Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories are planning to bet everything on getting a majo
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories are planning to bet everything on getting a majority – if they don’t they won’t do a coalition deal
The big GE2015 development overnight is the Telegraph story that the Tories are planning to go into the election with a manifesto commitment not to enter a coalition deal.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
CCHQ have clearly not looked at the calendar. There is an election taking place on 18 September that they definitely do not want to turn into an 'are you for us or agin us' contest:
- Are you a Tory? please tick No
- If you are not a Tory, please tick Yes
... cos we all know how that will end up.
I guess the thought is that if they're polling around Con +2, they'll be able to fool voters into thinking they should vote Con for stable government. Obviously this will really make NOM more likely, but FPTP is a weird mirror world where if you want the seats to be able to do something, you have to say you plan to do the opposite.
After all, there will be a 5-year parliament anyway, so they might as well learn to be co-operative regardless of which side of the House they sit on.
I seriously doubt it, cos if they were willing to put their money where their mouths are, we would not be seeing PP prices like these in Tory-held seats:
Hastings and Rye (Con Maj = 1,993)
Lab 1/4
Con 2/1
Morecambe and Lunesdale (Con Maj = 866)
Lab 1/7
Con 4/1
Weaver Vale (Con Maj = 991)
Lab 1/6
Con 5/2
If the Tories have got the faintest hope in hell of a Con Maj in 2015 they would need to hold those three seats (and lots of others like them) with comfortably increased majorities. So the fact that Labour are currently priced at shoo-in prices like 1/7 just shows that nobody with serious money has the slightest faith in Con Maj.
I'm assuming that "swingback" has already been priced into the market.
- The real error is to overrate her capacity to deliver change, even if she wanted it
Ms Merkel is the most important European leader, someone worth dazzling with London’s grandeur for a diplomatic end, but she is not Charlemagne. She has less latitude within Germany, which has less clout within Europe, than many Tories believe. As they set off on their fanciful project to remake a union of 28 nations and 500m people, they need a plan that does not start and end with her.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/509a0a0a-9d42-11e3-83c5-00144feab7de.html#axzz2uJ4gxyJU
Much more vulnerable, I would suggest. He is unwanted by Labour, and unusable by Torys. Not good for him.
The two are now more different than they were yesterday.
Two parties squeeze the life out of the third?
That would also rule out a 'rainbow coalition' smashing the dreams of other minor parties.
It would be a shame if, in a NOM situation, there was not a coalition deal.
... When Mr Cameron brought his Cabinet to Aberdeen, he met oil industry leaders – but met virtually no voters, allowing Mr Salmond to crow afterwards: “This jetting in and jetting out again, I think it’s counter-productive. I thought David Cameron was just not confident enough to debate against me – it turns out he is not confident enough to debate with the people either.”
... If the Prime Minister expected to come to Scotland and win over the locals simply by dispatching his ministers to various events in the area then flying out again, he seemed to have underestimated the Scottish Government’s ability to create an impression of its own.
... Mr Salmond was determined to win every part of this confrontation with Mr Cameron on Monday and, at least as far as the people of Portlethan were concerned, he seems to have succeeded.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hamish-macdonells-sketch-camerons-cabinet-visit-to-scotland-gives-nationalists-home-advantage-in-independence-stakes-9150391.html
EiT [4.11am] I rarely disagree with you, but I do to-day. Cameron (and with him a sort of Euro-Toryism which he tries to make more acceptable to his rank-and-file by being heartless to the workless) was only palatable, as leader, to his Party in the peculiar circumstances of 2005. He isn't any more. They'd probably trade a - quite possibly short - term in opposition for getting a junior and more photogenic version of Duncan-Smith at the helm.
The trick with the coalition that made it last this long was that it sunk Lib and Con together, so neither wanted to force an election.
In the event that the Conservatives fail to get majority but have the possibility of coalition surely he would be able to persuade his MPs that "It is in the national interest to keep Labour out"
Leading the Sky bulletins this morning too
@dizzy_thinks: The most interesting thing thus far in the Harman/Hewitt/Dromey allegation/denials is the lack of a writ. Is it coming?
I would have thought such an outcome is exactly what would happen, with both parties having one or two red lines in a super-slimmed-down agreement.
On topic... Story is totally baffling. The Liberals should see this as a major snub, make a pact with Labour, cut, and run.
The one hope that the Tories had for actually winning seats was in Con/LD marginals. Until now.
Surely he wants to campaign on the basis that the Coalition government under him has been a success, delivered stability in the national interest and (by the election) a strong recovery? What does he gain by dissing it?
A few muttered asides about the frustrations of coalition are entirely appropriate although a tory has to be careful there too because it can so easily be portrayed as "we would have been really nasty if only the Lib Dems had let us" whatever the truth of the matter. But dissing such a successful government and stating that what was done in the national interest is no more so just seems, well, odd.
Presumably a reflection of the frustration some of his backbenchers who think they really ought to be ministers by now but this will cause problems down the line for little upside.
However if true and if carried through it is a bad error from Cameron.
Cameron agreed to a Coalition to provide the nation with stable government for five years and with the job half done is he now going to a reject it and force on the nation a weak minority government left at the vagaries of the majority in parliament ?
Worse still will be the response of the markets whose default position is to reject uncertainty which is the essence of minority government.
Cameron's and indeed Miliband's position should be :
We're fighting hard for a majority but we respect the voters not placing a majority in one party hands and will act in the national interest accordingly.
Why more posturing now?
To appease the eternally unhappy tory backbenches just in case Merkel doesn't give Cammie enough scraps from the table when he begs her to save him from his own Eurosceptic MPs by throwing him a bone.
Come nearer the election this coalition posturing will all soon be forgotten of course.
They demand the benefit of the doubt now, but they were all too willing to allow the media (and their leftist friends) to smear and slur an innocent, elderly and ill man.
As I recall a couple of Labour MPs said something early on in the McAlpine saga to defend him, and need commending for it. But the rest of the sick, sleazy party was all too willing to go along with it.
Likewise, they are all too keen to jump on a bandwagon with the Mitchell saga as well, when it was obvious from the moment the police log was released that something fishy was up.
Either they realise the media of all stripes does this sort of thing all the time (and the links between the NCCL and PIE are far whiffier than any against McAlpine) and demand everyone has the benefit of the doubt, or they agree that everyone is fair game.
People who use the press to smear others - as Labour tries time and time again, including its own people - cannot really complain when negative stories occur about them.
Its still a filthy rag that plays on people's prejudices.
Of course it was a commercial decision, they are a business after all. As you say they correctly calculated that they wouldn't be sued, do you think they have done the same with this story?
- HH saying "we all regret in maturity some of the things we did or didn't do as young people";
- HH saying "this clearly shows that I am unfit for purpose and I must commit hara kiri at once"
- HH saying "my suicide won't be enough. The government should build gas ovens and put everyone to the left of Nick Clegg in them."
Perhaps Salmond's view is the correct one: Cameron is posturing as he did with the currency union - once the 2015 election is over, he'll do what's best for the party and go into a coalition with anyone, no matter what he says now. He's a politician, you know.
Odd interview by Harman about the NCCL. Anyone could join with no questions? Even the BNP? Even racist groups? Why not just say that they looked at the cheque rather than the opinions?
The next government will need to implement cuts that were deferred from this Parliament to allow the recovery to get going. It will need a solid majority and base to do so. It will not be any position for a minority government. This is really quite silly.
The story is a symptom of the basic problem that Cameron has lost control of his backbenchers. He is being driven by them into one weird position after another - another juicy one was the referendum in 2017 on the treaty that nobody thinks will exist by then. But the resulting message is going to be very peculiar - "The government has been so good that you should vote Tory for more, and so bad that we promise not to do it again".
1) keeps Tory MPs happy and starts to stiffen the resolve of party workers. Much is made on here of falling membership but as in Scotland, the party is beginning to realise there are lots of people willing to give the party some help at election times without having to sign up to party membership
2) puts pressure on Orange book LibDems, especially those at risk of losing their seats
3) creates clear blue water from the Tim Farron/Vince Cable ex-Labour LibDems
4) may be preparing for a post IndyRef YES vote when for David Cameron and chums it will be all about England and Wales
5) a deal may already have been done with the DUP/UUP.
The Harman/Daily Mail row is interesting and today a new one is appearing between Peter Bone and the Times. I have no particular view on the truth or otherwise of either story. However in both cases the MP concerned has got the backs up of a great many people, in Hattie's case because of her "man hater" attitude to so many issues and in Peter Bone's case just by his constant unpleasant references on so many issues.
Con 290 .. Lab 285 .. LibDem 45 .. Others 30
Might this not be a recognition of reality?
The blue backbenchers have never liked being in bed with the yellows. If Cameorn 'wins' (largest party, no outright majority) the PCP will probably prefer minority government or a second election over a second coalition.
It also avoids the need to discuss whether manifesto promises are 'red line issues' (ie not up for negotiation in a coalition deal).
However, the downside is pretty clear, as outlined above.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-26334501#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa
Called spin innit ?
So back to Salmond and his plan F....
It also specifies Cameron, so leaves open a coalition headed by another leader. I suspect that if the Conservatives cannot form a majority govt, they would prefer a Labour minority govt that would most likely collapse fairly quickly. This would put them back in power within a year or two.
I think the LDs would not be keen on coalition either, prefering to lick their wounds in opposition. A second LD Tory coalition would risk them being absorbed by the Conservatives as a new form of National Liberals.
Tom Newton Dunn@tnewtondunn·23 mins
"This is all about Ralph Miliband. Dacre is still livid," says senior Labour source on Harman. Possibly, but also says much about Team Ed.
It suggests that our political system with its oppositional rather than collaborative nature, and Westminster bubble hothouse is institutionally sexist. Professions such as my own have reformed tremendously over the decades to eliminate institutional barriers to women, but our government does not seem willing to do so itself.
Social Market Fdtn@SMFthinktank·1 min
We will live tweet from @ChrisLeslieMP's speech to the SMF on Labour's review of public spending this morning. Follow us & use #SMFLeslie
A solution was proposed, a generation ago, by, of all people, Teresa Goman: halve the number of Parliamentary constituencies and have them elect two MPs each - one male, one female. I have yet to see an argument against this - as opposed to sniggers. Maybe I'll be luckier to-day. Or not (given that this site is even more male than the HoC itself).
The devil will be in the details ...
It's artificial. Enforcing 'representative' democracy (not along racial or sexual orientation lines, though) would mean we'd end up lumbered with a load of quota-filling second-raters because they happened to have a particular set of reproductive organs.
The layout of the Commons is far better than limp-wristed 'consensus-building' semi-circles we see in such bastions of democracy as the EU (pah). It indicates clearly that the sides are in opposition. They disagree, and in that disagreement offer choice to the electorate (sadly, not enough, as we see with the political consensus on aid, and green issues).
Buggering up the Commons just to make it more PC would be unutterably ridiculous.
History is going to prove that Cameron was just posturing about an awful lot of things.
History is going to prove that an awful lot of senior Labour politicians just looked at the cheques and didn't give a flying f*** who was writing them (eg. Better Together). Tammany Hall de nos jours.
Yes, there's a risk of tactical voting but that assumes that the prime motivation is 'keeping the Tories out', and for those to whom that does apply, they'll already be voting accordingly. There really aren't all that many voters who are so engaged and motivated. Besides, as things stand, the big Yellow-Red swing has done the job of sorting the tactical voting all by itself.
On the subject of tactical voting, it's very akin to the discussion on negative campaigning yesterday (in fact, it is negative campaigning): it only works when voters believe that there's a threat to be stopped and that they have a vehicle with which to do it.
To that end, it would be a mistake to believe on the basis of 1993-2005 that there's a permanent anti-Tory majority in the sense of a cohesive movement. There is of course a non- (and hence, implicitly, anti-)Tory majority but then there's also an anti-Labour one, an anti-Lib Dem one, and so on. The notion of a confluence of interests between the Lib Dems and Labour came about because of an unusual period when New Labour was centrist and the Tories were tired and divided. In reality, swing voters will tend to gravitate against the less popular of the two main parties. It was Labour's ascendency that produced the illusion of the anti-Tory coalition; once the Conservatives gained an advantage, it largely melted away (or at least, became a one-way street, from Lab to LD - which itself proved a gross tactical blunder).
If the Conservatives can reassert a reasonable lead against Labour, the anti-Tory tactical voting will take care of itself.
Little chance of a Grand Coalition when Labour cannot bring themselves to vote even for a £26,000 cap on a benefits.
He has never been forgiven for forming a coalition (cf. NClegg not being forgiven for being its junior partner). I think he is saying to his backbenchers, and perhaps some Kippers also,that there is actually a proper Tory PM in there, waiting to be unleashed.
It's a touch unkind to the LDs but then the LDs have never shied away from asymmetric attacks on their coalition partner so perhaps there's also an element of "you can push us only so far..." in this.
When will the scales fall from the eyes of the true believers...?
Second, though I take david_herdson's point about “detoxifying the Lib Dems in the eyes of Labour voters”, I suspect Clegg would need to stand down for this to be achieved.
You can't claim you'll cut the deficit if you're happy to hand out more than £26,000 a year to people who do nothing to earn it.
We'll find out who was the clever one and who was the daftie soon enough. So patience dear boy. Patience.
(By the way, Scott P accusing another poster of being a "true believer" is a classic for PBs pot calling the kettle black section.)
However she should have been much quicker off the mark to indicate in terms :
The NCCL link to PIE was an error and I regret it ever occurred. PIE was a disgusting organization but we should not allow it to obscure the good work the NCCL did.
If there's a Yes he will have won. Scotlandshire will become an independent country with hundreds of years to refine and sort out currencies and fiscal pacts and what have you. Despite all the woes of eg. Greece and Argentina before that and the others, no one ever suggested they be abolished as countries. Same with Scotland. Whatever follows, however good or bad, it will be an independent nation and that is what ASalmond wants.
Can't argue with that. I would wish they stay but I understand his strategy.
It's a type that it's useful to have in leadership in our tough world. But it's not the only type one needs, and British politics probably overselects for it.
"... we would not be seeing PP prices like these in Tory-held seats:
Hastings and Rye (Con Maj = 1,993)
Lab 1/4
Con 2/1
Morecambe and Lunesdale (Con Maj = 866)
Lab 1/7
Con 4/1
Weaver Vale (Con Maj = 991)
Lab 1/6
Con 5/2
If the Tories have got the faintest hope in hell of a Con Maj in 2015 they would need to hold those three seats (and lots of others like them) with comfortably increased majorities. So the fact that Labour are currently priced at shoo-in prices like 1/7 just shows that nobody with serious money has the slightest faith in Con Maj."
Why haven't YOU bet the house on those Labour odds ?