Ed-will-never-be is supposed to be a Tory jibe, but losing next year might actually be Labour's best chance for survival in the medium-term.
Poppycock - the old "a good election to lose"
Such a bull argument.
I don't think it's a bull argument at all.
There's no denying there have been elections in the past that would have been/were good for certain parties to lose.
1992 is the most obvious one for the Tories:
1. Kinnock in power for Black Wednesday.
2. No Tony Blair as Labour leader (at least not until 1997 at the earliest)
3. No 1997 "oblivion" election for the Tories - Infact they probably would have returned to power in 1997.
It seem's 2010 was a good one for Labour to lose - They managed to get rid of psychotic Brown without too much blood on the carpet, left other parties to clear up the financial ruin they caused and will apparently breeze back into power after just one term in Opposition.
Not a bad result...
Of course we won't know whether 2015 was/is a good one for Labour to lose until about two years into the government, but given Ed Millibands catastrophic lack of support amongst the electorate you can certainly make an argument that as Prime Minister Ed could take Labour to levels of hitherto unheard of unpopularity....
Why on earth are British politicians still throwing themselves on the alter of the useless Obama?
We're not going to have the humiliation of Ed Milliband chasing Obama through hotel kitchens like some mad, crazed stalker are we?
And begging him to comment on the bedroom tax. Obama was a busted flush the moment he got the Nobel prize for killing civilians. America should really sod off and leave the world alone, or destroy itself in a fit of gun and nuke porn
Mr. Gin, it's perplexing. I think the political class haven't caught up to the fact that Obama's no longer seen as a golden boy by the majority of Britons.
Mr. Gin, it's perplexing. I think the political class haven't caught up to the fact that Obama's no longer seen as a golden boy by the majority of Britons.
Totally O/T but people here might know the answer... If a candidate for local election is disqualified at the time of election can they just resign as a councilor when it becomes known? What happens to the seat - I think that the person who was 'next' in line would be deemed elected, but the Local Authority are taking a different view?
There's a by-election. "Next in line" only works for list systems, i.e. the Euros. After Xmas the council might wait for May to call the by-election.
1) The polls, if they are roughly replicated next May, would suggest that actually no one party will have done well enough to form a majority government, a minority government, or a two-party coalition with the Liberal Democrats/Nationalists/DUP. In fact, it's not totally impossible that for the first time since 1910, the two leading parties could end up equal in terms of seats.
2) What would happen then - and I'm asking particularly people who've been there and have inside knowledge, like Nick Palmer? Is there any chance/danger (take your pick) of a grand coalition between the Conservatives and Labour? And if so, what would the impact be on the parties' supporters?
Even with an exact tie between the major parties and no agreement between parties on a majority, someone can form a minority government. I think it's much more likely that whoever gained seats (in this case presumably Labour) will be given a shot at minority government, and the other parties will sort out their leadership issues and then aim to bring the government down on some popular issue. Conversely the government will attempt to surprise people in its first months by being better than floating voters expected and call an election during the honeymoon. The fixed term parliament act makes it complicated, since the government can't simply call an election any more. But I think that sort of pattern is much more likely than a grand coalition unless we're at war or similar - Tories and Labour will have just described each other as utter disasters, so I think supporters would be bemused, to put it politely, if we then formed a joint government.
This has probably been discussed before, but to what extent are the Lib Dem switchers concentrated in seats where they only switched to the LDs in the first place because Labour couldn't win?
Absent a knowledge of how they are distributed what can one really say?
As you say it's hard to judge as each seat has its own dynamics, dependent on number of LibDem councillors, impression of marginality last time, etc. But in general, where the LIbDem vote was in the 0-30 range I think you can assume a large amount of switching. The patient punter can work out the implications a constituency at a time.
As someone who had always voted Labour until 2010 in every single election I have the opportunity to do so, I voted Lib Dem in 2010 due to my problems with Gordon Brown.
Brown is gone, my vote has returned to Labour as I am much more comfortable with what I see with Milband than with Brown.
I suspect there are many in a similar position as myself, my only thought though are those Lib Dem->Labour 'stickers' primarily focused in places that do not really matter much anyway? Places like where I live where a goat with a red rosette would win?
Yes. This is probably the way a large number (minority/majority?) of Lab=>LD switchers see things. They were sick of Brown, couldn't find it within themselves to vote him in, would rather have cut off a thumb than vote Cons so decided to agree with Nick.
Thing is, let's decontruct that move.
Brown was bad because...because...what??
Economy? Well of course but what's changed? Bonkers-ness? Yes, but we have weirdness now although I accept it's not as corrosive, although Mrs Duffy might think otherwise. Cuts vs investment? Be absolutely clear Lab won't change anything or not much, perhaps tinker round the edges.
So they were fed up with Lab, couldn't vote Cons so voted LD. And the LDs have "betrayed" everyone by being a quietly effective junior coalition member. Is that it?
Plus, as that famous survey question asked of Labour: partly responsible, not learned, may do it again - I paraphrase.
So although you probably represent a large number of Lab=LD-ers who are thinking of going back to Lab (because that's "what you do" in normal times), my belief is that as these are not normal times you may, perhaps on your way to the polling station, worry that not enough has changed for you to abandon the economic-competence, not-ideal-but-workable-could-be-a-lot-worse coalition ship just yet.
Mr. Gin, it's perplexing. I think the political class haven't caught up to the fact that Obama's no longer seen as a golden boy by the majority of Britons.
Mr. Gin, it's perplexing. I think the political class haven't caught up to the fact that Obama's no longer seen as a golden boy by the majority of Britons.
Prediction - Ed sitting on Barry's lap while he tells him a story about America the Great will make the buttie boy even more laughable and unpopular than he already is. However, there are enough morons in this country to ensure he will become PM next year regardless.
Second prediction - after Ed sweeps to power with a majority of 3, and despite the economic situation declining significantly within a year, all the whiney Facebook and Twitter campaigns about the plight of Britians 'poor' will disappear.
So they were fed up with Lab, couldn't vote Cons so voted LD. And the LDs have "betrayed" everyone by being a quietly effective junior coalition member. Is that it?
Plus, as that famous survey question asked of Labour: partly responsible, not learned, may do it again - I paraphrase.
So although you probably represent a large number of Lab=LD-ers who are thinking of going back to Lab (because that's "what you do" in normal times), my belief is that as these are not normal times you may, perhaps on your way to the polling station, worry that not enough has changed for you to abandon the economic-competence, not-ideal-but-workable-could-be-a-lot-worse coalition ship just yet.
Mr. Gin, it's perplexing. I think the political class haven't caught up to the fact that Obama's no longer seen as a golden boy by the majority of Britons.
Or anyone else
There's always Michelle...
She's a yank. Nobody cares what they think of him.
So my prediction for The Lord Ashcroft poll today.
Either a Lab lead of 15 or a Tory lead of 11
I would say Tories doing a little better than last time. There might be one or two big changes in some individual seats but even with an average sample of 700, that is to be expected.
The next general election will produce a Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition government, the Lib Dem energy secretary Ed Davey has predicted.
Davey let slip the forecast while speaking at a conference organised by the left-leaning Lib Dem Social Liberal Forum group in Shoreditch, East London, on Saturday. His comments offer an insight into the strategic thinking of the party leadership as May 2015 draws near.
Think Grieve and Clarke are correct. Reshuffle was about dealing with UKIP and Tories probably won't win a majority.
Funny Fox!
"Although this came with a seat at the National Security Council, Dr Fox rejected it as an insult. He is said to have told the Prime Minister: ‘You must be bloody joking. I assume the ambassadorship to the moon is taken?’"
Totally O/T but people here might know the answer... If a candidate for local election is disqualified at the time of election can they just resign as a councilor when it becomes known? What happens to the seat - I think that the person who was 'next' in line would be deemed elected, but the Local Authority are taking a different view?
This has probably been discussed before, but to what extent are the Lib Dem switchers concentrated in seats where they only switched to the LDs in the first place because Labour couldn't win?
Absent a knowledge of how they are distributed what can one really say?
As you say it's hard to judge as each seat has its own dynamics, dependent on number of LibDem councillors, impression of marginality last time, etc. But in general, where the LIbDem vote was in the 0-30 range I think you can assume a large amount of switching. The patient punter can work out the implications a constituency at a time.
The Ashcroft marginals poll seems to suggest that people in such areas may still vote tactically to an extent where the Lib Dems still hold the seat and Labour are nowhere. However in seats that they lost/failed narrowly to win in a 'two horse race' against the Tories there is little evidence of their vote holding up particularly even when the constituency question is asked. I'd imagine where there is little Lib Dem campaigning and/or a reasonable Labour campaign then previous tactical voting will unravel with major drops in the LD vote. The Lib Dems will have to hope that if the polls are accurate, they lose a lot of votes in safe Tory seats in the South East where they got plenty of votes for very few seats last time, because if not the implications for their held seats are dire.
Good choice, because I think he will ask difficult questions that are designed to get answers. He tends to get to the crux of matters, asking about specific details, rather than get into a jousting match.
Good choice, because I think he will ask difficult questions that are designed to get answers. He tends to get to the crux of matters, asking about specific details, rather than get into a jousting match.
Dr.Fisher predicted 97% Tory majority at one time because his "model" said so.
No he didn't. Firstly he has never predicted anything. Secondly his model of what the opinion polls show has always indicated that they are compatible with at least a 40% chance of a hung parliament. It has never indicated a higher probability than around 66% for Con Most Seats, let alone Con Maj.
There's another point: the Conservatives are not going to stand by idly, allowing the two Eds to obfuscate. If Labour don't define their plans, the Tories will define them for them.
There's another point: the Conservatives are not going to stand by idly, allowing the two Eds to obfuscate. If Labour don't define their plans, the Tories will define them for them.
Think Grieve and Clarke are correct. Reshuffle was about dealing with UKIP and Tories probably won't win a majority.
Funny Fox!
"Although this came with a seat at the National Security Council, Dr Fox rejected it as an insult. He is said to have told the Prime Minister: ‘You must be bloody joking. I assume the ambassadorship to the moon is taken?’"
Is it just me or is 9 the magic number for the LDs at the moment?
Is it just me or should swingback be renamed swing-low ?
Views of "nailed on Tory majorities" welcome, especially Dr. "97%" Fisher and clever Rod.
IIUC Rod's actual swingback model, based on by-elections not polls, is pointing at something like a tie for the popular vote, which I guess would be a Labour majority of a little less than zero. This seems quite plausible, if you take into account Mike's point about LibDems not swinging back but also assume some differential movement from UKIP to Con etc.
There's another point: the Conservatives are not going to stand by idly, allowing the two Eds to obfuscate. If Labour don't define their plans, the Tories will define them for them.
.
In the way Shapps tried to last week?!
Guffaw.
Yes, precisely.
Very much looking forward that then!
Tory Spivs promise to get eviscerated like Shapps in election campaign. Good stuff.
There's another point: the Conservatives are not going to stand by idly, allowing the two Eds to obfuscate. If Labour don't define their plans, the Tories will define them for them.
.
In the way Shapps tried to last week?!
Guffaw.
Yes, precisely.
Very much looking forward that then!
Tory Spivs promise to get eviscerated like Shapps in election campaign. Good stuff.
I missed the demolition of Shapps - what happened ?
Evan Davies is a terrible interviewer. He spends most of his interviews telling us what he thinks, rather than probing what the interviewee thinks.
The Bottom Line on R4 which he chairs is rather good. He gets a lot of useful information and an interesting debate going from a variety of business people.
I have more reservations about the editor, Ian Katz. The changes he's made so far have been somewhat depressing in their frivolous "let's make it relevant" way.
Think Grieve and Clarke are correct. Reshuffle was about dealing with UKIP and Tories probably won't win a majority.
Sacked incompetents annoyed about being sacked shocker. But no Tory majority, that is correct.
Funny how it took the party so long to realise Clarke is no good, seeing as he's been a fixture in Tory governments since Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister.
Evan Davies is a terrible interviewer. He spends most of his interviews telling us what he thinks, rather than probing what the interviewee thinks.
The Bottom Line on R4 which he chairs is rather good. He gets a lot of useful information and an interesting debate going from a variety of business people.
I have more reservations about the editor, Ian Katz. The changes he's made so far have been somewhat depressing in their frivolous "let's make it relevant" way.
The Bottom Line irritates me greatly because the last thing I want to listen to on a Saturday early evening is a programme about effing business. Saturday is holy and should be put aside for beer and games including balls of one sort or another. Or art, if you are listening to the radio.
Haven't watched Newsnight for some time but dear God please don't tell me they are asking viewers to "text in with your thoughts"....
There's another point: the Conservatives are not going to stand by idly, allowing the two Eds to obfuscate. If Labour don't define their plans, the Tories will define them for them.
.
In the way Shapps tried to last week?!
Guffaw.
Yes, precisely.
Very much looking forward that then!
Tory Spivs promise to get eviscerated like Shapps in election campaign. Good stuff.
I missed the demolition of Shapps - what happened ?
Think Grieve and Clarke are correct. Reshuffle was about dealing with UKIP and Tories probably won't win a majority.
Sacked incompetents annoyed about being sacked shocker. But no Tory majority, that is correct.
Funny how it took the party so long to realise Clarke is no good, seeing as he's been a fixture in Tory governments since Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister.
Yes, it is. Euro apologist, should never have got a shadow gig after being kicked in the nuts in the leadership campaign. Not so much the party, the party leadership.
Evan Davies is a terrible interviewer. He spends most of his interviews telling us what he thinks, rather than probing what the interviewee thinks.
The Bottom Line on R4 which he chairs is rather good. He gets a lot of useful information and an interesting debate going from a variety of business people.
I have more reservations about the editor, Ian Katz. The changes he's made so far have been somewhat depressing in their frivolous "let's make it relevant" way.
The Bottom Line irritates me greatly because the last thing I want to listen to on a Saturday early evening is a programme about effing business. Saturday is holy and should be put aside for beer and games including balls of one sort or another. Or art, if you are listening to the radio.
Haven't watched Newsnight for some time but dear God please don't tell me they are asking viewers to "text in with your thoughts"....
Pah! You can keep your beer and balls.
This weekend's programme was all about coping with emergencies in far-away countries: there was a PwC guy talking about how they coped with the Ukrainian situation and a woman describing a very hairy time in Sierra Leone and another man who runs a company advising on such matters. It was both fascinating and highly relevant (in the best sense).
Talking of which: I really really hope that the remains of those poor people who died will - at last - be treated with some dignity and respect. If Russia does nothing else it should at the very least force the people on the ground to behave like civilised human beings in this regard.
Looting of corpses, letting them rot in fields, stealing property etc: Yuck, Yuck, Yuck.
There's another point: the Conservatives are not going to stand by idly, allowing the two Eds to obfuscate. If Labour don't define their plans, the Tories will define them for them.
.
In the way Shapps tried to last week?!
Guffaw.
Yes, precisely.
Very much looking forward that then!
Tory Spivs promise to get eviscerated like Shapps in election campaign. Good stuff.
I missed the demolition of Shapps - what happened ?
Buttie bounce, it takes a few weeks to filter through
Populus, like Ashcroft, really need to rethink - their bounces as so irregular that I can't be bothered to cheer when they go up or groan when they go down. Better to poll less often with double the sample size? Or maybe it's the turnout adjustment changing more than VI?
Is it just me or is 9 the magic number for the LDs at the moment?
Is it just me or should swingback be renamed swing-low ?
Views of "nailed on Tory majorities" welcome, especially Dr. "97%" Fisher and clever Rod.
IIUC Rod's actual swingback model, based on by-elections not polls, is pointing at something like a tie for the popular vote, which I guess would be a Labour majority of a little less than zero. This seems quite plausible, if you take into account Mike's point about LibDems not swinging back but also assume some differential movement from UKIP to Con etc.
I am refering to their respective models a year or so back. We can always tack our predictions to latest polls. Why do we need models then ?
Dr.Fisher's "model" gave the Tories a "97%" chance of getting an absolute majority. Today, I think he is saying Labour having highest number of seats. In the meantime, Tory numbers have actually gone up and Labour has fallen.
Basically, the "swingback" taht was the spine of their respective models ain't working the way "it was supposed to".
Buttie bounce, it takes a few weeks to filter through
Populus, like Ashcroft, really need to rethink - their bounces as so irregular that I can't be bothered to cheer when they go up or groan when they go down. Better to poll less often with double the sample size? Or maybe it's the turnout adjustment changing more than VI?
Let’s assume that NP’s answer below re a minority Government is what transpires. Mr P asserts that such Government would do what Wilson did in 1974; enact a few popular policies and have another election. However at the moment the election after next is due on 7th May 2020, due to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. While I realise, no Parliament can bind it’s successor in practice could a minority Government get a repeal through the HoC in 2015/6? Can’t recall whether Labour voted for it, abstained or supported.
Done a blog on Gaza, Israel, and the Mystery of the Disappearing Tweets. http://t.co/0fKGXyuEFK
I don't think you add anything to the debate. And you are surely not surprised to see that the first comment you received is:
"A very good article which hints at the true scale of zionist power in the west."
Edit: unless or perhaps because your article itself was hinting about "the true scale of zionist power in the west".
We seem increasingly polarised and hostile to people whose opinion differs from ours. Social media just provides that trend an outlet.
As ever, the USA leads the way - the Republican/Democrat divide looks and sounds increasingly sectarian.
It's not healthy. We can't have rational debate about any number of shibboleths; immigration, the NHS, pensions, climate change, energy security and so on.
Let’s assume that NP’s answer below re a minority Government is what transpires. Mr P asserts that such Government would do what Wilson did in 1974; enact a few popular policies and have another election. However at the moment the election after next is due on 7th May 2020, due to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. While I realise, no Parliament can bind it’s successor in practice could a minority Government get a repeal through the HoC in 2015/6? Can’t recall whether Labour voted for it, abstained or supported.
Who would oppose its repeal? You think the Conservatives would rather hang on till 2020 than have another chance at power in late 2015 or early 2016?
Let’s assume that NP’s answer below re a minority Government is what transpires. Mr P asserts that such Government would do what Wilson did in 1974; enact a few popular policies and have another election. However at the moment the election after next is due on 7th May 2020, due to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. While I realise, no Parliament can bind it’s successor in practice could a minority Government get a repeal through the HoC in 2015/6? Can’t recall whether Labour voted for it, abstained or supported.
Mr. Cole, would a minority government need to repeal the act? Could they just not engineer vote of confidence?
Done a blog on Gaza, Israel, and the Mystery of the Disappearing Tweets. http://t.co/0fKGXyuEFK
You ought to have tackled the case of the disappearing Middle East peace envoy.
Or even the case of the disappearing Christians: in Mosul where there has been a Christian community for the best part of 2000 years and long before Islam even existed Christians are now faced with 3 unpalatable choices: (a) conversion; (b) death; or (c) paying a protection tax and being treated like 2nd class citizens. So they are leaving.
Ethnic cleansing by those so busy attacking the motes in the eyes of the West and Israel that they've failed to notice the beams in their own. Or, more depressingly, are proud of them.
Done a blog on Gaza, Israel, and the Mystery of the Disappearing Tweets. http://t.co/0fKGXyuEFK
I don't think you add anything to the debate. And you are surely not surprised to see that the first comment you received is:
"A very good article which hints at the true scale of zionist power in the west."
Edit: unless or perhaps because your article itself was hinting about "the true scale of zionist power in the west".
We seem increasingly polarised and hostile to people whose opinion differs from ours. Social media just provides that trend an outlet.
As ever, the USA leads the way - the Republican/Democrat divide looks and sounds increasingly sectarian.
It's not healthy. We can't have rational debate about any number of shibboleths; immigration, the NHS, pensions, climate change, energy security and so on.
Mr. M., there was an article the the Spectator a while back (which I can't now find) about the realisation amongst politicians that some issues need solutions that cannot be implemented in one parliament and therefore there has to be debate to reach a consensus on a course of action that will be perused regardless of the result of a GE. Sounds very sensible to me.
The down side is that these debates have to be held in private so that in public the standard tribal posturing can carry on.
I wish I could find the article, I think there is also a book of essays on the subject and Charles Clark is involved with it. My google-foo is weak.
Buttie bounce, it takes a few weeks to filter through
Populus, like Ashcroft, really need to rethink - their bounces as so irregular that I can't be bothered to cheer when they go up or groan when they go down. Better to poll less often with double the sample size? Or maybe it's the turnout adjustment changing more than VI?
Nick. I'm not sure that this is the case.
Since their methodology change in early Feb, there has been 48 Populus polls.
Over that period there has been little change in the polls overall.
The average poll scores over that period are C 33.4%, L 36.2%, LD 9.2%, UKIP 13.3%.
The standard deviation of these scores is 1.0%, 1.1%, 0.8%, 1.0% respectively. So your 95% confidence limits are +/- 2.1%, 2.1%, 1.7%, 2.0%.
If anything this is a bit low, given that there has been some small movement in the polls over the period, and theory would suggest a greater variance in LD votes.
So I would suggest that the evidence does not support your theory that Populus bounces too much.
I have not look at the Ashcroft data, so I am unable to comment thereon.
Done a blog on Gaza, Israel, and the Mystery of the Disappearing Tweets. http://t.co/0fKGXyuEFK
I don't think you add anything to the debate. And you are surely not surprised to see that the first comment you received is:
"A very good article which hints at the true scale of zionist power in the west."
Edit: unless or perhaps because your article itself was hinting about "the true scale of zionist power in the west".
We seem increasingly polarised and hostile to people whose opinion differs from ours. Social media just provides that trend an outlet.
As ever, the USA leads the way - the Republican/Democrat divide looks and sounds increasingly sectarian.
It's not healthy. We can't have rational debate about any number of shibboleths; immigration, the NHS, pensions, climate change, energy security and so on.
Mr. M., there was an article the the Spectator a while back (which I can't now find) about the realisation amongst politicians that some issues need solutions that cannot be implemented in one parliament and therefore there has to be debate to reach a consensus on a course of action that will be perused regardless of the result of a GE. Sounds very sensible to me.
The down side is that these debates have to be held in private so that in public the standard tribal posturing can carry on.
I wish I could find the article, I think there is also a book of essays on the subject and Charles Clark is involved with it. My google-foo is weak.
In a democracy people need to be confronted with the consequences of their votes rather than the establishment taking the decisions behind closed doors. If people want to reward politicians for short term thinking and an inability to work together or plan big controversial projects then so be it.
Let’s assume that NP’s answer below re a minority Government is what transpires. Mr P asserts that such Government would do what Wilson did in 1974; enact a few popular policies and have another election. However at the moment the election after next is due on 7th May 2020, due to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. While I realise, no Parliament can bind it’s successor in practice could a minority Government get a repeal through the HoC in 2015/6? Can’t recall whether Labour voted for it, abstained or supported.
Mr. Cole, would a minority government need to repeal the act? Could they just not engineer vote of confidence?
A minority govt by definition would not have the votes to pass the legislation. A trumped up vote of confidence could be ignored by the opposition parties by the simpe expedient of abstaining. Any incoming labour govt would inherit a sound economy (which makes one wonder why it should have been elected anyway) - so there would seem little excuse for a vote of confidence or an early election. As a minority govt though all its legislation would have to be passed by agreement, so its questionable how much of its manifesto it could introduce - welcome to the world of Italian politics.
But we all know its only the votes for UKIP which would allow the danger of a Labour Govt. Even as it is, the coalition parties have a poll lead over the opposion.
Buttie bounce, it takes a few weeks to filter through
Populus, like Ashcroft, really need to rethink - their bounces as so irregular that I can't be bothered to cheer when they go up or groan when they go down. Better to poll less often with double the sample size? Or maybe it's the turnout adjustment changing more than VI?
Nick. I'm not sure that this is the case.
Since their methodology change in early Feb, there has been 48 Populus polls.
Over that period there has been little change in the polls overall.
The average poll scores over that period are C 33.4%, L 36.2%, LD 9.2%, UKIP 13.3%.
The standard deviation of these scores is 1.0%, 1.1%, 0.8%, 1.0% respectively. So your 95% confidence limits are +/- 2.1%, 2.1%, 1.7%, 2.0%.
If anything this is a bit low, given that there has been some small movement in the polls over the period, and theory would suggest a greater variance in LD votes.
So I would suggest that the evidence does not support your theory that Populus bounces too much.
I have not look at the Ashcroft data, so I am unable to comment thereon.
That is - with respect - meaningless, because by averaging the scores you conceal the bounces which Nick rightly complains about, before you even start.
Gin1138 'Of course we won't know whether 2015 was/is a good one for Labour to lose until about two years into the government, but given Ed Millibands catastrophic lack of support amongst the electorate you can certainly make an argument that as Prime Minister Ed could take Labour to levels of hitherto unheard of unpopularity.... '
The economy is in good shape. There seems no great downside for the winning party. The scene is set for further Labour gerrymandering and pandering to their client base to perpetuate them in power. History tells us there is never a good time to leave the govt in Labours hands. If a tory defeat led to a pandering to the right wing then its safe to say labour could easily stay in power for a long time. I see no benefits at all to sleepwalking to a labour victory.
"A trumped up vote of confidence could be ignored by the opposition parties by the simpe expedient of abstaining."
Not sure that they could, Mr. Path, or that it would be in the interests of anyone that they should.
Suppose a minority government was voted down on a finance bill. They the table a confidence motion which they win because the opposition parties abstain. They then reintroduce the finance bill. Then what happens?
Let’s assume that NP’s answer below re a minority Government is what transpires. Mr P asserts that such Government would do what Wilson did in 1974; enact a few popular policies and have another election. However at the moment the election after next is due on 7th May 2020, due to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. While I realise, no Parliament can bind it’s successor in practice could a minority Government get a repeal through the HoC in 2015/6? Can’t recall whether Labour voted for it, abstained or supported.
Mr. Cole, would a minority government need to repeal the act? Could they just not engineer vote of confidence?
A minority govt by definition would not have the votes to pass the legislation. A trumped up vote of confidence could be ignored by the opposition parties by the simpe expedient of abstaining. Any incoming labour govt would inherit a sound economy (which makes one wonder why it should have been elected anyway) - so there would seem little excuse for a vote of confidence or an early election. As a minority govt though all its legislation would have to be passed by agreement, so its questionable how much of its manifesto it could introduce - welcome to the world of Italian politics.
But we all know its only the votes for UKIP which would allow the danger of a Labour Govt. Even as it is, the coalition parties have a poll lead over the opposion.
From the Peter Kellner interview Mike links to in the thread header
"The hold of our conventional parties on the electorate has never been weaker, and therefore the argument that one hears from many a Tory is: ‘well, you may not like us terribly much but you hate Labour even more, therefore you’re going to vote for us.’ I mean frankly for today’s electorate it just isn’t going to wash with enough people. They actually have got to be pulled back positively.
We’re looking at an electorate that’s more willing to experiment, even for Westminster elections. There just seems to be enough people out there, for whom at the end of the day. I mean again, something that’s very very different is that we’ve probably never had a period when all three Westminster party leaders have been basically unpopular. There’s always been somebody to shine, at least a degree of popularity. We have at the moment two deeply unpopular party leaders and a PM who’s seen as no more than treading water, as average. He’s basically popular amongst Tories."
Cuts vs investment? Be absolutely clear Lab won't change anything or not much, perhaps tinker round the edges.
Nah. Labour will do what they always do - pi55 billions away on their clients and thereby utterly f*ck the economy, so when the GE comes around, they can campaign on a platform of "Tory cuts".
Totally O/T but people here might know the answer... If a candidate for local election is disqualified at the time of election can they just resign as a councilor when it becomes known? What happens to the seat - I think that the person who was 'next' in line would be deemed elected, but the Local Authority are taking a different view?
There's a by-election. "Next in line" only works for list systems, i.e. the Euros. After Xmas the council might wait for May to call the by-election.
Thanks Nick. I totally understand that to be correct if a person is validly elected and then becomes disqualified for some reason and that seems fair and correct.
However, in the case in question the person was disqualified from standing in the first place, but nonetheless stood and was duly declared elected (even though that election was not valid due to them being disqualified). It just seems that there is no disadvantage in failing to declare a disqualification in a safe seat as if you get 'found out' then you just have a by-election (at the Local Authorities expense) and either the original candidate can remove the disqualification (if possible) and stand again, or the party in the safe seat just puts someone else in.
Comments
There's no denying there have been elections in the past that would have been/were good for certain parties to lose.
1992 is the most obvious one for the Tories:
1. Kinnock in power for Black Wednesday.
2. No Tony Blair as Labour leader (at least not until 1997 at the earliest)
3. No 1997 "oblivion" election for the Tories - Infact they probably would have returned to power in 1997.
It seem's 2010 was a good one for Labour to lose - They managed to get rid of psychotic Brown without too much blood on the carpet, left other parties to clear up the financial ruin they caused and will apparently breeze back into power after just one term in Opposition.
Not a bad result...
Of course we won't know whether 2015 was/is a good one for Labour to lose until about two years into the government, but given Ed Millibands catastrophic lack of support amongst the electorate you can certainly make an argument that as Prime Minister Ed could take Labour to levels of hitherto unheard of unpopularity....
We're not going to have the humiliation of Ed Milliband chasing Obama through hotel kitchens like some mad, crazed stalker are we?
Lab 37 (+2) Con 32 (-3) LD 9 (+1) UKIP 13 (-1)
http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/OmOnline_Vote_21-07-2014_BPC.pdf
Obama was a busted flush the moment he got the Nobel prize for killing civilians.
America should really sod off and leave the world alone, or destroy itself in a fit of gun and nuke porn
http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/59568/is-ed-milibands-brush-by-with-obama-just-a-waste-of-time
"Damian McBride has warned Ed he’s wasting his time with his “brush-by” meeting with President Barack Obama at the White House later today."
A Residence Specific Personal Correspondence One Way Delivery Gender Unspecified Personage.
Thing is, let's decontruct that move.
Brown was bad because...because...what??
Economy? Well of course but what's changed?
Bonkers-ness? Yes, but we have weirdness now although I accept it's not as corrosive, although Mrs Duffy might think otherwise.
Cuts vs investment? Be absolutely clear Lab won't change anything or not much, perhaps tinker round the edges.
So they were fed up with Lab, couldn't vote Cons so voted LD. And the LDs have "betrayed" everyone by being a quietly effective junior coalition member. Is that it?
Plus, as that famous survey question asked of Labour: partly responsible, not learned, may do it again - I paraphrase.
So although you probably represent a large number of Lab=LD-ers who are thinking of going back to Lab (because that's "what you do" in normal times), my belief is that as these are not normal times you may, perhaps on your way to the polling station, worry that not enough has changed for you to abandon the economic-competence, not-ideal-but-workable-could-be-a-lot-worse coalition ship just yet.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/technology/yougov-most-admired-bill-gates-3011044
Titter ....
There's sod all happening.
However, there are enough morons in this country to ensure he will become PM next year regardless.
Second prediction - after Ed sweeps to power with a majority of 3, and despite the economic situation declining significantly within a year, all the whiney Facebook and Twitter campaigns about the plight of Britians 'poor' will disappear.
Either a Lab lead of 15 or a Tory lead of 11
Think Grieve and Clarke are correct. Reshuffle was about dealing with UKIP and Tories probably won't win a majority.
Views of "nailed on Tory majorities" welcome, especially Dr. "97%" Fisher and clever Rod.
The Good Lord rolled a particularly high number for them on his two D10 dice this week
' it's perplexing. I think the political class haven't caught up to the fact that Obama's no longer seen as a golden boy by the majority of Britons.'
We have Chuka Harrison instead
But no Tory majority, that is correct.
97% isn't nailed on for you ?
"Although this came with a seat at the National Security Council, Dr Fox rejected it as an insult. He is said to have told the Prime Minister: ‘You must be bloody joking. I assume the ambassadorship to the moon is taken?’"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2699479/Cameron-sacked-woo-Ukip-voters-claims-Grieve-Ministers-kicked-indicate-make-trouble-PM-backbenches.html#ixzz3862EFqlR
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
http://www.opinion.co.uk/perch/resources/sunday-telegraph-national-opinion-poll-17th-july.pdf
Edit: Questions 1, 3, 6, 7 are not included.
See graphs here:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~nuff0084/ge15forecast/
Overreaction.
Guffaw.
Tories will always be Tories. The great love-in has started.
Tory Spivs promise to get eviscerated like Shapps in election campaign. Good stuff.
I have more reservations about the editor, Ian Katz. The changes he's made so far have been somewhat depressing in their frivolous "let's make it relevant" way.
Original Rick Astley 'rickrolling' video removed from YouTube
Rick Astley's viral music video has been removed from YouTube, leaving hundreds of so-called ‘rickrollers’ broken-hearted.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/original-rick-astley-rickrolling-video-removed-from-youtube-9618343.html
Haven't watched Newsnight for some time but dear God please don't tell me they are asking viewers to "text in with your thoughts"....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10979802/Tories-most-marginal-MP-to-quit.html
A Labour gain in Warkwickshire North
This weekend's programme was all about coping with emergencies in far-away countries: there was a PwC guy talking about how they coped with the Ukrainian situation and a woman describing a very hairy time in Sierra Leone and another man who runs a company advising on such matters. It was both fascinating and highly relevant (in the best sense).
Talking of which: I really really hope that the remains of those poor people who died will - at last - be treated with some dignity and respect. If Russia does nothing else it should at the very least force the people on the ground to behave like civilised human beings in this regard.
Looting of corpses, letting them rot in fields, stealing property etc: Yuck, Yuck, Yuck.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28401058
Are you sure it wasn't Michael Green?
Sometimes it's hard to tell them apart.
Dr.Fisher's "model" gave the Tories a "97%" chance of getting an absolute majority. Today, I think he is saying Labour having highest number of seats. In the meantime, Tory numbers have actually gone up and Labour has fallen.
Basically, the "swingback" taht was the spine of their respective models ain't working the way "it was supposed to".
"A very good article which hints at the true scale of zionist power in the west."
Edit: unless or perhaps because your article itself was hinting about "the true scale of zionist power in the west".
'Tory Spivs promise to get eviscerated like Shapps in election campaign'
Still can't compete with Chuka Harrison calling voters trash.
However at the moment the election after next is due on 7th May 2020, due to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. While I realise, no Parliament can bind it’s successor in practice could a minority Government get a repeal through the HoC in 2015/6?
Can’t recall whether Labour voted for it, abstained or supported.
As ever, the USA leads the way - the Republican/Democrat divide looks and sounds increasingly sectarian.
It's not healthy. We can't have rational debate about any number of shibboleths; immigration, the NHS, pensions, climate change, energy security and so on.
The genius of Fisher's model is it is never wrong. It just changes with the polls.
Rod and Jack will however be embarrassingly wrong if Ed becomes PM.
Ethnic cleansing by those so busy attacking the motes in the eyes of the West and Israel that they've failed to notice the beams in their own. Or, more depressingly, are proud of them.
The down side is that these debates have to be held in private so that in public the standard tribal posturing can carry on.
I wish I could find the article, I think there is also a book of essays on the subject and Charles Clark is involved with it. My google-foo is weak.
Since their methodology change in early Feb, there has been 48 Populus polls.
Over that period there has been little change in the polls overall.
The average poll scores over that period are C 33.4%, L 36.2%, LD 9.2%, UKIP 13.3%.
The standard deviation of these scores is 1.0%, 1.1%, 0.8%, 1.0% respectively. So your 95% confidence limits are +/- 2.1%, 2.1%, 1.7%, 2.0%.
If anything this is a bit low, given that there has been some small movement in the polls over the period, and theory would suggest a greater variance in LD votes.
So I would suggest that the evidence does not support your theory that Populus bounces too much.
I have not look at the Ashcroft data, so I am unable to comment thereon.
We need to stop infant-ising voters.
It's cynical I know, but what's in that for us?
But we all know its only the votes for UKIP which would allow the danger of a Labour Govt. Even as it is, the coalition parties have a poll lead over the opposion.
If he's anything like he is on radio - the guests will never get a word in...
Indeed. You could do the same with Ashcroft's bonkers Monday poll and then claim that it isn't bouncy!
'Of course we won't know whether 2015 was/is a good one for Labour to lose until about two years into the government, but given Ed Millibands catastrophic lack of support amongst the electorate you can certainly make an argument that as Prime Minister Ed could take Labour to levels of hitherto unheard of unpopularity.... '
The economy is in good shape. There seems no great downside for the winning party. The scene is set for further Labour gerrymandering and pandering to their client base to perpetuate them in power. History tells us there is never a good time to leave the govt in Labours hands. If a tory defeat led to a pandering to the right wing then its safe to say labour could easily stay in power for a long time. I see no benefits at all to sleepwalking to a labour victory.
"A trumped up vote of confidence could be ignored by the opposition parties by the simpe expedient of abstaining."
Not sure that they could, Mr. Path, or that it would be in the interests of anyone that they should.
Suppose a minority government was voted down on a finance bill. They the table a confidence motion which they win because the opposition parties abstain. They then reintroduce the finance bill. Then what happens?
"The hold of our conventional parties on the electorate has never been weaker, and therefore the argument that one hears from many a Tory is: ‘well, you may not like us terribly much but you hate Labour even more, therefore you’re going to vote for us.’ I mean frankly for today’s electorate it just isn’t going to wash with enough people. They actually have got to be pulled back positively.
We’re looking at an electorate that’s more willing to experiment, even for Westminster elections. There just seems to be enough people out there, for whom at the end of the day. I mean again, something that’s very very different is that we’ve probably never had a period when all three Westminster party leaders have been basically unpopular. There’s always been somebody to shine, at least a degree of popularity. We have at the moment two deeply unpopular party leaders and a PM who’s seen as no more than treading water, as average. He’s basically popular amongst Tories."
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/direct-news-from-christians-in-mosul.html
However, in the case in question the person was disqualified from standing in the first place, but nonetheless stood and was duly declared elected (even though that election was not valid due to them being disqualified). It just seems that there is no disadvantage in failing to declare a disqualification in a safe seat as if you get 'found out' then you just have a by-election (at the Local Authorities expense) and either the original candidate can remove the disqualification (if possible) and stand again, or the party in the safe seat just puts someone else in.
Twice he has thrown away a start at a crucial time. Weak link.