Tuesday 17th.March 2015

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 2:05 pm

Southampton Itchen has been rated as maybe the most likely Tory gain of a 2010 Labour seat for a few reasons:

1) the sitting MP John Denham is retiring and only just held on last time despite his personal popularity;

2) his replacement as Labour candidate, Rowenna Davis, is not from the area and her opponents (including a few disgruntled members of the local CLP, who claim she only won selection due to "love bombing" inactive members during the selection process and most activists did not support her) haven't exactly been slow to remind people of this;

3) chief among these is the Tory candidate Royston Smith, a former leader of Southampton borough who is controversial and very much a "Marmite" figure - but who retains a significant body of supporters who are almost fanatically loyal to him;

4) the council has been affected by a few adverse stories since Labour took control, and these have been exploited by UKIP who have polled well in recent by-elections and the 2014 regular polls. There is also one ward where two Labour concillors have broken away to become (TUSC in all but name) independents.

Based on all this and the last Ashcroft poll (which was however, as some of us pointed out, taken when most students were away) a possible shock has been talked up here.

But despite being derided as a parachutee, Davis also has some genuine qualities and this latest survey maybe indicates people are starting to notice them

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 2:09 pm

The head of the National Audit Office has accused Whitehall officials of inflicint[sic] deep public spending cuts without fully understanding their impact on services. Auditor general Sir Amyas Morse said that “radical surgery” had been carried out as part of the Government’s austerity programme without officials knowing “where the heart was”. The National Audit Office chief suggested that an “optimism bias” within David Cameron’s administration had led to ministers pressing ahead with reforms to services like the NHS with limited discussion of the potential risks. Morse told the Financial Times:

If you’re going to do radical surgery, it would be nice if you knew where the heart was. You’re slightly more likely not to stick a knife in it by mistake. (Andrew Sparrow, Guardian - my emphasis)

"Optimism bias"! Makes them sound like the Cheeryble brothers.

Swarthlander · Post by **Swarthlander** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 2:13 pm

PorFavor wrote:
The head of the National Audit Office has accused Whitehall officials of inflicint[sic] deep public spending cuts without fully understanding their impact on services. Auditor general Sir Amyas Morse said that “radical surgery” had been carried out as part of the Government’s austerity programme without officials knowing “where the heart was”. The National Audit Office chief suggested that an “optimism bias” within David Cameron’s administration had led to ministers pressing ahead with reforms to services like the NHS with limited discussion of the potential risks. Morse told the Financial Times:

If you’re going to do radical surgery, it would be nice if you knew where the heart was. You’re slightly more likely not to stick a knife in it by mistake. (Andrew Sparrow, Guardian - my emphasis)
"Optimism bias"! Makes them sound like the Cheeryble brothers.

Yep!

And now Bart's is buggered too.

Swarthlander · Post by **Swarthlander** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 2:23 pm

A couple of things on Huff Post...

This is a good one..
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/03 ... _hp_ref=uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And Tory foot-in-mouth again..
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/03 ... _hp_ref=uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 2:27 pm

Has Grant V Shapps resigned yet?

I wish they wouldn't string these things out......

......and now, we are waiting for OGRFG to say he'll do the digital debate. Still.

These people are just pants.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 2:30 pm

Digital debate organisers press Cameron for clear answer 'as soon as possible'

[The Digital Debate Consortium wrote] “We note that in your interview with BuzzFeed on Monday you again indicated that you were favourably disposed towards a digital debate. You went on to say: ‘Everyone’s got to agree to it but I’ve said very clearly – multi-party debate before the campaign, where do I sign?’

“We agree with you that these debates should happen in the next couple of weeks, which is why we urge you to sign here.

“The timescale for making a debate happen next week is compressed, but it is just possible if you commit to taking part. We would urge you to do so as soon as possible.” (Guardian, my emphasis)

The Consortium is looking to have the debate on 26th or 27th March. Still, plenty of time yet. After all, it's only the 17th today . . . .

Edited to add link -

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -interview

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 2:31 pm

Afternoon all.

I wish I'd been able to drop in earlier and give TheGrimSqueaker this link because they (and others) may find it helpful in keeping spirits up:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/poll-tracker" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't look at it very frequently, but every time I drop in on this poll of polls, Labour seem to be a couple of points ahead. The truth is the last shift in the polls was when Labour dropped back after the Scottish referendum due to the SNP surge. Nothing much else has changed, especially the Tory vote which is remarkably static.

I still believe we won't get any major shifts in the polls until the posters start going up in windows and the campaigns get properly under way and there are still enough undecideds out there for either party to gain momentum, which most Tory fans, expecting an incumbent swingback, will probably find frustrating. I'm finding it all quite hopeful, however. If Ed got in without the help of Murdoch it would sort of be the end of an era, wouldn't it? An era I'd be delighted to see the back of!

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 2:44 pm

(gulp) To try & get Peter Kyle elected I've just agreed to do a phone bank session in Hove tomorrow.

Cripes.....

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 2:48 pm

pk1 wrote:(gulp) To try & get Peter Kyle elected I've just agreed to do a phone bank session in Hove tomorrow.

Cripes.....

You're very brave.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 2:57 pm

Willow904 wrote:
pk1 wrote:(gulp) To try & get Peter Kyle elected I've just agreed to do a phone bank session in Hove tomorrow.

Cripes.....
You're very brave.

Isn't stupid the more appropriate word, perhaps ?

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 3:08 pm

pk1 wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
pk1 wrote:(gulp) To try & get Peter Kyle elected I've just agreed to do a phone bank session in Hove tomorrow.

Cripes.....
You're very brave.
Isn't stupid the more appropriate word, perhaps ?

No, I'm sticking with brave!

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 3:08 pm

pk1 wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
pk1 wrote:(gulp) To try & get Peter Kyle elected I've just agreed to do a phone bank session in Hove tomorrow.

Cripes.....
You're very brave.
Isn't stupid the more appropriate word, perhaps ?

Electoral Calculus = Lab Gain

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 3:09 pm

Jack Monroe has joined the Greens:

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

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 3:14 pm

pk1 wrote:Jack Monroe has joined the Greens:

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

Yes. I can't say I was shocked when I read it.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 3:16 pm

@ PaulfromYorkshire

That's it - spread yourself out and make yourself at home . . . .

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 3:22 pm

Students to get voter registration reminder by mobile link-up

http://gu.com/p/46yaj" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Great idea. Government should've been doing this sort of thing a lot sooner, I guess there main advertising focus is selling houses at a discount or extolling the virtues of other initiatives.

Tish · Post by **Tish** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 3:28 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Southampton Itchen has been rated as maybe the most likely Tory gain of a 2010 Labour seat for a few reasons:

1) the sitting MP John Denham is retiring and only just held on last time despite his personal popularity;

2) his replacement as Labour candidate, Rowenna Davis, is not from the area and her opponents (including a few disgruntled members of the local CLP, who claim she only won selection due to "love bombing" inactive members during the selection process and most activists did not support her) haven't exactly been slow to remind people of this;

3) chief among these is the Tory candidate Royston Smith, a former leader of Southampton borough who is controversial and very much a "Marmite" figure - but who retains a significant body of supporters who are almost fanatically loyal to him;

I didn't know that about the new candidate, but do you think that this sort of party infighting over selection actually resinates with the voters on the door? Obviously it can have a big impact within the party itself, but outside I wouldn't have thought many people would be bothered (or even know anything about it).

Royston Smith on the other hand is somebody everybody has heard of, the man who caused the bin strike before being booted out on his arse. I can't imagine that he's really that much of an electoral asset!

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 3:32 pm

Jack Monroe ‏@MsJackMonroe 2h2 hours ago
@sunny_hundal I still have a lot of support for Labour, but v uncomfortable with recent statements on food banks, immigration, welfare.

Eh ??

So Labour's aim of ensuring fewer people are reliant on foodbanks is a cause for concern ??

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 4:15 pm

pk1 wrote:Jack Monroe ‏@MsJackMonroe 2h2 hours ago
@sunny_hundal I still have a lot of support for Labour, but v uncomfortable with recent statements on food banks, immigration, welfare.

Eh ??

So Labour's aim of ensuring fewer people are reliant on foodbanks is a cause for concern ??

She, above all, should understand how the press works to twist words - and policies. I tend to think it's an excuse rather than reason, would not be surprised to see her standing as a candidate soon.

(@Wolfie - is this better ?

)

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 4:21 pm

RR statement on food banks made today so how is JM using it as an excuse/reason when the letter joining Greens (see the guardian) is dated February? Bunkum, but good luck to her, just don't tell fibs eh.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 4:23 pm

RR statement on food banks made today so how is JM using it as an excuse/reason when the letter joining Greens (see the guardian) is dated February? Bunkum, but good luck to her, just don't tell fibs eh.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 4:40 pm

sunny_hundal is a fucking menace on Twitter today.

And sadly Jack Munroe is doing what not all, but a lot of people do. As soon as they make a better living and things look up, their politics begin to change.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 4:40 pm

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-03- ... art-in-one" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That better not be true.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 4:43 pm

Is it me or is the site playing up a bit today?

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 4:56 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Is it me or is the site playing up a bit today?

Dog slow. And regular Resource limit reached messages.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 5:37 pm

@ ohsocynical

Yes, it's dreadful. I've been locked out for ages. General Error is much in evidence as is the SQuirreL. Sorry you've not been emboldened but I can't get the Full Editor to co-operate. I hope this plaintive cry gets through . . . .

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 6:12 pm

No edit button either

diGriz · Post by **diGriz** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 6:13 pm

It's taken me half an hour to get onto the site. Problems?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 6:26 pm

diGriz wrote:It's taken me half an hour to get onto the site. Problems?

Ya think, diGriz-o?

It's been pretty creaky nearly all day.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 6:26 pm

Glad it's not just me having problems with the site. Couldn't get on when I came in from gardening.

About Jack Monroe, maybe now she's making a bit more dosh from her recipes and writing [have to admit they never seem that good to me, could do better myself] she doesn't care if we get a Tory government as she won't suffer. In fact she'll probably do even better as food poverty will increase and she can get paid to write about it. She can have the luxury of being a Green.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 6:29 pm

yahyah wrote:Glad it's not just me having problems with the site.

About Jack Monroe, maybe now she's making a bit more dosh from her recipes and writing [have to admit they never seem that good to me, could do better myself] she doesn't care if we get a Tory government as she won't suffer. In fact she'll probably do even better as food poverty will increase and she can get paid to write about it.

My thoughts exactly. (Are we "singing the song of our people"? I must look that out again!)

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 6:31 pm

PorFavor wrote:
yahyah wrote:Glad it's not just me having problems with the site.

About Jack Monroe, maybe now she's making a bit more dosh from her recipes and writing [have to admit they never seem that good to me, could do better myself] she doesn't care if we get a Tory government as she won't suffer. In fact she'll probably do even better as food poverty will increase and she can get paid to write about it.
My thoughts exactly. (Are we "singing the song of our people"? I must look that out again!)

That's a blast from the past....giggling just remembering it.

diGriz · Post by **diGriz** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 6:32 pm

PorFavor wrote:
diGriz wrote:It's taken me half an hour to get onto the site. Problems?
Ya think, diGriz-o?

It's been pretty creaky nearly all day.

Written without the benefit of being able to read the entire thread. Getting on was like wading through mud.

I had to go to the Guardian and BBC to see what going on today, I still don't feel informed.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 6:33 pm

Sorry, my post about Monroe is a bit clumsy, I know what I mean at any rate.

JustMom · Post by **JustMom** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 6:33 pm

Hello everyone,just a reminder the free speech is on bbc3 again tonight this time it's between the snp,greens and plaid. It starts at 8.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 6:35 pm

Am off to cook supper, so night all.

Hope the site problems get sorted, couldn't bear to lose you all 50 days before the election.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 6:39 pm

yahyah wrote:Am off to cook supper, so night all.

Hope the site problems get sorted, couldn't bear to lose you all 50 days before the election.

Jack Monroe cookbook in hand, I trust. Goodnight!

Post by **refitman** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 6:41 pm

Sorry for the site issues today. From about 10am onwards, we were maxing out the resources from the hosting company. I have upgraded them and we shouldn't have any more problems.

Contrary to what Ernst says, can we stop inviting people here? They're using too many megabytes!

/joke

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 6:45 pm

refitman wrote:Sorry for the site issues today. From about 10am onwards, we were maxing out the resources from the hosting company. I have upgraded them and we shouldn't have any more problems.

Contrary to what Ernst says, can we stop inviting people here? They're using too many megabytes! /joke

Right-ho, Nigel.

Edited to add -

Thanks for sorting things out.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 6:48 pm

refitman wrote:Sorry for the site issues today. From about 10am onwards, we were maxing out the resources from the hosting company. I have upgraded them and we shouldn't have any more problems.

Contrary to what Ernst says, can we stop inviting people here? They're using too many megabytes! /joke

Given all these things cost money, one option would be to keep the site as a rolling window and just delete the older DP stuff. Nobody is going to go back and look at stuff older than a couple of months, especially as we hold ongoing useful info in other areas.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 6:52 pm

Popped back in - do you need any cash for the extra megabytes Dan ?

Can donate if you do.

Will check your response tomorrow.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 6:55 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
refitman wrote:Sorry for the site issues today. From about 10am onwards, we were maxing out the resources from the hosting company. I have upgraded them and we shouldn't have any more problems.

Contrary to what Ernst says, can we stop inviting people here? They're using too many megabytes! /joke
Given all these things cost money, one option would be to keep the site as a rolling window and just delete the older DP stuff. Nobody is going to go back and look at stuff older than a couple of months, especially as we hold ongoing useful info in other areas.

Or perhaps we could all chip in?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 7:04 pm

Amelia Gentleman is reasonably benign in her interpretation of Reeves. She's one of the best writers about poverty in the media.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... s-to-power" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post by **refitman** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 7:06 pm

Rebecca wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
refitman wrote:Sorry for the site issues today. From about 10am onwards, we were maxing out the resources from the hosting company. I have upgraded them and we shouldn't have any more problems.

Contrary to what Ernst says, can we stop inviting people here? They're using too many megabytes! /joke
Given all these things cost money, one option would be to keep the site as a rolling window and just delete the older DP stuff. Nobody is going to go back and look at stuff older than a couple of months, especially as we hold ongoing useful info in other areas.
Or perhaps we could all chip in?

It's actually pretty cheap to run. I just opted for the lowest resource tier when we set it up, not knowing how much we would use.

I also need to update the background software at some point. Will involve taking the site down for a bit, so I'll do it late one night.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 7:09 pm

Cameron has surpassed himself. I'm gobsmacked at the sheer gall of the man and the unprincipled, underhandedness of our tv broadcasters:

Conservative sources say the proposal for a debate on 2 April was put by the broadcasters in negotiations on Friday and Saturday and is part of a wider reworked package designed to enable the debates to go ahead in some form. There would be one seven-party debate, involving Cameron, one debate involving just minor parties, and two interview or Question Time programme, which would involve Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg being questioned on the same night, but not at the same time. The Lib Dems have welcomed the plan. But Labour insist that they have not had a formal proposal form the broadcasters along these lines.

Forget the interviews, there's always interviews, that has no bearing on the debates and the debates being offered here by Cameron as an agreed deal that the others have to now accept or reject is basically a format in which the minor parties get to take part in two debates to Labour's one. The minor parties get twice the exposure, twice the opportunity to put their case than Labour does. It sheer takes your breath away, doesn't it? The Tories even had the nerve to suggest Labour were trying to block their secret agreement before the broadcasters had even told Labour about the new "offer", in order to make sure Labour can't make any comment about whether it is fair without "confirming" the planted idea that they are trying to stop the debates.

If there is any justice in this world, Ed Miliband will triumph regardless and kick Cameron's fat ass out of Downing St. I am so fed up of this Machiavellian shit.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 7:28 pm

Somebody had the nous to ring Rachel Reeves' office regarding the quote that is being trumpeted around the internet today.

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

Rang Rachel Reeve's office, they said she was responding to a q about accusations that Labour are the 'welfare party' - hence skewed quote

I mean, it doesn't sound great out of context. But if you're answering a question like that then I see how that happens.

Sadly, Sophies tweets won't get anywhere near the exposure the 'quote' has received

edit to add new tweets by Amelia Gentleman:

so... the question was is it a problem for Lab if they are seen as party of the welfare state?

reply was "of course, but we're not... the clue is in the name. We are the Labour party."

goes on to say: "But the welfare state was always meant to be there in times of need"

"whether that was because they lost their job, or they became disabled, or they had a child"

Just to be clear... Rachel Reeves goes on to say: "But the welfare state was always meant to be there in times of need...

and "I want to ensure that the welfare state is there for my children, and their children"

"whether that was because they lost their job, or they became disabled, or they had a child"

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 7:32 pm

Bloody Twitter has been - well - bloody today with everyone jumping on the Reeves comments and saying if Labour lose the left will get the blame because they've taken offence and won't be voting for Ed.
And the bloody, bloody trolls were salivating at all the negativity.

I posted a couple of reposts, but had to stop because I was getting so angry. I didn't want to start a slanging match. Some days my brain and tongue are sharp enough to cope, but this wasn't one of them.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 7:36 pm

refitman wrote:
Rebecca wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote: Given all these things cost money, one option would be to keep the site as a rolling window and just delete the older DP stuff. Nobody is going to go back and look at stuff older than a couple of months, especially as we hold ongoing useful info in other areas.
Or perhaps we could all chip in?
It's actually pretty cheap to run. I just opted for the lowest resource tier when we set it up, not knowing how much we would use.

I also need to update the background software at some point. Will involve taking the site down for a bit, so I'll do it late one night.

If it helps to delete the really old posts it's fine by me...I doubt anyone trawls that far back.

diGriz · Post by **diGriz** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 7:37 pm

Does anyone have a handy link for how many E-petitions were read and debated in Parliament?

Tish · Post by **Tish** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 7:40 pm

According to the Guardian, the replacement for the two way debate would be this:

"Cameron and Miliband would be interviewed by Jeremy Paxman and then questioned by a studio audience in a Sky/Channel 4 special on 26 March. But the two leaders would appear separately – never sharing the stage, depriving Miliband of the chance to confront Cameron directly."

I don't think the format of that is too bad, it would give Miliband the exposure, which is what he needs, and everyone would know that Cameron was refusing to debate him directly, so he would still be seen as chickening out. But 26th March is far too early, it needs to be held in the last couple of weeks of the campaign so its still in the public mind.

If Cameron is determined to dodge a head to head it's probably the best we're going to get, it's basically the same as if Cameron was empty chaired, but giving him a right to reply, which OFCOM would probably have insisted on anyway.