Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the coalition collapsed then the LDs are NOT going to ke

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited May 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the coalition collapsed then the LDs are NOT going to keep the Tories in power with a supply and confidence arrangement

The main story in the Times this morning is a report that preparatory work is going on in Downing Street to deal with the consequences of a break-up of the coalition.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    More evidence of terrible media management at No. 10?
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    Still think the coalition will stay the distance. Quite what will be left of either party in the end entirely rests on the state of the economy.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Latest YouGov / The Sun results 16th May - CON 31%, LAB 39%, LD 9%, UKIP 15%; APP -38
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    edited May 2013
    A 5.8% chance is probably about the measure of it. Punting money towards such a long shot doesn't seem very sensible to me? All the parties are watching the rise of UKIP in the polls and wondering how long and how far it will run. Realistically it is hard to see things changing before the Euro14 elections at the earliest; in such febrile times why would any of the three main parties wish to take the gamble of a GE at the moment? It's also the case that sudden political uncertainty could deal the economy and business confidence a significant short-term hit.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    It's in neither party's interest to break up the coalition at the moment.

    As for preparatory work: it makes sense. Any business should try and be prepared for as many possible contingencies as possible, and that can involve thinking through or wargaming scenarios.

    I'd be amazed if the Lib Dems and Labour were not also thinking through the scenarios.

    The problem occurs when, as here, such thinking becomes public.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    YouGov

    Cons: Men -10; Women -7

    Here are some statements that different people make about different political parties. In each case, which party do you think it applies to most - the Conservatives, Labour or the Liberal
    Democrats?
    The kind of society it wants is broadly the kind
    of society I want. Applies most to the:
    Conservatives 27(0)
    Labour: 25 (-5)
    LibDems 11(-1)
    None of the: 24(+4)
    DK: 13(+2)

    It is led by people of real ability:
    Cons: 18(-2)
    Labour: 15(-2)
    LibDems: 4(+1)
    None of them: 47(+4)
    DK 16(-1)

    Its leaders are prepared to take tough and
    unpopular decisions
    Cons: 41(-6)
    Labour: 11(-1)
    LibDems:5(+1)
    None of them: 29(+5)
    DK: 14(+1)

    It seems to chop and change all the time: you
    can never be quite sure what it stands for
    Cons: 27(+4)
    Labour: 22(-4)
    LibDem: 28(-1)
    None: 9(+1)
    DK: 15(+1)









  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited May 2013
    "The main story in the Times this morning is a report that preparatory work is going on in Downing Street to deal with the consequences of a break-up of the coalition.

    The report seems to be based on wishful thinking that it would be the LDs who would want to close it down not the Tories.",


    Or, as is far more likely, in the face of the continuing Europe chaos in the tory party from disgruntled backbenchers, Cammie is trying to appease them by trying to stop banging on about Europe for five minutes and blame the lib dems for his inability to manage his party.
    Posturing is what he has always done and to be fair it's always worked. He's still leader and they are still unlikely to change that. They are suckers for empty posturing as has been proved so many times before, particularly on Europe.

    The argument about fearing going to the polls works both ways. Much as the lib dems would be in severe trouble so would the tories. Going to electorate when the kippers are riding their protest wave might not seem that great idea to quite a few tory MPs in marginal seats.

    We've seem this before after Lords reform was killed and then boundary changes dumped.
    There is an optimal time for disentanglement and decoupling and it sure ain't this far out from the GE, for either party.

    The only way this gets to a catastrophic game of no-confidence 'chicken' is if the tory backbenchers lose their minds completely over Europe and pull the trigger. While it can never be ruled out completely (it's not exactly unprecedented) it's still very unlikely.
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    Mick_Pork said:

    "The main story in the Times this morning is a report that preparatory work is going on in Downing Street to deal with the consequences of a break-up of the coalition.

    The report seems to be based on wishful thinking that it would be the LDs who would want to close it down not the Tories.",


    Or, as is far more likely, in the face of the continuing Europe chaos in the tory party from disgruntled backbenchers, Cammie is trying to appease them by trying to stop banging on about Europe for five minutes and blame the lib dems for his inability to manage his party.
    Posturing is what he has always done and to be fair it's always worked. He's still leader and they are still unlikely to change that. They are suckers for empty posturing as has been proved so many times before, particularly on Europe.

    The argument about fearing going to the polls works both ways. Much as the lib dems would be in severe trouble so would the tories. Going to electorate when the kippers are riding their protest wave might not seem that great idea to quite a few tory MPs in marginal seats.

    We've seem this before after Lords reform was killed and then boundary changes dumped.
    There is an optimal time for disentanglement and decoupling and it sure ain't this far out from the GE, for either party.

    The only way this gets to a catastrophic game of no-confidence 'chicken' is if the tory backbenchers lose their minds completely over Europe and pull the trigger. While it can never be ruled out completely (it's not exactly unprecedented) it's still very unlikely.

    Hard to disagree with that. I think you could be on to something.
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    edited May 2013
    The idea that Labour would want an election this year is silly. They are carefully planning for 2015, just like all parties.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Millsy said:

    They are carefully planning for 2015, just like all parties.

    Really?

    It looks more like they are carefully avoiding planning anything that might possibly upset the Unions, the Guardian or European overlords, hoping to scrape a win with the lowest mathematically possible vote share
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    Millsy said:

    The idea that Labour would want an election this year is silly. They are carefully planning for 2015, just like all parties.

    You don't have to want one to recognise the need to plan for the possibility.

    With the Tories seemingly bent on mass Sepuku it would seem foolish not to do some contingency planning.
  • Mick_Pork If a GE happened this year what would be your predictions for the Scottish seats won by each party?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited May 2013
    On the face of it I agree with Jessop that it doesn't look like its in either party's interest. However that hasn't stopped the Tories before. Their Kamikaze wing is capable of anything.....

    And the Lib Dems are nothing if not opportunists. At the moment they're going down to certain defeat drowning in the trenches with their ill fitting partners but if only they could find something sufficiently 'principled'* and left wing they might see a way out....... It's a long shot but if they could bring down the Tories with it they might just get back their voters who have moved to Labour. Europe might just be just the thing....

    (I know the words "principled" and 'Lib Dem' struggle in the same sentence which is why I put it in parenthesis)
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited May 2013

    Millsy said:

    The idea that Labour would want an election this year is silly. They are carefully planning for 2015, just like all parties.

    You don't have to want one to recognise the need to plan for the possibility.

    With the Tories seemingly bent on mass Sepuku it would seem foolish not to do some contingency planning.
    They all do it with varying degrees of seriousness. For one thing it gives SpAds, Aides and think tanks something to do now that the legislative drought is beginning. All it takes is one or two of them to write a theoretical paper on the possible logisitics or a casual word to a westminster journo to start a story like this. If that story is encouraged by number 10 to try and shift things on from the Europe splits then I doubt they will be complaining.

    The fact of the matter is that were there to be an early election, for whatever reason, no amount of contingency planning would prepare the parties for the likely chaos and confusion that would then ensue. Abruptly shifting gears from governance or opposition to full blown election mode cannot be done lightly or cost free. It doesn't mean it's an impossibility but it does mean that any party that pulled the trigger would be taking a massive risk even regardless of polling.



  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    I think Mick is right here. This story is part of the ongoing Tory strategy of taking responsibility for absolutely nothing. It is always someone else's fault: Labour, the LD's, the EU, immigrants, the poor and the vulnerable seem to be mostly to blame three year's in. Funnily enough, though, when the Tories look at what is happening in France, they blame a man who has been in power for much less time for everything. Go figure.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    Surely the main difference between now and 2010 is that Labour has, more or less, got it's act together. At least compared to early 2010! It's now the Tories who look split and disorganised.
    Given that the practical number of seats to have a majority is 322 (Half of 650- 6 (SF+ Speaker), Lab + LD on 315, plus Alliance, SDLP and Lady Hermon making 320 is closer than Cons + DUP (312)
    And for there to be a General Election before 2015, doesn't there have to be a 65% vote in the House?
    What would Milliband take? A guaranteed stay in No 10 now or a possible one in two years time?
  • Edin_RokzEdin_Rokz Posts: 516
    There is always the alternative of a Minority Government.

    Firstly, this has happened in Scotland when the SNP turned a "we can't do anything cos we're a minority government" into a whacking majority "we can't do anything cos we're not independent" at the next election.

    This is, of course, high risk. The opposition could just sit back and enjoy watching the Tories tearing themselves to pieces or the Tories could come to their senses and play the "we can't do anything cos we ain't got a majority" game. They would be praying that circumstances will save them before the 7th of May, 2015 and that the voters don't rumble them in the meantime.

    Mind you, 16 to 1 looks pretty good to me.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited May 2013

    Mick_Pork If a GE happened this year what would be your predictions for the Scottish seats won by each party?

    Impossible to predict with any degree of certainty since the looming independence referendum would affect such a GE vote. As would the relative polling of all the westminster parties which is now getting hit by the kipper protest surge. There is polling for scottish parliament intentions which points to the SNP maintaining it's lead over labour but those cannot be directly carried over to a westminster GE in which a different dynamic applies.

    For what it's worth about the most reasonable things you can predict is it's going to shake out to an SNP labour split with the tories doing badly and the lib dems in for a world of pain under Clegg. 2011, the polling and locals here show as much. It's how you allocate that SNP labour split that becomes hardest to predict. Fear of a tory majority is the reason labour will give you for saying they think they would get the lions share of that split but their heartlands are not what they were and little Ed in a GE campaign is not something they may find to their liking.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    16/1 represents the chance that the zombie apocalypse on the Tory backbenches isn't brought under control.
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900

    ...What would Milliband take? A guaranteed stay in No 10 now or a possible one in two years time?

    Guaranteed you say? The only parties that would benefit from an early election (depending on why it was brought about) would be the Tories and Lib Dems.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Surely the main difference between now and 2010 is that Labour has, more or less, got it's act together.

    Really?

    Still shackled to the corpse of Gordo's economic catastrophe. No policies. Anti-democratic.

    Is the 'act' they have together the 3 Stooges?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Edin_Rokz said:

    There is always the alternative of a Minority Government.

    Firstly, this has happened in Scotland when the SNP turned a "we can't do anything cos we're a minority government" into a whacking majority "we can't do anything cos we're not independent" at the next election.

    This is, of course, high risk. The opposition could just sit back and enjoy watching the Tories tearing themselves to pieces or the Tories could come to their senses and play the "we can't do anything cos we ain't got a majority" game. They would be praying that circumstances will save them before the 7th of May, 2015 and that the voters don't rumble them in the meantime.

    Mind you, 16 to 1 looks pretty good to me.

    There is a difference: the SNP had a much smaller number (47?) of people to keep in line and singing from the same hymn book. The Conservatives have a much greater number of MPs, and the larger the number, the greater the variance in opinion. Add a media who are interested in magnifying any split, and a number of MPs who prefer their own profile to the party's, and you have trouble.

    We saw similar splits under Labour post-2005 on any number of issues. The larger the number of MPs, the harder it is to exercise central control. And perhaps that's a good thing: should MPs be following central diktat from their parties, or doing what they think is best for their constituents?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    The Queens speech demonstrated how little is left in the Coalition agenda, and there is something to be said for having a 2013 election in the autumn. UKIP will struggle more with organization this year than next, when they can reasonably expect a big Euros boost.

    The biggest problem for the LibDems is that collapsing the coalition leaves them facing an election with an unpopular leader, and having shredded any credibility as a coalition party in a future govt of any stripe. Tory and LibDems will still be sitting together on the opposition benches.

    All calls for electoral reform hinge on the people wanting permenant coalition governments. A bitter end to this one is hardly going to enthuse the voters with the idea of LibDems as permanent junior members of govt.

    Of course just because something is stupid and self defeating doesn't mean that it will not happen. Maybe the turkeys will vote for early Christmas.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    Scott_P said:

    Surely the main difference between now and 2010 is that Labour has, more or less, got it's act together.

    Really?

    Still shackled to the corpse of Gordo's economic catastrophe. No policies. Anti-democratic.

    Is the 'act' they have together the 3 Stooges?
    LOL.
    No major public arguments, though. No significant briefing against each other.
  • Edin_RokzEdin_Rokz Posts: 516

    Edin_Rokz said:

    There is always the alternative of a Minority Government.

    Firstly, this has happened in Scotland when the SNP turned a "we can't do anything cos we're a minority government" into a whacking majority "we can't do anything cos we're not independent" at the next election.

    This is, of course, high risk. The opposition could just sit back and enjoy watching the Tories tearing themselves to pieces or the Tories could come to their senses and play the "we can't do anything cos we ain't got a majority" game. They would be praying that circumstances will save them before the 7th of May, 2015 and that the voters don't rumble them in the meantime.

    Mind you, 16 to 1 looks pretty good to me.

    There is a difference: the SNP had a much smaller number (47?) of people to keep in line and singing from the same hymn book. The Conservatives have a much greater number of MPs, and the larger the number, the greater the variance in opinion. Add a media who are interested in magnifying any split, and a number of MPs who prefer their own profile to the party's, and you have trouble.

    We saw similar splits under Labour post-2005 on any number of issues. The larger the number of MPs, the harder it is to exercise central control. And perhaps that's a good thing: should MPs be following central diktat from their parties, or doing what they think is best for their constituents?
    Hi Mr Jessop,

    MP's doing what they think is best for their constituents? Individually, sometimes, maybe! As a pack, busy tearing themselves apart?

    Er! 16/1 is still pretty good odds don't you think?
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited May 2013

    <
    There is a difference: the SNP had a much smaller number (47?) of people to keep in line and singing from the same hymn book.

    Though obviously hugely important that unity is still useless if the majority opposition parties pull the trigger. Which brings up the irony of a minority administration. Much as the governing party clearly has to be unified so does the opposition if they want to bring it down for whatever reason. If any of the opposition parties feels they would be at a big electoral disadvantage then why would they bring the governing party down? Some might want to see the governing party fail hard and let them struggle on as long as possible hoping to be proved right. Some might want a snap election to take advantage of superior ground campaigning or funding.

    Triggering an election by bringing down a minority administration is also no trifling matter. The electorate likely won't be kind if they feel they are being dragged to the polls by cheap party machinations. So it then becomes a blame game and that would get ugly.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    I disagree with Mike and agree with Mick on this. I wouldn't be backing a 2013 GE south of 50/1. It certainly won't be the Tories who'll bring the government down, for one thing.

    Why? Well, self-preservation for a start. There may be a great deal of griping about what the government is/is not doing on various issues but the backbench pressure is with a twofold objective: partly to edge the government in the direction of the pressure (or, if you prefer, to apply counter-pressure to that from the Lib Dems), but the main one is a PR job: to put forth openly a manifesto for majority government. It's not about bringing the government down now.

    The Tories are also accustomed to government and know that another two years is both necessary to carry forward plans started three years ago - and so enable the recovery in the polls - and to keep Labour's mitts off the levers of power for as long as possible. By contrast, what's the Lib Dem plan for government? Ideas like the Mansion Tax are just random outpourings aimed at Focus leaflets.

    There's also the question of mechanism. The 1922 Committee's own name does indicate one possibility but the backbenchers will only move to disassociate if they realistically feel that the chances favour going it alone and all sorts of perils lie in that direction, from the public opprobrium that comes with both foisting unwanted elections on the people and appearing to put party above country, to the obvious fact that Labour and UKIP are both doing better than the Tories would like in the polls.

    By contrast, the Lib Dem party conference has real power and has proven awkward in the past. With an ever growing number of ex-councillors and a final batch of pre-government councillors up for election next year, I'd make the Yellows the more likely to break up the coalition. There may also be a belief among some that the LDs could align with Labour following a break-up and so re-establish equidistance. I'd rate that belief naïve but that doesn't mean it won't exist.

    The timetable is another issue. It's probably too late now to have an election before October. There's no imminent crisis and unless one blows up in the next fortnight or so, the possible election dates start running into the summer holidays, and were that the timing for the election, it would go down with everyone from politicians to media to public very poorly. After that is the recess, when nothing serious will happen. It's only the conference season and the month thereafter which offers an opportunity for such a crisis, and then it's the Lib Dems, with their conference first and way below their 2010 poll, who'd have to do it. I'll pass.
  • JohnWheatleyJohnWheatley Posts: 140
    There is absolutely nothing for the Lib Dems to gain by supporting a Tory govt after the break up of the coalition. The election is going to be bad, whenever it is held - might as well get it over with and start re-building (preferably from opposition).

    The seats they will hold on to will be down to incumbency, local graft etc and that applies as much now as in 2 years time.

    Getting out now would be the best way of nobbling the europhobes
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited May 2013
    UK set to become the largest economy in Europe as the Eurozone destroys itself through deliberate policy insanity:

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/coming-soon-europes-biggest-economy-will-be-uk-2013-05-15?link=home_carousel

    That will change the In / Out dynamics pretty powerfully just as a BOO Tory leader leader is elected to sweep away the wreckage of Redward's premiership.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good morning, everyone.

    I can't see this happening. It's worth considering that there's not a binary Together or Part choice. Just as a married couple doesn't have to be Infatuated or Divorced, the Coalition could decide to be in a grumpy marriage of convenience for a couple of years.

    Mr. Patrick, isn't Germany about 20m people larger than the UK? I'd be surprised if we became a larger economy than them.
  • Edin_RokzEdin_Rokz Posts: 516
    Mick_Pork said:

    <
    There is a difference: the SNP had a much smaller number (47?) of people to keep in line and singing from the same hymn book.

    Though obviously hugely important that unity is still useless if the majority opposition parties pull the trigger. Which bring up the irony of a minority administration. Much as the governing party clearly has to be unified so does the opposition if they want to bring it down for whatever reason. If any of the opposition parties feels they would be at a big electoral disadvantage then why would they bring the governing party down?

    Triggering an election by bringing down a minority administration is also no trifling matter. The electorate likely won't be kind if they feel they are being dragged to the polls by cheap party machinations. So it then becomes a blame game and that would get ugly.
    Mr Pork,

    Agreed, but the SNP had the appearance of competence as well as a sense of being in opposition to the other parties to maintain solidarity.

    Different circumstances here.
  • ProfessorDaveyProfessorDavey Posts: 64
    edited May 2013


    And for there to be a General Election before 2015, doesn't there have to be a 65% vote in the House?

    Doesn't this show the nonsense of a 65% vote to trigger an election. We could be in a situation where no party could form a credible government, yet there wouldn't be 65% to trigger an election, which would of course be absolutely disastrous.

    Although I'm not sure this would happen - surely if there was a failure to form a government then parliament would have to be dissolved and a general election called. Alternatively a 50% majority in parliament would be sufficient to amend the 65% to 50%, which would then allow a vote to trigger an election. So in reality I cannot see any situation in which we'd have to wait until 2015 for an election if the coalition failed. And quite rightly too.

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited May 2013
    Mr Wifflestick

    It's possible. Germany is having a demographic collapse - they ain't breeding and are in dire need of immigrants. They're getting some but not enough. We have wide open doors and seem to be reproducing - so the relative population sizes will narrow over time (more them down than us up).

    Plus - and this is the key point in the article, the Euro is going to fail. It is not sustainable as is. The PIIGS and France will stay in depression for as long as they are unable to devalue. Their only allowed mechanism to become externally competitive is through internal cost / wage / GDP reduction. Many (esp France) have no apparent desire to become competitive. Their debt / GDP dynamics are going to pop - the debts will rise as deficits worsen and GDP falls. Germany shares a currency with that lot and contingent liabilities via the ECB will morph into real cash liabilities. A wholesale Eurozone banking collapse is coming along. 2008 will look like a party in comparison. We'll get some of that - but they'll get it worse. In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. We look set to become the one eyed man of Europe.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Patrick, that's a cheery picture.

    I do agree the euro is unsustainable, and the longer the festering corpse plods along, like a zombie currency, the worse the eventual zombie apocalypse will be. Better to just shoot it now, before it can bite anyone else.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    2013! Please no!!! Just finished the locals.

    That said I imagine a 2013 GE would be More attractive to the Tories than Spring 2014, coincident with the Euros.

    What would be mischievous, would be an Autumn GE coinicident with the Independence vote.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Good morning, If ever there were limpets in government, Cammo and boy George, fit the bill. I cannot see them giving up their seats even if the L/D's walked out tomorrow. Even more, I cannot see rEd wanting to face an election now, with UKIP winning Labour seats like ROTHERHAM - Rawmarsh.

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited May 2013

    I disagree with Mike and agree with Mick on this. I wouldn't be backing a 2013 GE south of 50/1. It certainly won't be the Tories who'll bring the government down, for one thing.

    While 'events' can't be ruled out for this year we know when the real crunch points come up and they are next year. The lib dems will be staring down the barrel of a GE with Clegg in charge and likely another disasterous set of locals. While Cameron will likely be dealing with an EU election fallout that will make the current tory backbench panic look like a picnic.

    Doesn't mean an early election next year is guaranteed either but if things keep deteriorating then it just becomes more and more likely. The coalition is still being held together by Cameron and Clegg. Fear of an early election is keeping things from getting beyond the point of no return but that fear could eventually be overwhelmed by panic and mutual loathing. Stoking up talk of disharmony and mutual recriminations between the coalition partners comes at a cost. Backbenchers have already proved they are willing to do far more than just posture and push things to a vote if they can. Lords reform and boundary changes are dead because that posturing was taken at face value.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    Mick_Pork said:

    I disagree with Mike and agree with Mick on this. I wouldn't be backing a 2013 GE south of 50/1. It certainly won't be the Tories who'll bring the government down, for one thing.

    While 'events' can't be ruled out for this year we know when the real crunch points come up and they are next year. The lib dems will be staring down the barrel of a GE with Clegg in charge and likely another disasterous set of locals. While Cameron will likely be dealing with an EU election fallout that will make the current tory backbench panic look like a picnic.

    Doesn't mean an early election next year is guaranteed either but if things keep deteriorating then it just becomes more and more likely. The coalition is still being held together by Cameron and Clegg. Fear of an early election is keeping things from getting beyond the point of no return but that fear could be eventually overwhelmed by panic and mutual loathing. Stoking up talk of disharmony and mutual recriminations between the coalition partners comes at a cost. Backbenchers have already proved they are willing to do far more than just posture and push things to a vote if they can. Lords reform and boundary changes are dead because that posturing was taken at face value.
    I'd argue that Lords Reform and revised boundaries are dead because the Lib Dems threw a strop. Was the threatened procedural vote on Lords Reform (not even carried out) more damaging to the passage of the legislation than what the Lib Dems did to the NHS bill? Yet that bill went through, eventually. Clegg could have had lords reform. It would have been a lengthy and arduous process - lords reform always is - and the bill would probably have been mauled around but something would have come out. But no backbone or willpower sank it.

    However, I agree with your main point. Now is not the time. Next autumn, only six probably not very productive months from the scheduled date, might be a very different matter.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,545
    Mike smithson is right - the LDs will stay in coalition but if the Toies have had enough then it's straight to General Election, no negotiation. Just nothing in it for the Lib Dems any other way, and the idea that there's a way of making the next election easy for the LDs is fanciful, whenever it is.

    David Herdson's comments seem unusually tribal to me; Prof Tim Bale is on the money for me http://t.co/GmN38BSmiM in saying that the Lib Dems keeping their heads is helping the Tories lose theirs.

    Interestingly a 2014 election could lance the UKIP boil as it would be held on the same day as the Euros. 'Vote for them in the Euro Parliament if you must, but stick with us for Westminster' is a message all three parties could make work
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    tim said:

    @Patrick

    "That matters. As the biggest economy in the region, the U.K. will have greater political weight, it will attract more migrants and investment, and the London stock market will receive a much-needed boost."

    There's a good chunk of the population who would rather not have the growth if it involved attracting more migrants

    Absolutely. It is not GDP growth that matters so much as GDP growth percapita. 2% growth with 3% population growth means we are on average poorer and more overcrowded. Not a good outcome.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    edited May 2013
    After watching This House last night and then switching on my phone to be confronted with headlines about a minority Government, I did smile.

    Cameron would be bonkers trying to govern as a minority relying on "The odds and sods" like the Nationalists and Irishmen.

    I agree with Mike there's fat chance of it happening, although he did use stronger language last night when I sent him the Times' pieces.

    But the article did raise an interesting point

    Senior Lib Dems said that Mr Clegg needed to act to prevent the Lib Dems “drifting into a four-party situation with us as the fourth party”.

    One said that, in terms of the coalition’s future “the plates are shifting”.


    What does happen if the Lib Dems do become the fourth party, such as losing a parliamentary seat to UKIP.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited May 2013
    @tim

    You are right that there is alot of unease about the scale and speed of immigration. But immigration will still happen. I'm not sure what can or should be done to stop the UK population expanding. We will become a bigger, more densely populated, richer, more diverse country.

    Many Eurozone countries will become thinner, emptier, poorer, shabbier has-beens. Mass emigration destroys countries. What does a young Spaniard have to look forward to in Spain? Go to London!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited May 2013
    Mick_Pork said:

    I disagree with Mike and agree with Mick on this. I wouldn't be backing a 2013 GE south of 50/1. It certainly won't be the Tories who'll bring the government down, for one thing.

    While 'events' can't be ruled out for this year we know when the real crunch points come up and they are next year. The lib dems will be staring down the barrel of a GE with Clegg in charge and likely another disasterous set of locals. While Cameron will likely be dealing with an EU election fallout that will make the current tory backbench panic look like a picnic.

    Doesn't mean an early election next year is guaranteed either but if things keep deteriorating then it just becomes more and more likely. The coalition is still being held together by Cameron and Clegg. Fear of an early election is keeping things from getting beyond the point of no return but that fear could eventually be overwhelmed by panic and mutual loathing. Stoking up talk of disharmony and mutual recriminations between the coalition partners comes at a cost. Backbenchers have already proved they are willing to do far more than just posture and push things to a vote if they can. Lords reform and boundary changes are dead because that posturing was taken at face value.
    Question is, will the LDs realise that this administration just about represents the pinnacle of their ambition. They are in government; ok, they didn't implement their manifesto and had to make compromises (to say the least) on other policies, but they are at the table. I've always thought the tuition fees issue was missing the point. Broadly, they have contributed to the government of the country and I think that in the lead up to the election (which won't be an early one) enough of them will be reluctant to go back to "idealist but hopeless" status. Especially as the role of protest party is now up for grabs.

    Don't be surprised at another coalition - of course whether that's with Lab or Cons is the interesting point but I think the LDs will come to see this coalition as having been a huge success. And with Nick Clegg in charge.

    As for the Cons if the backbenchers are indeed setting out their stall for the next election that's fine but I can't quite believe they are so masterfully guided.

    And all this in the context of a vastly improved economic climate and forecast.

    I would be quietly confident of a Cons overall majority with LDs polling better than expected such as to deny Lab.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited May 2013

    Mick_Pork said:

    I disagree with Mike and agree with Mick on this. I wouldn't be backing a 2013 GE south of 50/1. It certainly won't be the Tories who'll bring the government down, for one thing.

    While 'events' can't be ruled out for this year we know when the real crunch points come up and they are next year. The lib dems will be staring down the barrel of a GE with Clegg in charge and likely another disasterous set of locals. While Cameron will likely be dealing with an EU election fallout that will make the current tory backbench panic look like a picnic.

    Doesn't mean an early election next year is guaranteed either but if things keep deteriorating then it just becomes more and more likely. The coalition is still being held together by Cameron and Clegg. Fear of an early election is keeping things from getting beyond the point of no return but that fear could be eventually overwhelmed by panic and mutual loathing. Stoking up talk of disharmony and mutual recriminations between the coalition partners comes at a cost. Backbenchers have already proved they are willing to do far more than just posture and push things to a vote if they can. Lords reform and boundary changes are dead because that posturing was taken at face value.
    I'd argue that Lords Reform and revised boundaries are dead because the Lib Dems threw a strop.
    Of course you would while the lib dems would argue it was the tory backbenchers throwing a strop. Which kind of proves my point. Neither of you are likely to change your minds and it's blatantly obvious that there is a deep well of loathing and mutual distrust that neither Cameron or Clegg can possibly afford to let dominate and overwhelm them for the next two years. You can let rip at the GE campaign. (and I have no doubt both sides will) Before then it merely serves to make the government look shambolic and badly managed on both sides. That it pleases the base of both parties is not negated by the damage such disunity does to swing voters not so partisan. The line between distancing and squabbling is a very thin one to tread.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Financier said:

    Latest YouGov / The Sun results 16th May - CON 31%, LAB 39%, LD 9%, UKIP 15%; APP -38

    Was thinking about this a couple of threads ago, but couldn't post from rural Germany.

    I hadn't realised that YouGov doesn't apply a certainty to vote adjustment, which seems surprising. Is there a rule of thumb adjustment that you can use that you help give (what I think) would be a more realistic view of where opinion is?
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    @Patrick

    Thank you for the link to MarketWatch, but I do not feel that the timing of his conclusions are correct.

    Germany, with its low unemployment (5.4%), could well see a surge of immigrants from not only Southern Europe but also from France and the Eastern European states. That is more likely to happen before the UK grows its GDP. Thus its population will rise - especially those of working age.

    Also if the EU continues with its plans to tax financial transactions of all varieties, then that could increase the likelihood of the UK leaving the EU.

    As the economies of the PIIGS+ France are not likely to improve rapidly, I do not see the German electorate being willing to underpin their debts for many more years and this could lead to a break-up of the EZ, perhaps some of the PIIGS leaving the EZ and a small northern Europe EZ zone being retained.

    Of course any break up of the EZ puts into question both the enlargement of the EU and also the future purposes of the EU and would strike a blow at the heart of its bureaucracy.

    Even if a northern EZ was retained, it would be difficult for Brussels to continue with their economic and political integration plan, which is so dear to their heart.

    Timing is difficult to predict, but if the same or worse economic conditions of the EZ countries prevail, then I do not see Germany acting as banker for the EZ past 2020.

  • @ Financier

    Yes. The Euro is going to break. That means the whole 'project' has a question mark against it. If it all falls apart and we revert to the EU being a club rather than a Frankenstein's monster superstate then all conclusions are to be revised.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    My only concern would be that tory backbenchers really do seem to believe that their position on the EU is a winner and absurd expectations seem to be building up behind this backbench bill. If the Lib Dems refuse to provide government time for it, and they will, these backbenchers seem to think this is an issue they can go to the country on with both the Lib Dems and Labour (remember them, supposed to be HM Opposition) in the "wrong" position.

    On the polling they probably are but in a general election campaign this would make very little difference at all. Such a campaign might give the tories some cover against UKIP but I frankly doubt it because there are other, more important, drivers of their current strength and there are a lot more important issues for the British people. The growth story is still too new and fragile to be a clear winner and Labour would win. It takes some really complicated thinking to work out how that advances the Euro-sceptic cause but they are capable of it.

    Would the myopia of Europe lead to such a catastrophic miscalculation? It is possible but not likely. 16/1 seems about right.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    DavidL said:

    My only concern would be that tory backbenchers really do seem to believe that their position on the EU is a winner

    @JohnRentoul: David Cameron, stuck in the middle with public opinion on the EU: my article for the @Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/everyone-thinks-david-cameron-has-screwed-up-over-the-eu--except-for-the-voting-public-8618606.html
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. P, not commenting on Europe/the EU specifically, but it does seem that the centre ground of politics often has sod all common ground with the British people. All party leaderships are in favour of green policies which will increase energy costs by hundreds of pounds a year, for example, and 0.7% spending on aid. They also all wish to remain within the EU.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited May 2013
    Ignorant Patrick seeking education from the PB commentariat: What is the difference between Marriage and a Civil Partnership? I thought gays already could get hitched. Is there a legal distinction or is is merely religious? Any practical real world differnces (eg inheritance, tax reliefs, etc)?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263


    And for there to be a General Election before 2015, doesn't there have to be a 65% vote in the House?

    Doesn't this show the nonsense of a 65% vote to trigger an election. We could be in a situation where no party could form a credible government, yet there wouldn't be 65% to trigger an election, which would of course be absolutely disastrous.

    Although I'm not sure this would happen - surely if there was a failure to form a government then parliament would have to be dissolved and a general election called. Alternatively a 50% majority in parliament would be sufficient to amend the 65% to 50%, which would then allow a vote to trigger an election. So in reality I cannot see any situation in which we'd have to wait until 2015 for an election if the coalition failed. And quite rightly too.

    Changing the law in the middle of a crisis would be difficult, and designed to be so - it would need to go through both Houses in government time. If there was a persistent situation in which no government had a majority, though, eventually everyone would say "oh well!" and have an election.

    But Clegg's strategy hasn't changed. It's always been to show they can govern well for 3 years (hmm) and then differentiate. I'd think that he'd want a period where the LibDems were quite openly preventing all kinds of Tory schemes, until the point when the Tories got fed up and pulled the plug. The Tory interest is less clear. A stronger LD vote recovered from Labour would be a good thing for the Conservatives. A period of chaotic government like now would not. And does more time mean that UKIP's bubble will burst, or that it will give them the chance to prepare, with the Euros as the next stage in their rocket?
    Millsy said:

    The idea that Labour would want an election this year is silly. They are carefully planning for 2015, just like all parties.

    That's what we're working on. However, recently candidate selection has been speeded up, in case it proves necessary. I expect us to have candidates in most of the winnable seats by the autumn.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    edited May 2013
    Charles said:

    Financier said:

    Latest YouGov / The Sun results 16th May - CON 31%, LAB 39%, LD 9%, UKIP 15%; APP -38

    Was thinking about this a couple of threads ago, but couldn't post from rural Germany.

    I hadn't realised that YouGov doesn't apply a certainty to vote adjustment, which seems surprising. Is there a rule of thumb adjustment that you can use that you help give (what I think) would be a more realistic view of where opinion is?
    @Charles:
    If we look at the recent IpsosMori poll:

    The VI for all respondents was:
    Cons: 31; LAB 38; LD 10; UKIP 11

    When only 100% certain to vote was taken into consideration, the VI changed to:
    Cons: 31; LAB 34; LD 10; UKIP 13.

    Also it should be noted that on many polls LAB gets more support from the youngest age group, but they are least likely to vote.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    TOPPING said:

    but I think the LDs will come to see this coalition as having been a huge success. And with Nick Clegg in charge.

    I have no doubt whatsoever that is what Clegg and those around him want to think.
    The lib dem base, activists, members and MPs remaining after 2015? I somehow doubt it. Power at any cost is a dangerous thing to advocate as almost the sole measure of success.
    The quirk of electoral math which gave us the coalition is also not going to the arbiter of success or failure.

    It will indeed be the lib dems as well as the electorate who will count the cost and pass judgement which will manifest itself in what the lib dems choose to do for 2015 and beyond.

    Should they stick with Clegg, both for the election and afterwards, then that would be a vindication of the success you consider them to have had. Should they move to a distinctly post Clegg era which firmly but politely distances itself from Clegg's leadership then I would suggest that may indicate a less favourable judgement.

    Politicians who wait for history to look kindly on them are doing so because the judgement of the present is not to their liking.

  • MBoyMBoy Posts: 104
    The headline looks to me to be a silly (and self-harming) attempt by Downing St to pretend to frothing Tory back-benches that Cameron is one of them because he hates the LDs. Yet more silly posturing by Cameron, which could easily get out off hand and lead to the loss of more legislation if he isn't careful.

    The problem here is that it's the Tories, not the LDs, who are losing discipline. All those laughable articles in The Telegraph about the LDs not being nature enough for government were about the wrong party...
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    This reminds me of all the rumours around potential challengers to Gordon Brown for the Labour leadership. It is the most obvious single act that could be taken that might improve Tory fortunes, but it would be one hell of a gamble. Is Cameron reckless/brave enough to take that gamble, or does he hang on for 2015 and hope for the best?

    We know that none of the potential challengers to Brown decided to take their chances, and I tend to believe Cameron was sincere when he said that the deficit was his number one priority. Collapsing the coalition would put the public finances at risk of coming under the sway of Ed Balls nearly a couple of years earlier. What could be worth that risk?

    If a minority Conservative government could survive a confidence vote then one option open to it would be to bring forward an EU referendum bill and hope to attract Labour rebels to push it through. It is probably the best chance for an EU referendum this decade. I don't think Cameron sees it as his destiny to take Britain out of the EU, so I don't think he'll take that option.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Patrick said:

    UK set to become the largest economy in Europe as the Eurozone destroys itself through deliberate policy insanity:

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/coming-soon-europes-biggest-economy-will-be-uk-2013-05-15?link=home_carousel

    That will change the In / Out dynamics pretty powerfully just as a BOO Tory leader leader is elected to sweep away the wreckage of Redward's premiership.

    The author of that piece is Mathew Lynn who wrote an excellent book on Greece called Bust: Greece, the Euro and the Sovereign Debt Crisis.

    As an aside, it is worth noting that one of the key reasons he expects the UK's economy to exceed Germany's (by 2050) in size is population. Specifically, it mentions immigration - and Britain's attractiveness to immigrants - as a reason why Britain will overtake Germany.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Lds dont have the nuts. May 2015.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Patrick said:

    Ignorant Patrick seeking education from the PB commentariat: What is the difference between Marriage and a Civil Partnership? I thought gays already could get hitched. Is there a legal distinction or is is merely religious? Any practical real world differnces (eg inheritance, tax reliefs, etc)?

    Comment from one of my colleagues: "Marriage is fucking shit. I don't see why gay people should be exempt."
  • Mick_Pork said:

    Impossible to predict with any degree of certainty since the looming independence referendum would affect such a GE vote. As would the relative polling of all the westminster parties which is now getting hit by the kipper protest surge. For what it's worth about the most reasonable things you can predict is it's going to shake out to an SNP labour split with the tories doing badly and the lib dems in for a world of pain under Clegg. .... It's how you allocate that SNP labour split that becomes hardest to predict.

    Mick thank you for the response. I was looking for you to be more specific about your homeland. The numbers last time were Labour 41, Lib Dem 11, SNP 6 and Conservative 1.
    Clearly the Lib Dems are going to lose about 5-7 with retirements etc. But are Labour really going to remain in the 40s or could your SNP get into the teens or twenties and reduce SLAB's overall total?
  • samonipadsamonipad Posts: 182
    Patrick said:

    Ignorant Patrick seeking education from the PB commentariat: What is the difference between Marriage and a Civil Partnership? I thought gays already could get hitched. Is there a legal distinction or is is merely religious? Any practical real world differnces (eg inheritance, tax reliefs, etc)?

    Ignorant Sam would like to know the answer to this as well

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    tim said:

    Charles said:

    Financier said:

    Latest YouGov / The Sun results 16th May - CON 31%, LAB 39%, LD 9%, UKIP 15%; APP -38

    Was thinking about this a couple of threads ago, but couldn't post from rural Germany.

    I hadn't realised that YouGov doesn't apply a certainty to vote adjustment, which seems surprising. Is there a rule of thumb adjustment that you can use that you help give (what I think) would be a more realistic view of where opinion is?

    Yes just make up a figure that looks better for the Tories and post it over and over again.
    Either that or extrapolate from real election results.

    Both ways point to YouGov overstating Labour's share.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Differences between marriages and civil partnerships:

    1) the name
    2) adultery isn't a ground of divorce for civil partnerships (gay infidelity would be "unreasonable behaviour")
    3) civil partnerships can't be carried out in church
    4) a highly technical pensions difference that is a requirement of EU law
    5) civil partnerships can be dissolved after one year

    Number one is the important one.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    Marriage is a great institution, but who wants to live in an institution? George Bernard Shaw.

    Will the words now read: Civil partnership is a great institution, but who wants to live in an institution?
  • @antifrank

    Thanks. So the whole argument is a giant storm in a teacup! FFS.

    Dave should move on and spend time on something substantive.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    I don't understand why Christians are against gay marriage.

    Jesus had two dads, he turned out alright.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited May 2013
    Mick_Pork said:

    TOPPING said:

    but I think the LDs will come to see this coalition as having been a huge success. And with Nick Clegg in charge.

    I have no doubt whatsoever that is what Clegg and those around him want to think.
    The lib dem base, activists, members and MPs remaining after 2015? I somehow doubt it. Power at any cost is a dangerous thing to advocate as almost the sole measure of success.
    The quirk of electoral math which gave us the coalition is also not going to the arbiter of success or failure.

    It will indeed be the lib dems as well as the electorate who will count the cost and pass judgement which will manifest itself in what the lib dems choose to do for 2015 and beyond.

    Should they stick with Clegg, both for the election and afterwards, then that would be a vindication of the success you consider them to have had. Should they move to a distinctly post Clegg era which firmly but politely distances itself from Clegg's leadership then I would suggest that may indicate a less favourable judgement.

    Politicians who wait for history to look kindly on them are doing so because the judgement of the present is not to their liking.

    The base was pretty enthusiastic in 2010 although of course that was early days and compromises a distant cloud. But politics is about compromises. And the LDs are not (all!) idiots or idealists wanting hypothecated taxes.

    If politics is a game, to get the value of the game they will choose to maximise their power and influence rather than cast themselves out again and that means sticking with it. Power at any cost seems a great sin but look at the ridiculous pre-election pledges on matching incumbents’ spending. Power is necessary to “do what you really want to do”. If I were a libdem (!) I would be happy with what the party has achieved and would see no reason, unless I was a fanatical “anyone but Tories” Lab => LD switcher, to change my vote. Of course it is precisely how many of those Lab=>LD switchers there are that will determine the next election.

    I still see UKIP as likely to melt away.
  • samonipadsamonipad Posts: 182
    antifrank said:

    Differences between marriages and civil partnerships:

    1) the name
    2) adultery isn't a ground of divorce for civil partnerships (gay infidelity would be "unreasonable behaviour")
    3) civil partnerships can't be carried out in church
    4) a highly technical pensions difference that is a requirement of EU law
    5) civil partnerships can be dissolved after one year

    Number one is the important one.

    Not much then

    seems to me the best idea would be to call all unions between two people that take place outside of hutch 'civil partnerships' and only those hat take place on a church between two churchgoers that have the approval of the vicar 'marriages'

    Sexuality not an issue

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Patrick said:

    Ignorant Patrick seeking education from the PB commentariat: What is the difference between Marriage and a Civil Partnership? I thought gays already could get hitched. Is there a legal distinction or is is merely religious? Any practical real world differnces (eg inheritance, tax reliefs, etc)?

    No material difference in legal rights.

    The argument for marriage is that it provides a single, uniform and non-discriminatory method of recognising partners who commit to a 'lifelong' partnership.

    In the words of Peter Tatchell, a two-tier system is a form of "apartheid".

  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    If it takes 50 Edinburgh students two minutes to disrupt a political speech, how long does it take Alex to say something about it?

    a) Five minutes.
    b) 12 hours.
    c) 24 hours.
    d) Never.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    Patrick said:

    Ignorant Patrick seeking education from the PB commentariat: What is the difference between Marriage and a Civil Partnership? I thought gays already could get hitched. Is there a legal distinction or is is merely religious? Any practical real world differnces (eg inheritance, tax reliefs, etc)?

    http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/seven-ways-civil-partnership-isnt-same-marriage250113

    The two that appear to be valid concerns are:

    Civil partnerships don't have the same pension rights as marriage.

    "Civil partners do not have the same pension rights as married couples. If one civil partner dies, the pension share that the surviving partner receives is often lower and lasts for less time than with married couples.

    The reason for this is the pension a surviving partner is entitled to is measured differently depending on whether they have been civil partnered or married.

    For civil partners, public sector schemes are dated back to 1988. For private sector schemes, it need only be backdated to the Civil Partnership Act 2004.

    But for married couples, a surviving partner is entitled to a pension based on the number of years their spouse paid into the pension fund."

    Travel/living abroad

    Travel restrictions apply to civil partners but not married couples.

    Countries like Sweden, Argentina and Portugal, where same-sex marriage is legal, do not see civil partnerships as marriage.

    This means UK civil partners living abroad do not enjoy the same rights as same-sex married couples in the 11 countries where equal marriage is legal.

    In addition, the marriages of foreign gay couples who travel to the UK are not legally viewed as marriages.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited May 2013
    If all it takes is some students shouting at him to scare poor fragile Nigel into a pub how long would he be sober during a GE campaign?


    a) Five minutes.
    b) 12 hours.
    c) 24 hours.
    d) Never
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited May 2013
    dr_spyn said:

    If it takes 50 Edinburgh students two minutes to disrupt a political speech, how long does it take Alex to say something about it?

    a) Five minutes.
    b) 12 hours.
    c) 24 hours.
    d) Never.

    Eck's still trying to work out how to change a lightbulb.

    Give him time.

  • boulayboulay Posts: 3,773

    I don't understand why Christians are against gay marriage.

    Jesus had two dads, he turned out alright.

    It depends what you mean by turning out alright - remember he ended up trashing the equivalent of banks like a member of Uncut, running riot in a holy building, chemically engineering water into alcohol at parties, setting up a gang of young men, disrupting traffic whilst riding a donkey through the streets, practising medicine without a licence, doling out food to five thousand people without any regard for health and safety laws and causing such trouble to the authorities that they had to expend huge resources dealing with him through the justice system. He did not even serve his sentence properly and escaped.....
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530



    Give him time.

    How much time are you now predicting before Lansley becomes PM, Seth?

  • glassfetglassfet Posts: 220
    @hugorifkind: And suddenly, because THIS one excludes him, Nigel Farage realises that nationalism can be a bit unpleasant. What a chump. #today

    @ChrisMasonBBC: Nigel Farage hangs up on @BBCRadioScot during interview for Good Morning Scotland: http://bbc.in/14vIZi1
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    Patrick said:

    @antifrank

    Thanks. So the whole argument is a giant storm in a teacup! FFS.

    Dave should move on and spend time on something substantive.

    No it isn't. What you were given by the other respondents were personal opinions not actual differences. There are a couple of serious differences which, if I were gay, I would be very unhappy with.
  • glassfetglassfet Posts: 220
    @LadPolitics: Ladbrokes cut odds of a 2013 General Election from 16/1 to 10/1.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    edited May 2013
    boulay said:

    I don't understand why Christians are against gay marriage.

    Jesus had two dads, he turned out alright.

    It depends what you mean by turning out alright - remember he ended up trashing the equivalent of banks like a member of Uncut, running riot in a holy building, chemically engineering water into alcohol at parties, setting up a gang of young men, disrupting traffic whilst riding a donkey through the streets, practising medicine without a licence, doling out food to five thousand people without any regard for health and safety laws and causing such trouble to the authorities that they had to expend huge resources dealing with him through the justice system. He did not even serve his sentence properly and escaped.....
    Well Christians still worship him.

    And according to this history book by Dan Brown I read, Jesus knocked up a prostitute.
  • Interestingly, Lloyds share price has now moved above the government's nominal buy-in price. Don't tell Sid.
  • @Richard

    In which case the activity should be to upgrade the rights / practical effects of civil partnership so there is no real world difference and leave the name issue well alone.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Mick_Pork said:



    Give him time.

    How much time are you now predicting before Lansley becomes PM, Seth?

    Leader, Pork.

    You are muddling posters, acorns and ground nuts again.

  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    Interestingly, Lloyds share price has now moved above the government's
    nominal buy-in price. Don't tell Sid.

    Do you think that the sell-off of some of its branches will not now be enforced as I am not sure who would want to buy them.

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    @BBCRadioScot during interview for Good Morning Scotland: http://bbc.in/14vIZi1

    Classic. Farage gets confronted with the facts, blusters and runs off in the huff yet again.

    Poor old Nigel appears to have forgotten that the current PM called his party "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists". Nor can he find any of this union jack burning he was foaming at the mouth about. I expect he'll find them when he finds those millions of Bulgarians he thinks are coming to invade England. Bless.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    Patrick said:

    @Richard

    In which case the activity should be to upgrade the rights / practical effects of civil partnership so there is no real world difference and leave the name issue well alone.

    No, they should simply get out of the medieval mindset and have one system of pair bonding for all couples whatever their sexuality. There is no reason what-so-ever why we should have two different systems when the aim is for the practical results to be the same in both cases - especially as some of the adverse consequences of the current system are outside of the control of the UK government.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    edited May 2013
    Financier said:

    Interestingly, Lloyds share price has now moved above the government's
    nominal buy-in price. Don't tell Sid.

    Do you think that the sell-off of some of its branches will not now be enforced as I am not sure who would want to buy them.

    They have to sell them per EU regs.

    They'll do what RBS are doing with their 316 Branches they have to sell

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/feb/28/williams-glyns-bank-resurrected

    Edit: I think Lloyds are bringing back TSB as a standalone.
  • samsam Posts: 727
    Mick_Pork said:

    If all it takes is some students shouting at him to scare poor fragile Nigel into a pub how long would he be sober during a GE campaign?


    a) Five minutes.
    b) 12 hours.
    c) 24 hours.
    d) Never

    That joke would have worked if the press conference wasnt being held in the pub

    Do you think this will nonsense will have a positive or negative effect on UKIP in England?

  • boulayboulay Posts: 3,773

    boulay said:

    I don't understand why Christians are against gay marriage.

    Jesus had two dads, he turned out alright.

    It depends what you mean by turning out alright - remember he ended up trashing the equivalent of banks like a member of Uncut, running riot in a holy building, chemically engineering water into alcohol at parties, setting up a gang of young men, disrupting traffic whilst riding a donkey through the streets, practising medicine without a licence, doling out food to five thousand people without any regard for health and safety laws and causing such trouble to the authorities that they had to expend huge resources dealing with him through the justice system. He did not even serve his sentence properly and escaped.....
    Well Christians still worship him.

    And according to this history book by Dan Brown I read, Jesus knocked up a prostitute.
    He's a very naughty boy.....
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    Mick_Pork said:

    @BBCRadioScot during interview for Good Morning Scotland: http://bbc.in/14vIZi1

    Classic. Farage gets confronted with the facts, blusters and runs off in the huff yet again.

    Poor old Nigel appears to have forgotten that the current PM called his party "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists". Nor can he find any of this union jack burning he was foaming at the mouth about. I expect he'll find them when he finds those millions of Bulgarians he thinks are coming to invade England. Bless.

    Funny he (and you) can't find it Mick.

    Took me less than 5 seconds on google.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/union-flag-burning-group-expelled-from-salmond-rally.18893616
  • glassfetglassfet Posts: 220
    @holyroodmandy
    @Nigel_Farage enjoys a spot of good old fashioned Scottish hospitality; a pub lock-in, a taxi refusing to pick up & a police escort home!
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited May 2013
    sam said:

    Do you think this will nonsense will have a positive or negative effect on UKIP in England

    It will have an earth shattering effect on all the UKIP MPs. They might even raise it in the commons. ;)
  • glassfetglassfet Posts: 220
    @jamesmaxwell86
    If the #Farage protests were anti-English, wouldn't Cameron, Osborne & Clegg get the same treatment every time they came to Scotland?
  • glassfetglassfet Posts: 220
    @DAaronovitch: Farage v McFarage. Nationalists eh? Such an adornment to modern politics.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846

    Financier said:

    Interestingly, Lloyds share price has now moved above the government's
    nominal buy-in price. Don't tell Sid.

    Do you think that the sell-off of some of its branches will not now be enforced as I am not sure who would want to buy them.

    They have to sell them per EU regs.

    They'll do what RBS are doing with their 316 Branches they have to sell

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/feb/28/williams-glyns-bank-resurrected

    Edit: I think Lloyds are bringing back TSB as a standalone.
    The trouble with this is that they are not selling the ones they took over. They are selling the ones they want to sell to meet the target.

    This means that I, as a Lloyds customer in both business and personal banking (plus mortgage) for 20 years, for whom the online banking system they use is essential, was told last year that my business account was being kept with Lloyds but my personal account was being sold off.

    So my integrated banking system was to be completely ruined. I have had to appeal to the ombudsman to get them to finally agree to move my account to a new Lloyds branch because they point blank refused to do it for me.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749
    Mick_Pork said:

    Nor can he find any of this union jack burning he was foaming at the mouth about.

    After advising Nigel where to stick his Union Jack, I assume the protesters considered that having it burning at the same time would be gilding the lily.
    Interesting that Nige thinks that dissing the Union flag is anti-English; like so many he seems very confused about his identity, poor lad.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969

    Financier said:

    Interestingly, Lloyds share price has now moved above the government's
    nominal buy-in price. Don't tell Sid.

    Do you think that the sell-off of some of its branches will not now be enforced as I am not sure who would want to buy them.

    They have to sell them per EU regs.

    They'll do what RBS are doing with their 316 Branches they have to sell

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/feb/28/williams-glyns-bank-resurrected

    Edit: I think Lloyds are bringing back TSB as a standalone.
    The trouble with this is that they are not selling the ones they took over. They are selling the ones they want to sell to meet the target.

    This means that I, as a Lloyds customer in both business and personal banking (plus mortgage) for 20 years, for whom the online banking system they use is essential, was told last year that my business account was being kept with Lloyds but my personal account was being sold off.

    So my integrated banking system was to be completely ruined. I have had to appeal to the ombudsman to get them to finally agree to move my account to a new Lloyds branch because they point blank refused to do it for me.

    Quite a few RBS customers are in a similar boat.
  • samsam Posts: 727
    Mick_Pork said:

    sam said:

    Do you think this will nonsense will have a positive or negative effect on UKIP in England

    It will have an earth shattering effect on all the UKIP MPs. They might even raise it in the commons. ;)
    Haha well yes it may well have an earth shattering effect on the amount of MPs UKIP will have in 2015, which will be a rise from what it currently is in the Commons!



  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    tim said:

    tim said:

    @Patrick

    "That matters. As the biggest economy in the region, the U.K. will have greater political weight, it will attract more migrants and investment, and the London stock market will receive a much-needed boost."

    There's a good chunk of the population who would rather not have the growth if it involved attracting more migrants

    Absolutely. It is not GDP growth that matters so much as GDP growth percapita. 2% growth with 3% population growth means we are on average poorer and more overcrowded. Not a good outcome.

    How the hell do you get a population growth of 3% per annum, thats two million people
    My figures were illustrative. If our population expands then GDP needs to expand at the same rate in order for average GDP to remain stable. With an expanding population we need to run to stand still.

    It is not GDP growrh that matters to voters it is whether their standard of living is increasing, one measure being GDP per capita.

    When you subtract the effect of population growth from the figures for GDP growth we see why voters are so unhappy with their personal stagnation economically, a problem stretching back a decade or more.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited May 2013

    Mick_Pork said:

    @BBCRadioScot during interview for Good Morning Scotland: http://bbc.in/14vIZi1

    Classic. Farage gets confronted with the facts, blusters and runs off in the huff yet again.

    Poor old Nigel appears to have forgotten that the current PM called his party "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists". Nor can he find any of this union jack burning he was foaming at the mouth about. I expect he'll find them when he finds those millions of Bulgarians he thinks are coming to invade England. Bless.

    Funny he (and you) can't find it Mick.

    Took me less than 5 seconds on google.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/union-flag-burning-group-expelled-from-salmond-rally.18893616
    Seemingly more than that to grasp that they were rightly expelled. If only Nigel could understand instead of stupidly conflating a few students shouting at him to a governing political party capable of winning seats and MPs and an independence movement capable of getting a referendum instead of living off the worthless scraps that Cammie throws to gullible eurosceptics.

    Reduced to the same smear tactics Cammie used against him. The irony is most amusing.

    No wonder he ran off in the huff again from the interviewer, poor chap. If that's the best he can muster it's a blessing for UKIP that he won't be in the debates.


This discussion has been closed.