FlyTheNest

Good morning.

Morning!

Dominic Grieves taking no prisoners on the R4 Today programme. Tory proposals on human rights are "full of howlers" and "factually inaccurate". Also “We are about to suffer what I would describe as a failure of ambition”.

Someone with waaayyy more insight into polls & subsets has analysed today's yougov:

Con 35
Lab 34
UKIP 14
LDem 6
Green 5
SNP/PCY 4
B** 1
Respect 0 (in every subsample)
Others 1

Approval -19

The reason Cons have gone from 31% yesterday to 35% today is because 3% of 2010 LD’s have switched – there is also a slight decrease in Con DK

There is no general trend to the Cons at least in this poll not from 2010 Lab voters, not from UKIP switchers. but the LD switch is amazing

The reason Lab have shrunk from 38% yesterday to 34% today is because 2% less 2010 LD and the DK’s did not improve as much as the Cons

there are also quite a few votes for minor parties which always seems to push Lab down and there is a lot of re-weighting, which someone more expert than me will know about.

I reckon Con will gain a few points short term but this time next week the media circus will be in Clacton where Carswell will have won the byelection & we will have our first Ukip MP

Spacedone wrote:Morning!

Dominic Grieves taking no prisoners on the R4 Today programme. Tory proposals on human rights are "full of howlers" and "factually inaccurate". Also “We are about to suffer what I would describe as a failure of ambition”.

What's the betting it will come and undone and quietly get kicked into the long grass, which of course the papers who are now getting stiffies over will ignore? Oversee new legislation, Grayling, who's as thick as a canteen cup?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/sirajdatoo/tory ... us#47dc1zp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

letsskiptotheleft wrote:

Spacedone wrote:Morning!

Dominic Grieves taking no prisoners on the R4 Today programme. Tory proposals on human rights are "full of howlers" and "factually inaccurate". Also “We are about to suffer what I would describe as a failure of ambition”.

What's the betting it will come and undone and quietly get kicked into the long grass, which of course the papers who are now getting stiffies over will ignore? Oversee new legislation, Grayling, who's as thick as a canteen cup?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/sirajdatoo/tory ... us#47dc1zp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's already been suggested that those proposal are meant for electioneering and not for actual implementation.

This Grayling quote is asking for humourous responses...

Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam
Chris grayling: "what we signed up to [post war] with ECHR was something designed to combat dictatorship... "

Morning.

Some analysis here
http://www.headoflegal.com/2014/10/03/f ... an-rights/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The article on the G about this is getting a lot of comments - some are OK.

However, I have seen several posts which state that the late Alice Gross was a victim of human rights gone mad and it would seem that the man the police are said to be looking for (and who remains unfound, unquestioned, uncharged, unconvicted, etc) was allowed to come here because of the ECHR and, even worse, is actually Latvian. He may well turn out to be the perpetrator, but that's not a good enough excuse to allow this nasty ranting to stay on the thread.

I have reported all the offending posts but they remain. The ignorance, xenophobia, and flagrant disregard for due process by accusing a person who has yet to be found let alone charged purely on the basis of the country he comes from is reprehensible; to use the tragic death of a teenager to justify nasty and dangerous policy is just beyond the pale.
I gather that similar occurred on QT last night. I'm grateful that I gave it a swerve....

Morning all.

I've held off posting anything about this for a while ... because those who this most matters to had, apparently, said give her the benefit of doubt and time to explain her position re this and gain our trust.

She still hasn't done so according to these.

Retweeted by David Hencke
Discovery77 ‏@discovery77_ 12h12 hours ago
Fiona Woolf still fails to respond to victims' concerns weeks later after promising statement. http://wp.me/pHiYZ-3M0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; via @davidhencke

Retweeted by David Hencke
The Steeple Times ‏@SteepleTimes 58m58 minutes ago
@Ken_King_1 @davidhencke Fiona Woolf has two options: Step up or throw in the towel: http://thesteepletimes.com/today/fiona-woolf/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

General Election ‏@UKELECTIONS2015 56s57 seconds ago
SOUTH TYNESIDE - WESTOE

UKIP 40.9% (+2.9%)
LABOUR 37.9% (-6.9%)
CON 13.3% (-3.9%)
GREEN 5.5%
LD 2.5%

UKIP GAIN

SWING LAB to UKIP 4.9%

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:General Election ‏@UKELECTIONS2015 56s57 seconds ago
SOUTH TYNESIDE - WESTOE

UKIP 40.9% (+2.9%)
LABOUR 37.9% (-6.9%)
CON 13.3% (-3.9%)
GREEN 5.5%
LD 2.5%

UKIP GAIN

SWING LAB to UKIP 4.9%

The only thing that cheers me up about that is the miserable Lib Dem position. The Greens have overtaken them again - good.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:General Election ‏@UKELECTIONS2015 56s57 seconds ago
SOUTH TYNESIDE - WESTOE

UKIP 40.9% (+2.9%)
LABOUR 37.9% (-6.9%)
CON 13.3% (-3.9%)
GREEN 5.5%
LD 2.5%

UKIP GAIN

SWING LAB to UKIP 4.9%

Political Betting have a slightly different take / explanation on this result.

Westoe on South Tyneside (Independent defence)
Result: UKIP 676 (41%), Labour 625 (38% +2%), Conservatives 219 (13% +1%), Greens 90 (5% -1%), Liberal Democrats 41 (2%)
UKIP GAIN from Independent with a majority of 51 (3%), no swing calculable

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index. ... elections/

Lib Dems demand probe into claims Tory aide called Nick Clegg a wanker
Theresa May’s adviser said to have made remark after deputy PM criticised May over ‘snoopers’ charter’ comments
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... egg-wanker

I was wondering what bit of government farce I had missed yesterday .... asides and noises off by the sound of this.

Spacedone wrote:This Grayling quote is asking for humourous responses...

Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam
Chris grayling: "what we signed up to [post war] with ECHR was something designed to combat dictatorship... "

Precisely why we are worried that your Party is proposing scrapping it Chris, we don't trust you one inch. Leader For Life George Osborne? *shudder*

Just sent a shitty email to The Grauniad. Extremely vexed with the update which is now being rolled out to other pages without existing issues being fixed.

Couldn't they have sent a polite email telling non-Tories to "f*** off"? It would have been less frustrating than watching the blogs go to hell in a cherry red handcart whilst the blogging equivalent of the Urak Hai clamber over the posts of the ever-decreasing numbers of normal human beings.

Grrr!

http://action.labour.org.uk/index.php/w ... gn=3583852" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The only reason the draft bill is being rushed out is for electioneering - Grayling knows full well that he won't get something of that magnitude and complexity through before the election never mind the fact that they'd almost certainly have the LibDems vote against it.

It's so they can stick it in their manifesto as a fully-worked through (sic) proposal rather than just an empty promise.

JackPranker wrote:Just sent a shitty email to The Grauniad. Extremely vexed with the update which is now being rolled out to other pages without existing issues being fixed.

Couldn't they have sent a polite email telling non-Tories to "f*** off"? It would have been less frustrating than watching the blogs go to hell in a cherry red handcart whilst the blogging equivalent of the Urak Hai clamber over the posts of the ever-decreasing numbers of normal human beings.

Grrr!

Good luck with that. Andrew's reply to me was basically "meh". It is all about page views and advertising revenue, not solid journalism and decent debate; the likes of RingPiece drive clicks, clicks=cash, so he is more valuable to them than we are.

pk1 wrote:http://action.labour.org.uk/index.php/w ... gn=3583852

Getting a blank page PK.

Not a massive fan of Mark Ferguson, but he has a sensible piece at LabourList about polls and the reporting of them.

http://labourlist.org/2014/10/polls-pol ... ion-polls/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For those of you still bothering with the Graun, would I be right in assuming NickyB and RingPiece are reading massive significance into the YouGov poll?

Had an interesting chat in work with a colleague. He's in his twenties and a member of the Conservatives, but he doesn't know who he's going to vote for come May. Ed is still too wierd for him (thanks MSM) but the highlighted flakiness, duplicitous and outright lying of Cameron and Co is putting him off them. Small c Conservative, never going to vote UKIP. I wonder how many others are in the same scenario and what are their choices?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nough.html

Serving in the House of Lords is ‘unaffordable’ for normal people because peers only get a tax-free allowance of £300 a day, a senior Liberal Democrat said last night.

That's Olly Grender (thought* to be Glenn Olive off of the CiF)

Excluding travel, the HoL sits for 150 days

http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/hou ... tatistics/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

£300 * 150 = £45,000 - HOWEVER - that's tax free, so to get a take home of 45,000 you'd need a salary of (does maths)

About 53K. That's hardly hairdresser level. Plus all your commuting costs are covered.


*by me

Edit: The Mail makes it 60,000, but I think that's including NI contributions, which the Lords don't have - however if they want their "stamp" they need to make alternate arrangements. They also don't have a workplace pension scheme, although the Nuvos scheme applies to staff in the HoL

@ frightful_oik

Strange. It's a countdown clock showing how long it's been since the tax cut announcement to the tories first credible explanation of where the funding is coming from.

DonutHingeParty wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nough.html

Serving in the House of Lords is ‘unaffordable’ for normal people because peers only get a tax-free allowance of £300 a day, a senior Liberal Democrat said last night.

That's Olly Grender (thought* to be Glenn Olive off of the CiF)

Excluding travel, the HoL sits for 150 days

http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/hou ... tatistics/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

£300 * 150 = £45,000 - HOWEVER - that's tax free, so to get a take home of 45,000 you'd need a salary of (does maths)

About 53K. That's hardly hairdresser level. Plus all your commuting costs are covered.


*by me

Edit: The Mail makes it 60,000, but I think that's including NI contributions, which the Lords don't have - however if they want their "stamp" they need to make alternate arrangements. They also don't have a workplace pension scheme, although the Nuvos scheme applies to staff in the HoL

I can think of a good number of people that would like £300 per day tax free with subsidised canteens & bars - all of them would be happy to turn up & do a days work for £300 !

Bloody hell, they have no fecking idea how we lesser mortals have to live do they.

pk1 wrote:@ frightful_oik

Strange. It's a countdown clock showing how long it's been since the tax cut announcement to the tories first credible explanation of where the funding is coming from.

Ta PK. Perhaps it's my Macbook.

Good morning.

@AngryAsWell

Thank you for the photographs!

Labour extend their lead in today's Populis online poll.
Lab 38 (+2), Con 33 (-1), LD 8 (+1), UKIP 13 (-1)

Weird figures from all polls, this one is even odder because, as Mike Smithson points out

Both the Populus & YouGov poll show below normal %age of 2010 LD to LAB switchers

In case my post gets modded, here's a copy of the info from the HSJ re Hinchingbrooke & the CQC, that rusty is desperately avoiding:

http://nhap.org/cqc-flags-up-serious-co ... -hospital/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:

JackPranker wrote:Just sent a shitty email to The Grauniad. Extremely vexed with the update which is now being rolled out to other pages without existing issues being fixed.

Couldn't they have sent a polite email telling non-Tories to "f*** off"? It would have been less frustrating than watching the blogs go to hell in a cherry red handcart whilst the blogging equivalent of the Urak Hai clamber over the posts of the ever-decreasing numbers of normal human beings.

Grrr!

Good luck with that. Andrew's reply to me was basically "meh". It is all about page views and advertising revenue, not solid journalism and decent debate; the likes of RingPiece drive clicks, clicks=cash, so he is more valuable to them than we are.

Just received back an email saying "click "current version"". Went back to say that there is no "current version" link and they replied that it must be a technical issue.

The title of my email to them was "Technical Issues with Politics Live beta".

I may bite someone.

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Labour extend their lead in today's Populis online poll.
Lab 38 (+2), Con 33 (-1), LD 8 (+1), UKIP 13 (-1)

Weird figures from all polls, this one is even odder because, as Mike Smithson points out

Both the Populus & YouGov poll show below normal %age of 2010 LD to LAB switchers

Is like the runup to the referendum all over again. My nerves will be in shreds!

Re the polls. I think it's just normal variation and margin of error. All the Tories on UKPR get very excited by any poll showing a movement to the Tories but then go quiet when it doesn't last. It's the overall trend that matters.

What happened to Labour's "rapid rebuttal" strategy (re the Conservative Conference)? I haven't seen much of it in evidence - unless there's just the (usual) dearth of coverage in the press. A bit of aggressive but accurate "rudeness" might alter that situation. If Dominic Grieve can do it (re the the Conservatives' stance on Human Rights - which he rightly dubs "puerile"), so can Labour.


Edited

Brackets. Or words to that effect.

Regarding the polls and the election scenarios.

Which is more likely to get the Conservatives winning seats, taking 10% from the Lib Dems or taking 10% from UKIP?
Is it incorrect to hypothesise that the number of seats the Conservatives would lose directly to, or indirectly because of the UKIP vote is less than the number of Lib Dems seats they could claim in the scenarios outlined?

rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning all.

I've held off posting anything about this for a while ... because those who this most matters to had, apparently, said give her the benefit of doubt and time to explain her position re this and gain our trust.

She still hasn't done so according to these.

Retweeted by David Hencke
Discovery77 ‏@discovery77_ 12h12 hours ago
Fiona Woolf still fails to respond to victims' concerns weeks later after promising statement. http://wp.me/pHiYZ-3M0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; via @davidhencke

Retweeted by David Hencke
The Steeple Times ‏@SteepleTimes 58m58 minutes ago
@Ken_King_1 @davidhencke Fiona Woolf has two options: Step up or throw in the towel: http://thesteepletimes.com/today/fiona-woolf/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Didn't I read somewhere she said she was too busy for the next six months to see to it?

Probably displaying my ignorance but is there a list of the key marginals somewhere?

tinyclanger2 wrote:Probably displaying my ignorance but is there a list of the key marginals somewhere?

Yes, there is. But just to display my ignorance, I can't, at present, remember where it is!

tinyclanger2 wrote:Probably displaying my ignorance but is there a list of the key marginals somewhere?

Or try this: http://electoralcalculus.co.uk/gainloss.html

frightful_oik wrote:

tinyclanger2 wrote:Probably displaying my ignorance but is there a list of the key marginals somewhere?

Or try this: http://electoralcalculus.co.uk/gainloss.html

Possibly the better of the links. I go there whenever McVey has opened her trap again, to calm myself down; EC predicting Wirral West as a Labour gain is better than any tranquiliser.

Interesting; if you plug the YouGOVs into electoral calculus, and with an underplayed UKIP vote, you get this table.

National Prediction: LAB short 10 of majority
Party 2010 Votes 2010 Seats Pred Votes Gains Losses Pred Seats
CON 36.97% 307 35.00% 28 39 296
LAB 29.66% 258 34.00% 58 0 316
LIB 23.56% 57 6.00% 0 46 11
UKIP 3.17% 0 3.17% 0 0 0
NAT 2.26% 9 2.26% 0 0 9
MIN 0.89% 19 0.89% 0 1 18
OTH 3.48% 0 18.68% 0 0 0

tinyclanger2 wrote:Probably displaying my ignorance but is there a list of the key marginals somewhere?

Labour Target Seats
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/labourtargets/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

re: marginals and targets

Thanks! Am compiling composite spreadsheet to track.

DonutHingeParty wrote:Interesting; if you plug the YouGOVs into electoral calculus, and with an underplayed UKIP vote, you get this table.

National Prediction: LAB short 10 of majority
Party 2010 Votes 2010 Seats Pred Votes Gains Losses Pred Seats
CON 36.97% 307 35.00% 28 39 296
LAB 29.66% 258 34.00% 58 0 316
LIB 23.56% 57 6.00% 0 46 11
UKIP 3.17% 0 3.17% 0 0 0
NAT 2.26% 9 2.26% 0 0 9
MIN 0.89% 19 0.89% 0 1 18
OTH 3.48% 0 18.68% 0 0 0

http://electoralcalculus.co.uk/orderedseats.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Liverpool really does hate Tories

Spot the odd post out

StephenDolan wrote:Spot the odd post out

Deleted thanks

StephenDolan wrote:Spot the odd post out

puts that Shakespeare chap to shame!

Join me next week on 'let's make no fucking sense' when I'll be waxing an owl.

adam wrote:Join me next week on 'let's make no fucking sense' when I'll be waxing an owl.

Excellent.

Interesting story in the edu-sector.

Exclusive: Free school ‘forced me out’ for not being top university ready

http://academiesweek.co.uk/lae/

An MP is to start a ‘vigorous’ inquiry into a selective sixth form’s admissions policy after a number of students were ‘kicked out’ for failing to get high enough grades at the end of their first year.

Academies Week has learned that teenagers who do not get certain grades in their AS-levels are being told to leave London Academy of Excellence (LAE) as their marks will not be enough to gain a place at the most “competitive” universities, such as those in the Russell Group.

So basically a free school which is already highly selective in its intake - must have top grades at GCSE and go through interview - then kicks out anyone at the end of year 12 who they think isn't going to get into what they consider the top universities (Russell Group being a self-selected group in any case).

Marvellous. Just what the free school ethos is supposed to be about...

rebeccariots2 wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:General Election ‏@UKELECTIONS2015 56s57 seconds ago
SOUTH TYNESIDE - WESTOE

UKIP 40.9% (+2.9%)
LABOUR 37.9% (-6.9%)
CON 13.3% (-3.9%)
GREEN 5.5%
LD 2.5%

UKIP GAIN

SWING LAB to UKIP 4.9%

The only thing that cheers me up about that is the miserable Lib Dem position. The Greens have overtaken them again - good.

As in that Doncaster by-election earlier this year - vote Green, get UKIP

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:General Election ‏@UKELECTIONS2015 56s57 seconds ago
SOUTH TYNESIDE - WESTOE

UKIP 40.9% (+2.9%)
LABOUR 37.9% (-6.9%)
CON 13.3% (-3.9%)
GREEN 5.5%
LD 2.5%

UKIP GAIN

SWING LAB to UKIP 4.9%

The only thing that cheers me up about that is the miserable Lib Dem position. The Greens have overtaken them again - good.

As in that Doncaster by-election earlier this year - vote Green, get UKIP

Hmmm