Is there any possibility at all of a UKIP/conservative coalition?
A confidence and supply agreement maybe. I think it would be a mistake for UKIP to enter into having collective cabinet responsibility with a Conservative Government.
Is there any possibility at all of a UKIP/conservative coalition?
Not really, UKIP needs to win at least 50 non-Tory seats to make it happen, to balance the 50-70 Tory losses to Labour. Or in plain english, the Tories need UKIP to win a seat from LAB/LD for every seat lost by the Tories to Labour.
You know the author of that piece is a 9/11 "truther"?
A) Only an utter ignoramus would dismiss someone's opinion based on another, totally unrelated opinion that they hold.
I am a 9/11 'truther' -or to put it more accurately, of the two conspiracy theories that are used to explain the events of 9-11 (since it was by definition a conspiracy), I believe the version adhered to by our Government and broadcast media to be the less credible. Since it isn't a topic that is regularly discussed here, I don't discuss it. Happy to explain why, but alternatively do go on using thoughtless smears in a rather desperate attempt to discredit your political opponents.
Before I quote a random punter from the internet, I like to do a little research on them first.
I wouldn't, for example, quote a holocaust denier when their other views matched mine.
A lot of the "9/11 truthers" (a term I didn't know until I looked at that poster's disqus history) believe that it was part of a Zionist conspiracy. I don't know that "Earthernware" believes that, but given MikeK's posting history I thought he may be put off by that kind of possible association.
But I must be an utter ignoramus. Because you say so.
You know the author of that piece is a 9/11 "truther"?
A) Only an utter ignoramus would dismiss someone's opinion based on another, totally unrelated opinion that they hold.
I am a 9/11 'truther' -or to put it more accurately, of the two conspiracy theories that are used to explain the events of 9-11 (since it was by definition a conspiracy), I believe the version adhered to by our Government and broadcast media to be the less credible. Since it isn't a topic that is regularly discussed here, I don't discuss it. Happy to explain why, but alternatively do go on using thoughtless smears in a rather desperate attempt to discredit your political opponents.
Before I quote a random punter from the internet, I like to do a little research on them first.
I wouldn't, for example, quote a holocaust denier when their other views matched mine.
A lot of the "9/11 truthers" (a term I didn't know until I looked at that poster's disqus history) believe that it was part of a Zionist conspiracy. I don't know that "Earthernware" believes that, but given MikeK's posting history I thought he may be put off by that kind of possible association.
But I must be an utter ignoramus. Because you say so.
The fact that you were trying to one up him somehow based on what I assume to be his Jewish heritage doesn't make it any better in my opinion.
The Scottish subsamples (Populus/Ashcroft in aggregate) fully back up IPSOS/Yougov's findings by the way - Labour is facing disaster up there, and the only thing that might make them look good on the day are the Lib Dems.
If you want a good laugh at LA's polling - have a look at the relative voting intentions in Northern England (Labour strongholds remember) and the Midlands (Swing seats)
Did they actually wait for you to leave, or was it just coincidence?
I'm sure it's not because I left. Though I'm certain "medicinal" use was already permitted judging by the aroma outside certain shops in downtown Boulder...
You know the author of that piece is a 9/11 "truther"?
A) Only an utter ignoramus would dismiss someone's opinion based on another, totally unrelated opinion that they hold.
I am a 9/11 'truther' -or to put it more accurately, of the two conspiracy theories that are used to explain the events of 9-11 (since it was by definition a conspiracy), I believe the version adhered to by our Government and broadcast media to be the less credible. Since it isn't a topic that is regularly discussed here, I don't discuss it. Happy to explain why, but alternatively do go on using thoughtless smears in a rather desperate attempt to discredit your political opponents.
I think currently the most likely outcome in the next election is a 3 party coalition with Labour as largest party, and since almost all betting companies offer only 2 party coalition options, with only Winner and TitanBet covering the "Other" next government option with 80/1, and that might be the tip of the decade.
Is there any possibility at all of a UKIP/conservative coalition?
Even with 3 Kipper seats the odds of the arithmetic adding up would be tiny.
LD/Con continuity coalition most likely surely.
The coalition will lose around 90 seats to Labour, the SNP and UKIP, there is no chance of it continuing.
How many seats will the Coalition lose to the SNP?!!! And the SNP gain from Labour?
Inverness, Caithness, Gordon, North East Fife, Edinburgh West, Argyll & Bute, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine on these figures.
SNP should gain around a similiar number to Labour.
But SNP gains from Labour don't affect the arithmetic of a Con-LD coalition majority.
The post election manouvreings could be even more fascinating than the election itself - I can see the "Next Gov't" market not being settled for a fair while after the GE... lots of possibilities may well be possible.
I think currently the most likely outcome in the next election is a 3 party coalition with Labour as largest party, and since almost betting companies offer only 2 party coalition options with only Winner and TitanBet covering the "Other" next government option with 80/1, and that might be the tip of the decade.
Which polling trend leads you to this wondrous Labour achievement ?
If the Lib Dems lost 30, that'd mean the Conservatives losing 60. Obviously Scottish losses for the blues wouldn't be huge, which leaves (mostly) UKIP in the South and Labour in the North. Twenty or so seems at the top end of UKIP's forecast gains. Can we see Labour winning 40 odd seats straight from the blues?
Miliband really isn't well thought of, but only a tiny swing is needed in many seats.
"While 62% of Tory voters said they expected to be better off with a Conservative government, only 44% of Labour voters thought their prospects would be better with their own party in charge. A majority of Labour voters (55%) thought it would make no difference to their own prosperity which party was in office."
3% of Tories believe they would be better off under Labour, while 1% of Labour voters believe they would be better off under the Tories.
That Tory voters overall are generally more focused on their own interests should surprise no-one.
"While 62% of Tory voters said they expected to be better off with a Conservative government, only 44% of Labour voters thought their prospects would be better with their own party in charge. A majority of Labour voters (55%) thought it would make no difference to their own prosperity which party was in office."
3% of Tories believe they would be better off under Labour, while 1% of Labour voters believe they would be better off under the Tories.
That Tory voters overall are generally more focused on their own interests should surprise no-one.
What a nasty way of looking at it. You are showing your prejudice again.
Wanting the country (which includes oneself) to be better off is hardly being focused on one's own interests. What the figures show is simply that Conservative supporters are more realistic about the damage Labour does to the economy, or, to put it another way, 55% of Labour voters are kidding themselves that the choice of government makes no difference. If they think that, then I suppose it is logical enough that they think it's safe to vote Labour.
You know the author of that piece is a 9/11 "truther"?
A) Only an utter ignoramus would dismiss someone's opinion based on another, totally unrelated opinion that they hold.
I am a 9/11 'truther' -or to put it more accurately, of the two conspiracy theories that are used to explain the events of 9-11 (since it was by definition a conspiracy), I believe the version adhered to by our Government and broadcast media to be the less credible. Since it isn't a topic that is regularly discussed here, I don't discuss it. Happy to explain why, but alternatively do go on using thoughtless smears in a rather desperate attempt to discredit your political opponents.
Before I quote a random punter from the internet, I like to do a little research on them first.
I wouldn't, for example, quote a holocaust denier when their other views matched mine.
A lot of the "9/11 truthers" (a term I didn't know until I looked at that poster's disqus history) believe that it was part of a Zionist conspiracy. I don't know that "Earthernware" believes that, but given MikeK's posting history I thought he may be put off by that kind of possible association.
But I must be an utter ignoramus. Because you say so.
The fact that you were trying to one up him somehow based on what I assume to be his Jewish heritage doesn't make it any better in my opinion.
I haven't tried to "one up" him. I pointed it out because, as I said, I thought he may prefer not to promote the views of someone who may believe in Zionist conspiracies.
If the Lib Dems lost 30, that'd mean the Conservatives losing 60. Obviously Scottish losses for the blues wouldn't be huge, which leaves (mostly) UKIP in the South and Labour in the North. Twenty or so seems at the top end of UKIP's forecast gains. Can we see Labour winning 40 odd seats straight from the blues?
Miliband really isn't well thought of, but only a tiny swing is needed in many seats.
Lord A's constituency polls still haven't found the upper boundary of Labour seat gains from the Tories. So far he has found 29 Labour gains from the Tories and he's still going up the ladder on the swings needed.
The Conservatives and Lib Dems combined are currently on a majority of only 33. Take 20 off the Lib Dems and you have a coalition just about able to pass votes and that's reliant on the Conservatives not losing any to Labour. Hence I think we could be heading for three party coalitions: Con + LD + DUP or Lab + LD + SNP
"While 62% of Tory voters said they expected to be better off with a Conservative government, only 44% of Labour voters thought their prospects would be better with their own party in charge. A majority of Labour voters (55%) thought it would make no difference to their own prosperity which party was in office."
3% of Tories believe they would be better off under Labour, while 1% of Labour voters believe they would be better off under the Tories.
That Tory voters overall are generally more focused on their own interests should surprise no-one.
I never get that.
Tories = people who vote to control their own money in their own interests
Labour = people who vote to control other people's money in their own interests
Seems to me both want money spent the way they'd like to see it. Strip out the himbug and what's different ?
But I must be an utter ignoramus. Because you say so.
I can do a bar chart on that if you want?
Your time may be better spent on a bar chart showing Sunil Winning Here in the race to be Emperor. If the chart's good enough you might even pull before it's official!
You know the author of that piece is a 9/11 "truther"?
A) Only an utter ignoramus would dismiss someone's opinion based on another, totally unrelated opinion that they hold.
I am a 9/11 'truther' -or to put it more accurately, of the two conspiracy theories that are used to explain the events of 9-11 (since it was by definition a conspiracy), I believe the version adhered to by our Government and broadcast media to be the less credible. Since it isn't a topic that is regularly discussed here, I don't discuss it. Happy to explain why, but alternatively do go on using thoughtless smears in a rather desperate attempt to discredit your political opponents.
It's not smearing someone to take into account their views on one subject when assessing their views on another. Someone who believes in Fairies, on that the Earth is flat or that the CIA are behind 9/11 is bound to lose a bit of credibility.
A lot more discussion of the Ashcroft poll than of the earlier Populus one I see :-)
Labour 1% off of their low point since the dawn of time*
*GE2010
Was it ?
We can chat about Populus if you like and their severe UKIP weighting and also the fact that they have Lab-Con combined on far too high a % if you like.
There is no real comfort in the Populus for Labour.
Good LibDem poll - the sample didn't actually find that many but it's upweighted from the ones it found since it couldn't find enough people who said they'd voted LibDem (and down-weighted Labour for the opposite reason). Fieldwork is over the last four days, so actually predates Populus, which didn't show a LibDem upswing. All one can safely say is that the two big parties are more or less tied.
The Conservatives and Lib Dems combined are currently on a majority of only 33. Take 20 off the Lib Dems and you have a coalition just about able to pass votes and that's reliant on the Conservatives not losing any to Labour. Hence I think we could be heading for three party coalitions: Con + LD + DUP or Lab + LD + SNP
Which is obviously ridiculous.
As I've been saying for a long time, the risk of there being no viable government on May 8th is quite high, and one should arrange one's affairs, as much as possible, to protect against that eventuality.
If the Lib Dems lost 30, that'd mean the Conservatives losing 60. Obviously Scottish losses for the blues wouldn't be huge, which leaves (mostly) UKIP in the South and Labour in the North. Twenty or so seems at the top end of UKIP's forecast gains. Can we see Labour winning 40 odd seats straight from the blues?
Miliband really isn't well thought of, but only a tiny swing is needed in many seats.
Lord A's constituency polls still haven't found the upper boundary of Labour seat gains from the Tories. So far he has found 29 Labour gains from the Tories and he's still going up the ladder on the swings needed.
Labour's vote efficiency in England and Wales will probably increase even further with the damage UKIP are going to do to the Cons in the SE and E.
Of course in Scotland it could fall off a cliff... There's a reason the Most Seats and most votes markets are so far apart however.
But I must be an utter ignoramus. Because you say so.
I can do a bar chart on that if you want?
Your time may be better spent on a bar chart showing Sunil Winning Here in the race to be Emperor. If the chart's good enough you might even pull before it's official!
Minister-Emperor! There is an elected Imperial Senate!
On that Ashcroft poll with UNS, Labour would be 15 short of a majority. If we say they lose another 15 in Scotland to the SNP, they'll be 30 short. The Lib Dems will be getting around 30 themselves, which means a Lib-Lab Coalition would have an incredibly unstable majority. A Lab-SNP, and adding PC wouldn't help. Looks like Lib-Lab-SNP would be needed.
You know the author of that piece is a 9/11 "truther"?
A) Only an utter ignoramus would dismiss someone's opinion based on another, totally unrelated opinion that they hold.
I am a 9/11 'truther' -or to put it more accurately, of the two conspiracy theories that are used to explain the events of 9-11 (since it was by definition a conspiracy), I believe the version adhered to by our Government and broadcast media to be the less credible. Since it isn't a topic that is regularly discussed here, I don't discuss it. Happy to explain why, but alternatively do go on using thoughtless smears in a rather desperate attempt to discredit your political opponents.
It's not smearing someone to take into account their views on one subject when assessing their views on another. Someone who believes in Fairies, on that the Earth is flat or that the CIA are behind 9/11 is bound to lose a bit of credibility.
Steven Jones, the truthers' poster-boy Real Scientist, has proved to his own satisfaction from the archaeological evidence that Jesus Christ spent some time in Central America.
The Conservatives and Lib Dems combined are currently on a majority of only 33. Take 20 off the Lib Dems and you have a coalition just about able to pass votes and that's reliant on the Conservatives not losing any to Labour. Hence I think we could be heading for three party coalitions: Con + LD + DUP or Lab + LD + SNP
Which is obviously ridiculous.
What can you do? If Scotland votes SNP, the North votes Labour, the East votes UKIP and the South votes Tory, you are bound to have a 3 party coalition.
On that Ashcroft poll with UNS, Labour would be 15 short of a majority. If we say they lose another 15 in Scotland to the SNP, they'll be 30 short. The Lib Dems will be getting around 30 themselves, which means a Lib-Lab Coalition would have an incredibly unstable majority. A Lab-SNP, and adding PC wouldn't help. Looks like Lib-Lab-SNP would be needed.
Lib-Lab coalition with Confidence and Supply from the SNP in exchange for Scottish goodies and devomax.
A lot more discussion of the Ashcroft poll than of the earlier Populus one I see :-)
Labour 1% off of their low point since the dawn of time*
*GE2010
Was it ?
We can chat about Populus if you like and their severe UKIP weighting and also the fact that they have Lab-Con combined on far too high a % if you like.
There is no real comfort in the Populus for Labour.
There is no comfort for any of our traditional big three national parties in any polls right now.
Pulpstar - that is a wonderful point and probably true, but it is still hard not to see the widely availble 2.2 on Tory Most Seats as outstanding value. Or maybe the Scout has won his Mug Punter badge?
The Conservatives and Lib Dems combined are currently on a majority of only 33. Take 20 off the Lib Dems and you have a coalition just about able to pass votes and that's reliant on the Conservatives not losing any to Labour. Hence I think we could be heading for three party coalitions: Con + LD + DUP or Lab + LD + SNP
Which is obviously ridiculous.
As I've been saying for a long time, the risk of there being no viable government on May 8th is quite high, and one should arrange one's affairs, as much as possible, to protect against that eventuality.
Supposing SNP do as well as suggested and enter into S&C with someone...
Given their self-denying ordinance on voting on English matters, will any government's writ run in England?
The country is fragmenting into different sects. Within 10 to 15 years one party winning as much as 30% will be regarded as a great achievement.
Maybe, but I think we live in an unusual "anti-politics" era and it's also a reflection of going through the greatest economic disaster for a century.
What I suspect will happen as a result of all this is that there will be a "realignment" followed by a return to majority governments but the parties (Lab, Con and Lib) won't be the same as we know them today.
On that Ashcroft poll with UNS, Labour would be 15 short of a majority. If we say they lose another 15 in Scotland to the SNP, they'll be 30 short. The Lib Dems will be getting around 30 themselves, which means a Lib-Lab Coalition would have an incredibly unstable majority. A Lab-SNP, and adding PC wouldn't help. Looks like Lib-Lab-SNP would be needed.
Lib-Lab coalition with Confidence and Supply from the SNP in exchange for Scottish goodies and devomax.
An Ed Miliband-led Lib-Lab Coalition having to make huge spending cuts, while giving goodies out to the Scots, refusing to back English devolution and continuing mass immigration. That's a recipe for the collapse of Labour and a UKIP surge.
"While 62% of Tory voters said they expected to be better off with a Conservative government, only 44% of Labour voters thought their prospects would be better with their own party in charge. A majority of Labour voters (55%) thought it would make no difference to their own prosperity which party was in office."
3% of Tories believe they would be better off under Labour, while 1% of Labour voters believe they would be better off under the Tories.
That Tory voters overall are generally more focused on their own interests should surprise no-one.
What a nasty way of looking at it. You are showing your prejudice again.
Wanting the country (which includes oneself) to be better off is hardly being focused on one's own interests. What the figures show is simply that Conservative supporters are more realistic about the damage Labour does to the economy, or, to put it another way, 55% of Labour voters are kidding themselves that the choice of government makes no difference. If they think that, then I suppose it is logical enough that they think it's safe to vote Labour.
I knew Mr Nabavi would bite!!!!!!
As ever Richard, I wish I could be as unprejudiced and objective as you. But I guess that only Tories can be that way!!!!!!
Good LibDem poll - the sample didn't actually find that many but it's upweighted from the ones it found since it couldn't find enough people who said they'd voted LibDem (and down-weighted Labour for the opposite reason). Fieldwork is over the last four days, so actually predates Populus, which didn't show a LibDem upswing. All one can safely say is that the two big parties are more or less tied.
It was recently found that a significant number of people said they voted UKIP at the last election when there was no UKIP candidate standing in the constituency.
So some people will say that the last time they voted they voted what they now think, and they now think UKIP. It's some type of false self justification that they were right.
The same could apply to the Lib Dems, except in reverse so that some people are now in denial that they voted Lib Dem last time.
Lib-Lab coalition with Confidence and Supply from the SNP in exchange for Scottish goodies and devomax.
Well, quite.
It doesn't add up. This is a government which is going to have to make further major cuts in public spending. Even if the arrangement you describe could be agreed (and I imagine the LibDems would be distinctly unkeen), the chances of it being able to actually do anything, with rebels from three parties pulling in various directions, must be close to zero. Meanwhile UKIP and the Conservatives would be squabbling on the right, making it hard to put together an alternative. We could be in for a very rough time indeed.
If the Lib Dems lost 30, that'd mean the Conservatives losing 60. Obviously Scottish losses for the blues wouldn't be huge, which leaves (mostly) UKIP in the South and Labour in the North. Twenty or so seems at the top end of UKIP's forecast gains. Can we see Labour winning 40 odd seats straight from the blues?
Miliband really isn't well thought of, but only a tiny swing is needed in many seats.
Lord A's constituency polls still haven't found the upper boundary of Labour seat gains from the Tories. So far he has found 29 Labour gains from the Tories and he's still going up the ladder on the swings needed.
All of the marginal polls were taken much earlier when Labour had bigger national leads. You are forgetting the golden rule - polls are snapshots and not forecasts.
Lib-Lab coalition with Confidence and Supply from the SNP in exchange for Scottish goodies and devomax.
Well, quite.
It doesn't add up. This is a government which is going to have to make further major cuts in public spending. Even if the arrangement you describe could be agreed (and I imagine the LibDems would be distinctly unkeen), the chances of it being able to actually do anything, with rebels from three parties pulling in various directions, must be close to zero. Meanwhile UKIP and the Conservatives would be squabbling on the right, making it hard to put together an alternative. We could be in for a very rough time indeed.
If the Tories elect a leader that supports leaving the EU for an FTA, and cutting immigration, a UKIP-Tory alliance could easily be done, and they would destroy the left at the following election.
As ever Richard, I wish I could be as unprejudiced and objective as you. But I guess that only Tories can be that way!!!!!!
Not at all. I simply object, as ever, to your attributing personal motives of selfishness to people who hold honest views about the best way forward for the country.
The Conservatives and Lib Dems combined are currently on a majority of only 33. Take 20 off the Lib Dems and you have a coalition just about able to pass votes and that's reliant on the Conservatives not losing any to Labour. Hence I think we could be heading for three party coalitions: Con + LD + DUP or Lab + LD + SNP
Which is obviously ridiculous.
As I've been saying for a long time, the risk of there being no viable government on May 8th is quite high, and one should arrange one's affairs, as much as possible, to protect against that eventuality.
In what way should I arrange my affairs to protect against a three party coalition? Move abroad to a dictatorship?
You know the author of that piece is a 9/11 "truther"?
A) Only an utter ignoramus would dismiss someone's opinion based on another, totally unrelated opinion that they hold.
I am a 9/11 'truther' -or to put it more accurately, of the two conspiracy theories that are used to explain the events of 9-11 (since it was by definition a conspiracy), I believe the version adhered to by our Government and broadcast media to be the less credible. Since it isn't a topic that is regularly discussed here, I don't discuss it. Happy to explain why, but alternatively do go on using thoughtless smears in a rather desperate attempt to discredit your political opponents.
It's not smearing someone to take into account their views on one subject when assessing their views on another. Someone who believes in Fairies, on that the Earth is flat or that the CIA are behind 9/11 is bound to lose a bit of credibility.
Steven Jones, the truthers' poster-boy Real Scientist, has proved to his own satisfaction from the archaeological evidence that Jesus Christ spent some time in Central America.
Well everybody is entitled to their own opinion. ... and did those feet in ancient time? Another QTWTAIN.
Even though the SNP is more predisposed to c&s with Labour than Conservatives I'd imagine, and similiarly UKIP with Cons over Labour I can see UKIP working with Labour and the SNP working with the Cons in c&s agreements.
If the Tories elect a leader that supports leaving the EU for an FTA, and cutting immigration, a UKIP-Tory alliance could easily be done, and they would destroy the left at the following election.
I shall be betting on Labour for win 2020 in such a scenario, no matter how unpopular and disastrous they are. There is zero chance of a UKIP/Conservative agreement, not least because UKIP don't want one and indeed seem to have as their principal (perhaps only) objective damaging the Conservative Party. We could well be in for a decade or more of rule by an unpopular Labour government, and all the attendant damage that will do.
I find it astonishing that the 16 year old who has just been jailed for life with a 20 year recommendation for the murder of schoolteacher Ann Maguire hasn't been named:
If the Lib Dems lost 30, that'd mean the Conservatives losing 60. Obviously Scottish losses for the blues wouldn't be huge, which leaves (mostly) UKIP in the South and Labour in the North. Twenty or so seems at the top end of UKIP's forecast gains. Can we see Labour winning 40 odd seats straight from the blues?
Miliband really isn't well thought of, but only a tiny swing is needed in many seats.
Lord A's constituency polls still haven't found the upper boundary of Labour seat gains from the Tories. So far he has found 29 Labour gains from the Tories and he's still going up the ladder on the swings needed.
All of the marginal polls were taken much earlier when Labour had bigger national leads. You are forgetting the golden rule - polls are snapshots and not forecasts.
Aren't polls which adjust the current choice for how people voted last time forecasts rather than snapshots?
In what way should I arrange my affairs to protect against a three party coalition? Move abroad to a dictatorship?
Move your pension out of UK-focused shares, for a start. UK-listed companies which get most of their income abroad, denominated in foreign currencies, should be fine though.
As ever Richard, I wish I could be as unprejudiced and objective as you. But I guess that only Tories can be that way!!!!!!
Not at all. I simply object, as ever, to your attributing personal motives of selfishness to people who hold honest views about the best way forward for the country.
Funnily enough, you never seem to object when supporters of other parties are said to vote for personal motives of selfishness. Or is it just that they don't hold honest views?
I find it astonishing that the 16 year old who has just been jailed for life with a 20 year recommendation for the murder of schoolteacher Ann Maguire hasn't been named:
If the Lib Dems lost 30, that'd mean the Conservatives losing 60. Obviously Scottish losses for the blues wouldn't be huge, which leaves (mostly) UKIP in the South and Labour in the North. Twenty or so seems at the top end of UKIP's forecast gains. Can we see Labour winning 40 odd seats straight from the blues?
Miliband really isn't well thought of, but only a tiny swing is needed in many seats.
Lord A's constituency polls still haven't found the upper boundary of Labour seat gains from the Tories. So far he has found 29 Labour gains from the Tories and he's still going up the ladder on the swings needed.
All of the marginal polls were taken much earlier when Labour had bigger national leads. You are forgetting the golden rule - polls are snapshots and not forecasts.
Aren't polls which adjust the current choice for how people voted last time forecasts rather than snapshots?
No - it was Ashcroft who said it on twitter I believe.
In what way should I arrange my affairs to protect against a three party coalition? Move abroad to a dictatorship?
Move your pension out of UK-focused shares, for a start. UK-listed companies which get most of their income abroad, denominated in foreign currencies, should be fine though.
Under the current coalition the FTSE 100 has increased from just over 5000 to just under 6500. This is not evidence that UK coalitions are bad for UK shares.
I find it astonishing that the 16 year old who has just been jailed for life with a 20 year recommendation for the murder of schoolteacher Ann Maguire hasn't been named:
@carldinnen: Breaking; Police Complaints Commission to investigate 3 Police Federation officers who met Andrew Mitchell.
INTERVIEW, A. MITCHELL MP, PADDINGTON GREEN, D.I. JOLLY ATTENDING "Nice bicycle you have there, sir. Be a pity if somebody set fire to it, now wouldn't it? Family man, sir? Such lovely daughters, and such good schools. You don't know what worry is until you have children, isn't that right sir? Such a world, such a world... Still, let's not dwell on what might happen, yeah? They'll be perfectly alright. Probably... Now. about these "remarks" you claim my colleague said to you...hard-of-hearing, are you? Nobody would blame you for mishearing somebody, particularly if you were preoccupied with somebody menacing your family, god forbid..."
A lot more discussion of the Ashcroft poll than of the earlier Populus one I see :-)
Ashcroft is the Gold Standard.
So, we have the Tories polling at a Major-esque %-age?
We have the SNP-Green surge right now.
One must feel a bit sorry for Plaid Cymru - they seem to have gone nowhere unlike the other slumpers and surgers in this parliament.
Are they projected to lose or win a seat ?
I think their problem is that basically whereas Scotland is probably a semi-viable independent entity, Wales full well knows it could never ever survive on it's own.
Comments
And how long will it last?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1993
Back then Canada broke into 3 distinct geographical pieces and 4 electoral sects.
It took till 2011 to glue it back together.
Labour Most seats, Con Most votes is what I really want though I think seats will be on a knife edge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somaliland
LD/Con continuity coalition most likely surely.
Or in plain english, the Tories need UKIP to win a seat from LAB/LD for every seat lost by the Tories to Labour.
I wouldn't, for example, quote a holocaust denier when their other views matched mine.
A lot of the "9/11 truthers" (a term I didn't know until I looked at that poster's disqus history) believe that it was part of a Zionist conspiracy. I don't know that "Earthernware" believes that, but given MikeK's posting history I thought he may be put off by that kind of possible association.
But I must be an utter ignoramus. Because you say so.
"And yet they legalised Cannabis after I left! "
Did they actually wait for you to leave, or was it just coincidence?
Once you've finished laughing . . .
Have a look at the Question on Table 5.
add in that Labour tends recently to turn out lower than its poll score would suggest....
That's bigger than several countries' which operate under PR...
SNP should gain around a similiar number to Labour.
But SNP gains from Labour don't affect the arithmetic of a Con-LD coalition majority.
The post election manouvreings could be even more fascinating than the election itself - I can see the "Next Gov't" market not being settled for a fair while after the GE... lots of possibilities may well be possible.
If the Lib Dems lost 30, that'd mean the Conservatives losing 60. Obviously Scottish losses for the blues wouldn't be huge, which leaves (mostly) UKIP in the South and Labour in the North. Twenty or so seems at the top end of UKIP's forecast gains. Can we see Labour winning 40 odd seats straight from the blues?
Miliband really isn't well thought of, but only a tiny swing is needed in many seats.
Sounds like something from video game Half Life 2
That Tory voters overall are generally more focused on their own interests should surprise no-one.
Where's your firewall gone now?
Wanting the country (which includes oneself) to be better off is hardly being focused on one's own interests. What the figures show is simply that Conservative supporters are more realistic about the damage Labour does to the economy, or, to put it another way, 55% of Labour voters are kidding themselves that the choice of government makes no difference. If they think that, then I suppose it is logical enough that they think it's safe to vote Labour.
So far he has found 29 Labour gains from the Tories and he's still going up the ladder on the swings needed.
Fortunately labour will be able to hide him during six week election campaign.
Oh.
Con + LD + DUP or
Lab + LD + SNP
Which is obviously ridiculous.
Tories = people who vote to control their own money in their own interests
Labour = people who vote to control other people's money in their own interests
Seems to me both want money spent the way they'd like to see it. Strip out the himbug and what's different ?
Someone who believes in Fairies, on that the Earth is flat or that the CIA are behind 9/11 is bound to lose a bit of credibility.
*GE2010
Was it ?
We can chat about Populus if you like and their severe UKIP weighting and also the fact that they have Lab-Con combined on far too high a % if you like.
There is no real comfort in the Populus for Labour.
Using the ICM style 50% don't know/refused added to their 2010 vote (with rounding up), I make it
Con 29.73
Lab 29.55
UKIP 16.10
LD 9.66
Of course in Scotland it could fall off a cliff... There's a reason the Most Seats and most votes markets are so far apart however.
If Scotland votes SNP, the North votes Labour, the East votes UKIP and the South votes Tory, you are bound to have a 3 party coalition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister-President
Given their self-denying ordinance on voting on English matters, will any government's writ run in England?
What I suspect will happen as a result of all this is that there will be a "realignment" followed by a return to majority governments but the parties (Lab, Con and Lib) won't be the same as we know them today.
As ever Richard, I wish I could be as unprejudiced and objective as you. But I guess that only Tories can be that way!!!!!!
So some people will say that the last time they voted they voted what they now think, and they now think UKIP. It's some type of false self justification that they were right.
The same could apply to the Lib Dems, except in reverse so that some people are now in denial that they voted Lib Dem last time.
It doesn't add up. This is a government which is going to have to make further major cuts in public spending. Even if the arrangement you describe could be agreed (and I imagine the LibDems would be distinctly unkeen), the chances of it being able to actually do anything, with rebels from three parties pulling in various directions, must be close to zero. Meanwhile UKIP and the Conservatives would be squabbling on the right, making it hard to put together an alternative. We could be in for a very rough time indeed.
Even Welsh Labour would be tempted.
And who knows with Nick !
... and did those feet in ancient time? Another QTWTAIN.
Three Police Federation officers are to be investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission over their role in the "Plebgate" affair.
Not before time
Remember, Ashcroft says both Tories and Labour sub-30%!
Con 29.73
Lab 29.55
INTERVIEW, A. MITCHELL MP, PADDINGTON GREEN, D.I. JOLLY ATTENDING
"Nice bicycle you have there, sir. Be a pity if somebody set fire to it, now wouldn't it? Family man, sir? Such lovely daughters, and such good schools. You don't know what worry is until you have children, isn't that right sir? Such a world, such a world... Still, let's not dwell on what might happen, yeah? They'll be perfectly alright. Probably... Now. about these "remarks" you claim my colleague said to you...hard-of-hearing, are you? Nobody would blame you for mishearing somebody, particularly if you were preoccupied with somebody menacing your family, god forbid..."
One must feel a bit sorry for Plaid Cymru - they seem to have gone nowhere unlike the other slumpers and surgers in this parliament.
Are they projected to lose or win a seat ?
I think their problem is that basically whereas Scotland is probably a semi-viable independent entity, Wales full well knows it could never ever survive on it's own.