FlyTheNest

hobiejoe wrote:But the good news is I'm sat here with a glass of wine, watching the New York Jets on a compilation of Old Grey Whistle Tests on BBC4

Politically? I had a wobble, but confidence is returning. So much so that I'm going to be taking advantage of my locals' knowledge of the online turf accountants to place a wager. Saw 66-1 on a Labour majority from someone....

******* **** clegg wrote:Mr Clegg also said a coalition with a party that had the second largest number of seats after 7 May would lack "legitimacy". http://news.sky.com/story/1471856/labou ... stem-clegg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;?

Tim Shipman ‏@ShippersUnbound 1h1 hour ago
It is unclear if Clegg's views on legitimacy are shared by the rest of his party, of course...

Woman who hit Venezuelan president with mango rewarded with house
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/a ... ango-house" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Woman who hit Venezuelan president with mango rewarded with house
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/a ... ango-house" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Because ... it's possibly the best headline of the year so far.

And ... can you imagine (in your wildest of wild dreams) anything like that happening for someone who chucked a fruit at Cameron?

frightful_oik wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Woman who hit Venezuelan president with mango rewarded with house
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/a ... ango-house" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Because ... it's possibly the best headline of the year so far.

And ... can you imagine (in your wildest of wild dreams) anything like that happening for someone who chucked a fruit at Cameron?

You're right. With Empty Dave it would need to be a dead catfish or indeed a dead cat to get his attention.
Someone on UKPR just pointed out that what NC says before an election and what he does after can be two very different things.

Business leaders voice growing fears over 'disastrous and negative Tory campaign too focussed on personal attacks and scaremongering'
Expressed concerns over tactics employed by the Conservative campaign
Labour leader is now the bookies' favourite to be the next prime minister
'Every time Miliband is visible, he appears credible,' said a company boss
Tory tacticians have now told campaigners to focus on economic success
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ering.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... Speaking to the Financial Times on the condition that they would not be named, one chairman said: 'The negative campaign has been disastrous'.
Another added that the successes of the coalition government, including delivering real economic growth and jobs has become the 'background noise' of the campaign instead of its focus.
But a Conservative spokesman insisted that the campaign's focus on the idea of the SNP in a coalition with Labour is doing well on the doorstep, according to the FT. ...

Paul Blomfield ‏@PaulBlomfieldMP 13s14 seconds ago
Orange book project complete as @nick_clegg seeks excuses to seal @LibDems future with Tories. Sad end to social liberalism.

yahyah wrote:Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 2m 2 minutes ago
Ashcroft CON hold Britstol NW, Colne Valley, High Peak
LAB gain Bristol W

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 4m 4 minutes ago
Ashcroft: UKIP gain Thurrock but lose Rochester

Chart with other seats:
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This table is based on a manual adjustment of data reallocating some don't knows - a procedure which addresses the spiral
of silence among some groups of voters, which has successfully increased the accuracy of voting intention polls at recent
General Elections

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Business leaders voice growing fears over 'disastrous and negative Tory campaign too focussed on personal attacks and scaremongering'
Expressed concerns over tactics employed by the Conservative campaign
Labour leader is now the bookies' favourite to be the next prime minister
'Every time Miliband is visible, he appears credible,' said a company boss
Tory tacticians have now told campaigners to focus on economic success
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ering.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... Speaking to the Financial Times on the condition that they would not be named, one chairman said: 'The negative campaign has been disastrous'.
Another added that the successes of the coalition government, including delivering real economic growth and jobs has become the 'background noise' of the campaign instead of its focus.
But a Conservative spokesman insisted that the campaign's focus on the idea of the SNP in a coalition with Labour is doing well on the doorstep, according to the FT. ...

Sorry for the Mail link. I note these companies don't want to actually be named as being critical of the Tories' campaign ....

graun blog wrote:Here’s Cameron’s response when he was asked to clarify his football loyalties after his Croydon speech (which he read from an autocue):
I had what Natalie Bennett described as a brain fade.
I’m a Villa fan ... I must have been overcome by something ... this morning.
But there we are, these things sometimes happen when you are on the stump.

StephenDolan wrote:Morning all.

I'd be interested to hear Alexander, Cable, Laws and Farron pushed for their opinion on Clegg's numerous 'what is legitimate' chats. Chance for the orange bookers to come a cropper? Personally Clegg is playing a dangerous game. If Labour get more votes he's boxed himself in.

tinyclanger2 wrote:http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-3754239

Anyone got an unspinned view on this?

After months of fruitless wrangling over the televised leaders’ debates, David Cameron has been accused of dodging a less obviously risky encounter: a church debate with a doctor who is mounting a long-shot challenge for his seat in Oxfordshire.

Dr Clive Peedell, a consultant oncologist from Middlesbrough who leads the National Health Action party, has been invited to every hustings in Witney during the campaign except one – the only event attended by the prime minister. Another excluded candidate who successfully applied for a ticket, Christopher Tompson , was turned away at the door after being told that his presence “might cause some unrest”.

Cameron’s team denies exerting any influence on the event beyond security matters. But in an email to a photographer who was also barred from attending, organisers explained that they were following “instructions … from Cameron’s office”.

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

Eric_WLothian wrote:

tinyclanger2 wrote:http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-3754239

Anyone got an unspinned view on this?

The link leads to a 'page not available' message.

Cameron up shit creek as defeat beckons

http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2 ... t-beckons/

citizenJA wrote:Is it appropriate for Dave & his Tories to do this?

After months of fruitless wrangling over the televised leaders’ debates, David Cameron has been accused of dodging a less obviously risky encounter: a church debate with a doctor who is mounting a long-shot challenge for his seat in Oxfordshire.

Dr Clive Peedell, a consultant oncologist from Middlesbrough who leads the National Health Action party, has been invited to every hustings in Witney during the campaign except one – the only event attended by the prime minister. Another excluded candidate who successfully applied for a ticket, Christopher Tompson , was turned away at the door after being told that his presence “might cause some unrest”.

Cameron’s team denies exerting any influence on the event beyond security matters. But in an email to a photographer who was also barred from attending, organisers explained that they were following “instructions … from Cameron’s office”.

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

Willow904 wrote:

StephenDolan wrote:Morning all.

I'd be interested to hear Alexander, Cable, Laws and Farron pushed for their opinion on Clegg's numerous 'what is legitimate' chats. Chance for the orange bookers to come a cropper? Personally Clegg is playing a dangerous game. If Labour get more votes he's boxed himself in.

Morning.

Clegg's got a nerve, hasn't he?

Using the anti-austerity votes of Libdem voters to prop up a Tory austerity agenda wasn't exactly fair play either, but whoever can command a majority to get a Queen's speech through gets to form a government. Them's the rules and Clegg wasn't bothered how it looked last time out so carping about Labour and the SNP getting together to lock the Tories out is the height of hypocrisy. At least Labour and the SNP will actually be reflecting the wishes of their collective voters in doing so, unlike Clegg who essentially stuck two fingers up to those who put him into government. There's nothing "illegitimate" about Labour and the SNP out polling the Tories and their collection of ragbag loonies and fruitcakes - it's called majority rule and that majority is about finding a majority with common ground, not of specific party. Specific parties are all broad coalitions in themselves anyway, banding together by vaguely shared ideology to try to get to that majority. We've had very distinct parties standing on allied grounds in the past such as the Liberals and SDP as the SDP-Liberal Alliance. If they had won an overall majority in 1983 or 1987 no one would have questioned their right to govern as a loose amalgamation of like-minded views, so I see no reason to call a similar arrangement between Labour and the SNP "illegitimate". You'd think Clegg, of all people, would be familiar with the idea of consensus politics. But then again, he did completely ignore the very clear anti-Tory cuts consensus evident at the last election to throw in his lot with the rejected economic policy of Cameron and co of extreme austerity.

tinyclanger2 wrote:Ignorance is my greatest strength so here goes:

Wouldn't the most logical coalition be between to the two leading parties? It would be no trickier than proportional representation and would at least give a greater number of people a chance to get "heard".


I welcome arguments for and against, as I realise I may, like Cameron, have now "lost it".

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

tinyclanger2 wrote:Ignorance is my greatest strength so here goes:

Wouldn't the most logical coalition be between to the two leading parties? It would be no trickier than proportional representation and would at least give a greater number of people a chance to get "heard".


I welcome arguments for and against, as I realise I may, like Cameron, have now "lost it".

Grand coalition, you mean? Complete non-starter in this country short of a total war situation.

tinyclanger2 wrote:

Eric_WLothian wrote:

tinyclanger2 wrote:http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-3754239

Anyone got an unspinned view on this?

The link leads to a 'page not available' message.

Hmm interesting. Was there earlier and was put up 2 hours ago (ish). They have taken it down.

Basically it was saying that Tories are going back to LibDems in Scotland.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Anyway, the big news this morning is that Dave has forgotten what football team he "supports". I expect this one will go viral

mikems wrote:He is a fan of villas, and looks a lot like ham, to be fair.

RobertSnozers wrote:While we're talking about polling, I was surprised (and concerned) to read this from Lord Ashcroft's piece in the Independent:

Comparing my local snap shots with national polling at the time they were taken shows the Conservatives holding on to more seats overall against Labour than they would with a uniform national swing, but failing to gain seats that they would otherwise win from the Lib Dems.

At the same time, my polling has Labour winning fewer Tory and Lib Dem seats overall, and losing more to the SNP, than the national polls suggest ought to be the case. It is, in fact, the Lib Dems who are doing best in the marginals, holding on to more seats against Labour and (particularly) the Conservatives than they would with a uniform swing.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 02890.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Taking into consideration the large pinch of salt that seems necessary with Ashcroft's polling, I suppose this means there must have been a reversal in the key marginals since earlier in the parliament? There were polls in the middle of the parliament showing a 15% swing to Labour in the key Lab-Con marginals, and yet now there is less of a swing than in the country as a whole?

I don't know if by 'my polling' Ashcroft means his constituency polls (which there seem to be little reason to disbelieve) or his national polling, which has showed big differences from all the other pollsters, tends to use much smaller samples, and has demonstrated some questionable weighting and interpretation in the past.

We'll see in a couple of weeks I suppose.

citizenJA wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

StephenDolan wrote:Morning all.

I'd be interested to hear Alexander, Cable, Laws and Farron pushed for their opinion on Clegg's numerous 'what is legitimate' chats. Chance for the orange bookers to come a cropper? Personally Clegg is playing a dangerous game. If Labour get more votes he's boxed himself in.

Morning.

Clegg's got a nerve, hasn't he?

Using the anti-austerity votes of Libdem voters to prop up a Tory austerity agenda wasn't exactly fair play either, but whoever can command a majority to get a Queen's speech through gets to form a government. Them's the rules and Clegg wasn't bothered how it looked last time out so carping about Labour and the SNP getting together to lock the Tories out is the height of hypocrisy. At least Labour and the SNP will actually be reflecting the wishes of their collective voters in doing so, unlike Clegg who essentially stuck two fingers up to those who put him into government. There's nothing "illegitimate" about Labour and the SNP out polling the Tories and their collection of ragbag loonies and fruitcakes - it's called majority rule and that majority is about finding a majority with common ground, not of specific party. Specific parties are all broad coalitions in themselves anyway, banding together by vaguely shared ideology to try to get to that majority. We've had very distinct parties standing on allied grounds in the past such as the Liberals and SDP as the SDP-Liberal Alliance. If they had won an overall majority in 1983 or 1987 no one would have questioned their right to govern as a loose amalgamation of like-minded views, so I see no reason to call a similar arrangement between Labour and the SNP "illegitimate". You'd think Clegg, of all people, would be familiar with the idea of consensus politics. But then again, he did completely ignore the very clear anti-Tory cuts consensus evident at the last election to throw in his lot with the rejected economic policy of Cameron and co of extreme austerity.

I'm interested in your opinion of an article I've read last night from Rafael Behr writing in the G. It's a procedural opinion piece; the title of the article doesn't do it justice. Also, some of the posts below the line are genuinely good, worth reading. Someone who I'm not frequently in agreement with brought up an excellent point - surely anyone living in a constituency represented by a lawfully elected Westminster MP of any party have every right to expect that MP full voting rights on UK issues just like any other representatives from all Westminster constituencies. Is that accurate?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... l-election" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

edited to correct grammar apologies

The largest academy chain in the country has transferred eight schools from its control, blaming their “geographic isolation”.
The Academies Enterprise Trust (AET) has been handing over the schools to local sponsors since December.

The relinquished schools are East Point Academy in Lowestoft; Childwall Sports & Science Academy in Liverpool; Oaks, Tree Tops and Molehill Copse Primary Academies, Kent; Northamptonshire’s The Duston School; and Peak and Greenfield Academies in Gloucestershire. Statements from the trust say that all eight schools were handed to new sponsors because they were “geographically isolated” from the trust’s other schools.

Schools minister Lord Nash has, in the past, stated a preference for schools in academy chains to be within an hour’s drive of each other. And last year, the education select committee said academy chains performed better in geographic clusters.

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Ah, we're here again are we. And this time with added accusations of sexism. Fair enough.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Anyway, the big news this morning is that Dave has forgotten what football team he "supports". I expect this one will go viral

the Prime Ministers favourite team - well they do play in the same colours as Aston Villa