Tuesday 16th December 2014

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 3:41 pm

Labour Whips ‏@labourwhips 38m38 minutes ago
7 Tory male MPs vote against #EqualPay: @AdamAfriyie @AidanBurleyMP Chope @SJacksonMP @DavidNuttallMP Laurence Robertson & J Whittingdale

Now there's a list of some of the finest and most honourable of our elected representatives, eh? Who'd have thought Burley and Chope would vote against something like this?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 3:42 pm

"HSJ understands that 5 of the 11 consultants left rather than transfer to Circle, and of the 3 that did transfer only 1 remains in post"

More good news from Circle at Hitchingbrooke.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 3:46 pm

This is the charm offensive clip that letsskip was referring to ...
[youtube]wMCRsBUZtAE[/youtube]

Mark Ferguson @Markfergusonuk · 54m 54 minutes ago
To those who say Jim Murphy can’t beat “charismatic” Nicola Sturgeon. I say, watch this… " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 3:56 pm

Nicola Sturgeon better stay away from the open fire if she's that wooden.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 4:01 pm

Apologies if posted before but Osborne appears to have a bit of a problem. (No, not that one. Or the other one).

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/ ... f_2_1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tizme1 · Post by **Tizme1** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 4:05 pm

gilsey wrote:
Tizme1 wrote: I'm seeking ideas again. Question Time is coming to Watford in January. I don't actually watch it these days but I've decided to at least attempt to get a ticket. Sara Jane is also applying so she'll cover the allotments angle. I need to think of two 'topical' subjects to put on the application. Though how I'm supposed to know what will be topical next month is beyond me. Anyway, I wondered if anyone here could come up with some suggestions? I did think of asking about reducing corporation tax for small businesses but that isn't exactly topical.
You're probably much younger than me so would have to rephrase it, but my question would be:

When I started work in the 70s, the standard rate of income tax varied from year to year, to 'balance the books'. How and why have we got to a place where talking about raising the basic and higher rates of income tax would be considered political suicide?

Thanks gilsey. I like that!

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 4:06 pm

Afternoon all.

Interest to see that the ToryEducation twitter account seems to have been suspended.

Account suspended
The profile you are trying to view has been suspended. To return to your home timeline, click here.

Tories finally woken up to what someone was doing in their name?

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 4:07 pm

StephenDolan wrote:Apologies if posted before but Osborne appears to have a bit of a problem. (No, not that one. Or the other one).

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/ ... f_2_1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Which ties in rather nicely with the Richards piece.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 4:11 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Afternoon all.

Interest to see that the ToryEducation twitter account seems to have been suspended.

Account suspended
The profile you are trying to view has been suspended. To return to your home timeline, click here.

Tories finally woken up to what someone was doing in their name?

Wonder if it's Morgan's doing. She seems to have changed the tone a fair bit.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 4:14 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:Afternoon all.

Interest to see that the ToryEducation twitter account seems to have been suspended.

Account suspended
The profile you are trying to view has been suspended. To return to your home timeline, click here.

Tories finally woken up to what someone was doing in their name?
Wonder if it's Morgan's doing. She seems to have changed the tone a fair bit.

Quite possible - Gove simply wasn't bothered and was quite happy to have someone badmouth anyone who disagreed with him.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 4:23 pm

Oh dear....

Don Valley converted to an academy in Sept 2011 when they were Graded 3 (Satisfactory at the time, now Requires Improvement) and joined the School Partnership Trust Academies (SPTA).

Re-inspected in Dec 2012...still a grade 3.

Re-inspected in Nov 2014...and now grade 4 and in special measures.

That worked well then...

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 4:30 pm

Chris Bryant ‏@ChrisBryantMP 10m10 minutes ago
Yesterday I voted against government's treatment of firefighters, today I voted for equal pay, tomorrow I'll vote to end bedroom tax

But Labour, Tories and the Lib Dems are all the same, aren't they?

Couldn't get a better short summary that shows they're not.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 4:34 pm

Kerry McCarthy MP ‏@KerryMP 5m5 minutes ago
Have just tabled a Q to the Home Secretary about this. I think it's very wrong http://www.bristol247.com/channel/news- ... um-seekers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

It is very wrong.

More than 500 asylum seekers in Bristol say a Home Office decision to stop them signing-in at Trinity Road police station, is a form of "bureaucratic punishment".

All asylum seekers have to sign-in weekly or fortnightly at police stations and, until October this year, the central sign-in point was at Trinity Road police station in Bristol city centre.

However, when the cells at the Trinity were closed, the UK Border Agency (UKBA) moved the operation to Patchway police station, which is a 14 mile round journey from the city centre.

As a result of this move, refugee rights groups claim people are struggling to get to the centre and many are missing whole days of school and college, because of the time it takes to travel to Patchway, and back to their homes.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 4:51 pm

letsskiptotheleft wrote: Good read, as always from Steve Richards, on how Cameron and Osborne are now on the back foot over spending cuts, I read on here that Chris Leslie put up a good fight against that nincompoop David Gauke, Leslie is good, very, I hope he used effectively over the coming months.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 26877.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chris Leslie was good, but nincompoop is almost flattering Gauke, he could hardly string a sentence together.
The intelligence of this govt's ministers can't be underestimated.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 5:10 pm

Interesting stuff.

Why the SNP could struggle to win more than 20 Labour seats
The breathless reporting of Scottish opinion polls disregards how hard it will be for the SNP to win many of Labour’s seats.
http://may2015.com/featured/why-the-snp ... our-seats/

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 5:12 pm

Roger's probably seen this.

Margaret Hodge on good form. Mr Shiny New Academy Broom turns out to be Mr Recycled Failure from (unlucky for him) Islington.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But I guess we won't be hearing from anyone in the Tory Party about this one.

Again, chain allowed to expand far too quickly.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 5:22 pm

Tim Montgomerie ن @montie · 5h 5 hours ago
With inflation dropping to 1% and wages of those in continuous employment rising by 4.1% a feel good factor may return for most voters.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 5:27 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
gilsey wrote:Chris Leslie was good, but nincompoop is almost flattering Gauke, he could hardly string a sentence together.
The intelligence of this govt's ministers can't be underestimated.
Because it's hard to underestimate something that's as low as humanly possible?

Exactly.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 5:36 pm

Murphy's Holyrood options
http://paulhutcheon.blogspot.co.uk/2014 ... tions.html

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 5:50 pm

Just seen a pic of Cameron, at the Parliamentary committee, in shirtsleeves.

I wonder how high the thermostat is set at Westminster ?

The Coalition took £50 off pensioner winter fuel allowances, and have squeezed many others to the point they may be scared to put on their heating for fear of the bills.
Yet Westminster buildings seem to be heated to summer temperature levels while others shiver.

We're all in it together.

So warm in there a woman is wearing short sleeves.

diGriz · Post by **diGriz** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 5:52 pm

yahyah wrote:Just seen a pic of Cameron, at the Parliamentary committee, in shirtsleeves.

I wonder how high the thermostat is set at Westminster ?

The Coalition took £50 off pensioner winter fuel allowances, and have squeezed many others to the point they may be scared to put on their heating for fear of the bills.
Yet Westminster buildings seem to be heated to summer temperature levels while others shiver.

We're all in it together.

He can always cool down with a flute of champers.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 6:01 pm

diGriz wrote:
yahyah wrote:Just seen a pic of Cameron, at the Parliamentary committee, in shirtsleeves.

I wonder how high the thermostat is set at Westminster ?

The Coalition took £50 off pensioner winter fuel allowances, and have squeezed many others to the point they may be scared to put on their heating for fear of the bills.
Yet Westminster buildings seem to be heated to summer temperature levels while others shiver.

We're all in it together.
He can always cool down with a flute of champers.

£140 a bottle stuff back in 2009 when the Tories were laying out their austerity porn policies for us.

''Mr Cameron left the party soon after.

One Tory delegate said: “He left in a hurry after he realised what had happened. He looked in a real huff about it. The last thing he wants is to be caught sipping champagne while he talks all day about spending cuts.” ''
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/da ... gne-423211" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 6:02 pm

: GuardianReadershipVotingIntentions.jpg (61.89 KiB) Viewed 14092 times

Well - going to be interesting if and when they come out and tell us to vote for Tories and Lib Dems so there can be a repeat coalition - ain't it just?

diGriz · Post by **diGriz** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 6:14 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
GuardianReadershipVotingIntentions.jpg
Well - going to be interesting if and when they come out and tell us to vote for Tories and Lib Dems so there can be a repeat coalition - ain't it just?

I don't really want her at the debates. Her voice just grates on me.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 6:15 pm

Just how red is Ed Miliband?
John Prescott’s ‘Red Ed’ slip of the tongue contains political sense: though if the colour suits the Labour leader, it’s definitely a new shade
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... our-leader

Don't look BTL if you value your sanity.

Burnell's piece is not anti Ed - it has ebb and flow, and some background. Cue outrage.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 6:19 pm

Can someone please explain to me how those Guardian reader voting intentions .... can possibly match up with what we are seeing BTL which is increasingly rabidly anti Labour, pro Ukip, pro SNP etc etc? Where are these readers - and how are the Guardian polling them for their voting intention?

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 6:20 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Just how red is Ed Miliband?
John Prescott’s ‘Red Ed’ slip of the tongue contains political sense: though if the colour suits the Labour leader, it’s definitely a new shade
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... our-leader
Don't look BTL if you value your sanity.

Burnell's piece is not anti Ed - it has ebb and flow, and some background. Cue outrage.

It is actually quite a decent piece, if utterly trivial.

Bunch of complete twats posting BTL. A toxic combination of SNP nutters, and True Socialist tossers.

Presumably looking forward to Osborne fucking over the country because Ed wasn't a true socialist.

Excuse my utter contempt.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 6:23 pm

diGriz wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
GuardianReadershipVotingIntentions.jpg
Well - going to be interesting if and when they come out and tell us to vote for Tories and Lib Dems so there can be a repeat coalition - ain't it just?
I don't really want her at the debates. Her voice just grates on me.

Careful DiGriz, you may incur the wrath of the great green lurker in the sky.

It will get unwieldy with too many people debating.

Better to have the leaders of the small parties, Greens, Lib Dems and UKIP together.
Leave Ed & Cameron to get on with it.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 6:23 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:Can someone please explain to me how those Guardian reader voting intentions .... can possibly match up with what we are seeing BTL which is increasingly rabidly anti Labour, pro Ukip, pro SNP etc etc? Where are these readers - and how are the Guardian polling them for their voting intention?

Easy, a tiny number of people post comments in the Guardian. Their opinions are utterly irrelevant (and I include myself in that).

The Guardian isn't polling them, it regards them as an embarrassment and of value only as click bait.

If you read the Telegraph you will see the UK consists of racist holocaust deniers.

Ignore the CiF commentariat, everybody else does.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 6:27 pm

I know you will all want to be reminded that this evening's Leader Live Debate is with Nick Clegg at 7pm

You can catch it on the ITV News website.

http://www.itv.com/news/2014-12-16/lead ... questions/

Don't all immediately rush to get your supper - you know you want to watch really.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 6:28 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:Can someone please explain to me how those Guardian reader voting intentions .... can possibly match up with what we are seeing BTL which is increasingly rabidly anti Labour, pro Ukip, pro SNP etc etc? Where are these readers - and how are the Guardian polling them for their voting intention?
Easy, a tiny number of people post comments in the Guardian. Their opinions are utterly irrelevant (and I include myself in that).

The Guardian isn't polling them, it regards them as an embarrassment and of value only as click bait.

If you read the Telegraph you will see the UK consists of racist holocaust deniers.

Ignore the CiF commentariat, everybody else does.

So where are they polling them then?

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 6:32 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:Can someone please explain to me how those Guardian reader voting intentions .... can possibly match up with what we are seeing BTL which is increasingly rabidly anti Labour, pro Ukip, pro SNP etc etc? Where are these readers - and how are the Guardian polling them for their voting intention?
Easy, a tiny number of people post comments in the Guardian. Their opinions are utterly irrelevant (and I include myself in that).

The Guardian isn't polling them, it regards them as an embarrassment and of value only as click bait.

If you read the Telegraph you will see the UK consists of racist holocaust deniers.

Ignore the CiF commentariat, everybody else does.
So where are they polling them then?

Well if they are polling readership (you will have to point me at the poll), they are using a sophisticated selection mechanism probably based on market surveys. This will pick up a sample of the readership (of which maybe 2% comment).

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 6:34 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote: Easy, a tiny number of people post comments in the Guardian. Their opinions are utterly irrelevant (and I include myself in that).

The Guardian isn't polling them, it regards them as an embarrassment and of value only as click bait.

If you read the Telegraph you will see the UK consists of racist holocaust deniers.

Ignore the CiF commentariat, everybody else does.
So where are they polling them then?
Well if they are polling readership (you will have to point me at the poll), they are using a sophisticated selection mechanism probably based on market surveys. This will pick up a sample of the readership (of which maybe 2% comment).

I asked because I wondered if it was linked in with their new 'membership' scheme. Which I heard someone say on the media programme the other day is a subscription scheme by any other name ... and will be explicitly turned into such at some point in the future.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 6:40 pm

George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 1h1 hour ago
Good spot by @LabourList: Tories fail to lead on top three election issues in new ComRes poll http://labli.st/1uOsoRy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 6:43 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Just how red is Ed Miliband?
John Prescott’s ‘Red Ed’ slip of the tongue contains political sense: though if the colour suits the Labour leader, it’s definitely a new shade
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... our-leader
Don't look BTL if you value your sanity.

Burnell's piece is not anti Ed - it has ebb and flow, and some background. Cue outrage.

It is actually quite a decent piece, if utterly trivial.

Bunch of complete twats posting BTL. A toxic combination of SNP nutters, and True Socialist tossers.

Presumably looking forward to Osborne fucking over the country because Ed wasn't a true socialist.

Excuse my utter contempt.

Ah, man, the true Socialists. There's one chap who keeps mentioning TUSC- who got 13 votes in Blackbird Leys recently.

The silly thing is I know quite a few true Socialists. One, an ardent SWPer, has no problem at all with voting Labour where you have to.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 7:01 pm

Iain Dale @IainDale · 20h 20 hours ago
New Blog by me: General Election Predictions 2: Norfolk: This is the second in a series of blogposts which wil... http://bit.ly/1wbkI12" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Spacedone · Post by **Spacedone** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 7:17 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:I know you will all want to be reminded that this evening's Leader Live Debate is with Nick Clegg at 7pm

You can catch it on the ITV News website.

http://www.itv.com/news/2014-12-16/lead ... questions/

Don't all immediately rush to get your supper - you know you want to watch really.

Clegg sounding really nervous to me. It's probably the first time in 5 years he's been that close to students without being separated by a metal barrier and a police force.

Edit: First question from the audience on tuition fees, asking him to promise to scrap it. Oh dear...

And Clegg's answer is "We only put up fees because the Tories made us vote for it."

Spacedone · Post by **Spacedone** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 7:21 pm

He's been talking for 5 minutes and he still hasn't answered the simple question that was put to him.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 7:25 pm

Spacedone wrote:He's been talking for 5 minutes and he still hasn't answered the simple question that was put to him.

He does seem very gabbly and over gesturing. Also drinking a lot of water.

And ... he was cheeky in saying that there would have been no difference re tuition fees whether Labour or Tories got in......

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 7:26 pm

An open letter to Russell Brand.
http://blog.squandertwo.net/2014/12/an- ... d.html?m=1

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 7:33 pm

They don't rate Clegg's education policies then.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 7:34 pm

Oh dear, talk about only making things worse...

Shamed Ukip candidate: my language was no worse than Fools & Horses

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -dark-arts

On Tuesday night, Smith gave an interview to the BBC saying he had been too politically incorrect, but that his language had been “no worse than watching an old episode of Fools and Horses, to be fair”.

Now I might be wrong and my memory might be going a bit but I don't actually remember Del Boy calling anyone a “fucking disgusting poofter"...

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 7:41 pm

HM Treasury admits to potential £663m of Universal Credit IT cost write-off
http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/pub ... write-off/
The government may have to write off £663 million on Universal Credit IT, a senior official has warned.

Just £34 million of the £697 million spent on IT assets will be used for the final permanent system, it emerged during a Public Accounts Committee hearing yesterday.

The amount written off is three times as much as what the National Audit Office (NAO) recently predicted, although PAC chair Margaret Hodge did claim in October that the next government would have to scrap over £500 million worth of Universal Credit IT.

The losses are a result of the ‘twin track’ development model, whereby existing systems for national implementation are being developed alongside a new digital solution. The government plans to eventually switch from current systems to the digital solution for all claimants.

Sharon White, director general of public spending at HM Treasury (pictured), insisted that although the existing systems will not be used, they represent “value for money”.

She said the development of two systems provided a “plan B” in case the digital solution proved unworkable and meant the government would avoid putting “all its eggs in one basket”...

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 7:51 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
HM Treasury admits to potential £663m of Universal Credit IT cost write-off
http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/pub ... write-off/
The government may have to write off £663 million on Universal Credit IT, a senior official has warned.

Just £34 million of the £697 million spent on IT assets will be used for the final permanent system, it emerged during a Public Accounts Committee hearing yesterday.

The amount written off is three times as much as what the National Audit Office (NAO) recently predicted, although PAC chair Margaret Hodge did claim in October that the next government would have to scrap over £500 million worth of Universal Credit IT.

The losses are a result of the ‘twin track’ development model, whereby existing systems for national implementation are being developed alongside a new digital solution. The government plans to eventually switch from current systems to the digital solution for all claimants.

Sharon White, director general of public spending at HM Treasury (pictured), insisted that although the existing systems will not be used, they represent “value for money”.

She said the development of two systems provided a “plan B” in case the digital solution proved unworkable and meant the government would avoid putting “all its eggs in one basket”...

Never realised until a week or so back that she was Robert Chote's other half...table talk must have been interesting..."You'll never guess what Osborne said today!"

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 7:51 pm

In there:

White admitted the final business case for Universal Credit may not be signed off by HM Treasury until as late as January 2017.

Is Smith getting any shit for lying to Parliament (in reply to a planted question by the hopefully soon departed Nigel Mills) that it was signed off?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 7:57 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
HM Treasury admits to potential £663m of Universal Credit IT cost write-off
http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/pub ... write-off/
The government may have to write off £663 million on Universal Credit IT, a senior official has warned.

Just £34 million of the £697 million spent on IT assets will be used for the final permanent system, it emerged during a Public Accounts Committee hearing yesterday.

The amount written off is three times as much as what the National Audit Office (NAO) recently predicted, although PAC chair Margaret Hodge did claim in October that the next government would have to scrap over £500 million worth of Universal Credit IT.

The losses are a result of the ‘twin track’ development model, whereby existing systems for national implementation are being developed alongside a new digital solution. The government plans to eventually switch from current systems to the digital solution for all claimants.

Sharon White, director general of public spending at HM Treasury (pictured), insisted that although the existing systems will not be used, they represent “value for money”.

She said the development of two systems provided a “plan B” in case the digital solution proved unworkable and meant the government would avoid putting “all its eggs in one basket”...
Never realised until a week or so back that she was Robert Chote's other half...table talk must have been interesting..."You'll never guess what Osborne said today!"

Private Eye?

I thought they were out of order with criticizing Chote. He basically said in the OBR report on Osborne that the plans were dubious.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 8:00 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:In there:

White admitted the final business case for Universal Credit may not be signed off by HM Treasury until as late as January 2017.
Is Smith getting any shit for lying to Parliament (in reply to a planted question by the hopefully soon departed Nigel Mills) that it was signed off?

What do you think Tubby? I haven't seen any airborne pigs recently.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 8:01 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:Can someone please explain to me how those Guardian reader voting intentions .... can possibly match up with what we are seeing BTL which is increasingly rabidly anti Labour, pro Ukip, pro SNP etc etc? Where are these readers - and how are the Guardian polling them for their voting intention?
Easy, a tiny number of people post comments in the Guardian. Their opinions are utterly irrelevant (and I include myself in that).

The Guardian isn't polling them, it regards them as an embarrassment and of value only as click bait.

If you read the Telegraph you will see the UK consists of racist holocaust deniers.

Ignore the CiF commentariat, everybody else does.

You're under-estimating the influence a small number of Guardian commentators may have below the line. I post this not to encourage or discourage anyone here posting below the line on the G or anywhere else. I accept I may be wrong but I'm probably not.

http://web.stanford.edu/class/symbsys20 ... point.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good evening, everyone.

Tizme1 · Post by **Tizme1** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 8:02 pm

diGriz wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
GuardianReadershipVotingIntentions.jpg
Well - going to be interesting if and when they come out and tell us to vote for Tories and Lib Dems so there can be a repeat coalition - ain't it just?
I don't really want her at the debates. Her voice just grates on me.

*chuckle*

Isn't that a bit like not wanting a person to be Prime Minister because they 'look a bit weird'? That said, Cameron's voice grates on me. As did John Major's.

Speaking of which [Ed looking 'weird' I mean], has anyone ever been able to get an explanation in what way he supposedly looks 'weird'? I was speaking to my eldest son about this just the other day and he said that ''Miliband looks weird but its not a reason not to vote for him, or at least it shouldn't be". I asked him in what way does Miliband look weird and he replied "he just does". Now I know my son is not at all racist and he doesn't dislike Miliband so it's not the looks Jewish/foreign thing. And I don't think he [my son] would come to this conclusion just because its in the papers/other people say it. I suggested that maybe Ed isn't particularly photogenic [not to mention the msm choose the worst pics they can find of him]. I'm really at a loss to understand it though.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Tue 16 Dec, 2014 8:03 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote: Don't look BTL if you value your sanity.

Burnell's piece is not anti Ed - it has ebb and flow, and some background. Cue outrage.

It is actually quite a decent piece, if utterly trivial.

Bunch of complete twats posting BTL. A toxic combination of SNP nutters, and True Socialist tossers.

Presumably looking forward to Osborne fucking over the country because Ed wasn't a true socialist.

Excuse my utter contempt.

Ah, man, the true Socialists. There's one chap who keeps mentioning TUSC- who got 13 votes in Blackbird Leys recently.

The silly thing is I know quite a few true Socialists. One, an ardent SWPer, has no problem at all with voting Labour where you have to.

Oh god, I had a 'conversation' with one of those on Twitter yesterday. Life is too short.