frightful_oik wrote:What's he done now? I'm still waiting for Danczuk, Lammy or Abbot to say something stupid in the next few days.PorFavor wrote:I'm going to utter a profanity.
David Blunkett.
David Blunkett concedes Miliband can't win a majority (Guardian Election Blog)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 14926.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;An SNP party veteran and former MP has claimed that another referendum on Scottish independence would be “the first line” of the party’s manifesto in 2016.
Jim Sillars, who was the deputy leader of the party under Alex Salmond, said in an interview with The Telegraph that he could see no way the SNP would not propose a new referendum next year, to take place “when it suits us”.
Should also say it is a telephone pollrearofthestore wrote:Ipsos Mori Data is now available, Smithson can't see any problems but I can.
Figures based on 750 weighted definitely voting CONS 216 LAB 182 undecided 93
Breakdown Age Group 18-24 CONS lead by 2%
Breakdown Regional Greater London CONS 35% LAB 26%
plus the issues highlighted by Anatoly earlier , again ignore its rubbish
Matthew Young @matt_young 22m22 minutes ago
@peterjukes Just looked at raw Ipsos Mori data. They're saying there's been a 13.5% swing to Tories among social class DE in last two weeks
I'd no intention of getting into that tangle on the blog. I'd responded to the commentator after they'd claimed all the Labour supporters on the thread were really Tories. As the commentator had posted a long time I thought I could get reason from them by posting truthfully. I was wrong. That commentator has to argue with every Labour supporter through fair means or foul.Willow904 wrote:You seem to have ruffled a few feathers over at the Guardian, JA. I found that story about the Labour councillor who accidentally retweeted a polling leaflet that endorsed tactical voting, btw:citizenJA wrote:Absolutely insane reactions. Ludicrous justifications, outrageous lies about the Labour party & those commenting supporting the Labour party. I'm embarrassed for their posts. It's a couple of commentators who've regularly posted supporting the SNP.yahyah wrote:Looks as if the Murdoch endorsement is a touchy subject for the more vociferous Nats.
http://www.eastlothiancourier.com/news/ ... ry-tweet-/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
He resigned because of the error and the ensuing abuse he received on social media. And that appears to be it. I think there would have to be more than one Labour member/campaigner involved to justify the take some SNP supporters appear to have on it. I asked for links, so we'll see. CIF comments certainly make you feel like you're missing something going on in Scotland but then I see interviews with Scottish voters on the TV and they seem the exact same confused, apathetic or tribalist types you get anywhere so I'm not sure anything really strange is going on after all. Those who voted yes in the referendum and a few others are going to vote SNP. They want independence mostly, which to me has absolutely nothing to with Labour really and as a unionist party there is nothing Labour can offer them to change their minds, unfortunately.
Labour have to win rUK. That's all there is to it.
There's this too:rearofthestore wrote:Should also say it is a telephone pollrearofthestore wrote:Ipsos Mori Data is now available, Smithson can't see any problems but I can.
Figures based on 750 weighted definitely voting CONS 216 LAB 182 undecided 93
Breakdown Age Group 18-24 CONS lead by 2%
Breakdown Regional Greater London CONS 35% LAB 26%
plus the issues highlighted by Anatoly earlier , again ignore its rubbish
and just spotted thisMatthew Young @matt_young 22m22 minutes ago
@peterjukes Just looked at raw Ipsos Mori data. They're saying there's been a 13.5% swing to Tories among social class DE in last two weeks
Antony Wells always says, and I paraphrase, that if a single poll looks out of kilter with the general polls, it's usually a rogue. I suggest this is likely to be one of those.@MSmithsonPB · 41m 41 minutes ago
Only 63% of 2010 LAB voters supporting party now according to Ipsos. Other polls have that at 80+
Oh crike. She's a ranter about Islam.pk1 wrote:Prominent support for Labour from the actress, Frances Barber:
https://twitter.com/francesbarber13" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'll go furtherAntony Wells always says, and I paraphrase, that if a single poll looks out of kilter with the general polls, it's usually a rogue. I suggest this is likely to be one of those.
No SNP donations over £7.5k again ??The four political parties that have reported receiving donations over £7,500 are the Conservatives (£1,083,479), Labour (£1,530,000), the Liberal Democrats (£75,000) and Ukip (£1,500,000).
citizenJA wrote:Hey, way to go, you bastard Tories. You want five more years of what? No, thank you....the gap between rich and poor continues to widen. Men in Blackpool can currently expect to live to just 75.2 years, the lowest life expectancy in the country, while those in the City of London – where life expectancy is highest – live an average of 83.4 years. The longest life expectancy for women is also in the City, at 87.3 years. Kensington and Chelsea, the richest borough in London, is close behind.
Based on the latest data available for England and Wales, from 2012, the study shows that the eight-year gap in men’s lifespan between more and less affluent districts yawns as large as the gap between England and Wales as a whole and Sri Lanka or Vietnam, say the researchers from Imperial College London. The seven-year gap for women is as large as that between the UK and Malaysia or Nicaragua.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... l-research" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I haven't gone a long way back into her twitter feed and sure, I saw some about Islam but nowhere near enough to say she was 'ranting' about it.Tubby Isaacs wrote:Oh crike. She's a ranter about Islam.pk1 wrote:Prominent support for Labour from the actress, Frances Barber:
https://twitter.com/francesbarber13" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
She was pretty bad when I saw her. It was said she might have been tired and emotional.pk1 wrote:I haven't gone a long way back into her twitter feed and sure, I saw some about Islam but nowhere near enough to say she was 'ranting' about it.Tubby Isaacs wrote:Oh crike. She's a ranter about Islam.pk1 wrote:Prominent support for Labour from the actress, Frances Barber:
https://twitter.com/francesbarber13" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And that all passed Smithson by?rearofthestore wrote:Ipsos Mori Data is now available, Smithson can't see any problems but I can.
Figures based on 750 weighted definitely voting CONS 216 LAB 182 undecided 93
Breakdown Age Group 18-24 CONS lead by 2%
Breakdown Regional Greater London CONS 35% LAB 26%
plus the issues highlighted by Anatoly earlier , again ignore its rubbish
Ditto. Confess to thinking, who???frightful_oik wrote:I confess to resorting to Wiki to find out who she is. I'm still none the wiser other than that she's an actress.
Madame Kovarian (the freaky lady with the eyepatch) in Matt Smith's second Doctor Who series, and a stalwart of the RSC; as Tubby says, good actress, always value for money. But, as others have pointed out, she can be a little ....erm ..... feisty on Twitter.frightful_oik wrote:I confess to resorting to Wiki to find out who she is. I'm still none the wiser other than that she's an actress.
AngryAsWell wrote:FT says it wants another Tory/Lib Dem coalition
We are stuffed, I know I know "but they would wouldn't they".
But all these coming out for torys is just too depressing.
And Brand calling it for the Greens (well telling people to vote for CL, but may as well just have said Greens)
I'm off
I emailed the Guardian a week ago and asked for my account to be closed because I find myself indulging in trying to tackle the eejits. Not worth the effort, they are brainwashed.seeingclearly wrote:Tried to point out some home truths to some nats earlier, less said the better. A woman came on saying she had written a long post then deleted it, because she couldn't face the negativity. A 'no' labour voter. It was she said, as unpopular as being a Tory. She implied she could say a lot more. She sounded bloody frustrated about not feeling she could speak her mind. I had been as well.
Dear Ms Ephie,ephemerid wrote:I can now make an announcement - David Cameron has won tonight's QT leaders debate.
Having donned his specilly tailored (to obscure the pasty/beer/bingo gut) Jermyn Street shirt with the sewn-in rolled up sleeves (prepared in case his batman forgets to roll them up), and mixed with the hoi polloi very passionately (whilst ensconced on a lectern just in case the plebs forget he is more important then they are), Our Glorious Ronsealed Fishpointer General is now being sterilised and put into his Savile Row carapace.
Lynton has already provided the answers to all the questions and Our Glorious etc. has delivered them, passionately, all over the country he loves; as a result, the nation that Scotland and Labour plan to break up has heard the truth and there is nothing more to be said. This means that he is far too busy and important doing serious stuff and making tough choices to attend this evening's silly little show for the little people.
A meeting has been arranged by Our Glorious etc. which he will naturally be the chairman of and which he identified as a necessary thing to do in these very difficult circumstances; as yet, security services have prevented Number Ten from informing the public of the nature of this threat to our national security. However, you may all rest assured that Our Glorious etc. (who is still Prime Minister, by the way, actually) will chair this very necessary meeting with his passion and determination to keep us safe from whatever it is he's having a COBRA meeting about. Actually.
Now that we know the result of the debate that's happening later, we must ensure that we watch the news on any other channel so that we do not miss Our Glorious etc. wearing his Savile Row carapace, a determined and very serious expression with thinned lips and plenty of superglue, as he will appear before us on his lectern in front of Number Ten (where he still lives, by the way, being our Prime minister) and tell us that his good friend Barack agrees with him that this is no time for complacency and we must all prepare ourselves for whatever it is.
Meanwhile, as we wait with bated breath to be informed once again that Our Glorious etc. is taking care of our country because he is still our Prime Minister actually, we could pass the time reading a splendid article in the Torygraph by Ms. Julia Hartley-Brewer, in which she rightly points out that Ed Miliband has become a monster because he has lots of fans and is confident and is believing his own hype.
So don't bother tuning in to the debates. OGRFG has already won.
yahyah wrote:Dear Ms Ephie,ephemerid wrote:I can now make an announcement - David Cameron has won tonight's QT leaders debate.
Having donned his specilly tailored (to obscure the pasty/beer/bingo gut) Jermyn Street shirt with the sewn-in rolled up sleeves (prepared in case his batman forgets to roll them up), and mixed with the hoi polloi very passionately (whilst ensconced on a lectern just in case the plebs forget he is more important then they are), Our Glorious Ronsealed Fishpointer General is now being sterilised and put into his Savile Row carapace.
Lynton has already provided the answers to all the questions and Our Glorious etc. has delivered them, passionately, all over the country he loves; as a result, the nation that Scotland and Labour plan to break up has heard the truth and there is nothing more to be said. This means that he is far too busy and important doing serious stuff and making tough choices to attend this evening's silly little show for the little people.
A meeting has been arranged by Our Glorious etc. which he will naturally be the chairman of and which he identified as a necessary thing to do in these very difficult circumstances; as yet, security services have prevented Number Ten from informing the public of the nature of this threat to our national security. However, you may all rest assured that Our Glorious etc. (who is still Prime Minister, by the way, actually) will chair this very necessary meeting with his passion and determination to keep us safe from whatever it is he's having a COBRA meeting about. Actually.
Now that we know the result of the debate that's happening later, we must ensure that we watch the news on any other channel so that we do not miss Our Glorious etc. wearing his Savile Row carapace, a determined and very serious expression with thinned lips and plenty of superglue, as he will appear before us on his lectern in front of Number Ten (where he still lives, by the way, being our Prime minister) and tell us that his good friend Barack agrees with him that this is no time for complacency and we must all prepare ourselves for whatever it is.
Meanwhile, as we wait with bated breath to be informed once again that Our Glorious etc. is taking care of our country because he is still our Prime Minister actually, we could pass the time reading a splendid article in the Torygraph by Ms. Julia Hartley-Brewer, in which she rightly points out that Ed Miliband has become a monster because he has lots of fans and is confident and is believing his own hype.
So don't bother tuning in to the debates. OGRFG has already won.
How would you like to work for The Sun ?
You display the sort of talent we so need, the ability to write copy about things long before they actually happen.
In recognition of your fine work, I'd like to offer you a pre-employment gift.
Please find enclosed Andy Coulson's two line pamphlet Ethics in Journalism, I hope you find it illuminating.
Yours sincerely
Rupert Murdoch.
Hurrah!yahyah wrote:Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 7m7 minutes ago
LAB at 2% lead with Panelbase. LAB 34% (NC), CON 32% (+1%), UKIP 17% (NC), LD 8% (+1), GRN 4% (NC)
Mark Ferguson @Markfergusonuk · 18m 18 minutes ago
Presumably George Osborne will spend this evening trying to tell the spin room that Nicola Sturgeon won, even though she won’t be there
I haven't had anything from the Green Party, yet, but I know they've been leafletting elsewhere in the borough – there are three Constituencies here. They're offering their window-posters as downloads, though: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/posters.htmlyahyah wrote:We've had no communication at all from the Greens, only a week to go.rebeccariots2 wrote:We've got no local elections in Wales either so this wouldn't apply here. However ... and I know I bang on about this ... we have had just about nil involvement by the Greens in local elections and that's something I really regret and - tbh - slightly resent in terms of this election. I'd really like them to start building a record of public service from the ground here. Too many of our candidates this year seem to have just popped up for this election alone and we probably won't hear or see anything from them once it's over.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Some great testimony from our Watford correspondent Tizme yesterday evening.
Some clear evidence of something that I've been droning on about and which the Westminster lot are largely ignoring, namely the influence of local elections on the way the General plays out. This is probably because there are no local elections in London, so the MSM haven't even noticed!
From Wiki Tizme reported that some people in Watford are planning to vote Green in the locals and Labour tactically in the General. Surely this could be widespread behaviour that the polls will struggle to pick up. Presumably, Cameron could also benefit from similar behaviour around the UKIP vote, but has anyone even thought about it?
Maybe they are saving the planet, not wasting paper.
Bit more confirmation of the Wintour tweet earlier ....Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick · 24m 24 minutes ago
Liberal Democrats say they have a letter showing the 2012 Cabinet Paper on possible welfare cuts, including CB, shows it was initiated by PM
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick · 3h 3 hours ago
Tks to @liberalhistory these are spells since 1900 when PM didn't have most votes & seats: 1905-06; 1910-22; 1929-35; 1940-41; 1951-55; 1974
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick · 3h 3 hours ago
Sorry, I should have added 1924 Labour government to that list if PMs who didn't lead parties with most seat & most votes
rebeccariots2 wrote:Bit more confirmation of the Wintour tweet earlier ....Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick · 24m 24 minutes ago
Liberal Democrats say they have a letter showing the 2012 Cabinet Paper on possible welfare cuts, including CB, shows it was initiated by PM
Whose pants are on fire?
First time for everything.yahyah wrote:rebeccariots2 wrote:Bit more confirmation of the Wintour tweet earlier ....Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick · 24m 24 minutes ago
Liberal Democrats say they have a letter showing the 2012 Cabinet Paper on possible welfare cuts, including CB, shows it was initiated by PM
Whose pants are on fire?
Have the Lib Dems been clever and held the letter back, after letting the Tories go into denial mode ?
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Russell Brand endorses the Greens.
I guess he's become significant again, now that he's not endorsed Labour.
Roughly translated- he's a liar.The BBC contacted the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA), the independent watchdog that monitors how official statistics are produced and released, and asked them to look into it. The head of assessment at the UKSA has now responded.
First of all, the authority noted that - in an example the BBC provided of the way the numbers were being used - Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt had not quoted the most recent statistics available.
On 15 April he tweeted a graph showing the NHS spent only 5.9% of its budget on private providers, when in fact the figure had already been revised upwards to 6.1%.
In the current political environment, talking about small changes in numbers, a difference of 0.2 percentage points could be considered significant.
Looking at the way the statistics were released, the UKSA describes the Department of Health's approach as "unsatisfactory", owing to "the significance that we attach to the principle of equal access to statistics and underlying analysis".
Roughly translated- he's a liar.The BBC contacted the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA), the independent watchdog that monitors how official statistics are produced and released, and asked them to look into it. The head of assessment at the UKSA has now responded.
First of all, the authority noted that - in an example the BBC provided of the way the numbers were being used - Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt had not quoted the most recent statistics available.
On 15 April he tweeted a graph showing the NHS spent only 5.9% of its budget on private providers, when in fact the figure had already been revised upwards to 6.1%.
In the current political environment, talking about small changes in numbers, a difference of 0.2 percentage points could be considered significant.
Looking at the way the statistics were released, the UKSA describes the Department of Health's approach as "unsatisfactory", owing to "the significance that we attach to the principle of equal access to statistics and underlying analysis".
Try "wanting the moon on a stick" but getting that tangled up with David Niven's autobiography, The Moon's A Balloonutopiandreams wrote:@rebeccariots2
Since you've thanked me for my bit of nonsense earlier can you answer me something please as I'm a little concerned for my sanity. I've just got in from seeing my eldest and gave him the account of my daily tale but he had no idea where I was coming from today having never heard the expression of giving or offering someone a balloon on a stick. I've since discovered that Google and Bing are not my friends. I haven't made it up, have I? The expression that is, obviously I have my tale.
Btw he's suggested people must be dying for the election to be over so I stop coming up with such nonsense.
