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    First :)
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    Angry Flat Cap ‏@angryflatcap 6h

    NEWS OUTLETS: trying to gauge how enthused the British public are about the royal baby? Use this handy flow diagram. http://pic.twitter.com/d7T3YpyF5t
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2012/oct/12/cool-us-cities-lesser-known

    Cool US cities to visit, by the Guardian. DETROIT!!

    I've passed briefly through Detroit. It is cool, but it is a bit scary off the beaten track.

    Los Angeles may someday go a similar way. Parts of San Fernando Valley and almost all of South LA replicate the eastern parts of Detroit. Sketchy, drug-and-crime ridden and run by gangs.

    LA is cool too though! And I had less trouble stumbling about at night pissed in Detroit and LA than I did in Sarf London.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    The fact that so few CON voters have gone to Miliband’s party means that the predicted “swingback to a governing party” potential is not very large
    I think that is a very simplistic view of the way in which votes swing[-back].

    Do you have a link to the data tables?

    I would guess that the certainty to vote of Labour voters is higher than that for Tory voters - if this reverses as election day approaches then there can be the appearance of swingback without any voters changing their mind on which party to support. This is an enthusiasm gap, and is probably a more consistent reason for swingback than literal changes in support between the parties.

    Likewise, if some of the 2010 Lib Dems who now say they will vote Labour do not do so, and some of the 2010 Conservatives who say they will vote UKIP return to the Tories, then there will be the appearance of swingback without any direct Labour to Conservative swing voters changing their mind.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Whilst we await the great event .... the publication of the new Auchentennach Pie Catalogue ..... oh and the royal baby too ....

    @antifrank noted Richard Cromwell was one of those few who as Head of State outlived their successor. Indeed so but he is unique in outliving not only his successor Charles II but also James II, Mary II, William III and Queen Anne only survived him by a month in August 1714.

    As a point of Scottish history Charles II as King of Scots 1649-51 outlived Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell.

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    @OblitusSumMe

    The link to the data tables is just under the chart. Click "get the data".
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited July 2013
    On topic: In other words, Labour have done quite extraordinarily badly getting 2010 Conservative voters to consider switching to them, despite the fact that (on this mid-term poll) over one in three of 2010 Tory voters are up for grabs.

    I'm not sure that, on the face of it, this is exactly good news for Labour.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    The risk is not in labour voters swopping back to tory voters, but labour voters not bothering to vote at all...
  • Pong said:

    NEWS OUTLETS: trying to gauge how enthused the British public are about the royal baby? Use this handy flow diagram. http://pic.twitter.com/d7T3YpyF5t

    A bank holiday isn't completely out of the question, though probably around the time of the Christening. I don't know when that'll be, exactly, but if it's August, a lot of people will be on holiday anyway, diffusing the economic impact, and it would be moderately popular.

    Does Cameron have any intermediate options, more than just making a speech welcoming the birth. but stopping short of a bank holiday?
  • Well let us hope that this article keeps Ed Milliband in place.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Excellent points in this article as usual.

    Thing is voters are individuals not clubs or battalions. I occasionally think terms like 2010 lib dems are a little misleading. Its not like they're the 29th regiment of foot.
  • But if OGH is correct that these 2010 LD voters are not going to leave Labour, then the Lib Dem MPs are facing a massive wipe out. Unless of course they really do have two votes each.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    The risk is not in labour voters swopping back to tory voters, but labour voters not bothering to vote at all...

    Indeed so "Slack".

    I think differential turnout will play a significant part in the 2015 GE.

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    That's one way of looking at it, though the fact that Labour's taking so few 2010 Tory votes is hardly a vote of confidence in Miliband's merry men either. (The figures for the YouGov poll I looked at prior to writing my weekend piece also had a shift of 6% of the 2010 Con vote to Lab, but also had 3% going the other way, so net just 1% overall, or thereabouts.

    The big questions have to be how sticky the LD-Lab and Con-UKIP moves will be, and if they're not to stay, where those voters will wind back up?

    In the case of the Lib Dems who've gone Lab, and are sustaining Labour's leads, there are various groups:

    - Claggasm voters who switched / decided to vote late in the 2010 campaign. These now feel let down by Clegg being 'just another politician' and are vaguely inclined to Labour as 'not the government'. At some point they'll take a look at Miliband as a potential PM and decide 'no thanks'. Most likely won't vote but could otherwise end up anywhere.

    - High turn-out swing voters not convinced by Brown or Cameron. Again, could end up with any of the main parties. Mostly with Labour for now but that's a cost-free mid-term option; not one for a general election.

    - Tactical voters who went Lib Dem to keep the Tories out and are going back to Labour 'on principle'. These voters will actively help the Conservatives.

    - Genuine Left-wingers who left Labour due to Iraq / tuition fees / privatisation / whatever and now seek to repent their sins. Some will stick, though Miliband's evasiveness on policy is not exactly going to win much red blooded support. Small Labour gain.

    The two biggest swing votes are the ex-2010 LDs and the ex-2010 Cons. Where these voters end up is likely to determine the election, and where they end up is likely to depend on how the government performs over the next two years. A steady economic recovery and a minimal number of Downing St gimmicks should see Dave back in No 10.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Interesting Ashcroft poll of UNITE members coming up. It's embargoed till midnight.

    Includes VI and "best PM" questions.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    taffys said:

    terms like 2010 lib dems are a little misleading. Its not like they're the 29th regiment of foot.

    Well, that's for sure!
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    edited July 2013
    taffys said:

    Excellent points in this article as usual.

    Thing is voters are individuals not clubs or battalions. I occasionally think terms like 2010 lib dems are a little misleading. Its not like they're the 29th regiment of foot.

    Well yes, I suspect the LD-Lab 2010 switchers are people who should have been voting Labour in the first place. Accepting the usual caveat that the LDs fight 70 or so byelections at GE time, I'd have thought this was a bigger problem for the LDs since it pushes their starting base line backwards in the next batch of target constituencies.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Oops - Guardian gets it really wrong - again
    http://order-order.com/2013/07/22/crosby-presentation-organised-by-labour-lobbyist-labour-mps-attended-event-held-in-commons/
    The Guardian claims that the “leaked” presentation was made by CTF to private healthcare profiteers, it was actually organised by the lobbying firm Westminster Advisers to MPs - who were all given copies. Making it more of a handout than a leak. Westminster Advisers is headed by Dominic Church, a wealthy Labour supporter and a former Hammersmith and Fulham councillor for the party. He is a Blairite private healthcare lobbyist…

    Church lobbies for the H5 Private Hospitals Alliance. The slideshow was shown at their parliamentary reception themed ‘Improving Britain’s healthcare’ on 29 November 2010 in the House of Commons. The invitation was open to all MPs and Guido understands that many Labour MPs enjoyed the hospitality served in Dining Room A. One attendee remembers seeing, for example, Gisela Stuart at the event. CTF merely providing polling data for the report. It was a briefing for MPs by private healthcare, not a briefing to private healthcare.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    On topic: In other words, Labour have done quite extraordinarily badly getting 2010 Conservative voters to consider switching to them, despite the fact that (on this mid-term poll) over one in three of 2010 Tory voters are up for grabs.

    I'm not sure that, on the face of it, this is exactly good news for Labour.

    Surely if Labour managed to get a straight switch of one third of the 2010 Tory vote that would be remarkable. Blair didn't manage that in 1997. I think Ed would settle for that.

  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    Sunny Hundal ‏@sunny_hundal 5m
    I'm told Lord Ashcroft's polling of Unite members, after Ed M proposed changes to party's union link, is out tonight. Not good for Labour.

    A small taster already Mike :)
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Interesting Ashcroft poll of UNITE members coming up. It's embargoed till midnight.

    Includes VI and "best PM" questions.

    Hhhmmm .... is that interesting "interesting", Mike Smithson thread headline "interesting", Steve "interesting" Davis "interesting" or .... Bugger me hold the front page, except for a royal birth, "interesting ??

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    JackW said:

    Whilst we await the great event .... the publication of the new Auchentennach Pie Catalogue ..... oh and the royal baby too ....

    @antifrank noted Richard Cromwell was one of those few who as Head of State outlived their successor. Indeed so but he is unique in outliving not only his successor Charles II but also James II, Mary II, William III and Queen Anne only survived him by a month in August 1714.

    As a point of Scottish history Charles II as King of Scots 1649-51 outlived Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell.

    There might be few British heads of state to outlive their successor but that is rather tied in with it (usually) being a job for life. Edward VIII also did, for that matter.

    It's a good deal more common in republics. From the 20th Century, off the top of my head, I think Taft, Wilson, Hoover, Truman, Eisenhower, Ford and Carter have all outlived one or more of their successors.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited July 2013
    Jonathan said:

    Surely if Labour managed to get a straight switch of one third of the 2010 Tory vote that would be remarkable. Blair didn't manage that in 1997. I think Ed would settle for that.

    I'm sure Blair got rather more than 1in 6 of those former Tory voters who decided not to vote Tory in 1997. It would be interesting to know what the corresponding figures for ex-Labour voters in 2010 were - in fact the most useful direct comparison would be the corresponding figures in opinion polls in 2008.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    JackW said:

    Whilst we await the great event .... the publication of the new Auchentennach Pie Catalogue ..... oh and the royal baby too ....

    @antifrank noted Richard Cromwell was one of those few who as Head of State outlived their successor. Indeed so but he is unique in outliving not only his successor Charles II but also James II, Mary II, William III and Queen Anne only survived him by a month in August 1714.

    As a point of Scottish history Charles II as King of Scots 1649-51 outlived Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell.

    There might be few British heads of state to outlive their successor but that is rather tied in with it (usually) being a job for life. Edward VIII also did, for that matter.

    It's a good deal more common in republics. From the 20th Century, off the top of my head, I think Taft, Wilson, Hoover, Truman, Eisenhower, Ford and Carter have all outlived one or more of their successors.
    Correction - Wilson didn't. I forgot he died soon after leaving office, though Harding's term being cut short meant he wasn't far off.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2013
    This is desperate and greatly amusing. This is precisely the sort of wishful-thinking-selective-use-of-info that destroys the Guardian's cred on Crosby. Labour's supporters are clutching at straws - and not even real ones.

    Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes
    Guardian cut 26 pages from "Crosby presentation", renumbered them. Claimed was a leak, when was given to Labour MPs guyfawk.es/1b7UK5x
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745
    Afternoon all :)

    Glad to be indoors and cool on this furnace of a day.

    None of this matters now of course - there's a long way to go but the genesis of 1979, 1997 and 2010 was all in the willingness of voters to switch directly from one of the main parties to the other.

    The two significant developments since the 2010 GE have been the shattering of the 2010 LD vote bloc with a third to a half shifting to Labour as a result of the formation of the Coalition and the emergence of UKIP as the traditional mid-term protest home for disillusioned Conservatives (primarily but not exclusively).

    The degree to which the former remains true and the degree to which the vote of UKIP can be reduced is or are the main questions around which the 2015 GE will turn.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    Plato said:

    Oops - Guardian gets it really wrong - again
    http://order-order.com/2013/07/22/crosby-presentation-organised-by-labour-lobbyist-labour-mps-attended-event-held-in-commons/
    The Guardian claims that the “leaked” presentation was made by CTF to private healthcare profiteers, it was actually organised by the lobbying firm Westminster Advisers to MPs - who were all given copies. Making it more of a handout than a leak. Westminster Advisers is headed by Dominic Church, a wealthy Labour supporter and a former Hammersmith and Fulham councillor for the party. He is a Blairite private healthcare lobbyist…

    Church lobbies for the H5 Private Hospitals Alliance. The slideshow was shown at their parliamentary reception themed ‘Improving Britain’s healthcare’ on 29 November 2010 in the House of Commons. The invitation was open to all MPs and Guido understands that many Labour MPs enjoyed the hospitality served in Dining Room A. One attendee remembers seeing, for example, Gisela Stuart at the event. CTF merely providing polling data for the report. It was a briefing for MPs by private healthcare, not a briefing to private healthcare.

    Someone should tell Andy Burnham and the BBC.

    I wonder if the latter will change their online reporting to reflect that it was effectively a Labour supporter promoting private healthcare?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited July 2013

    JackW said:

    Whilst we await the great event .... the publication of the new Auchentennach Pie Catalogue ..... oh and the royal baby too ....

    @antifrank noted Richard Cromwell was one of those few who as Head of State outlived their successor. Indeed so but he is unique in outliving not only his successor Charles II but also James II, Mary II, William III and Queen Anne only survived him by a month in August 1714.

    As a point of Scottish history Charles II as King of Scots 1649-51 outlived Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell.

    There might be few British heads of state to outlive their successor but that is rather tied in with it (usually) being a job for life. Edward VIII also did, for that matter.

    It's a good deal more common in republics. From the 20th Century, off the top of my head, I think Taft, Wilson, Hoover, Truman, Eisenhower, Ford and Carter have all outlived one or more of their successors.
    Indeed Herders.

    We had a rummage through the British history books on the last thread. So far we've had :

    Edgar Aethling .. Edward IV .. Henry VI .. James II all of England.
    James VI .. Charles II and James VII of Scotland
    Richard Cromwell of the Commonwealth
    Edward VIII of the UK

    Unless other PBers know better ??


  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,777
    At the last election Mandy ran a very effective scare campaign that seemed to persuade a lot of people that first born were to be the first cut (I declare an interest) and that things would get very nasty after that.


    As usual this turned out to be a pack of lies (whew!) but I think there is still a significant wedge of floating voters who may have either stuck with Labour or not voted at all to play for. Now it has been demonstrated that a tory government, even in coalition, is more efficient and careful with peoples' money I think quite a lot of that wedge may be more open to voting tory than were in 2010. In short there is votes in the centre ground.

    Whilst it makes sense to not unnecessarily irritate their natural supporters (particularly given the opportunity to squeeze UKIP back to something like 5%) this means policies that will be attractive to this centre ground voters. I think we will see more of this.

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    I've been outside in the sunshine. I can confirm;

    1. It's hot.

    2. I'm still alive
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    Sunny Hundal ‏@sunny_hundal 2m
    Just over 10% of Unite members would join the Labour Party if invited to do so, Lord Ashcroft's polling shows. Full results out midnight

    So Ed going to cut his union funding by 90% and bankrupt his party??

    Masterstroke......
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Cameron's porno crackdown is already tying him in knots. Asked if he would condemn page 3. Refused.

    Meanwhile the witch hunt is already starting. The Telly reports that inmates of maximum security prisons are able to access violent and disturbing films like reservoir dogs and Saw.

    This is going sour for Dave, and it serves him right.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Sunny Hundal ‏@sunny_hundal 2m
    Just over 10% of Unite members would join the Labour Party if invited to do so, Lord Ashcroft's polling shows. Full results out midnight

    So Ed going to cut his union funding by 90% and bankrupt his party??

    Masterstroke......

    Maybe, just maybe, they've thought slightly further than that? Who says the political levy has to stay at the same level if it entitles people to be full party members? Multiply the levy by ten and Labour actually increases their funding from Unite members...

  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737



    Correction - Wilson didn't. I forgot he died soon after leaving office, though Harding's term being cut short meant he wasn't far off.

    Wilson did outlive Harding... by six months.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    taffys said:


    Meanwhile the witch hunt is already starting. The Telly reports that inmates of maximum security prisons are able to access violent and disturbing films like reservoir dogs and Saw.

    Wait until they start asking cabinet members whether they have ever accessed porn themselves.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136

    But if OGH is correct that these 2010 LD voters are not going to leave Labour, then the Lib Dem MPs are facing a massive wipe out. Unless of course they really do have two votes each.

    The thought is that they'll stick with incumbent LibDems against Tory challengers, but go Labour everywhere else.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2013

    Sunny Hundal ‏@sunny_hundal 2m
    Just over 10% of Unite members would join the Labour Party if invited to do so, Lord Ashcroft's polling shows. Full results out midnight

    So Ed going to cut his union funding by 90% and bankrupt his party??

    Masterstroke......

    I think it's fair to say that c10% is optimistic given that more people will say they'll do something than they will in practice - like voting or turning up to a party...

    Mr Kenny of the GMB felt 10% would be a good result for his members to join up. So if either the GMB or Unite decided to unaffiliate or if EdM doesn't want their money to pay for food and rations between elections - that's a very tricky position to be in.

    The unions will still have the same money - they just won't rely on Labour as channel to spend it, but do more themselves directly.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,777
    I think it is also important to note that by 2015 there will be 1million fewer employees in the public sector (even allowing for redesignations) and 2 million more in employment. This is a different electorate who will not have such a vested interest in ever increasing public spending. This will not produce another million low tax, small state tories but it will help at the margins.

    It is a pity that IDS's reforms are taking so long to come into effect as that could have increased the changes to the electorate but it was always a massive task and it is more important in the long run that he gets it right.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    taffys said:

    Cameron's porno crackdown is already tying him in knots. Asked if he would condemn page 3. Refused.

    Meanwhile the witch hunt is already starting. The Telly reports that inmates of maximum security prisons are able to access violent and disturbing films like reservoir dogs and Saw.

    This is going sour for Dave, and it serves him right.

    It's just another barnacle on the ship. Dave still has Blairitis whereby you have to make announcements every day, often saying nothing or just repeating the same things is better.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Perhaps we might add King Ethelred the Unready who in his second reign saw off King Sweyn Forkbeard.
  • NextNext Posts: 826
    Plato said:

    This is desperate and greatly amusing. This is precisely the sort of wishful-thinking-selective-use-of-info that destroys the Guardian's cred on Crosby. Labour's supporters are clutching at straws - and not even real ones.

    Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes
    Guardian cut 26 pages from "Crosby presentation", renumbered them. Claimed was a leak, when was given to Labour MPs guyfawk.es/1b7UK5x

    The lefties just want to yell: Coulson Crosby.

    It keeps them happy.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Wait until they start asking cabinet members whether they have ever accessed porn themselves.

    Quite. Plus, when this comes in, somewhere there will be data on who's in and who's out. The potential for misuse of that data is huge - as well as the potential for court cases.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    Neil said:

    Sunny Hundal ‏@sunny_hundal 2m
    Just over 10% of Unite members would join the Labour Party if invited to do so, Lord Ashcroft's polling shows. Full results out midnight

    So Ed going to cut his union funding by 90% and bankrupt his party??

    Masterstroke......

    Maybe, just maybe, they've thought slightly further than that? Who says the political levy has to stay at the same level if it entitles people to be full party members? Multiply the levy by ten and Labour actually increases their funding from Unite members...

    Usually when you increase the price of something less people want it....
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    Sunny Hundal ‏@sunny_hundal 7m
    Most worryingly for Labour, Ashcroft polling will show 46% of Unite members disagreed with £12M donation to Labour since 2010; 43% agreed.

    Looks like Sunny is releasing all the juicy bits, and its all bad for labour.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    taffys said:

    Wait until they start asking cabinet members whether they have ever accessed porn themselves.

    Quite. Plus, when this comes in, somewhere there will be data on who's in and who's out. The potential for misuse of that data is huge - as well as the potential for court cases.

    And leaks via tinkers such as Anonymous or *in the public interest* CDs walking out of ISPs...
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    Neil said:

    taffys said:


    Meanwhile the witch hunt is already starting. The Telly reports that inmates of maximum security prisons are able to access violent and disturbing films like reservoir dogs and Saw.

    Wait until they start asking cabinet members whether they have ever accessed porn themselves.
    Well theres nothing stopping people asking that already...
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Neil said:

    Sunny Hundal ‏@sunny_hundal 2m
    Just over 10% of Unite members would join the Labour Party if invited to do so, Lord Ashcroft's polling shows. Full results out midnight

    So Ed going to cut his union funding by 90% and bankrupt his party??

    Masterstroke......

    Maybe, just maybe, they've thought slightly further than that? Who says the political levy has to stay at the same level if it entitles people to be full party members? Multiply the levy by ten and Labour actually increases their funding from Unite members...

    Usually when you increase the price of something less people want it....
    What makes you think it will cost them a penny more?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697

    taffys said:

    Cameron's porno crackdown is already tying him in knots. Asked if he would condemn page 3. Refused.

    Meanwhile the witch hunt is already starting. The Telly reports that inmates of maximum security prisons are able to access violent and disturbing films like reservoir dogs and Saw.

    This is going sour for Dave, and it serves him right.

    It's just another barnacle on the ship. Dave still has Blairitis whereby you have to make announcements every day, often saying nothing or just repeating the same things is better.


    I was surprised the government didn't want this weeks news to be all about Thursdays GDP announcenent....

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Neil said:

    taffys said:


    Meanwhile the witch hunt is already starting. The Telly reports that inmates of maximum security prisons are able to access violent and disturbing films like reservoir dogs and Saw.

    Wait until they start asking cabinet members whether they have ever accessed porn themselves.
    Well theres nothing stopping people asking that already...
    Time to see who is a liar and who is a w**ker ?
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Neil said:

    taffys said:


    Meanwhile the witch hunt is already starting. The Telly reports that inmates of maximum security prisons are able to access violent and disturbing films like reservoir dogs and Saw.

    Wait until they start asking cabinet members whether they have ever accessed porn themselves.
    Well theres nothing stopping people asking that already...
    It's none of their business and politicians could get away with refusing to answer. But if they're seeking to regulate it for everyone else then their own approach to these things becomes fair game.

  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    Neil said:

    Neil said:

    Sunny Hundal ‏@sunny_hundal 2m
    Just over 10% of Unite members would join the Labour Party if invited to do so, Lord Ashcroft's polling shows. Full results out midnight

    So Ed going to cut his union funding by 90% and bankrupt his party??

    Masterstroke......

    Maybe, just maybe, they've thought slightly further than that? Who says the political levy has to stay at the same level if it entitles people to be full party members? Multiply the levy by ten and Labour actually increases their funding from Unite members...

    Usually when you increase the price of something less people want it....
    What makes you think it will cost them a penny more?
    Because that's what you just said??
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Fun twitter spat over Guardian's censoring "selectiveness" over the PowerPoint slides they chose to publish (coincidentally withholding the ones that undermined their case) - saying they did so for "Copyright reasons" - as MediaGuido observes:

    "Paper which published thousands of secret US diplomatic cables says it was worried about copyright of a PowerPoint handout. Yeah right."
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Neil said:

    Neil said:

    Sunny Hundal ‏@sunny_hundal 2m
    Just over 10% of Unite members would join the Labour Party if invited to do so, Lord Ashcroft's polling shows. Full results out midnight

    So Ed going to cut his union funding by 90% and bankrupt his party??

    Masterstroke......

    Maybe, just maybe, they've thought slightly further than that? Who says the political levy has to stay at the same level if it entitles people to be full party members? Multiply the levy by ten and Labour actually increases their funding from Unite members...

    Usually when you increase the price of something less people want it....
    What makes you think it will cost them a penny more?
    Because that's what you just said??
    No, I didnt.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Pulpstar said:

    Neil said:

    taffys said:


    Meanwhile the witch hunt is already starting. The Telly reports that inmates of maximum security prisons are able to access violent and disturbing films like reservoir dogs and Saw.

    Wait until they start asking cabinet members whether they have ever accessed porn themselves.
    Well theres nothing stopping people asking that already...
    Time to see who is a liar and who is a w**ker ?
    are they mutually exclusive?

  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited July 2013
    '' And leaks via tinkers such as Anonymous or *in the public interest* CDs walking out of ISPs''.

    Indeed. Just like the BNP's membership list was published - look up your local racists.

    We could be heading for a whole new strata of law here Plato.

    After all, just because you opted in, that does not mean you necessarily accessed pornography. And so, anybody who published the lists could, conceivably, be guilty of defamation.

    Plus there's the potential for abuse by the police. Oh the suspect's an 'opt in' so he must have done it.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    George Eaton @georgeeaton
    Miliband to announce more details of Labour-trade union reforms tonight. Full report on @TheStaggers at 6pm.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    taffys said:

    '' And leaks via tinkers such as Anonymous or *in the public interest* CDs walking out of ISPs''.

    Indeed. Just like the BNP's membership list was published - look up your local racists.

    We could be heading for a whole new strata of law here Plato.

    After all, just because you opted in, that does not mean you necessarily accessed pornography. And so, anybody who published the lists could, conceivably, be guilty of defamation.

    Plus there's the potential for abuse by the police. Oh the suspect's an 'opt in' so he must have done it.

    Throw in the Guardian's current accuracy and it could be fun times - for lawyers at least !
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    George Eaton tweets: "Miliband to announce more details of Labour-trade union reforms tonight. Full report on @TheStaggers at 6pm."

    Good day to bury bad news?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Pulpstar said:

    Neil said:

    taffys said:


    Meanwhile the witch hunt is already starting. The Telly reports that inmates of maximum security prisons are able to access violent and disturbing films like reservoir dogs and Saw.

    Wait until they start asking cabinet members whether they have ever accessed porn themselves.
    Well theres nothing stopping people asking that already...
    Time to see who is a liar and who is a w**ker ?
    are they mutually exclusive?

    taffys said:

    '' And leaks via tinkers such as Anonymous or *in the public interest* CDs walking out of ISPs''.

    Indeed. Just like the BNP's membership list was published - look up your local racists.

    We could be heading for a whole new strata of law here Plato.

    After all, just because you opted in, that does not mean you necessarily accessed pornography. And so, anybody who published the lists could, conceivably, be guilty of defamation.

    Plus there's the potential for abuse by the police. Oh the suspect's an 'opt in' so he must have done it.

    Real thin end of the wedge stuff, I agree. Anyway the Lib Dems are keeping quiet on all this. Whats their viewpoint ? Are they the LIBERAL democrats still ?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    edited July 2013
    Advocates of republicanism in the UK:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom#Supporters

    Current MPs in the list are as follows:

    Norman Baker
    Russell Brown
    Ronnie Campbell
    Jeremy Corbyn
    David Crausby
    Ian Davidson
    Paul Flynn
    Roger Godsiff
    Kelvin Hopkins
    Julian Huppert
    Glenda Jackson
    Caroline Lucas
    Jim McGovern
    Stephen Pound
    Dennis Skinner
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Will the Guardian have to print an explanation for their shoddy, untrue, piece of journalism. The Leak that wasn't, The Presentation Company that wasn't..etc..Once a rag. always a rag, no wonder it is going down the pan
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    Jack - Henry VI didn't outlive his successor, though he did replace him breifly, before Edward IV regained the throne and Henry died in circumstances described by the Met as 'suspicious'.

    There are many more examples of pre-conquest / pre-English union monarchs who outlived successors; a time when abdications - both forced and voluntary - were much more common. Aethelred the Unready would be one obvious example but a more obscure and complex case is that of Olaf Sitricsson.

    Olaf was the Viking king of Jorvik (and other realms and territories) from 941-3, when he was deposed by Ragnald II. Ragnald was subsequently killed in battle and Jorvik was temporarily subsumed into England, gaining Edmund, who died shortly after, and then Eadred as king in the process. In 948, Erik Bloodaxe successfully re-established Jorvik as outside of English rule, with himself as king. By this stage, Jorvik has Olaf and Eadred as living former rulers. Erik himself only lasted a year before he was deposed but Eadred was not sufficiently strong to subdue the territory and reinstated former Olaf as king. He lasted only another four years until 952 before Erik again forcefully wrested the crown but his second stint was little more successful than his first and within two years Eadred finally gained control over Jorvik, combining it as the final piece into what is now recognisably England. Erik and Olaf were both living at this stage, though Erik was killed shortly after. Olaf however, remained king of Dublin until 980, outliving a further four English monarchs in the process.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Pulpstar said:

    Neil said:

    taffys said:


    Meanwhile the witch hunt is already starting. The Telly reports that inmates of maximum security prisons are able to access violent and disturbing films like reservoir dogs and Saw.

    Wait until they start asking cabinet members whether they have ever accessed porn themselves.
    Well theres nothing stopping people asking that already...
    Time to see who is a liar and who is a w**ker ?
    are they mutually exclusive?

    I've normally found walkers most truthful in giving directions.

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    edited July 2013
    Andy_JS said:
    I was somewhat startled to see that Thomas Jefferson made the list.

    Thomas Paine too.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Neil said:

    taffys said:


    Meanwhile the witch hunt is already starting. The Telly reports that inmates of maximum security prisons are able to access violent and disturbing films like reservoir dogs and Saw.

    Wait until they start asking cabinet members whether they have ever accessed porn themselves.
    Well theres nothing stopping people asking that already...
    Time to see who is a liar and who is a w**ker ?
    are they mutually exclusive?

    taffys said:

    '' And leaks via tinkers such as Anonymous or *in the public interest* CDs walking out of ISPs''.

    Indeed. Just like the BNP's membership list was published - look up your local racists.

    We could be heading for a whole new strata of law here Plato.

    After all, just because you opted in, that does not mean you necessarily accessed pornography. And so, anybody who published the lists could, conceivably, be guilty of defamation.

    Plus there's the potential for abuse by the police. Oh the suspect's an 'opt in' so he must have done it.

    Real thin end of the wedge stuff, I agree. Anyway the Lib Dems are keeping quiet on all this. Whats their viewpoint ? Are they the LIBERAL democrats still ?
    Yvette was being "More Daily Mail than Thou" on WATO......sometimes saying nothing may be the least worst option....in any case all this (and Ed's Labour-Union reforms) will shortly be submerged by the coming royal baby tsunami....

  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited July 2013
    For heaven's sake, what a load of utter nonsense is being said about the porn opt-in proposals!

    I suppose it must be all those horror stories about the Vodafone, T-Mobile, Orange, BT, and Virgin opt-in lists appearing in the media, day after day since they were introduced in 2002

    At least a mobile phone is probably personal, whereas the home internet connection is increasingly likely to be used by the whole family, right down to five-year olds.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    Neil said:

    Andy_JS said:
    I was somewhat startled to see that Thomas Jefferson made the list.

    Thomas Paine too.
    Yes, I think a monarchist may have been inserting a few names of that kind into the list to make it look a bit silly.
  • But if OGH is correct that these 2010 LD voters are not going to leave Labour, then the Lib Dem MPs are facing a massive wipe out. Unless of course they really do have two votes each.

    The thought is that they'll stick with incumbent LibDems against Tory challengers, but go Labour everywhere else.
    So they will follow a dictated line even though half the LD seats now have a non-Conservative as their main challenger.... Talk about fighting the previous war!

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    Although I'm not a republican as such, I must say all this fawning over one about-to-be-born individual is a bit over the top.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Jack - Henry VI didn't outlive his successor, though he did replace him breifly, before Edward IV regained the throne and Henry died in circumstances described by the Met as 'suspicious'.

    There are many more examples of pre-conquest / pre-English union monarchs who outlived successors; a time when abdications - both forced and voluntary - were much more common. Aethelred the Unready would be one obvious example but a more obscure and complex case is that of Olaf Sitricsson.

    Olaf was the Viking king of Jorvik (and other realms and territories) from 941-3, when he was deposed by Ragnald II. Ragnald was subsequently killed in battle and Jorvik was temporarily subsumed into England, gaining Edmund, who died shortly after, and then Eadred as king in the process. In 948, Erik Bloodaxe successfully re-established Jorvik as outside of English rule, with himself as king. By this stage, Jorvik has Olaf and Eadred as living former rulers. Erik himself only lasted a year before he was deposed but Eadred was not sufficiently strong to subdue the territory and reinstated former Olaf as king. He lasted only another four years until 952 before Erik again forcefully wrested the crown but his second stint was little more successful than his first and within two years Eadred finally gained control over Jorvik, combining it as the final piece into what is now recognisably England. Erik and Olaf were both living at this stage, though Erik was killed shortly after. Olaf however, remained king of Dublin until 980, outliving a further four English monarchs in the process.

    Quite so about Henry VI. I included him on the basis that he lived to see through the period of the first reign of his successor - Edward IV

    Thanks for the Viking information.

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    edited July 2013
    Have we heard what Mr and Mrs Jackie Smith make of this porno stuff?

    He was getting his porn the old fashioned way (videos) at the taxpayers expense I think? ;)
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    For heaven's sake, what a load of utter nonsense is being said about the porn opt-in proposals!

    I suppose it mist be all those horror stories about the Vodafone, T-Mobile, Orange, BT, and Virgin opt-in lists appearing in the media, day after day since they were introduced in 2002

    At least a mobile phone is probably personal, whereas the home internet connection is increasingly likely to be used by the whole family, right down to five-year olds.

    It's just another Cameron pisses his political capital up the wall moment. I'd hoped he'd stopped, but you just can't take the PR dilettante out of the boy.

    By the way the top 3 selling books of 2012 were all basically porn, 10.5 million books in the Fifty Shades series. How's he going to draw a line round that ? Do we ban Kindle downloads ?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/dec/28/top-100-bestselling-books-2012
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Slackbladder

    'Sunny Hundal ‏@sunny_hundal 2m
    Just over 10% of Unite members would join the Labour Party if invited to do so, Lord Ashcroft's polling shows. Full results out midnight

    Can't be right,Tim's been telling us repeatedly that Ed's changes will result in a Labour membership surge.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Mr J Smith certainly did it the old fashioned way. He put it on expenses..nice one
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    john_zims said:

    @Slackbladder

    'Sunny Hundal ‏@sunny_hundal 2m
    Just over 10% of Unite members would join the Labour Party if invited to do so, Lord Ashcroft's polling shows. Full results out midnight

    Can't be right,Tim's been telling us repeatedly that Ed's changes will result in a Labour membership surge.

    That would represent a Labour membership surge.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136

    But if OGH is correct that these 2010 LD voters are not going to leave Labour, then the Lib Dem MPs are facing a massive wipe out. Unless of course they really do have two votes each.

    The thought is that they'll stick with incumbent LibDems against Tory challengers, but go Labour everywhere else.
    So they will follow a dictated line even though half the LD seats now have a non-Conservative as their main challenger.... Talk about fighting the previous war!

    No, on this view the LibDems in seats with close Labour challengers are screwed. But there aren't that many of them. Meanwhile a lot of the Lib/Con seats are like Eastleigh, with Lab way behind. Generalizing from Eastleigh, it seems like in these places lefty LibDems and Labour tactical votes should be reasonably solid.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    Poor old NannyCam.
    His risible internet posturing is going to be wiped away by the tabloid baby frenzy.

    LOL
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Generalizing from Eastleigh, it seems like in these places lefty LibDems and Labour tactical votes should be reasonably solid.

    I accept your general point but it should be remembered that the Lib Dems only held Eastleigh because of the split opposition between Tories and UKIP. Though that was a by-election.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    john_zims said:

    @Slackbladder

    'Sunny Hundal ‏@sunny_hundal 2m
    Just over 10% of Unite members would join the Labour Party if invited to do so, Lord Ashcroft's polling shows. Full results out midnight

    Can't be right,Tim's been telling us repeatedly that Ed's changes will result in a Labour membership surge.

    Labour membership is surging - this would just mean that more members were actually aware they had been signed up.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413

    Generalizing from Eastleigh, it seems like in these places lefty LibDems and Labour tactical votes should be reasonably solid.

    Given that as many ex-LibDem as ex-Tory voters went for UKIP in Eastleigh, that's a bit of a brave extrapolation. OK, they didn't switch to Labour to any great extent, but again I'm not sure that's exactly good news for Ed.
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807
    Most amusing aspect of the porn filter... imagine the 14 year old asking Dad why the porn filter appears not to be, er, working...
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    Mick_Pork said:

    Poor old NannyCam.
    His risible internet posturing is going to be wiped away by the tabloid baby frenzy.

    LOL

    Mick_Pork said:

    Poor old NannyCam.
    His risible internet posturing is going to be wiped away by the tabloid baby frenzy.

    LOL

    Actually given holes that seem to be appearing in his policy every few minutes, the baby news may prove once again what a lucky politician Cam is....
  • But if OGH is correct that these 2010 LD voters are not going to leave Labour, then the Lib Dem MPs are facing a massive wipe out. Unless of course they really do have two votes each.

    The thought is that they'll stick with incumbent LibDems against Tory challengers, but go Labour everywhere else.
    So they will follow a dictated line even though half the LD seats now have a non-Conservative as their main challenger.... Talk about fighting the previous war!

    No, on this view the LibDems in seats with close Labour challengers are screwed. But there aren't that many of them. Meanwhile a lot of the Lib/Con seats are like Eastleigh, with Lab way behind. Generalizing from Eastleigh, it seems like in these places lefty LibDems and Labour tactical votes should be reasonably solid.
    Lab are close in at least 12 and the main challenger now in >20 of the 57.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    Rexel56 said:

    Most amusing aspect of the porn filter... imagine the 14 year old asking Dad why the porn filter appears not to be, er, working...

    Less amusing the filter becomes a CRB check item and people start losing their jobs.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    Rexel56 said:

    Most amusing aspect of the porn filter... imagine the 14 year old asking Dad why the porn filter appears not to be, er, working...

    You seriously think the 14 year-old would draw attention to the fact?!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    edited July 2013
    Slightly old news, but it's deranged that a woman alleging she'd been raped should get arrested for extramarital sex:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23404042
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Rexel56 said:

    Most amusing aspect of the porn filter... imagine the 14 year old asking Dad why the porn filter appears not to be, er, working...

    "Ask your mother !!"

  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    OT, a different take on Detroit to the previous thread:

    That's an interesting article EIT. The central premise is that the suburbs NEED the city and so will be amenable to helping it pay its gargantuan debt.

    Maybe so, but they would surely want to see the creditors (ie council employees with pension schemes) take a hit too.

    The way this goes is incredibly important as it could prove a model for other places. And not just in the US.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Tim Wigmore is not a fan of swingback or ARSE..

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timwigmore/100226882/yes-ed-miliband-has-problems-but-here-are-five-reasons-why-he-will-still-be-prime-minister/

    "The Lib Dem membership would clearly prefer installing Miliband as PM to a second term with the Tories. Nick Clegg may be politically closer to Cameron, but he has shown a willingness to work with Miliband on blocking boundary reform and the Leveson Inquiry.

    If, as is very possible, the Lib Dems could form a viable coalition with either main party after 2015, they would be more inclined to do a deal with Labour: Lib Dems haven’t given up on Lords reform, for instance, which only Labour could deliver."
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136

    But if OGH is correct that these 2010 LD voters are not going to leave Labour, then the Lib Dem MPs are facing a massive wipe out. Unless of course they really do have two votes each.

    The thought is that they'll stick with incumbent LibDems against Tory challengers, but go Labour everywhere else.
    So they will follow a dictated line even though half the LD seats now have a non-Conservative as their main challenger.... Talk about fighting the previous war!

    No, on this view the LibDems in seats with close Labour challengers are screwed. But there aren't that many of them. Meanwhile a lot of the Lib/Con seats are like Eastleigh, with Lab way behind. Generalizing from Eastleigh, it seems like in these places lefty LibDems and Labour tactical votes should be reasonably solid.
    Lab are close in at least 12 and the main challenger now in >20 of the 57.
    Right, the thought is that they'd lose maybe 12 to Lab and 3 or 4 net to Con, something like that.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited July 2013

    Rexel56 said:

    Most amusing aspect of the porn filter... imagine the 14 year old asking Dad why the porn filter appears not to be, er, working...

    Less amusing the filter becomes a CRB check item and people start losing their jobs.
    Yeah just like on your mobile phone filter.

    Can we get this straight: why haven't all those making these points been campaigning against opt-in filters since 2002? Oh, no, I know the answer - it's because a decade of experience disproves their points.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Rexel56 said:

    Most amusing aspect of the porn filter... imagine the 14 year old asking Dad why the porn filter appears not to be, er, working...

    Less amusing the filter becomes a CRB check item and people start losing their jobs.
    Yeah just like on your mobile phone filter.

    Can we get this straight: why haven't all those making these points been campaigning against opt-in filters since 2002? Oh, no, I know the answer - it's because a decade of experience disproves their points.
    No it's because we can rely on HMG for a needless fkup. There is little point to this legislation, so why introduce it ? It's yet another gimmick, somebody should tell Cameron to STFU, make some nice noises about the Baby and then go on holiday.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2013
    Apparently its not going to be legislation - just a code, that already exists, but will be a bit tighter if what I've read is accurate.

    It sounds like 'marching youths to the cashpoint to pay fines' thingy Blair talked about.

    Ranty Man @ranty_man
    “Yes m’lud the defendant opted IN to receiving pornography on his broadband. This speaks volumes about their character”

    Rexel56 said:

    Most amusing aspect of the porn filter... imagine the 14 year old asking Dad why the porn filter appears not to be, er, working...

    Less amusing the filter becomes a CRB check item and people start losing their jobs.
    Yeah just like on your mobile phone filter.

    Can we get this straight: why haven't all those making these points been campaigning against opt-in filters since 2002? Oh, no, I know the answer - it's because a decade of experience disproves their points.
    No it's because we can rely on HMG for a needless fkup. There is little point to this legislation, so why introduce it ? It's yet another gimmick, somebody should tell Cameron to STFU, make some nice noises about the Baby and then go on holiday.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Isabel Hardman continues to be impressed by the tactics (if not necessarily the substance) on today's move on the Internet:

    "Further evidence of Number 10 finding a hard-headed campaigning zeal reaches this blog, in the form of a campaigning website called Protecting Our Children. It includes a petition ‘to support David Cameron’s call for ISPs to introduce Family Friendly Filters as soon as possible’, and facts about internet safety and what it is that the ‘the Prime Minister and ISPs have worked together to ensure’."

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/07/pms-porn-crackdown-replicates-tory-eu-campaign-success/
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited July 2013

    Rexel56 said:

    Most amusing aspect of the porn filter... imagine the 14 year old asking Dad why the porn filter appears not to be, er, working...

    Less amusing the filter becomes a CRB check item and people start losing their jobs.
    Yeah just like on your mobile phone filter.

    Can we get this straight: why haven't all those making these points been campaigning against opt-in filters since 2002? Oh, no, I know the answer - it's because a decade of experience disproves their points.
    Richard, It's dead easy to get round the mobile filters. It took me about 30 seconds (both t-mobile & o2) - to figure out how to access PB. It would take your average teenager even less time to figure it out.

    What makes you think these broadband filters would be any more effective?

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    FPT:
    On topic.
    I don't think that Nigel Farage knows which constituency he'll go for yet, theres an awful lot of organising to do.

    I myself will be going to a UKIP hustings to pick London MEP's this coming Saturday. It will be the first one I'll attend; I will let you know how it pans out.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136

    Generalizing from Eastleigh, it seems like in these places lefty LibDems and Labour tactical votes should be reasonably solid.

    Given that as many ex-LibDem as ex-Tory voters went for UKIP in Eastleigh, that's a bit of a brave extrapolation. OK, they didn't switch to Labour to any great extent, but again I'm not sure that's exactly good news for Ed.
    That's fine for the LibDems in those seats. If it's right it actually deals with Neil's point: If they needed UKIP to perform well to beat the Tories the worry would be that UKIP will fizzle in 2015, but if they're damaging both parties equally then it doesn't make any difference what they do.

    The LibDems only have a problem if you think the ex-Tories will re-Tory, but the ex-Libdems won't re-LibDem. I suppose this is possible, but I don't see any particular evidence for it.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    I think the Duchess of Cambridge should have shown the way to the Nation and go to deliver the Royal Baby at Stafford Hospital!
This discussion has been closed.