Tuesday 20th January 2015

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 6:59 am

Parties warned over repercussions of hung parliament after general election

http://gu.com/p/452t2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And by parties, we of course mean Labour under Miliband. Sources are 'alarmed'.

Wintour, Watt, Rentoul and DFH, there's no subtlety these days. May is looming.

Post by **refitman** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 7:31 am

Morning all. Conservatives and Labour tied on Yougov:

Latest YouGov / The Sun results 19th January -

Con 32%, (+1)
Lab 32%, (nc)
LD 8%, (+1)
UKIP 18%, (nc)
GRN 7%; (nc)

APP -20 (+2)

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 8:11 am

I saw yahyah asking James Walsh at the Graun, when would they tell their readers which party they are endorsing this year.
Having thought about it & given the recent hysteria over the Greens & the debates, I reckon the opening para will read as at 2010 but with an alteration:

Citizens have votes. Newspapers do not. However, if the Guardian had a vote in the 2010 general election it would be cast enthusiastically for the ~~Liberal Democrats~~ Green Party.

Anything to split the vote & ensure their precious LDs remain king-makers

Morning all.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 8:16 am

Anybody see Steve Hewlett on Newsnight claiming that the Scum has stopped Page 3 because their readers are mostly female

& they want to change their image ?

Yup, the paper that still has journalists in court (albeit that several have been found not guilty of the various charges laid against them), has Trevor Kavanagh as one of it's columnists & has newly re-employed Kelvin Vile McKenzie !

Change of image my arse !!

Toby Latimer · Post by **Toby Latimer** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 8:18 am

Can someone get Mrs Merton back on telly to ask ;

"So, Lord Peter Baron Mandelson, of Foy in the County of Herefordshire and of Hartlepool in the County of Durham, friend of the Blairs, Rothschilds, Gaddaffi's and various oligarchs - What was it about the Mansion Tax that first made you take a dislike to the idea ?"

: ScreenShot00076.jpg (116.06 KiB) Viewed 13276 times

Post by **refitman** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 8:18 am

Now Farage wants private insurance to fund the NHS. Getting dizzy from the u-turns.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... nce-market" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 9:00 am

pk1 wrote:I saw yahyah asking James Walsh at the Graun, when would they tell their readers which party they are endorsing this year.
Having thought about it & given the recent hysteria over the Greens & the debates, I reckon the opening para will read as at 2010 but with an alteration:

Citizens have votes. Newspapers do not. However, if the Guardian had a vote in the 2010 general election it would be cast enthusiastically for the ~~Liberal Democrats~~ Green Party.
Anything to split the vote & ensure their precious LDs remain king-makers

Morning all.

Have been thinking pretty much the same PK. Nice to have you posting.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 9:08 am

Morning all...I don't wish to be contentious but...(and TE, it's a more general moan than anything personal

)

@TE wrote:
To be fair, I found myself agreeing with the more level headed critique of the policy, that it removes parental choice. The state knows what's best for little Jimmy might have worked in the 50s, not so sure it does now.

What qualifications do parents have to know what's best for little Jimmy? They might know what they want to happen but can you ever really be sure? What if you 'select' a school for little Jimmy, manage to get a place (unlike 15 other children in his primary class, who are doomed to attend the 'bad' school in the area (what about their parents 'right to choose' a good education for their own 'little Jimmy'?)) but when little Jimmy gets there, the Headteacher has changed and, by the time he comes to take his all-important iGSCEGCSE'O'LevelEnglishEuropeanInternationalBaccalaureate, the school is now languishing at the bottom of the 'league tables'?

While I believe there are many things the state does very well it can only operate in a framework of informed choice and consent (note giving a patient in the NHS an arbitrary choice, which they cannot understand in the name of choice is not the same thing).

Quite - but I don't understand why the choice in Education is more valid than that in health - frankly, money/business has no place in health or education - the State has a responsibility to educate all of its' child citizens to an adequate level and to encourage critical thinking. The tick-box Atlantic Bridgery that has circulated around education since Thatcher the Milk-snatcher and Keith Joseph (the only name that would bring the Wolfiemother to swearing and real anger and embedded in my brain from witnessing such an unusual outburst - possibly leading to the interest in politics) has had no real educational agenda - in grown up countries (that haven't yet succumbed to the Neo-Liberal division strategy) you become a parent, you send your child to the local school and they get educated. As a parent that's my choice....do I have that choice? Don't parents have enough to contend with? It is (IMHO) another example of divide and rule...if you can get the media to endlessly trumpet the 'parental choice' angle, you no longer need to worry about actually educating anyone - as we've seen, if you have enough money, your child will be OK - if you don't - well, good luck

While I'm at it, can I just say that pretending people like David Laws, Andrew Adonis or any of Goves' little helpers (Lord Cash/Agony-ew etc) are doing anything other than implementing the neo-liberal agenda of stripping out as much public money as possible before getting caught, rather than actual looking at the practicalities of providing the citizenry with a good education is at best, naive. (Whilst their own 'little Jimmys', of course, (those that have them) are well and truly sorted - many privately educated students know where they'll work and what they'll be doing before they even go to school - even the BBC has some new employees at a school not far from Hope (in La Mencshs' old constituency)).

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 9:23 am

The Poke @ThePoke · 2h 2 hours ago
'Perhaps if we just put it online nobody will notice'

Is this for real? Or is it less change of image, more change of format?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 9:31 am

Morning

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 9:32 am

Lonewolfie wrote:Morning all...I don't wish to be contentious but...(and TE, it's a more general moan than anything personal )

@TE wrote:
To be fair, I found myself agreeing with the more level headed critique of the policy, that it removes parental choice. The state knows what's best for little Jimmy might have worked in the 50s, not so sure it does now.

What qualifications do parents have to know what's best for little Jimmy? They might know what they want to happen but can you ever really be sure? What if you 'select' a school for little Jimmy, manage to get a place (unlike 15 other children in his primary class, who are doomed to attend the 'bad' school in the area (what about their parents 'right to choose' a good education for their own 'little Jimmy'?)) but when little Jimmy gets there, the Headteacher has changed and, by the time he comes to take his all-important iGSCEGCSE'O'LevelEnglishEuropeanInternationalBaccalaureate, the school is now languishing at the bottom of the 'league tables'?

While I believe there are many things the state does very well it can only operate in a framework of informed choice and consent (note giving a patient in the NHS an arbitrary choice, which they cannot understand in the name of choice is not the same thing).

Quite - but I don't understand why the choice in Education is more valid than that in health - frankly, money/business has no place in health or education - the State has a responsibility to educate all of its' child citizens to an adequate level and to encourage critical thinking. The tick-box Atlantic Bridgery that has circulated around education since Thatcher the Milk-snatcher and Keith Joseph (the only name that would bring the Wolfiemother to swearing and real anger and embedded in my brain from witnessing such an unusual outburst - possibly leading to the interest in politics) has had no real educational agenda - in grown up countries (that haven't yet succumbed to the Neo-Liberal division strategy) you become a parent, you send your child to the local school and they get educated. As a parent that's my choice....do I have that choice? Don't parents have enough to contend with? It is (IMHO) another example of divide and rule...if you can get the media to endlessly trumpet the 'parental choice' angle, you no longer need to worry about actually educating anyone - as we've seen, if you have enough money, your child will be OK - if you don't - well, good luck

While I'm at it, can I just say that pretending people like David Laws, Andrew Adonis or any of Goves' little helpers (Lord Cash/Agony-ew etc) are doing anything other than implementing the neo-liberal agenda of stripping out as much public money as possible before getting caught, rather than actual looking at the practicalities of providing the citizenry with a good education is at best, naive. (Whilst their own 'little Jimmys', of course, (those that have them) are well and truly sorted - many privately educated students know where they'll work and what they'll be doing before they even go to school - even the BBC has some new employees at a school not far from Hope (in La Mencshs' old constituency)).

Well the answer to the question is the parents know little Jimmy. In reality as far as education goes the choice genie is out of the box, you can't put it back.

The difference with health is that it is far more complex and yet at the same time simpler, illness tends not to have personality or ambition. In that case the choice is to be given the best treatment with the best outcome (this doesn't always happen).

I would of course favour the David Davis approach of banning all private education, but you probably can't legally do that and the super rich would send their kids abroad (which is what the worlds dictators do today).

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 9:46 am

I've dropped off news for about thirty-six hours or so.

Chuka Umunna walked out of a television interview on Monday after he was asked to give his view on the controversial letter sent to 1,000 Muslim leaders by communities secretary Eric Pickles.
Umunna was frustrated because he was pressed live on Sky News over whether he would describe the letter as “patronising” when he had not actually read it and was booked to talk about the prime minister’s speech about the economy.

Asked whether he would like to come back on the show in half hour, after having read it, Umunna hit back at the “ridiculous” request and then subsequently walked off screen while the camera was still on him.

"I was asked to come and speak about David Cameron’s speech on the economy and what was happening around the labour market. Nobody told me I was going to come on to this programme and asked to agree whether I thought the government was patronising Muslim people and Muslim leaders. I’m not just going to speak off piste without actually having read a letter. I don’t think you are being terribly fair. Your viewers can make their own decision.”

(my bold)

You've got to be god damn kidding me. How rude, disgraceful, PATRONISING of whoever the hell asked the Shadow Minister that.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... 06b3d9a006

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 9:57 am

citizenJA wrote:I've dropped off news for about thirty-six hours or so.

Chuka Umunna walked out of a television interview on Monday after he was asked to give his view on the controversial letter sent to 1,000 Muslim leaders by communities secretary Eric Pickles.
Umunna was frustrated because he was pressed live on Sky News over whether he would describe the letter as “patronising” when he had not actually read it and was booked to talk about the prime minister’s speech about the economy.

Asked whether he would like to come back on the show in half hour, after having read it, Umunna hit back at the “ridiculous” request and then subsequently walked off screen while the camera was still on him.

"I was asked to come and speak about David Cameron’s speech on the economy and what was happening around the labour market. Nobody told me I was going to come on to this programme and asked to agree whether I thought the government was patronising Muslim people and Muslim leaders. I’m not just going to speak off piste without actually having read a letter. I don’t think you are being terribly fair. Your viewers can make their own decision.”
(my bold)

You've got to be god damn kidding me. How rude, disgraceful, PATRONISING of whoever the hell asked the Shadow Minister that.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... 06b3d9a006

That was't the worst of it - it was Murnaghan's passing shot of something like "go and get the party line" that made him walk off.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 9:58 am

Looks like Owen Jones is now having a lot of difficult conversations with twitter Green folks - as well as those happening here and on Lib Dem Voice - and, no doubt, lots of other fora. Interesting for me ... because I've wondered over the past few years what Owen Jones would advocate re voting ... and he's certainly not slow to criticise Labour. This seems to say he's doing the pragmatic.

Mr Fletcher ‏@Daddiesmilk 15h15 hours ago
@OwenJones84 @GazFleming1 I don't think you're naive, i think you are a coward and a populist. Tactical voting stops when we decide it does.

Owen Jones ‏@OwenJones84 15h15 hours ago
@Daddiesmilk @GazFleming1 if I’m a coward for not wanting to screw over bedroom tax victims for another 5 years, then yes, I am a coward

Mr G. Fleming ‏@GazFleming1 15h15 hours ago
@OwenJones84 @Daddiesmilk The man is using 'coward'(harsh) in relation to your defeatist attitude to change. squirming within status quo.

Owen Jones ‏@OwenJones84 15h15 hours ago
@GazFleming1 @Daddiesmilk also *beyond deluded* to believe leftish voters voting Green in marginals will do anything than elect Tory MPs

Mr Fletcher ‏@Daddiesmilk 15h15 hours ago
@OwenJones84 @GazFleming1 Now now i understand how the first past the post system works. Expanding the narrative is most important right now

Owen Jones ‏@OwenJones84 15h15 hours ago
@Daddiesmilk @GazFleming1 fine. If you don’t vote for Labour in Lab-Con marginal, you may as well just vote Tory.

The bit that I have bolded is my fear ... that those living / clinging on in absolute desperation from things like the bedroom tax will wake up on May 8th and be facing more of the same. We've got quite a lot of such people in this seat - including the couple in Clunderwen who care for their disabled grandson who have been fighting their / his cause in the courts. I have plenty of my own criticisms of Labour's caution - they're not left and bold enough for me either - but it's that bit in bold, and the grisly fate in store for wildlife and the environment, that makes me determined to do all I can to try to get this seat to change. Plus - trotting around with our candidate and getting to know him I am also assured that he's not a cardboard cutout politician and can bend his ear about stuff that I think matters and he ought to know more about.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 10:03 am

Foul language has been used against me & other commentators below the line at the G. Ugliness. Pure hatred stirred up & used by one party. That party is the one who's few members want to continue to own absolutely everything.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 10:05 am

That was't the worst of it - it was Murnaghan's passing shot of something like "go and get the party line" that made him walk off.

I see.

Anyone want Tories in government? Not me.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 10:13 am

Haven't been around much as not too well; went to my sponsor's funeral yesterday, so I'm a bit fragile.
It was a very moving service, with a lot of joy too; some AA people travelled from abroad to be there.
Her passing is mourned, but her life was celebrated in style yesterday.

And on to other matters - it may have been mentioned here, so apologies if so.
The Daily Heil has an article about the Maximus/Sue Marsh thing, and the comments BTL are predictable.
It is not sensible to dismiss the hateful rantings, as unfortunately the Mail readers (and many others who read tabloids) are not only very numerous they take what they read seriously. Their verdict is as misinformed as you'd expect - but the mud will stick.

Unfortunately, Sue and those who defend her decision may well have good arguments; whilst I don't agree with them, the fact is that they are as valid a point of view as mine. They also depend on people using their intelligence, a trait lacking in the sort of people who comment on the Mail.
It was inevitable that there would be a backlash eventually - and it will do the wider debate on these issues no good at all.

As long as the MSM continue to parrot the DWPs misleading press releases and regurgitate the lies emanating from ministers, no reasonable discussion with the tabloid-reading public is possible - and Sue Marsh's appointment with Maximus is just more grist to the propaganda mill, and I have no doubt that other media outlets will follow suit with more of the same.

All very tedious, all very predictable, and all doing the cause some of us have been supporting for many years no good at all. I'm very pissed off.

Post by **refitman** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 10:21 am

ephemerid wrote:Haven't been around much as not too well; went to my sponsor's funeral yesterday, so I'm a bit fragile.
It was a very moving service, with a lot of joy too; some AA people travelled from abroad to be there.
Her passing is mourned, but her life was celebrated in style yesterday.

And on to other matters - it may have been mentioned here, so apologies if so.
The Daily Heil has an article about the Maximus/Sue Marsh thing, and the comments BTL are predictable.
It is not sensible to dismiss the hateful rantings, as unfortunately the Mail readers (and many others who read tabloids) are not only very numerous they take what they read seriously. Their verdict is as misinformed as you'd expect - but the mud will stick.

Unfortunately, Sue and those who defend her decision may well have good arguments; whilst I don't agree with them, the fact is that they are as valid a point of view as mine. They also depend on people using their intelligence, a trait lacking in the sort of people who comment on the Mail.
It was inevitable that there would be a backlash eventually - and it will do the wider debate on these issues no good at all.

As long as the MSM continue to parrot the DWPs misleading press releases and regurgitate the lies emanating from ministers, no reasonable discussion with the tabloid-reading public is possible - and Sue Marsh's appointment with Maximus is just more grist to the propaganda mill, and I have no doubt that other media outlets will follow suit with more of the same.

All very tedious, all very predictable, and all doing the cause some of us have been supporting for many years no good at all. I'm very pissed off.

Hope you feel better soon Ephie. Have a hug (or two)

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 10:36 am

'Shy' Tory voters improve Labour's poll performance
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics ... 88769.html
... Ed Miliband's election hopes are being routinely over-estimated in opinion polls, according to the analyst who first spotted the “shy Tories” phenomenon in the Nineties.

Robert Hayward believes that Labour’s vote share is shown between two and four percentage points higher than it really is.

And the Conservative and Green Party shares are, he believes, between one and two points lower in the polls than in reality. If correct, polls that show the parties level-pegging should show the Conservatives with a slim lead of three to six per cent.

Mr Hayward was the elections guru who advised John Major not to panic in 1992 when polls showed Labour leader Neil Kinnock was set to win power...

Shy Tories - as opposed to - proudly brazen Ukippers?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 10:39 am

LabourList @LabourList · 4h 4 hours ago
Brace yourself - "swiftboating" is coming to UK politics, warns @jreedmp http://labli.st/1CdX1Yj" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 10:49 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
'Shy' Tory voters improve Labour's poll performance
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics ... 88769.html
... Ed Miliband's election hopes are being routinely over-estimated in opinion polls, according to the analyst who first spotted the “shy Tories” phenomenon in the Nineties.

Robert Hayward believes that Labour’s vote share is shown between two and four percentage points higher than it really is.

And the Conservative and Green Party shares are, he believes, between one and two points lower in the polls than in reality. If correct, polls that show the parties level-pegging should show the Conservatives with a slim lead of three to six per cent.

Mr Hayward was the elections guru who advised John Major not to panic in 1992 when polls showed Labour leader Neil Kinnock was set to win power...
Shy Tories - as opposed to - proudly brazen Ukippers?

They'll cling to any old kind of delusion, won't they? Get it into your heads, the country hates your guts!

(Edited for yet another typo)

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 10:51 am

refitman wrote:
Hope you feel better soon Ephie. Have a hug (or two)

Thank you, D. Cuddles are good.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 10:52 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
LabourList @LabourList · 4h 4 hours ago
Brace yourself - "swiftboating" is coming to UK politics, warns @jreedmp http://labli.st/1CdX1Yj" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Excellent article.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 10:53 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
'Shy' Tory voters improve Labour's poll performance
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics ... 88769.html
... Ed Miliband's election hopes are being routinely over-estimated in opinion polls, according to the analyst who first spotted the “shy Tories” phenomenon in the Nineties.

Robert Hayward believes that Labour’s vote share is shown between two and four percentage points higher than it really is.

And the Conservative and Green Party shares are, he believes, between one and two points lower in the polls than in reality. If correct, polls that show the parties level-pegging should show the Conservatives with a slim lead of three to six per cent.

Mr Hayward was the elections guru who advised John Major not to panic in 1992 when polls showed Labour leader Neil Kinnock was set to win power...
Shy Tories - as opposed to - proudly brazen Ukippers?

The polls correct for shy Tory voters. Which at the end of the day is why they do all that weighting, this guy has failed to notice that 92 changed polling methodology.

Why he thinks they also underestimate the Greens is beyond me.

I am encouraged by the fact Owen Jones appears to have a grip on reality. One thing the Greens don't quite seem to get is that if their votes are perceived to have elected a Tory government they will suffer the same fate Nader did in America.

I am hoping they will work this out prior to the election campaign and adjust message accordingly. It is a tricky balancing act though and while I believe Lucas has the best interests of the UK at heart I don't think Bennett does.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 10:54 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
'Shy' Tory voters improve Labour's poll performance
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics ... 88769.html
... Ed Miliband's election hopes are being routinely over-estimated in opinion polls, according to the analyst who first spotted the “shy Tories” phenomenon in the Nineties.

Robert Hayward believes that Labour’s vote share is shown between two and four percentage points higher than it really is.

And the Conservative and Green Party shares are, he believes, between one and two points lower in the polls than in reality. If correct, polls that show the parties level-pegging should show the Conservatives with a slim lead of three to six per cent.

Mr Hayward was the elections guru who advised John Major not to panic in 1992 when polls showed Labour leader Neil Kinnock was set to win power...
Shy Tories - as opposed to - proudly brazen Ukippers?

So the greens will go down in the polls and go to....?

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 11:06 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
'Shy' Tory voters improve Labour's poll performance
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics ... 88769.html
... Ed Miliband's election hopes are being routinely over-estimated in opinion polls, according to the analyst who first spotted the “shy Tories” phenomenon in the Nineties.

Robert Hayward believes that Labour’s vote share is shown between two and four percentage points higher than it really is.

And the Conservative and Green Party shares are, he believes, between one and two points lower in the polls than in reality. If correct, polls that show the parties level-pegging should show the Conservatives with a slim lead of three to six per cent.

Mr Hayward was the elections guru who advised John Major not to panic in 1992 when polls showed Labour leader Neil Kinnock was set to win power...
Shy Tories - as opposed to - proudly brazen Ukippers?

I thought polls already adjusted for "shy Tories". At this rate, no one on the right is going to believe Cameron's behind, even when they wake up on May 8th and we have more Labour MPs. They'll be walking around going "Cameron won really, it's just that people were too shy to actually vote for him. No one wanted a Labour government, they were just too embarrassed to vote for someone else."

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 11:14 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
'Shy' Tory voters improve Labour's poll performance
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics ... 88769.html
... Ed Miliband's election hopes are being routinely over-estimated in opinion polls, according to the analyst who first spotted the “shy Tories” phenomenon in the Nineties.

Robert Hayward believes that Labour’s vote share is shown between two and four percentage points higher than it really is.

And the Conservative and Green Party shares are, he believes, between one and two points lower in the polls than in reality. If correct, polls that show the parties level-pegging should show the Conservatives with a slim lead of three to six per cent.

Mr Hayward was the elections guru who advised John Major not to panic in 1992 when polls showed Labour leader Neil Kinnock was set to win power...
Shy Tories - as opposed to - proudly brazen Ukippers?

Is that Rob Hayward the former Tory MP, perchance?

And we can look at previous GEs for evidence on this, too. 2010 actually saw *Labour* understated slightly in the final polls, and in 2005 the Tories did no better in them than on the day. If the Tories are now relying on what is effectively a historical artefact for salvation.......

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 11:15 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
LabourList @LabourList · 4h 4 hours ago
Brace yourself - "swiftboating" is coming to UK politics, warns @jreedmp http://labli.st/1CdX1Yj" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As the article says, they've been doing it for quite a while. Ed's father for instance.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 11:28 am

Willow904 wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
'Shy' Tory voters improve Labour's poll performance
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics ... 88769.html
... Ed Miliband's election hopes are being routinely over-estimated in opinion polls, according to the analyst who first spotted the “shy Tories” phenomenon in the Nineties.

Robert Hayward believes that Labour’s vote share is shown between two and four percentage points higher than it really is.

And the Conservative and Green Party shares are, he believes, between one and two points lower in the polls than in reality. If correct, polls that show the parties level-pegging should show the Conservatives with a slim lead of three to six per cent.

Mr Hayward was the elections guru who advised John Major not to panic in 1992 when polls showed Labour leader Neil Kinnock was set to win power...
Shy Tories - as opposed to - proudly brazen Ukippers?
I thought polls already adjusted for "shy Tories". At this rate, no one on the right is going to believe Cameron's behind, even when they wake up on May 8th and we have more Labour MPs. They'll be walking around going "Cameron won really, it's just that people were too shy to actually vote for him. No one wanted a Labour government, they were just too embarrassed to vote for someone else."

Yes, I suspect the "Ed, our accidental (read: illegitimate) prime minister" MSM pieces have already been written.......

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 11:39 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote: Shy Tories - as opposed to - proudly brazen Ukippers?
I thought polls already adjusted for "shy Tories". At this rate, no one on the right is going to believe Cameron's behind, even when they wake up on May 8th and we have more Labour MPs. They'll be walking around going "Cameron won really, it's just that people were too shy to actually vote for him. No one wanted a Labour government, they were just too embarrassed to vote for someone else."
Yes, I suspect the "Ed, our accidental (read: illegitimate) prime minister" MSM pieces have already been written.......

I have already read those articles in the Guardian, can't remember who wrote it though. It is the 35% not legitimate argument - but the Cameron/Clegg coup is somehow.

I note above the suggestion that the Guardian will back the Greens, but having read their economic policy I can't see it. There are some interesting ideas in that document that might get picked up and tried but if you actually endorsed the whole thing you would probably destroy the country (with of course the best of intentions). Given the Guardian attacks Miliband as too left wing I can't see them endorsing something that is way out there.

So their options are Lib Dem or none of the above.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 11:45 am

Don't know if many of you follow Richard Blogger on health.

This is a long, involved post I'm trying to work my way through you don't need to know about the drivel he's responding to. He's someone you can learn lots off. He also has Type 1 Diabetes and how has 4 organisations concerned with him, instead of just one (the PCT).

Honestly, you really do live in a fantasy land. Take for example this statement:
"a private business cannot run an acute hospital (which is an extraordinary statement given that such businesses routinely do so in other countries)"
The reason why the statement you dispute is true (and your comment is irrelevant) is because of the payment system in England. The emergency tariff does not pay for the cost of emergency treatment, period. Then bear in mind the "marginal tariff" whereby any emergency treatment over the 2008/09 activity level is paid at 30% (soon to be 50%) of the already inadequate tariff. Now tell me do any of the "other countries" you talk about pay for emergency treatment like this? Do those hospitals have to use surpluses from elective treatments to subsidise emergency care? No? Or perhaps you do not know, because I am not aware if you know much at all about healthcare. By the way, why does elective treatment subsidise emergency treatment? The reason is that the tariff is used to pay for NHS treatments in NHS hospitals *and* in private hospitals (private hospitals only do elective work) and the elective tariff is jacked up so that inefficient private hospitals don't make too much of a loss on NHS elective work.
You then mention the usual silly statement that GPs are private contractors. They are not. They have NHS contracts, NHS pensions, their training is NHS and their rents/mortgages are paid by the NHS. Further, the GP contract specifically restricts the non-NHS work that GPs can do. Hardly "independent contractor" when the only work they can do is treating the patients on their registered list. Or perhaps you do not know how business works in the private sector?
You mention the Circle contract in Beds. That has started off very badly, with Bedford Hospital refusing to work with Circle because their cock-eyed plans will threaten the viability of the hospital. How can Circle be appointed "prime provider" when they are clearly unable to manage the sub-contractors?
You then mention your Reform survey. I presume the question wasn't something like "if you don't use an NHS hospital it will close. Do you mind whether you get your NHS treatment from an NHS provider or a private provider?" Yes, that is a biassed question, but the public do not know the consequences of "don't mind who treats them", but the public *do* mind when NHS hospitals close. Or do you think that people should answer questions without the knowing the consequence of their choice?
On your final paragraph, suggesting that "whoever wins the next election will have to implement the biggest reform of the NHS ever seen: 5YFV" I suggest you talk more to NHS commissioners and hospital managers. Few actually agree that any of the models in 5YFV are appropriate for their area (and few actually think that the Dalton suggestions will happen in their area, either). You'll probably find people who think that the changes will happen in *other peoples* areas, but that is meaningless. There will be changes after the election, but they will not be as big as you are suggesting, and my personal view (from conversations I have had with commissioners and hospital managers) is that there will be more collaboration and less competition. No one has the stomach for competition any more - it is a waste of resources for no achievement, for the patient or provider.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 11:45 am

From a bit on AS I see the wheels coming off the the UKIP bus...first Tim Aker replaced as policy chief for apparently not getting it finished on time but more importantly, Farage and his supporters, and Carswell's relationship is a tad frosty according to Guido.

This was always going to happen and whether Carswell thought he could reform them once he'd got in I don't know but he seems to be meeting resistance.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 12:06 pm

Best effort so far from a Cybernat....

Labour will prefer a grand coalition with the Tories....

The sight of Labour getting into bed at Westminster after campaigning, as usual, here in Scotland to vote Labour to stop the Tories will doom them...

It would mean the SNP Westminster leader on the other side of the dispatch box every PMQ's putting a genuine Social Democratic case forward.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 12:17 pm

Afternoon

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... CMP=twt_gu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Why the ‘big society’ is now just a hashtag for coalition hypocrisy"
Patrick Butler

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 12:34 pm

Certain lack of media outrage about Charlotte Leslie comparing criticizing the NHS with Charlie Hebdo breaking taboos.

cf Emily Thornberry. She broke a taboo by implying a load of England flags look shit on a house.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 1:24 pm

Disabled people lose jobs after Access to Work changes
If you tamper with the support disabled people rely on to work, being in the office with a personal assistant soon becomes being trapped at home, staring at the kitchen walls
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... ss-to-work

Very good and factual from Frances Ryan - as usual. Also bloody depressing.

Radio 4 - to give it its due - has been informing about the surreptitious cuts to the Access to Work programme for a while now ... this government really has had it in for disabled people ... utterly savage.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 1:27 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Disabled people lose jobs after Access to Work changes
If you tamper with the support disabled people rely on to work, being in the office with a personal assistant soon becomes being trapped at home, staring at the kitchen walls
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... ss-to-work
Very good and factual from Frances Ryan - as usual. Also bloody depressing.

Radio 4 - to give it its due - has been informing about the surreptitious cuts to the Access to Work programme for a while now ... this government really has had it in for disabled people ... utterly savage.

Well that gives the lie to the helping the disabled into work line from Cameron.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 1:35 pm

StephenDolan wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
'Shy' Tory voters improve Labour's poll performance
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics ... 88769.html
... Ed Miliband's election hopes are being routinely over-estimated in opinion polls, according to the analyst who first spotted the “shy Tories” phenomenon in the Nineties.

Robert Hayward believes that Labour’s vote share is shown between two and four percentage points higher than it really is.

And the Conservative and Green Party shares are, he believes, between one and two points lower in the polls than in reality. If correct, polls that show the parties level-pegging should show the Conservatives with a slim lead of three to six per cent.

Mr Hayward was the elections guru who advised John Major not to panic in 1992 when polls showed Labour leader Neil Kinnock was set to win power...
Shy Tories - as opposed to - proudly brazen Ukippers?
So the greens will go down in the polls and go to....?

I think he's saying the opposite ... that the real level of green support is being underestimated in the polls so will go up when it's actually tested. The worry is that as Ukip's bubble bursts (see Roger O'T's earlier post) we also have a green surge ... and with Ukip votes going back to Tories, and more anti-Tory votes going to Green ... that spells real problems and the likelihood of another 5 years of Tory government. And it will be 5 years - because they've legislated to fix it at that - no chance of them toppling before then. And in that 5 years I fully expect them to fix it so they are favoured to return in the future too - boundary reviews, more gagging of any organisations that speak out, more insecurity for everyone.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 1:47 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote: Shy Tories - as opposed to - proudly brazen Ukippers?
So the greens will go down in the polls and go to....?
I think he's saying the opposite ... that the real level of green support is being underestimated in the polls so will go up when it's actually tested. The worry is that as Ukip's bubble bursts (see Roger O'T's earlier post) we also have a green surge ... and with Ukip votes going back to Tories, and more anti-Tory votes going to Green ... that spells real problems and the likelihood of another 5 years of Tory government. And it will be 5 years - because they've legislated to fix it at that - no chance of them toppling before then. And in that 5 years I fully expect them to fix it so they are favoured to return in the future too - boundary reviews, more gagging of any organisations that speak out, more insecurity for everyone.

There are a few more optimistic interpretations, firstly he is mainly talking bollocks, secondly what seems to be happening to UKIP is that the left leaning stuff is being cut. This might burst their bubble and not help the Tories. Finally there is as of now no great evidence of a Green surge and polling that suggests that Green voters are open to tactical voting (although that is an Ashcroft finding so caution).

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 1:59 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
StephenDolan wrote: So the greens will go down in the polls and go to....?
I think he's saying the opposite ... that the real level of green support is being underestimated in the polls so will go up when it's actually tested. The worry is that as Ukip's bubble bursts (see Roger O'T's earlier post) we also have a green surge ... and with Ukip votes going back to Tories, and more anti-Tory votes going to Green ... that spells real problems and the likelihood of another 5 years of Tory government. And it will be 5 years - because they've legislated to fix it at that - no chance of them toppling before then. And in that 5 years I fully expect them to fix it so they are favoured to return in the future too - boundary reviews, more gagging of any organisations that speak out, more insecurity for everyone.
There are a few more optimistic interpretations, firstly he is mainly talking bollocks, secondly what seems to be happening to UKIP is that the left leaning stuff is being cut. This might burst their bubble and not help the Tories. Finally there is as of now no great evidence of a Green surge and polling that suggests that Green voters are open to tactical voting (although that is an Ashcroft finding so caution).

Oh I agree TE - he's talking bollocks. But was trying to point out that I think he's saying the opposite re the Greens than the earlier response to it. I hope Ukip's bubble is not just burst but shredded. Don't know what Green voters will be open to ... as so many of them will be genuinely new voters it's hard to predict. I hope we don't experience too much of an ex Lib Dem to Green switch here as that will really put the mockers on any chance for a good Labour challenge ... and, IMO, would be pretty cheeky given the Greens didn't stand a candidate here last GE (they did the one before), and then asked us to vote Plaid Cymru instead of them at the Euros when they had a better chance of achieving something through the PR system. I don't think that's much of a local record re engaging with people. But who knows?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 2:04 pm

Piece on the local radio about disabled people not being allowed/able to use Chesterfield jobcentre toilets,hardly the only one of course,the very basic of basics.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 2:05 pm

Giles Dilnot ‏@reporterboy 18m18 minutes ago
Mike Hancock reveals (it's OK don't panic) he is "undecided" whether to stand at GE2015. That it is a question at all seems a tad surprising

How long have you had your fingers crossed for PF? Looks like it might be doing the job - but you might have to keep on for a bit longer. He's very slow at making his mind up.

Tish · Post by **Tish** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 2:18 pm

I would have thought that if anything, the Green vote will be lower than the polls, becouse a lot of people may currently wish to vote Green when asked, but when they actually look at their local area once the election gets closer and realise that the Greens have no chance (other than in a few select constituancies), they'll vote Labour instead, just to help get rid of the Tories. In my experience most Green voters are fairly pragmatic, unlike UKIPers who tend to be full on zealots who hate all the other parties and don't care who gets in. Unless UKIP implode into full on internal war before the election (which is perfectly possible), I reckon their vote will hold up.

Also, I don't see personal attacks on Miliband and the rest of the Labour team doing much good for the Tories. From what the polls say there hasn't really been much movement from Tory to Labour anyway, this election is going to be all about the minority parties, will enough LibDems vote Labour and enough Tories vote UKIP to tip the balance Labour's way? Slagging off Labour isn't going to make much difference. Bigging up the Greens and pushing the "they're all same" narrative is likely to be more effective, as would making a serious effort to attack UKIP and win back their own voters. But Cameron is too much of a coward to take on Farage, becouse he knows that half of his own party wouldn't stand for it, as they'd rather be in UKIP themselves.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 2:18 pm

George Eaton @georgeeaton · 45s 45 seconds ago
One clear trend from all polls: Tory ratings remain flat. This has been a voteless recovery for them.

No, no George. You've got it all wrong. It's just that millions of people are too shy to say they are voting Tory.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 2:21 pm

On BBC4 radio today. Margaret Hodges slamming May and the HO immigration dept.

I'm sure she said they had had something like a 600% increase in budget, but they are less efficient now than in 2008.
She was scathing. No-one from the HO available to comment.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 2:28 pm

: BigSocietyHasFailed.jpg (91.31 KiB) Viewed 12828 times

David Cameron's Big Society agenda has failed and left the UK more divided than before, a think tank has concluded.
The report by Civil Exchange found that the results of the strategy had been "largely negative", with people feeling unable to influence local decisions, a widespread disenchantment with the political system and weaker communities.
Efforts to encourage wider involvement in delivering public services had resulted in a "race to the bottom" on contract price and reduced transparency and accountability, the report said.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/art ... ailed.html

Sheeesh, could that be more damning ...? How does this man and his fellow callous troughers get away with so many abject strategy and policy failures?

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 2:42 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
BigSocietyHasFailed.jpg

David Cameron's Big Society agenda has failed and left the UK more divided than before, a think tank has concluded.
The report by Civil Exchange found that the results of the strategy had been "largely negative", with people feeling unable to influence local decisions, a widespread disenchantment with the political system and weaker communities.
Efforts to encourage wider involvement in delivering public services had resulted in a "race to the bottom" on contract price and reduced transparency and accountability, the report said.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/art ... ailed.html
Sheeesh, could that be more damning ...? How does this man and his fellow callous troughers get away with so many abject strategy and policy failures?

I do hope people consider things like this, the basic incompetence of the Tories when they place their votes next May.

Am feeling negative, the 'vote for change, Labour are Tories, I'm a real left winger' & 'kick out LibLabCon, vote UKIP' siren voices seem to be blaring, just hope we don't end up on the rocks.

It's oh so easy for dreamers in small parties to wear rose tinted specs and believe they are different.
Maybe all small parties should be forced into coalition on a rota basis so the truth of how they'd act when under real scrutiny and pressure would be revealed.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 2:52 pm

Am also going to fess up.

I have not been to any party meetings since joining.

Why ? Partly because of the day the meetings are held, and their location.
We are in a very rural area, roads at night are not fun to drive.
Also, a lack of confidence, and fear of canvassing door to door.
Am quite shy in the real world.

I don't want to get riled, say the wrong thing on the doorstep and then there's a Twitter storm about 'Labour canvasser in Ceredigion tells UKIP voter to go boil their head'.

The local party is not very big, a lot of stuff goes on at Aberystwyth quite a way off.

On the other hand, am digging deeper in my pocket for Labour, so that's how I can help.
Was going to order six David Austin roses the other day, but phoned Labour and gave £100 donation instead. Plenty of time for spending money on the garden after May 2015.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 3:00 pm

yahyah wrote:Am also going to fess up.

I have not been to any party meetings since joining.

Why ? Partly because of the day the meetings are held, and their location.
We are in a very rural area, roads at night are not fun to drive.
Also, a lack of confidence, and fear of canvassing door to door.
Am quite shy in the real world.

I don't want to get riled, say the wrong thing on the doorstep and then there's a Twitter storm about 'Labour canvasser in Ceredigion tells UKIP voter to go boil their head'.

The local party is not very big, a lot of stuff goes on at Aberystwyth quite a way off.

On the other hand, am digging deeper in my pocket for Labour, so that's how I can help.
Was going to order six David Austin roses the other day, but phoned Labour and gave £100 donation instead. Plenty of time for spending money on the garden after May 2015.

Do what you can - it's not compulsory to go and knock on doors! Mind you, you can get the warmest of receptions sometimes - proper Labour voters who'll shake you hand as they promise you their vote. Tory/UKIP dullards are simply an occupational hazard, and they're not worth wasting time on.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Tue 20 Jan, 2015 3:01 pm

Interesting ICM poll in the G.

This one picks up a Green Surge(TM) but to be fair their previous figures were very low for the Greens. Lib Dems losing to Green, Tories gaining from kippers, labour vote steady.