The Times have an editorial telling Sheffield Hallam Tories to vote Lib Dem.
Because if I read the piece correctly Labour are planning to decapitate Clegg as that reduces the chance of a Con/LD coalition next May and a Cleggless Lib Dem party is more likely to go in to coalition with Ed.
Fair enough.
Earlier there was a whole trail on why Tories would vote UKIP rather than vote Labour - I've previously voted yellow peril in some previous GE's and i would do so again if it was in a suitable seat to try and keep out a kipper or the reds where I lived..
No such problems in Bercow land of course... we just sit and watch the rest of the nation!
The point of that trail though was if you were a Tory voter in a seat that was going to be won by either Labour or UKIP next May (Thurrock/Grimsby). Mike seems to think Tories would vote Labour to keep UKIP out, not minding that they are helping kick Cameron out of No10
Looking at the odds in each of those 2 -and if I lived there - in Thurrock, I'd stick with the Tories, in Gt Grimsby I'd vote Labour with no little despair.
Really? Why? You'd be just helping Labour into government at your party's expense... and in Gt Grimsby the UKIP candidate was the Tory candidate last time
yup absolutely.
If you are pro-European Clarkite who approves of the overseas aid commitments the big parties sign up to, yes Labour are miles behind my Tory-LibDem preferences but Labour at least have those redeeming features even though they are aways economically useless - they'd also be left to carry the can for further deficit reduction and likely have long-term damage by actually being let in to No. 10.
Despite Richard T's previous vouching for the 'grass roots', I would never touch UKIP as I can't think of any of their policies, all 3 of them, that I agree with so that's a pretty good reason to have them last.
Well it would be your vote, but what you would be doing would be electing a Labour government and stopping a Tory one, not stopping a UKIP government, so it doesn't really make sense if you are a Tory does it?
If Clegg and Alexander lose their seats I'm not sure who would be in charge of Lib Dem negotiations. Their deputy leader is Malcolm Bruce who is standing down at the election. You'd have to say the Lib Dems in the most senior positions are Vince Cable and Ed Davey.
If I was in Yeovil I wouldvote Tory.I can't believe
"But, of course, Labour regards the mounting woes of the health service as a political opportunity. Ed Miliband wants to fight the election with scaremongering over health as the centrepiece of his strategy because he has nothing else. Is it too much to expect that Labour might address the real problems of the NHS, instead of using it as a football?"
I think we all know the answer to that one..............
If Clegg and Alexander lose their seats I'm not sure who would be in charge of Lib Dem negotiations. Their deputy leader is Malcolm Bruce who is standing down at the election. You'd have to say the Lib Dems in the most senior positions are Vince Cable and Ed Davey.
If I was in Yeovil I wouldvote Tory.I can't believe
woops.
I can't believe I'm saying that, but from a social democrat's perspective one more Tory would be far better than David Laws.
Well it would be your vote, but what you would be doing would be electing a Labour government and stopping a Tory one, not stopping a UKIP government, so it doesn't really make sense if you are a Tory does it? *************************** Of course it does. It depends if you value certain policies above parties - I tend to rather like being part of the EU, being an outward looking nation who is generous to other nations and not inclined to blame outsiders as a knee-jerk solution to problems.
You appear to suggest I should value tribal loyalty over policies.. is that new politics?
I also happen to think Labour will make a complete bollocks of it if let back in and so longer-term, that might be rather good for my 'tribe' anyway.
Of course it does. It depends if you value certain policies above parties - I tend to rather like being part of the EU, being an outward looking nation who is generous to other nations and not inclined to blame outsiders as a knee-jerk solution to problems.
You appear to suggest I should value tribal loyalty over policies.. is that new politics?
I also happen to think Labour will make a complete bollocks of it if let back in and so longer-term, that might be rather good for my 'tribe' anyway.
-------------------------------------------------
I don't suggest anything of the sort! I thought you would vote the way that was most likely to achieve a Tory government that's all
Your answer suggested that you wouldn't vote for UKIP over Labour because UKIP would cut foreign aid etc.. but that is irrelevant/wouldn't happen because there is no chance that UKIP would form a government... it is a straight choice between Labour & Tory, and you would vote in a way that would make it more likely to be Labour
Somebody may have said this already, but I believe the reason No won was in the main down to previously non-voting people turning out. The Yes got their usual vote - 40% or so of the total electorate. The result was decided by the turnout. Won't these No voting non-voters go back into their burrows leaving the field for the Nats?
These voters saw the referendum as an existential issue, whereas this time they will know both parties will have similar agendas for public spending, no matter what they say. So why bother to vote
An interesting thought. The impression I had was if anything slightly the reverse. The No voters tended to be older, richer, more Tory voting - all more likely to vote anyway. The Yes results in Labour heartlands in Glasgow seemed to be the result of the SNP and RIV bringing out disaffected Labour voters. But I could be wrong. I suspect it's a bit of both anyway.
Sorry I can't find the article, but iirc it was quite authoritative.
In all the 4 referenda we have had dating back to 1978, the Yes vote has been around 40% of the total electorate and the outcome determined by turn out. It is decided by whether that 40% who do vote constitute a majority. It also means that Salmond should really have run the quietest imaginable campaign. As the fever rose turn out rose, his chances diminished. That favourable poll just before the election was a disaster for him.
I'm sure better informed people than me like TSE who are on here will have seen the article.
That doesn't smell right. You'd have to lump quite a big range together as "the same" to come to that conclusion Year, votes, percentage of vote, percentage of population,turnout percentage 1979, 1.2m, 51.62%,32.9%,63.72% 1997, 1.8m, 74.29%,44.9%,60.43% 2014, 1.6m, 44.7%, 37.8%,84.59%
So you'd have to consider 32.9 the same as 44.9 for that idea to hold.
Of course it does. It depends if you value certain policies above parties - I tend to rather like being part of the EU, being an outward looking nation who is generous to other nations and not inclined to blame outsiders as a knee-jerk solution to problems.
That deserves a round of applause, I reckon. Well said indeed.
I do think it's fair to say there's been a slight uptick in the Labour lead - very slight, mind, but considering it looked a couple of months ago like things were tumbling quickly towards a consistent Tory lead, they'll probably take this.
What's bizarre is how everyone seems to think that because Clegg would be happy to have another coalition with the Tories, that makes it an inevitability. He has to get it past his party - which everyone is forgetting. There's no guarantee they'll accept it even if there was another hung parliament akin to 2010. And the Tory party looks very different now to how it was then.
Selling another coalition, or even confidence and supply, to the LDs assuming they are even in a position to grant that, seems like a tall order. They will have suffered big losses - 1/2 to 3/4 depending on how well they hold up I'd guess - and even if most of the MPs left are more likely to be ideologically more comfortable with the Tories than Labour, they will probably be disinclined to jump back into government with even less influence than this time. Add to that there is less urgency on the national interest arguments for coalition like last time, the fear of an indecisive outcome and another election shortly after will be far less.
Frank Booth has got it right, I think: it is not just a matter of the Lib Dem leader - it is also a matter for the party as a whole. This is why Kle4 has got it wrong - it is not even a matter just for the MPs - it is also a matter for the party as a whole. It cannot be said often enough - it is also a matter for the party as a whole. Now I have said it three times, it must be true.
@tnewtondunn: YouGov/Sun final voting intention poll of the year tonight has Lab 4 ahead. LAB 36%, CON 32%, UKIP 16%, LDEM 6%, GRN 5%. Merry Xmas to all.
The real question is what is the Scottish sub sample?
A Tory voting for Labour in a Labour/UKIP two way battle would be like a Man City supporter wanting Chelsea to bt Man Utd even though City would lose the title unless Utd got a point
What's bizarre is how everyone seems to think that because Clegg would be happy to have another coalition with the Tories, that makes it an inevitability. He has to get it past his party - which everyone is forgetting. There's no guarantee they'll accept it even if there was another hung parliament akin to 2010. And the Tory party looks very different now to how it was then.
Selling another coalition, or even confidence and supply, to the LDs assuming they are even in a position to grant that, seems like a tall order. They will have suffered big losses - 1/2 to 3/4 depending on how well they hold up I'd guess - and even if most of the MPs left are more likely to be ideologically more comfortable with the Tories than Labour, they will probably be disinclined to jump back into government with even less influence than this time. Add to that there is less urgency on the national interest arguments for coalition like last time, the fear of an indecisive outcome and another election shortly after will be far less.
Frank Booth has got it right, I think: it is not just a matter of the Lib Dem leader - it is also a matter for the party as a whole. This is why Kle4 has got it wrong - it is not even a matter just for the MPs - it is also a matter for the party as a whole. It cannot be said often enough - it is also a matter for the party as a whole. Now I have said it three times, it must be true.
The last coalition was passed with an overwhelming majority by a special LD conference. I suspect the next proposal will go to a similar one.
A Tory voting for Labour in a Labour/UKIP two way battle would be like a Man City supporter wanting Chelsea to bt Man Utd even though City would lose the title unless Utd got a point
That's simple and pure tribal politics/football to put it that way isn't it?
I'll try again to help you here.
Why would I vote for a party that holds no values I agree with - especially on their big supposed USPs?
I'd rather vote Labour than UKIP because of that. How about I put it in Carswellian terms, I'd rather support the Westminster parties than what UKIP represents - to me.
What's bizarre is how everyone seems to think that because Clegg would be happy to have another coalition with the Tories, that makes it an inevitability. He has to get it past his party - which everyone is forgetting. There's no guarantee they'll accept it even if there was another hung parliament akin to 2010. And the Tory party looks very different now to how it was then.
Selling another coalition, or even confidence and supply, to the LDs assuming they are even in a position to grant that, seems like a tall order. They will have suffered big losses - 1/2 to 3/4 depending on how well they hold up I'd guess - and even if most of the MPs left are more likely to be ideologically more comfortable with the Tories than Labour, they will probably be disinclined to jump back into government with even less influence than this time. Add to that there is less urgency on the national interest arguments for coalition like last time, the fear of an indecisive outcome and another election shortly after will be far less.
Frank Booth has got it right, I think: it is not just a matter of the Lib Dem leader - it is also a matter for the party as a whole. This is why Kle4 has got it wrong - it is not even a matter just for the MPs - it is also a matter for the party as a whole. It cannot be said often enough - it is also a matter for the party as a whole. Now I have said it three times, it must be true.
I think I was a little unclear - the reason it will be harder to sell it to the LDs, even if the MPs are in theory more likely to prefer the Tories, is because of the difficulties selling it to the party members, as the reasons they permitted it last time - national interest and so on - do not apply to the same agree. I was agreeing with Mr Booth. The MPs will be less inclined to support such an arrangement as last time, and the party members will probably be even less supportive than the MPs.
Somebody may have said this already, but I believe the reason No won was in the main down to previously non-voting people turning out. The Yes got their usual vote - 40% or so of the total electorate. The result was decided by the turnout. Won't these No voting non-voters go back into their burrows leaving the field for the Nats?
These voters saw the referendum as an existential issue, whereas this time they will know both parties will have similar agendas for public spending, no matter what they say. So why bother to vote
An interesting thought. The impression I had was if anything slightly the reverse. The No voters tended to be older, richer, more Tory voting - all more likely to vote anyway. The Yes results in Labour heartlands in Glasgow seemed to be the result of the SNP and RIV bringing out disaffected Labour voters. But I could be wrong. I suspect it's a bit of both anyway.
Sorry I can't find the article, but iirc it was quite authoritative.
In all the 4 referenda we have had dating back to 1978, the Yes vote has been around 40% of the total electorate and the outcome determined by turn out. It is decided by whether that 40% who do vote constitute a majority. It also means that Salmond should really have run the quietest imaginable campaign. As the fever rose turn out rose, his chances diminished. That favourable poll just before the election was a disaster for him.
I'm sure better informed people than me like TSE who are on here will have seen the article.
That doesn't smell right. You'd have to lump quite a big range together as "the same" to come to that conclusion Year, votes, percentage of vote, percentage of population,turnout percentage 1979, 1.2m, 51.62%,32.9%,63.72% 1997, 1.8m, 74.29%,44.9%,60.43% 2014, 1.6m, 44.7%, 37.8%,84.59%
So you'd have to consider 32.9 the same as 44.9 for that idea to hold.
Thanks to both of you. Of course, also, the 1979 vote was determined not by a majority of those voting, but of the whole electorate - hence the recently dead were all assumed to be No voters.
Of course it does. It depends if you value certain policies above parties - I tend to rather like being part of the EU, being an outward looking nation who is generous to other nations and not inclined to blame outsiders as a knee-jerk solution to problems.
You appear to suggest I should value tribal loyalty over policies.. is that new politics?
I also happen to think Labour will make a complete bollocks of it if let back in and so longer-term, that might be rather good for my 'tribe' anyway.
-------------------------------------------------
I don't suggest anything of the sort! I thought you would vote the way that was most likely to achieve a Tory government that's all
Your answer suggested that you wouldn't vote for UKIP over Labour because UKIP would cut foreign aid etc.. but that is irrelevant/wouldn't happen because there is no chance that UKIP would form a government... it is a straight choice between Labour & Tory, and you would vote in a way that would make it more likely to be Labour
Just strikes me as odd for a Tory
Yes you do. implicitly and explicity, that's exactly what you are suggesting.
Selling another coalition, or even confidence and supply, to the LDs assuming they are even in a position to grant that,ith even less influence than this time. Add to that there is less urgency on the national interest arguments for coalition like last time, the fear of an indecisive outcome and another election shortly after will be far less.
The last coalition was passed with an overwhelming majority by a special LD conference. I suspect the next proposal will go to a similar one.
What's bizarre is how everyone seems to think that because Clegg would be happy to have another coalition with the Tories, that makes it an inevitability. He has to get it past his party - which everyone is forgetting. There's no guarantee they'll accept it even if there was another hung parliament akin to 2010. And the Tory party looks very different now to how it was then.
ar less.
Frank Booth has got it right, I think: it is not just a matter of the Lib Dem leader - it is also a matter for the party as a whole. This is why Kle4 has got it wrong - it is not even a matter just for the MPs - it is also a matter for the party as a whole. It cannot be said often enough - it is also a matter for the party as a whole. Now I have said it three times, it must be true.
The last coalition was passed with an overwhelming majority by a special LD conference. I suspect the next proposal will go to a similar one.
Yes I'm sure the Lib Dems would have a similar procedure again. But would it produce the same result? The Tory strategy pre-2010 had been to somewhat ape the Lib Dems. What would the Tories be prepared to offer the Lib Dems this time? PR for local government is for the anoraks.
Toodle pip, off to sleep where I shall try and avoid the nightmare of actually voting Labour.... thank god for Lord Bercow of Buckingham and his disenfranchised rotten borough.
Of course it does. It depends if you value certain policies above parties - I tend to rather like being part of the EU, being an outward looking nation who is generous to other nations and not inclined to blame outsiders as a knee-jerk solution to problems.
You appear to suggest I should value tribal loyalty over policies.. is that new politics?
I also happen to think Labour will make a complete bollocks of it if let back in and so longer-term, that might be rather good for my 'tribe' anyway.
-------------------------------------------------
I don't suggest anything of the sort! I thought you would vote the way that was most likely to achieve a Tory government that's all
Your answer suggested that you wouldn't vote for UKIP over Labour because UKIP would cut foreign aid etc.. but that is irrelevant/wouldn't happen because there is no chance that UKIP would form a government... it is a straight choice between Labour & Tory, and you would vote in a way that would make it more likely to be Labour
Just strikes me as odd for a Tory
Yes you do. implicitly and explicity, that's exactly what you are suggesting.
Oh! I thought you wanted a Tory government thats all
... but you are willing to vote for Ed!
At least we have a Tory here will empathise with Kippers that wont vote for Cameron! Maybe you can help us out next time Richard Nabavi is finding it all most perplexing?
Oh! I thought you wanted a Tory government thats all
... but you are willing to vote for Ed!
At least we have a Tory here will empathise with Kippers that wont vote for Cameron! Maybe you can help us out next time Richard Nabavi is finding it all most perplexing?
Why would anyone vote either UKIP or Labour if they want sensible government? There's no significant difference between the two: neither wants an EU referendum, neither is interested in controlling public expenditure or improving efficiency in the NHS or in public procurement generally, both seem to want Ed Miliband in No 10, and UKIP seem happy to enter into a coalition with Labour.
If that is really what the choice comes down to, you are better off voting Conservative in the knowledge that it at least makes a small contribution to the overall national figure.
Of course it does. It depends if you value certain policies above parties - I tend to rather like being part of the EU, being an outward looking nation who is generous to other nations and not inclined to blame outsiders as a knee-jerk solution to problems.
You appear to suggest I should value tribal loyalty over policies.. is that new politics?
I also happen to think Labour will make a complete bollocks of it if let back in and so longer-term, that might be rather good for my 'tribe' anyway.
-------------------------------------------------
I don't suggest anything of the sort! I thought you would vote the way that was most likely to achieve a Tory government that's all
Your answer suggested that you wouldn't vote for UKIP over Labour because UKIP would cut foreign aid etc.. but that is irrelevant/wouldn't happen because there is no chance that UKIP would form a government... it is a straight choice between Labour & Tory, and you would vote in a way that would make it more likely to be Labour
Just strikes me as odd for a Tory
Yes you do. implicitly and explicity, that's exactly what you are suggesting.
Oh! I thought you wanted a Tory government thats all
... but you are willing to vote for Ed!
At least we have a Tory here will empathise with Kippers that wont vote for Cameron! Maybe you can help us out next time Richard Nabavi is finding it all most perplexing?
Of course it does. It depends if you value certain policies above parties - I tend to rather like being part of the EU, being an outward looking nation who is generous to other nations and not inclined to blame outsiders as a knee-jerk solution to problems.
You appear to suggest I should value tribal loyalty over policies.. is that new politics?
I also happen to think Labour will make a complete bollocks of it if let back in and so longer-term, that might be rather good for my 'tribe' anyway.
-------------------------------------------------
I don't suggest anything of the sort! I thought you would vote the way that was most likely to achieve a Tory government that's all
Your answer suggested that you wouldn't vote for UKIP over Labour because UKIP would cut foreign aid etc.. but that is irrelevant/wouldn't happen because there is no chance that UKIP would form a government... it is a straight choice between Labour & Tory, and you would vote in a way that would make it more likely to be Labour
Just strikes me as odd for a Tory
Yes you do. implicitly and explicity, that's exactly what you are suggesting.
Oh! I thought you wanted a Tory government thats all
... but you are willing to vote for Ed!
At least we have a Tory here will empathise with Kippers that wont vote for Cameron! Maybe you can help us out next time Richard Nabavi is finding it all most perplexing?
I think you need to give up. Too tribal sadly.
Not me I vote for UKIP whether they are going to win or not... but they aren't going to form the govt so it doesn't come into it
I just thought you wanted Cameron to be PM not Miliband.. obviously not!
Oh! I thought you wanted a Tory government thats all
... but you are willing to vote for Ed!
At least we have a Tory here will empathise with Kippers that wont vote for Cameron! Maybe you can help us out next time Richard Nabavi is finding it all most perplexing?
Why would anyone vote either UKIP or Labour if they want sensible government? There's no significant difference between the two: neither wants an EU referendum, neither is interested in controlling public expenditure or improving efficiency in the NHS or in public procurement generally, both seem to want Ed Miliband in No 10, and UKIP seem happy to enter into a coalition with Labour.
If that is really what the choice comes down to, you are better off voting Conservative in the knowledge that it at least makes a small contribution to the overall national figure.
Oh I didn't want to do that, but how they mighty have fallen.. it all went wrong after the Rochester call!
Of course it does. It depends if you value certain policies above parties - I tend to rather like being part of the EU, being an outward looking nation who is generous to other nations and not inclined to blame outsiders as a knee-jerk solution to problems.
You appear to suggest I should value tribal loyalty over policies.. is that new politics?
Well said. I don't hate UKIP, but I'd vote Tory if they were the only alternative.
@tnewtondunn: YouGov/Sun final voting intention poll of the year tonight has Lab 4 ahead. LAB 36%, CON 32%, UKIP 16%, LDEM 6%, GRN 5%. Merry Xmas to all.
So is the Labour lead 7, 4 or 0? I guess we compromise uneasily on "a modest lead".
The Times have an editorial telling Sheffield Hallam Tories to vote Lib Dem.
Because if I read the piece correctly Labour are planning to decapitate Clegg as that reduces the chance of a Con/LD coalition next May and a Cleggless Lib Dem party is more likely to go in to coalition with Ed.
In 1997 The Times explicitly urged people to vote for me, since I would be a change from the disturbingly pro-European Jim Lester. They didn't bother to find out what I thought...
Oh! I thought you wanted a Tory government thats all
... but you are willing to vote for Ed!
At least we have a Tory here will empathise with Kippers that wont vote for Cameron! Maybe you can help us out next time Richard Nabavi is finding it all most perplexing?
Why would anyone vote either UKIP or Labour if they want sensible government? There's no significant difference between the two: neither wants an EU referendum, neither is interested in controlling public expenditure or improving efficiency in the NHS or in public procurement generally, both seem to want Ed Miliband in No 10, and UKIP seem happy to enter into a coalition with Labour.
If that is really what the choice comes down to, you are better off voting Conservative in the knowledge that it at least makes a small contribution to the overall national figure.
Conservatives should and will vote conservative and socialists and labourites will likely vote Labour. There is no point second guessing. The all important swing or centre voters, call them what you want, will I suggest think about who to vote for if they think that voting the 'wrong way' might let in ukip. In a labour seat or perhaps the correct way to put it might be a seat where labour are perceived to be the best option to beat off a ukip win then those voters are likely to vote labour. In other seats where ukip are not considered relevant then these same voters will consider a different set of criteria. Its here in the marginals not the rock solid labour ones where tories need every single vote if they want a majority.
Oh! I thought you wanted a Tory government thats all
... but you are willing to vote for Ed!
At least we have a Tory here will empathise with Kippers that wont vote for Cameron! Maybe you can help us out next time Richard Nabavi is finding it all most perplexing?
Why would anyone vote either UKIP or Labour if they want sensible government? There's no significant difference between the two: neither wants an EU referendum, neither is interested in controlling public expenditure or improving efficiency in the NHS or in public procurement generally, both seem to want Ed Miliband in No 10, and UKIP seem happy to enter into a coalition with Labour.
If that is really what the choice comes down to, you are better off voting Conservative in the knowledge that it at least makes a small contribution to the overall national figure.
Conservatives should and will vote conservative and socialists and labourites will likely vote Labour. There is no point second guessing. The all important swing or centre voters, call them what you want, will I suggest think about who to vote for if they think that voting the 'wrong way' might let in ukip. In a labour seat or perhaps the correct way to put it might be a seat where labour are perceived to be the best option to beat off a ukip win then those voters are likely to vote labour. In other seats where ukip are not considered relevant then these same voters will consider a different set of criteria. Its here in the marginals not the rock solid labour ones where tories need every single vote if they want a majority.
Complete madness, but it makes no difference to me
Of course it does. It depends if you value certain policies above parties - I tend to rather like being part of the EU, being an outward looking nation who is generous to other nations and not inclined to blame outsiders as a knee-jerk solution to problems.
You appear to suggest I should value tribal loyalty over policies.. is that new politics?
Well said. I don't hate UKIP, but I'd vote Tory if they were the only alternative.
@tnewtondunn: YouGov/Sun final voting intention poll of the year tonight has Lab 4 ahead. LAB 36%, CON 32%, UKIP 16%, LDEM 6%, GRN 5%. Merry Xmas to all.
So is the Labour lead 7, 4 or 0? I guess we compromise uneasily on "a modest lead".
The Times have an editorial telling Sheffield Hallam Tories to vote Lib Dem.
Because if I read the piece correctly Labour are planning to decapitate Clegg as that reduces the chance of a Con/LD coalition next May and a Cleggless Lib Dem party is more likely to go in to coalition with Ed.
In 1997 The Times explicitly urged people to vote for me, since I would be a change from the disturbingly pro-European Jim Lester. They didn't bother to find out what I thought...
So you have the casting vote in a constituency... it is a tight contest between Conservatives and UKIP.. Labour need the Tories to lose this seat in order to get a majority... and you would vote Conservative?
The Times have an editorial telling Sheffield Hallam Tories to vote Lib Dem.
Because if I read the piece correctly Labour are planning to decapitate Clegg as that reduces the chance of a Con/LD coalition next May and a Cleggless Lib Dem party is more likely to go in to coalition with Ed.
Could Clegg hold his head high if he only got in thanks to Tory voters?
Only joking. Of course he couldn't give a stuff. What's bizarre is how everyone seems to think that because Clegg would be happy to have another coalition with the Tories, that makes it an inevitability. He has to get it past his party - which everyone is forgetting. There's no guarantee they'll accept it even if there was another hung parliament akin to 2010. And the Tory party looks very different now to how it was then.
Tories should vote tory and let Clegg fight his own battle. Labour voters will probably keep voting Labour. Its the voters who are 'swing' or 'undecided' or nothing at all will vote to elect the one they want. If Clegg is perceived a loser then they will have to look to the other candidates.and see who they want to win. If Clegg looks a winner he will probably pick up the swing vote.
Don't think it's been posted yet...from the Times article on the "decapitate Clegg" effort:
Mr Watson recently visited the constituency. “This seat is winnable for Labour,” he said. “I have never encountered such animosity on the doorstep against an incumbent MP — particularly one as high-profile. There are two issues that come up time and again: his position on tuition fees and Sheffield Forgemasters, which has not been forgotten.” ...
Labour is also exploiting the public sector pay freeze and fears over NHS privatisation as it seeks to undermine his support in a constituency domi- nated by professionals working in the health service and education.
@tnewtondunn: YouGov/Sun final voting intention poll of the year tonight has Lab 4 ahead. LAB 36%, CON 32%, UKIP 16%, LDEM 6%, GRN 5%. Merry Xmas to all.
So is the Labour lead 7, 4 or 0? I guess we compromise uneasily on "a modest lead".
So you have the casting vote in a constituency... it is a tight contest between Conservatives and UKIP.. Labour need the Tories to lose this seat in order to get a majority... and you would vote Conservative?
Why wouldn't you just vote Labour?
My premise was that the Tories were the ONLY alternative. If there's a Labour candidate, I'll vote Labour.
I simply do not understand this obsession with Benedict Cumberbatch. He looks weird and is not in the least bit handsome and his acting - what I have seen of it - is mannered.
He has all the sex appeal of a pint of milk.
I first discovered Cumberbatch when he played the young Stephen Hawking in a film about Hawking. Perhaps that's what he's good for.
This just looks nasty from a certain section of the Labour party. Whatever you say about Nick Clegg and the Libdems, they stepped up to the plate and formed a Coalition Government with the Conservatives at a very difficult time for the UK economy. I think that the SNP are on a similar sticky wicket with their attempt to unseat Danny Alexander in Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey. Labour and SNP voters may now really dislike both these politicians because they went into Government with the enemy, but I think they overestimate the idea that other non Labour or SNP voters feeling the anger in both these seats.
Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander have now become the most influential Libdem politicians in the current Coalition, and that will count in both their constituencies. I remember before the last GE, JackW penned an interesting set of articles about Alastair Darling's seat etc. I suggested to JackW at the time that there was no way that Darling would lose his seat while he was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and because despite the state of the economy , a very personal and negative targeted decapitation campaign would fail. The voters just don't like this type of political decapitation strategy, Farage made a similar mistake when he thought John Bercow would be a sitting duck in his constituency after become Speaker of the House. And look how that turned out.
Don't think it's been posted yet...from the Times article on the "decapitate Clegg" effort:
Mr Watson recently visited the constituency. “This seat is winnable for Labour,” he said. “I have never encountered such animosity on the doorstep against an incumbent MP — particularly one as high-profile. There are two issues that come up time and again: his position on tuition fees and Sheffield Forgemasters, which has not been forgotten.” ...
Labour is also exploiting the public sector pay freeze and fears over NHS privatisation as it seeks to undermine his support in a constituency domi- nated by professionals working in the health service and education.
The information Mr Mann has given police concerns the suspicious deaths of a Lambeth Council caretaker in 1989 and a social worker in 1993 who allegedly threatened to expose a paedophile ring linked to a future minister in Tony Blair’s government.
Returning from the office Christmas party may not be the best time to post.
However it seems to me that the chart above demonstrates simply that the YES/SNP vote is rock solid while the NO vote is uncertain.
Mike's interpretation of this is that NO voters are contemplating tactical voting against the SNP. Another view is that many are contemplating voting for the SNP as a means of extracting the maximum concessions from Westminster or indeed what Scotland was promised in the final stages of the referendum. Either way if the SNP score anything like current numbers it is academic since they will win most of the Scottish constituencies regardless.
Finally the Fitlass comparison with Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander doesn't stand up to examination. On present trends Alexander is out by 10,000 or so to the SNP. In addition while I am not a Lib/Dem voter I would be somewhat more likely to vote in Sheffield for Clegg who at least is Deputy Prime Minister than in Inverness for Osborne's number two at the Treasury with all that bedroom tax and other baggage.
So you have the casting vote in a constituency... it is a tight contest between Conservatives and UKIP.. Labour need the Tories to lose this seat in order to get a majority... and you would vote Conservative?
Why wouldn't you just vote Labour?
My premise was that the Tories were the ONLY alternative. If there's a Labour candidate, I'll vote Labour.
No red boxes for you then. In voting Labour and not UKIP under the terms of the question, Labour are now in opposition, and Mr Miliband has just summoned you to explain why you didn't vote in the way that most benefitted your party ;-)
This just looks nasty from a certain section of the Labour party. Whatever you say about Nick Clegg and the Libdems, they stepped up to the plate and formed a Coalition Government with the Conservatives at a very difficult time for the UK economy. I think that the SNP are on a similar sticky wicket with their attempt to unseat Danny Alexander in Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey. Labour and SNP voters may now really dislike both these politicians because they went into Government with the enemy, but I think they overestimate the idea that other non Labour or SNP voters feeling the anger in both these seats.
Don't think it's been posted yet...from the Times article on the "decapitate Clegg" effort:
Mr Watson recently visited the constituency. “This seat is winnable for Labour,” he said. “I have never encountered such animosity on the doorstep against an incumbent MP — particularly one as high-profile. There are two issues that come up time and again: his position on tuition fees and Sheffield Forgemasters, which has not been forgotten.” ...
Labour is also exploiting the public sector pay freeze and fears over NHS privatisation as it seeks to undermine his support in a constituency domi- nated by professionals working in the health service and education.
That would be Nick Clegg, the leader of the Lib Dems, the party which (admittedly before his time as an MP, but while on high up committees) coined the phrase 'decapitation strategy' in going for Oliver Letwin for no other reason than he was a bit of a Tory stereotype and occasional buffoon. At least the section of the electorate who voted for Clegg under the misapprehension that he was a a left-winger have a vague reason to want a bit of schadenfreude.
It should actually make for fascinating viewing in the campaign - it's in most of Clegg's English MPs' interests for him to tack left, using Osborne's AS as an excuse - given that for many of them the best chance of survival in Tory facing seats is Labour tactical voting. However if his own polling gets any worse, he may need Tory tactical voters to vote for him as he denounces them.
1. Saudi Arabia made the decision that supporting the oil price meant ceding market share to US shale players. If Saudi Arabia cut production 1m barrels to maintain an $80 price, then US production would just rise 1m barrels. Saudi would then have to cut *another* 1m barrels. The government in Riyadh realised this didn't work for them in the long term.
2. The Chinese government - which had been buying up 1m barrels a day to fill their strategic petroleum reserve - stopped buying. Their storage was largely full.
3. Demand in China and the Eurozone has tracked about 0.8m barrels (0.5m China, 0.3m the Eurozone) below forecasts.
The combination of these factors has led to the oil price crashing.
Furthermore, the the US government has no control over the output of companies in the US. Hard those this is to believe, hundreds (maybe thousands) of little oil companies, from EOG Resources, to Chesapeake Energy and the like, have all made independent decisions to invest in shale production. They all grossly misestimated future oil prices and are now seriously cash flow negative (and often highly indebted). The idea that the US government conspired to drive 100s of oil companies into bankruptcy and to hammer the US high yield bond market isn't just paranoid, it's delusional.
You might want to reconsider RCS
"How oil's become the world's most potent weapon: Forget nuclear arms. The U.S. and Saudis are behind an oil price crash that could topple regimes in Russia and Iran"
1. Saudi Arabia made the decision that supporting the oil price meant ceding market share to US shale players. If Saudi Arabia cut production 1m barrels to maintain an $80 price, then US production would just rise 1m barrels. Saudi would then have to cut *another* 1m barrels. The government in Riyadh realised this didn't work for them in the long term.
2. The Chinese government - which had been buying up 1m barrels a day to fill their strategic petroleum reserve - stopped buying. Their storage was largely full.
3. Demand in China and the Eurozone has tracked about 0.8m barrels (0.5m China, 0.3m the Eurozone) below forecasts.
The combination of these factors has led to the oil price crashing.
Furthermore, the the US government has no control over the output of companies in the US. Hard those this is to believe, hundreds (maybe thousands) of little oil companies, from EOG Resources, to Chesapeake Energy and the like, have all made independent decisions to invest in shale production. They all grossly misestimated future oil prices and are now seriously cash flow negative (and often highly indebted). The idea that the US government conspired to drive 100s of oil companies into bankruptcy and to hammer the US high yield bond market isn't just paranoid, it's delusional.
You might want to reconsider RCS
"How oil's become the world's most potent weapon: Forget nuclear arms. The U.S. and Saudis are behind an oil price crash that could topple regimes in Russia and Iran"
The headline (which you quote), which presumably the author, the Economist's Energy correspondent, did not write, is not discussed in the article.....in fact the article is primarily about rcs1000 point 1 - which it backs up, and Russia's over-reliance on oil and failure to diversify and modernise.....
Comments
I can't believe I'm saying that, but from a social democrat's perspective one more Tory would be far better than David Laws.
***************************
Of course it does. It depends if you value certain policies above parties - I tend to rather like being part of the EU, being an outward looking nation who is generous to other nations and not inclined to blame outsiders as a knee-jerk solution to problems.
You appear to suggest I should value tribal loyalty over policies.. is that new politics?
I also happen to think Labour will make a complete bollocks of it if let back in and so longer-term, that might be rather good for my 'tribe' anyway.
@Scrapheap_as_was
-------------------------------------------------
I don't suggest anything of the sort! I thought you would vote the way that was most likely to achieve a Tory government that's all
Your answer suggested that you wouldn't vote for UKIP over Labour because UKIP would cut foreign aid etc.. but that is irrelevant/wouldn't happen because there is no chance that UKIP would form a government... it is a straight choice between Labour & Tory, and you would vote in a way that would make it more likely to be Labour
Just strikes me as odd for a Tory
Year, votes, percentage of vote, percentage of population,turnout percentage
1979, 1.2m, 51.62%,32.9%,63.72%
1997, 1.8m, 74.29%,44.9%,60.43%
2014, 1.6m, 44.7%, 37.8%,84.59%
So you'd have to consider 32.9 the same as 44.9 for that idea to hold.
I'll try again to help you here.
Why would I vote for a party that holds no values I agree with - especially on their big supposed USPs?
I'd rather vote Labour than UKIP because of that. How about I put it in Carswellian terms, I'd rather support the Westminster parties than what UKIP represents - to me.
Simples.
-------------------------------------------------
I don't suggest anything of the sort! I thought you would vote the way that was most likely to achieve a Tory government that's all
Your answer suggested that you wouldn't vote for UKIP over Labour because UKIP would cut foreign aid etc.. but that is irrelevant/wouldn't happen because there is no chance that UKIP would form a government... it is a straight choice between Labour & Tory, and you would vote in a way that would make it more likely to be Labour
Just strikes me as odd for a Tory
Yes you do. implicitly and explicity, that's exactly what you are suggesting.
Oh! I thought you wanted a Tory government thats all
... but you are willing to vote for Ed!
At least we have a Tory here will empathise with Kippers that wont vote for Cameron! Maybe you can help us out next time Richard Nabavi is finding it all most perplexing?
If that is really what the choice comes down to, you are better off voting Conservative in the knowledge that it at least makes a small contribution to the overall national figure.
... but you are willing to vote for Ed!
At least we have a Tory here will empathise with Kippers that wont vote for Cameron! Maybe you can help us out next time Richard Nabavi is finding it all most perplexing?
I think you need to give up. Too tribal sadly.
Not me I vote for UKIP whether they are going to win or not... but they aren't going to form the govt so it doesn't come into it
I just thought you wanted Cameron to be PM not Miliband.. obviously not!
The all important swing or centre voters, call them what you want, will I suggest think about who to vote for if they think that voting the 'wrong way' might let in ukip. In a labour seat or perhaps the correct way to put it might be a seat where labour are perceived to be the best option to beat off a ukip win then those voters are likely to vote labour.
In other seats where ukip are not considered relevant then these same voters will consider a different set of criteria. Its here in the marginals not the rock solid labour ones where tories need every single vote if they want a majority.
Why wouldn't you just vote Labour?
Assuming Clegg keeps his seat,Labour can kiss goodbye to any coalition with the Lib Dems.
Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander have now become the most influential Libdem politicians in the current Coalition, and that will count in both their constituencies. I remember before the last GE, JackW penned an interesting set of articles about Alastair Darling's seat etc. I suggested to JackW at the time that there was no way that Darling would lose his seat while he was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and because despite the state of the economy , a very personal and negative targeted decapitation campaign would fail. The voters just don't like this type of political decapitation strategy, Farage made a similar mistake when he thought John Bercow would be a sitting duck in his constituency after become Speaker of the House. And look how that turned out. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4305300.ece
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.116751151
No money matched yet.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2884471/VIP-child-abuse-whistleblowers-murdered-MP-says-men-poised-lift-lid-scandal.html
Tick...tick...tick...
However it seems to me that the chart above demonstrates simply that the YES/SNP vote is rock solid while the NO vote is uncertain.
Mike's interpretation of this is that NO voters are contemplating tactical voting against the SNP. Another view is that many are contemplating voting for the SNP as a means of extracting the maximum concessions from Westminster or indeed what Scotland was promised in the final stages of the referendum. Either way if the SNP score anything like current numbers it is academic since they will win most of the Scottish constituencies regardless.
Finally the Fitlass comparison with Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander doesn't stand up to examination. On present trends Alexander is out by 10,000 or so to the SNP. In addition while I am not a Lib/Dem voter I would be somewhat more likely to vote in Sheffield for Clegg who at least is Deputy Prime Minister than in Inverness for Osborne's number two at the Treasury with all that bedroom tax and other baggage.
Opinium 7
TNS 7
Survtn 5
ICM 5
YouGov 4
ComRe 3
Ashcroft 1
Populus 0
IpsosM -3
EICIPM unless Ipsos Mori is right
It should actually make for fascinating viewing in the campaign - it's in most of Clegg's English MPs' interests for him to tack left, using Osborne's AS as an excuse - given that for many of them the best chance of survival in Tory facing seats is Labour tactical voting. However if his own polling gets any worse, he may need Tory tactical voters to vote for him as he denounces them.
"How oil's become the world's most potent weapon: Forget nuclear arms. The U.S. and Saudis are behind an oil price crash that could topple regimes in Russia and Iran"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2884454/How-oil-s-world-s-potent-weapon-Forget-nuclear-arms-U-S-Saudis-oil-price-crash-topple-regimes-Russia-Iran-sabotage-Scot-Nationalists.html
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/3de0qwa0dn/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-221214.pdf
17.6.14 LAB 330 CON 263 LD 33 UKIP 0 Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM)
Six months later BJESUS forecasts
23.12.14 LAB 320 CON 263 LD 31 UKIP 1( Others 35 (Ed is crap is PM)
Unaltered in England 11 extra SNP seats in Scotland