Peter Kellner has revised his election prediction for the Sunday Times,
He says
"I have therefore reduced my prediction for Labour’s Scottish seat tally from 31 to 24. If Murphy cannot trim the SNP’s lead from 20 points to 6-8 points, Labour could end up with as few as 10-15 seats. There is even a chance that Labour’s Scottish losses would more than wipe out its gains south of the border, leaving the party with even fewer MPs than in 2010."
Piece ends with
As things stand, Cameron could be the first Tory leader for more than half a century to have good reason to say on election night: “Thank you, Scotland.”
I wonder where his evidence for this prediction are coming from?
I expect the gap between SNP and labour to narrow.
Oddschecker's historical odds function tells me that today 4 bookmakers lengthened the odds on Tory most seats, but 3 shortened it. And one of those (Betfair Sportsbook) lengthened it and then shortened it, just during today. Make up your mind!
The paradox of the markets, money is piling on the Tories at the same time as the polls are (for now at least) easing away from them. Shady's latest blog gave an interesting insight into this too.
Peter Kellner has revised his election prediction for the Sunday Times,
He says
"I have therefore reduced my prediction for Labour’s Scottish seat tally from 31 to 24. If Murphy cannot trim the SNP’s lead from 20 points to 6-8 points, Labour could end up with as few as 10-15 seats. There is even a chance that Labour’s Scottish losses would more than wipe out its gains south of the border, leaving the party with even fewer MPs than in 2010."
Piece ends with
As things stand, Cameron could be the first Tory leader for more than half a century to have good reason to say on election night: “Thank you, Scotland.”
I would have thought that simple arithmetic would be within the scope of Kellner's ken.
It doesn't matter how Scotland votes in terms of Cameron's chance of being PM. Either he outweighs Scotland with English seats or he can't achieve a majority. In which case Labour decides between S&C from the SNP or Grand Coalition with the Tories.
Wrong, you should read tomorrow's Sunday Times and look at the specific scenario Peter Kellner talks about.
Peter Kellner has revised his election prediction for the Sunday Times,
He says
"I have therefore reduced my prediction for Labour’s Scottish seat tally from 31 to 24. If Murphy cannot trim the SNP’s lead from 20 points to 6-8 points, Labour could end up with as few as 10-15 seats. There is even a chance that Labour’s Scottish losses would more than wipe out its gains south of the border, leaving the party with even fewer MPs than in 2010."
Piece ends with
As things stand, Cameron could be the first Tory leader for more than half a century to have good reason to say on election night: “Thank you, Scotland.”
I wonder where his evidence for this prediction are coming from?
I expect the gap between SNP and labour to narrow.
Peter Kellner has revised his election prediction for the Sunday Times,
He says
"I have therefore reduced my prediction for Labour’s Scottish seat tally from 31 to 24. If Murphy cannot trim the SNP’s lead from 20 points to 6-8 points, Labour could end up with as few as 10-15 seats. There is even a chance that Labour’s Scottish losses would more than wipe out its gains south of the, leaving the party with even fewer MPs than in 2010."
Piece ends with
As things stand, Cameron could be the first Tory leader for more than half a century to have good reason to say on election night: “Thank you, Scotland.”
I wonder where his evidence for this prediction are coming from?
I expect the gap between SNP and labour to narrow.
In votes or policy?
Votes philiph,I see labour voters returning home knowing it could stop a Tory government.
Looks like it's open season on Labour in the Sunday's.
Question is, will nay of the national broadcasters run with any of these stories? Obviously the BBC won't unless they are forced to by Sky or ITV...
BBC,Proberly go on the ken Clarke story,that's why down thread I said it wouldn't help the Tories.
Will the BBC stand by their opinion of Ken Clarke when he passes?
Careful now.
I'm just asking a question. What could anyone possibly read into that?
Perhaps it will be revealed he wasn't a whet and very much preferred dry. To whichever place he wanted to enter. I'm sure Mr Clarke enjoyed making an entrance wherever he was.
Peter Kellner has revised his election prediction for the Sunday Times,
He says
"I have therefore reduced my prediction for Labour’s Scottish seat tally from 31 to 24. If Murphy cannot trim the SNP’s lead from 20 points to 6-8 points, Labour could end up with as few as 10-15 seats. There is even a chance that Labour’s Scottish losses would more than wipe out its gains south of the border, leaving the party with even fewer MPs than in 2010."
Piece ends with
As things stand, Cameron could be the first Tory leader for more than half a century to have good reason to say on election night: “Thank you, Scotland.”
I would have thought that simple arithmetic would be within the scope of Kellner's ken.
It doesn't matter how Scotland votes in terms of Cameron's chance of being PM. Either he outweighs Scotland with English seats or he can't achieve a majority. In which case Labour decides between S&C from the SNP or Grand Coalition with the Tories.
Wrong, you should read tomorrow's Sunday Times and look at the specific scenario Peter Kellner talks about.
Which scenario - the SNP will not support the Conservatives in a million years !
Peter Kellner has revised his election prediction for the Sunday Times,
He says
"I have therefore reduced my prediction for Labour’s Scottish seat tally from 31 to 24. If Murphy cannot trim the SNP’s lead from 20 points to 6-8 points, Labour could end up with as few as 10-15 seats. There is even a chance that Labour’s Scottish losses would more than wipe out its gains south of the border, leaving the party with even fewer MPs than in 2010."
Piece ends with
As things stand, Cameron could be the first Tory leader for more than half a century to have good reason to say on election night: “Thank you, Scotland.”
I wonder where his evidence for this prediction are coming from?
I expect the gap between SNP and labour to narrow.
How will that happen. Reports indicate that Campaigning is detrimental to Labour's prospects.
Peter Kellner has revised his election prediction for the Sunday Times,
He says
"I have therefore reduced my prediction for Labour’s Scottish seat tally from 31 to 24. If Murphy cannot trim the SNP’s lead from 20 points to 6-8 points, Labour could end up with as few as 10-15 seats. There is even a chance that Labour’s Scottish losses would more than wipe out its gains south of the border, leaving the party with even fewer MPs than in 2010."
Piece ends with
As things stand, Cameron could be the first Tory leader for more than half a century to have good reason to say on election night: “Thank you, Scotland.”
I would have thought that simple arithmetic would be within the scope of Kellner's ken.
It doesn't matter how Scotland votes in terms of Cameron's chance of being PM. Either he outweighs Scotland with English seats or he can't achieve a majority. In which case Labour decides between S&C from the SNP or Grand Coalition with the Tories.
Wrong, you should read tomorrow's Sunday Times and look at the specific scenario Peter Kellner talks about.
Which scenario - the SNP will not support the Conservatives in a million years !
Where the Labour finishes a distant second in terms of seats and votes behind the Tories.
Back in January, Kellner thought a Lab/LD/SNP coalition would be viable.
He doesn't think it will be, as the Lib Dems, after losing half their seats in May, won't want to proper up a coalition of the losers, particularly if Labour have less seats in 2015 than they did in 2010.
Peter Kellner has revised his election prediction for the Sunday Times,
He says
"I have therefore reduced my prediction for Labour’s Scottish seat tally from 31 to 24. If Murphy cannot trim the SNP’s lead from 20 points to 6-8 points, Labour could end up with as few as 10-15 seats. There is even a chance that Labour’s Scottish losses would more than wipe out its gains south of the border, leaving the party with even fewer MPs than in 2010."
Piece ends with
As things stand, Cameron could be the first Tory leader for more than half a century to have good reason to say on election night: “Thank you, Scotland.”
I would have thought that simple arithmetic would be within the scope of Kellner's ken.
It doesn't matter how Scotland votes in terms of Cameron's chance of being PM. Either he outweighs Scotland with English seats or he can't achieve a majority. In which case Labour decides between S&C from the SNP or Grand Coalition with the Tories.
Wrong, you should read tomorrow's Sunday Times and look at the specific scenario Peter Kellner talks about.
There is no scenario where more SNP MPs give the Tories a higher chance of being in power. Period. End of. No matter what Kellner lies about.
Peter Kellner has revised his election prediction for the Sunday Times,
He says
"I have therefore reduced my prediction for Labour’s Scottish seat tally from 31 to 24. If Murphy cannot trim the SNP’s lead from 20 points to 6-8 points, Labour could end up with as few as 10-15 seats. There is even a chance that Labour’s Scottish losses would more than wipe out its gains south of the border, leaving the party with even fewer MPs than in 2010."
Piece ends with
As things stand, Cameron could be the first Tory leader for more than half a century to have good reason to say on election night: “Thank you, Scotland.”
I wonder where his evidence for this prediction are coming from?
I expect the gap between SNP and labour to narrow.
Stick GE15 into your twitter account
Massive, massive ground game underway.
I actually suspect you don't want the SNP odds to get any better because you know it's profitable and wouldn't commit any more funds.
Peter Kellner has revised his election prediction for the Sunday Times,
He says
"I have therefore reduced my prediction for Labour’s Scottish seat tally from 31 to 24. If Murphy cannot trim the SNP’s lead from 20 points to 6-8 points, Labour could end up with as few as 10-15 seats. There is even a chance that Labour’s Scottish losses would more than wipe out its gains south of the border, leaving the party with even fewer MPs than in 2010."
Piece ends with
As things stand, Cameron could be the first Tory leader for more than half a century to have good reason to say on election night: “Thank you, Scotland.”
I would have thought that simple arithmetic would be within the scope of Kellner's ken.
It doesn't matter how Scotland votes in terms of Cameron's chance of being PM. Either he outweighs Scotland with English seats or he can't achieve a majority. In which case Labour decides between S&C from the SNP or Grand Coalition with the Tories.
Wrong, you should read tomorrow's Sunday Times and look at the specific scenario Peter Kellner talks about.
There is no scenario where more SNP MPs give the Tories a higher chance of being in power. Period. End of. No matter what Kellner lies about.
Course there is.
Given your ignorant remarks about the popularity of the SNP in England I suspect you and the facts are strangers.
Peter Kellner has revised his election prediction for the Sunday Times,
He says
"I have therefore reduced my prediction for Labour’s Scottish seat tally from 31 to 24. If Murphy cannot trim the SNP’s lead from 20 points to 6-8 points, Labour could end up with as few as 10-15 seats. There is even a chance that Labour’s Scottish losses would more than wipe out its gains south of the border, leaving the party with even fewer MPs than in 2010."
Piece ends with
As things stand, Cameron could be the first Tory leader for more than half a century to have good reason to say on election night: “Thank you, Scotland.”
I would have thought that simple arithmetic would be within the scope of Kellner's ken.
It doesn't matter how Scotland votes in terms of Cameron's chance of being PM. Either he outweighs Scotland with English seats or he can't achieve a majority. In which case Labour decides between S&C from the SNP or Grand Coalition with the Tories.
Wrong, you should read tomorrow's Sunday Times and look at the specific scenario Peter Kellner talks about.
Which scenario - the SNP will not support the Conservatives in a million years !
In the unlikely event of the Tories outseating Labour, they might offer the SNP FFA. That's a hard choice. Very hard. I could see the SNP calling a "national covenant" to discuss it. Spend a week deciding if both Scotland supports a change of their stated goal and that it won't cause their annihilation in 2016.
I think a lot of Scots will say - "hey, go for it". It;s FFA. All Scotland needs is FFA. And reparations obviously.
Peter Kellner has revised his election prediction for the Sunday Times,
He says
"I have therefore reduced my prediction for Labour’s Scottish seat tally from 31 to 24. If Murphy cannot trim the SNP’s lead from 20 points to 6-8 points, Labour could end up with as few as 10-15 seats. There is even a chance that Labour’s Scottish losses would more than wipe out its gains south of the border, leaving the party with even fewer MPs than in 2010."
Piece ends with
As things stand, Cameron could be the first Tory leader for more than half a century to have good reason to say on election night: “Thank you, Scotland.”
I would have thought that simple arithmetic would be within the scope of Kellner's ken.
It doesn't matter how Scotland votes in terms of Cameron's chance of being PM. Either he outweighs Scotland with English seats or he can't achieve a majority. In which case Labour decides between S&C from the SNP or Grand Coalition with the Tories.
Wrong, you should read tomorrow's Sunday Times and look at the specific scenario Peter Kellner talks about.
Which scenario - the SNP will not support the Conservatives in a million years !
Where the Labour finishes a distant second in terms of seats and votes behind the Tories.
Back in January, Kellner thought a Lab/LD/SNP coalition would be viable.
He doesn't think it will be, as the Lib Dems, after losing half their seats in May, won't want to proper up a coalition of the losers, particularly if Labour have less seats in 2015 than they did in 2010.
So the Cons govern as a minority.
Does Cameron survive in that scenario? Or is he eviscerated through summer 2015 and they attempt an election with a new leader in the autumn?
Peter Kellner has revised his election prediction for the Sunday Times,
He says
"I have therefore reduced my prediction for Labour’s Scottish seat tally from 31 to 24. If Murphy cannot trim the SNP’s lead from 20 points to 6-8 points, Labour could end up with as few as 10-15 seats. There is even a chance that Labour’s Scottish losses would more than wipe out its gains south of the border, leaving the party with even fewer MPs than in 2010."
Piece ends with
As things stand, Cameron could be the first Tory leader for more than half a century to have good reason to say on election night: “Thank you, Scotland.”
I would have thought that simple arithmetic would be within the scope of Kellner's ken.
It doesn't matter how Scotland votes in terms of Cameron's chance of being PM. Either he outweighs Scotland with English seats or he can't achieve a majority. In which case Labour decides between S&C from the SNP or Grand Coalition with the Tories.
Wrong, you should read tomorrow's Sunday Times and look at the specific scenario Peter Kellner talks about.
Which scenario - the SNP will not support the Conservatives in a million years !
In the unlikely event of the Tories outseating Labour, they might offer the SNP FFA. That's a hard choice. Very hard. I could see the SNP calling a "national covenant" to discuss it. Spend a week deciding if both Scotland supports a change of their stated goal and that it won't cause their annihilation in 2016.
I think a lot of Scots will say - "hey, go for it". It;s FFA. All Scotland needs is FFA. And reparations obviously.
Peter Kellner has revised his election prediction for the Sunday Times,
He says
"I have therefore reduced my prediction for Labour’s Scottish seat tally from 31 to 24. If Murphy cannot trim the SNP’s lead from 20 points to 6-8 points, Labour could end up with as few as 10-15 seats. There is even a chance that Labour’s Scottish losses would more than wipe out its gains south of the border, leaving the party with even fewer MPs than in 2010."
Piece ends with
As things stand, Cameron could be the first Tory leader for more than half a century to have good reason to say on election night: “Thank you, Scotland.”
I would have thought that simple arithmetic would be within the scope of Kellner's ken.
It doesn't matter how Scotland votes in terms of Cameron's chance of being PM. Either he outweighs Scotland with English seats or he can't achieve a majority. In which case Labour decides between S&C from the SNP or Grand Coalition with the Tories.
Wrong, you should read tomorrow's Sunday Times and look at the specific scenario Peter Kellner talks about.
Which scenario - the SNP will not support the Conservatives in a million years !
In the unlikely event of the Tories outseating Labour, they might offer the SNP FFA. That's a hard choice. Very hard. I could see the SNP calling a "national covenant" to discuss it. Spend a week deciding if both Scotland supports a change of their stated goal and that it won't cause their annihilation in 2016.
I think a lot of Scots will say - "hey, go for it". It;s FFA. All Scotland needs is FFA. And reparations obviously.
Peter Kellner has revised his election prediction for the Sunday Times,
He says
"I have therefore reduced my prediction for Labour’s Scottish seat tally from 31 to 24. If Murphy cannot trim the SNP’s lead from 20 points to 6-8 points, Labour could end up with as few as 10-15 seats. There is even a chance that Labour’s Scottish losses would more than wipe out its gains south of the border, leaving the party with even fewer MPs than in 2010."
Piece ends with
As things stand, Cameron could be the first Tory leader for more than half a century to have good reason to say on election night: “Thank you, Scotland.”
I wonder where his evidence for this prediction are coming from?
I expect the gap between SNP and labour to narrow.
How will that happen. Reports indicate that Campaigning is detrimental to Labour's prospects.
It's just my opinion,I see Scottish labour going big on a nasty tory government ,it's either a tory or labour government,just like the tories south of the border with ukip.
I think it will work better north of the border.for labour ;-)
Peter Kellner has revised his election prediction for the Sunday Times,
He says
"I have therefore reduced my prediction for Labour’s Scottish seat tally from 31 to 24. If Murphy cannot trim the SNP’s lead from 20 points to 6-8 points, Labour could end up with as few as 10-15 seats. There is even a chance that Labour’s Scottish losses would more than wipe out its gains south of the border, leaving the party with even fewer MPs than in 2010."
Piece ends with
As things stand, Cameron could be the first Tory leader for more than half a century to have good reason to say on election night: “Thank you, Scotland.”
I would have thought that simple arithmetic would be within the scope of Kellner's ken.
It doesn't matter how Scotland votes in terms of Cameron's chance of being PM. Either he outweighs Scotland with English seats or he can't achieve a majority. In which case Labour decides between S&C from the SNP or Grand Coalition with the Tories.
Wrong, you should read tomorrow's Sunday Times and look at the specific scenario Peter Kellner talks about.
Which scenario - the SNP will not support the Conservatives in a million years !
Where the Labour finishes a distant second in terms of seats and votes behind the Tories.
Back in January, Kellner thought a Lab/LD/SNP coalition would be viable.
He doesn't think it will be, as the Lib Dems, after losing half their seats in May, won't want to proper up a coalition of the losers, particularly if Labour have less seats in 2015 than they did in 2010.
So the Cons govern as a minority.
Does Cameron survive in that scenario? Or is he eviscerated through summer 2015 and they attempt an election with a new leader in the autumn?
Don't know.
The fixed term parliament act is a problem for a second election.
Plus the other parties will be desperate for there not to be a second election, and the Tories are the only ones who could finance a second election.
Peter Kellner has revised his election prediction for the Sunday Times,
He says
"I have therefore reduced my prediction for Labour’s Scottish seat tally from 31 to 24. If Murphy cannot trim the SNP’s lead from 20 points to 6-8 points, Labour could end up with as few as 10-15 seats. There is even a chance that Labour’s Scottish losses would more than wipe out its gains south of the border, leaving the party with even fewer MPs than in 2010."
Piece ends with
As things stand, Cameron could be the first Tory leader for more than half a century to have good reason to say on election night: “Thank you, Scotland.”
I wonder where his evidence for this prediction are coming from?
I expect the gap between SNP and labour to narrow.
How will that happen. Reports indicate that Campaigning is detrimental to Labour's prospects.
It's just my opinion,I see Scottish labour going big on a nasty tory government ,it's either a tory or labour government,just like the tories south of the border with ukip.
I think it will work better north of the border.for labour ;-)
They are spinning this line already. It's really not working.
A steadying hand from a popular party of government would do nothing but help Ed Miliband.
I think you may over-estimate the SNP's popularity in England......
I think you over-estimate how much I care what England thinks.
Then you may wish to qualify sweeping generalisations about the SNP involved in a UK government.....
Why? There is no possible downside for the SNP.
Labour say "no thanks SNP" and let the Tories run a minority government thanks to Labour abstention. Outcome - Labour destroyed in England and Wales.
Labour say "thanks" to the Tories and join them in a grand coalition. Outcome - Labour destroyed in England and Wales.
Labour do what the SNP tell them to do, the tail wags the dog and Labour lap it up. Outcome - Labour might still exist at the next election. Although not in Scotland.
Peter Kellner has revised his election prediction for the Sunday Times,
He says
"I have therefore reduced my prediction for Labour’s Scottish seat tally from 31 to 24. If Murphy cannot trim the SNP’s lead from 20 points to 6-8 points, Labour could end up with as few as 10-15 seats. There is even a chance that Labour’s Scottish losses would more than wipe out its gains south of the border, leaving the party with even fewer MPs than in 2010."
Piece ends with
As things stand, Cameron could be the first Tory leader for more than half a century to have good reason to say on election night: “Thank you, Scotland.”
I would have thought that simple arithmetic would be within the scope of Kellner's ken.
It doesn't matter how Scotland votes in terms of Cameron's chance of being PM. Either he outweighs Scotland with English seats or he can't achieve a majority. In which case Labour decides between S&C from the SNP or Grand Coalition with the Tories.
Wrong, you should read tomorrow's Sunday Times and look at the specific scenario Peter Kellner talks about.
There is no scenario where more SNP MPs give the Tories a higher chance of being in power. Period. End of. No matter what Kellner lies about.
It's amazing how seriously people take Kellner despite all the garbage he spouts
Peter Kellner has revised his election prediction for the Sunday Times,
He says
"I have therefore reduced my prediction for Labour’s Scottish seat tally from 31 to 24. If Murphy cannot trim the SNP’s lead from 20 points to 6-8 points, Labour could end up with as few as 10-15 seats. There is even a chance that Labour’s Scottish losses would more than wipe out its gains south of the border, leaving the party with even fewer MPs than in 2010."
Piece ends with
As things stand, Cameron could be the first Tory leader for more than half a century to have good reason to say on election night: “Thank you, Scotland.”
I would have thought that simple arithmetic would be within the scope of Kellner's ken.
It doesn't matter how Scotland votes in terms of Cameron's chance of being PM. Either he outweighs Scotland with English seats or he can't achieve a majority. In which case Labour decides between S&C from the SNP or Grand Coalition with the Tories.
Wrong, you should read tomorrow's Sunday Times and look at the specific scenario Peter Kellner talks about.
Which scenario - the SNP will not support the Conservatives in a million years !
Where the Labour finishes a distant second in terms of seats and votes behind the Tories.
Back in January, Kellner thought a Lab/LD/SNP coalition would be viable.
He doesn't think it will be, as the Lib Dems, after losing half their seats in May, won't want to proper up a coalition of the losers, particularly if Labour have less seats in 2015 than they did in 2010.
So the Cons govern as a minority.
Does Cameron survive in that scenario? Or is he eviscerated through summer 2015 and they attempt an election with a new leader in the autumn?
Don't know.
The fixed term parliament act is a problem for a second election.
You could have a bizarre situation where the Tories are voting AGAINST their own administration in a vote of confidence with opposition parties voting for it!
A steadying hand from a popular party of government would do nothing but help Ed Miliband.
I think you may over-estimate the SNP's popularity in England......
I think you over-estimate how much I care what England thinks.
Then you may wish to qualify sweeping generalisations about the SNP involved in a UK government.....
Why? There is no possible downside for the SNP.
Labour say "no thanks SNP" and let the Tories run a minority government thanks to Labour abstention. Outcome - Labour destroyed in England and Wales.
Labour say "thanks" to the Tories and join them in a grand coalition. Outcome - Labour destroyed in England and Wales.
Labour do what the SNP tell them to do, the tail wags the dog and Labour lap it up. Outcome - Labour might still exist at the next election. Although not in Scotland.
If Labour abstein on a confidence motion it'll be the end of the party in E&W, agreed.
A steadying hand from a popular party of government would do nothing but help Ed Miliband.
I think you may over-estimate the SNP's popularity in England......
I think you over-estimate how much I care what England thinks.
Then you may wish to qualify sweeping generalisations about the SNP involved in a UK government.....
Labour do what the SNP tell them to do, the tail wags the dog and Labour lap it up. Outcome - Labour might still exist at the next election. Although not in Scotland.
Or England....but I know Nats are frequently strangers to polling evidence......
Peter Kellner has revised his election prediction for the Sunday Times,
He says
"I have therefore reduced my prediction for Labour’s Scottish seat tally from 31 to 24. If Murphy cannot trim the SNP’s lead from 20 points to 6-8 points, Labour could end up with as few as 10-15 seats. There is even a chance that Labour’s Scottish losses would more than wipe out its gains south of the border, leaving the party with even fewer MPs than in 2010."
Piece ends with
As things stand, Cameron could be the first Tory leader for more than half a century to have good reason to say on election night: “Thank you, Scotland.”
I would have thought that simple arithmetic would be within the scope of Kellner's ken.
It doesn't matter how Scotland votes in terms of Cameron's chance of being PM. Either he outweighs Scotland with English seats or he can't achieve a majority. In which case Labour decides between S&C from the SNP or Grand Coalition with the Tories.
Wrong, you should read tomorrow's Sunday Times and look at the specific scenario Peter Kellner talks about.
Which scenario - the SNP will not support the Conservatives in a million years !
In the unlikely event of the Tories outseating Labour, they might offer the SNP FFA. That's a hard choice. Very hard. I could see the SNP calling a "national covenant" to discuss it. Spend a week deciding if both Scotland supports a change of their stated goal and that it won't cause their annihilation in 2016.
I think a lot of Scots will say - "hey, go for it". It;s FFA. All Scotland needs is FFA. And reparations obviously.
FFA ?
Full Fiscal Autonomy. I.e. no more paying subsidies to Westminster.
Peter Kellner has revised his election prediction for the Sunday Times,
He says
"I have therefore reduced my prediction for Labour’s Scottish seat tally from 31 to 24. If Murphy cannot trim the SNP’s lead from 20 points to 6-8 points, Labour could end up with as few as 10-15 seats. There is even a chance that Labour’s Scottish losses would more than wipe out its gains south of the border, leaving the party with even fewer MPs than in 2010."
Piece ends with
As things stand, Cameron could be the first Tory leader for more than half a century to have good reason to say on election night: “Thank you, Scotland.”
I would have thought that simple arithmetic would be within the scope of Kellner's ken.
It doesn't matter how Scotland votes in terms of Cameron's chance of being PM. Either he outweighs Scotland with English seats or he can't achieve a majority. In which case Labour decides between S&C from the SNP or Grand Coalition with the Tories.
Wrong, you should read tomorrow's Sunday Times and look at the specific scenario Peter Kellner talks about.
Which scenario - the SNP will not support the Conservatives in a million years !
In the unlikely event of the Tories outseating Labour, they might offer the SNP FFA. That's a hard choice. Very hard. I could see the SNP calling a "national covenant" to discuss it. Spend a week deciding if both Scotland supports a change of their stated goal and that it won't cause their annihilation in 2016.
I think a lot of Scots will say - "hey, go for it". It;s FFA. All Scotland needs is FFA. And reparations obviously.</blockquote/
I have said that on several times on this forum. The snp are not going to lose support between now and the election. I have followed Scots politics since I was a schoolboy living in Berwick on Tweed in the fifties and when that well known Scots Nat leader Wendy Wood would regularly paint a white line across the centre of the border bridge over the River Tweed
How will that happen. Reports indicate that Campaigning is detrimental to Labour's prospects.
It's just my opinion,I see Scottish labour going big on a nasty tory government ,it's either a tory or labour government,just like the tories south of the border with ukip.
I think it will work better north of the border.for labour ;-)
The problem for Scottish Labour is that campaigning is now detrimental to their chances. People recognise a Labour MP or MP's servant appearing at their door as being very weird and understand that it is merely electioneering and if they fall for it, they will be back to having no representation.
A steadying hand from a popular party of government would do nothing but help Ed Miliband.
I think you may over-estimate the SNP's popularity in England......
I think you over-estimate how much I care what England thinks.
Then you may wish to qualify sweeping generalisations about the SNP involved in a UK government.....
Labour do what the SNP tell them to do, the tail wags the dog and Labour lap it up. Outcome - Labour might still exist at the next election. Although not in Scotland.
Or England....but I know Nats are frequently strangers to polling evidence......
There is polling evidence that Labour voters in the North of England will stop being Labour voters if Labour support an SNP government in Westminster?
No, we have a minority government - with Cameron in-situ until he is voted out by the HoC - unless he's so far behind its clear he can't pass legislation.
If Conservatives do some sort of deal with the DUP & UKIP I can see that being beyond the ideological pale for the Lib Dems, and doubt they'd lend c&s to such an arrangement.
Since despite all their woes they'll probably end up with more MPs than the UKIP + DUP combined we still come back to CON + Lib Dem.
If Conservatives do some sort of deal with the DUP & UKIP I can see that being beyond the ideological pale for the Lib Dems, and doubt they'd lend c&s to such an arrangement.
Since despite all their woes they'll probably end up with more MPs than the UKIP + DUP combined we still come back to CON + Lib Dem.
I
Well I can see UKIP being being toxic to Lib-Dems but DUP?
A steadying hand from a popular party of government would do nothing but help Ed Miliband.
I think you may over-estimate the SNP's popularity in England......
I think you over-estimate how much I care what England thinks.
Then you may wish to qualify sweeping generalisations about the SNP involved in a UK government.....
Labour do what the SNP tell them to do, the tail wags the dog and Labour lap it up. Outcome - Labour might still exist at the next election. Although not in Scotland.
Or England....but I know Nats are frequently strangers to polling evidence......
There is polling evidence that Labour voters in the North of England will stop being Labour voters if Labour support an SNP government in Westminster?
Not seen that at all.
North of England - net support for SNP in coalition: -14 North of England - SNP in coalition net good for Britain: -31
If Conservatives do some sort of deal with the DUP & UKIP I can see that being beyond the ideological pale for the Lib Dems, and doubt they'd lend c&s to such an arrangement.
Since despite all their woes they'll probably end up with more MPs than the UKIP + DUP combined we still come back to CON + Lib Dem.
Well I can see UKIP being being toxic to Lib-Dems but DUP?
A steadying hand from a popular party of government would do nothing but help Ed Miliband.
I think you may over-estimate the SNP's popularity in England......
I think you over-estimate how much I care what England thinks.
Then you may wish to qualify sweeping generalisations about the SNP involved in a UK government.....
Labour do what the SNP tell them to do, the tail wags the dog and Labour lap it up. Outcome - Labour might still exist at the next election. Although not in Scotland.
Or England....but I know Nats are frequently strangers to polling evidence......
There is polling evidence that Labour voters in the North of England will stop being Labour voters if Labour support an SNP government in Westminster?
Not seen that at all.
North of England - net support for SNP in coalition: -14 North of England - SNP in coalition net good for Britain: -31
Sweet. North of England is more accepting of an SNP government even if it transfers money to Scotland instead of continuing to subsidise England.
GIN1138 Indeed, and I see another Tory-LD arrangement with confidence and supply from the DUP as highly plausible, in the end it could be Peter Robinson, not Salmond, who ends up calling the shots, but as he also wants more spending in Ulster the same theme remains
I honestly think the Lib Dems will abstein on any confidence motion, they've done their time as a minority partner in a Gov't. For either party.
The SNP will vote against any Conservative motion of confidence, it will be Labour who has the hard choice.
If Labour abstein then either the Lib Dems will come back very very quickly from the dead or a new left wing party will be formed. Labour will be in a dreadful position if they are seen to be propping up another Conservative administration.
GIN1138 Indeed, and I see another Tory-LD arrangement with confidence and supply from the DUP as highly plausible, in the end it could be Peter Robinson, not Salmond, who ends up calling the shots, but as he also wants more spending in Ulster the same theme remains
Con + Lib Dem need 315 seats then...
Probably some more in fact - I think Simon Hughes, Norman Baker, Paul Burstow could well sit in opposition to such an arrangement.
The makeup of the Lib Dems is likely to be more left wing than this parliament methinks... also they'll be choosing a new leader (Probably Farron) - I'm really of the mind they'll abstein.
A steadying hand from a popular party of government would do nothing but help Ed Miliband.
I think you may over-estimate the SNP's popularity in England......
I think you over-estimate how much I care what England thinks.
Then you may wish to qualify sweeping generalisations about the SNP involved in a UK government.....
Why? There is no possible downside for the SNP.
Ah! The same objective analysis of the situation that saw the SNP to victory in SINDYREF......
Think about what you just wrong.
If the vote had been Yes, Scotland would be independent in 15 months which for most members of the SNP is the ultimate goal.
The vote was No, now the SNP are going to control Westminster.
It sounds like Indyref was a Win/Win.
Tempted to call that unspoofable. A no was "Good for Yes"?
Remember the cry "Its a victory for Eck!"
Evidence?
Never heard that.
It was quite common for everything to be "Good for Yes" in the years and months leading up to the referendum
The referendum was 6 months ago.
It's ALL good for Yes. This isn't a prediction, it's what we can see.
A minute ago you were saying the No wasn't good for yes. What is it to be??
I said what I said, which is not what you said. Beyond that, it's up to what you said to be said and maybe before what you said is said you might want to think about what you are going to have said.
Pulpstar 318, as the DUP have 8 MPs and you need 326 for a majority. However, the LDs will be tougher in their negotiations no doubt, certainly there will be no 35% of gdp spending target as Osborne would like, and the DUP will also want their pound of flesh and investment for Ulster
Pulpstar 318, as the DUP have 8 MPs and you need 326 for a majority. However, the LDs will be tougher in their negotiations no doubt, certainly there will be no 35% of gdp spending target as Osborne would like, and the DUP will also want their pound of flesh and investment for Ulster
Sinn Fein aren't taking their seats - THAT is one thing we can be 100% certain of.
Pulpstar 318, as the DUP have 8 MPs and you need 326 for a majority. However, the LDs will be tougher in their negotiations no doubt, certainly there will be no 35% of gdp spending target as Osborne would like, and the DUP will also want their pound of flesh and investment for Ulster
Pulpstar Indeed, but I would be wary of only going for 323 and relying on Gerry Adams or McGuinness abstaining, who knows what circumstances could emerge which would see them take their seats
Pulpstar Indeed, but I would be wary of only going for 323 and relying on Gerry Adams or McGuinness abstaining, who knows what circumstances could emerge which would see them take their seats
None. Zero. Nil.
As Neil said what difference does David Cameron or Ed Miliband being PM make to them ?
Pulpstar Indeed, but I would be wary of only going for 323 and relying on Gerry Adams or McGuinness abstaining, who knows what circumstances could emerge which would see them take their seats
Pulpstar Depends if David Cameron relies on the DUP for confidence and supply and SF have to take their seats to stop pro unionist legislation coming forward
Pulpstar Depends if David Cameron relies on the DUP for confidence and supply and SF have to take their seats to stop pro unionist legislation coming forward
Pulpstar Depends if David Cameron relies on the DUP for confidence and supply and SF have to take their seats to stop pro unionist legislation coming forward
Im not sure you get it. What pro-Unionist legislation? There won't be any pro Unionist legislation.
That isn't how it works and it isn't what they are after. Cash, a few back door understandings and then to be left alone. That is what they want.
Pulpstar Depends if David Cameron relies on the DUP for confidence and supply and SF have to take their seats to stop pro unionist legislation coming forward
Im not sure you get it. What pro-Unionist legislation? There won't be any pro Unionist legislation.
That isn't how it works and it isn't what they are after. Cash, a few back door understandings and then to be left alone. That is what they want.
Would the DUP be happy to take cash from either Mr Miliband or Mr Cameron ?
Pulpstar Depends if David Cameron relies on the DUP for confidence and supply and SF have to take their seats to stop pro unionist legislation coming forward
Im not sure you get it. What pro-Unionist legislation? There won't be any pro Unionist legislation.
That isn't how it works and it isn't what they are after. Cash, a few back door understandings and then to be left alone. That is what they want.
Would the DUP be happy to take cash from either Mr Miliband or Mr Cameron ?
Rather pragmatic bunch. They just don't want interfering going on from anywhere as they happy enough at Stormont thank you very much.
It should be noted, however, that the modern DUP is somewhat economically more to the right than it used to be.
GIN1138 Indeed, and I see another Tory-LD arrangement with confidence and supply from the DUP as highly plausible, in the end it could be Peter Robinson, not Salmond, who ends up calling the shots, but as he also wants more spending in Ulster the same theme remains
Everyday that passes with no movement in the polls means that scenario will become less and less likely. With this week's polls, the Tories would lose 60-70 seats to Labour, even if the Tories were to gain every single LD seat (something impossible) while not losing a single seat to UKIP (extremely difficult) the Tories will still be at fewer seats than they have now.
As I said earlier, events in the city weren't yet over.
And it isn't, shooting incident at Copenhagen synagogue, 3 wounded, including two cops, in the last hour or so.
And it still isn't over.
I come back from a saturday nightout to read that there is a curfew due to some muslim terrorists running loose not in Baghdad but in Copenhagen.
Why do they let islamic terrorists immigrate from the middle east to europe?
We'll probably find it's Danish born and bred.
I think it's 50/50 it's either a second generation middle eastern immigrant or a syrian rebel with ISIS connections. However because Malmo is just a bridge away from Copenhagen it might be swedish, Malmo has degenerated into a middle eastern city including tribal warfare and multiple car bombs lately (hence the rise of the Swedish Democrats).
As I said earlier, events in the city weren't yet over.
And it isn't, shooting incident at Copenhagen synagogue, 3 wounded, including two cops, in the last hour or so.
And it still isn't over.
I come back from a saturday nightout to read that there is a curfew due to some muslim terrorists running loose not in Baghdad but in Copenhagen.
Why do they let islamic terrorists immigrate from the middle east to europe?
We'll probably find it's Danish born and bred.
I think it's 50/50 it's either a second generation middle eastern immigrant or a syrian rebel with ISIS connections. However because Malmo is just a bridge away from Copenhagen it might be swedish, Malmo has degenerated into a middle eastern city including tribal warfare and multiple car bombs lately (hence the rise of the Swedish Democrats).
I mentioned earlier that the Swedish Home Security service are heavily involved in this investigation and had been within an hour or two of the first shooting.
The suspect from earlier is believed to be 'Arab' ethnicity. Given tonights shooting also by the looks of it carried out by a AK wielding bloke, there will be the suspicion that its the same person. The weapons we may find imported from elsewhere in the EU rather than purely end dealer locally sourced. If that is the case it'll both pose a problem and offer an opportunity but I will post on that if it becomes relevant.
What should be noted is the difference in methodologies in this and the attacks in Paris compared to many other originally Al Qaeda inspired actions. A lot of months back on here I pointed out that the IS inspired types were possibly not the suicide types in the absolute sense that we have seen before. Rather there was a more familiar traditional terror approach of hit and move and not just waiting to go to heaven.
Speedy Of course it would rely on the Tories taking a narrow poll lead, but a result of Tory 35-Labour 33% is not implausible if Cameron squeezes the UKIP vote a little more and Labour lose clearly to the SNP in Scotland. A result of say 292 Tory, 272 Labour would see the Tories losing 14 seats but still be the largest party thanks to SNP gains from Labour. Add in say 28 LDs and 8 DUP and you get to 328, a majority of 2
Comments
Some lawyers have been earning some good money this evening!
Still no Currant Bun.
The paradox of the markets, money is piling on the Tories at the same time as the polls are (for now at least) easing away from them. Shady's latest blog gave an interesting insight into this too.
Massive, massive ground game underway.
Con 32, Lab 35, Lib Dems 7, UKIP 15, Greens 6
Perhaps it will be revealed he wasn't a whet and very much preferred dry. To whichever place he wanted to enter. I'm sure Mr Clarke enjoyed making an entrance wherever he was.
Back in January, Kellner thought a Lab/LD/SNP coalition would be viable.
He doesn't think it will be, as the Lib Dems, after losing half their seats in May, won't want to proper up a coalition of the losers, particularly if Labour have less seats in 2015 than they did in 2010.
So the Cons govern as a minority.
They had better buck their idea's up next week...
Given your ignorant remarks about the popularity of the SNP in England I suspect you and the facts are strangers.
I think a lot of Scots will say - "hey, go for it". It;s FFA. All Scotland needs is FFA. And reparations obviously.
I think it will work better north of the border.for labour ;-)
The fixed term parliament act is a problem for a second election.
Plus the other parties will be desperate for there not to be a second election, and the Tories are the only ones who could finance a second election.
Labour say "no thanks SNP" and let the Tories run a minority government thanks to Labour abstention. Outcome - Labour destroyed in England and Wales.
Labour say "thanks" to the Tories and join them in a grand coalition. Outcome - Labour destroyed in England and Wales.
Labour do what the SNP tell them to do, the tail wags the dog and Labour lap it up. Outcome - Labour might still exist at the next election. Although not in Scotland.
Gulp.
No matter the result. Unless they have the numbers to get over 323 with the Conservatives.
There you go.
http://www.cumbernauld-media.com/news/politics/1303-labour-source-says-cumbernauld-seat-loss-would-be-a-humiliation#.VNyPWujrzdE.twitter
All you need to know is in that article.
And Conservative + Lib Dem is also less than 323
We have a constitutional crisis I think.
Scottish Labour is campaigning in favour of football fans being allowed to drink alcohol in Scottish stadiums.
The party has launched a consultation on the issue and is canvassing the views of fans at matches this weekend.
Party leader Jim Murphy said football fans should not be treated differently from rugby supporters at Murrayfield, where drinking is permitted.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-31472090
Not seen that at all.
Since despite all their woes they'll probably end up with more MPs than the UKIP + DUP combined we still come back to CON + Lib Dem.
I
If the vote had been Yes, Scotland would be independent in 15 months which for most members of the SNP is the ultimate goal.
The vote was No, now the SNP are going to control Westminster.
It sounds like Indyref was a Win/Win.
North of England - SNP in coalition net good for Britain: -31
Good for Yes? Not really, The earlier Scotland is Independent the better it is economically. The subsidy paid to England is very destructive.
Never heard that.
It's ALL good for Yes. This isn't a prediction, it's what we can see.
The SNP will vote against any Conservative motion of confidence, it will be Labour who has the hard choice.
If Labour abstein then either the Lib Dems will come back very very quickly from the dead or a new left wing party will be formed. Labour will be in a dreadful position if they are seen to be propping up another Conservative administration.
Probably some more in fact - I think Simon Hughes, Norman Baker, Paul Burstow could well sit in opposition to such an arrangement.
As I said earlier, events in the city weren't yet over.
And it isn't, shooting incident at Copenhagen synagogue, 3 wounded, including two cops, in the last hour or so.
And it still isn't over.
As Neil said what difference does David Cameron or Ed Miliband being PM make to them ?
... I think ?
Edit: SDLP will not 100% sure about Hermon...
"never, Never!, NEVER!!!"
That isn't how it works and it isn't what they are after. Cash, a few back door understandings and then to be left alone. That is what they want.
Why do they let islamic terrorists immigrate from the middle east to europe?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-31045870
Looks possible from that
It should be noted, however, that the modern DUP is somewhat economically more to the right than it used to be.
With this week's polls, the Tories would lose 60-70 seats to Labour, even if the Tories were to gain every single LD seat (something impossible) while not losing a single seat to UKIP (extremely difficult) the Tories will still be at fewer seats than they have now.
However because Malmo is just a bridge away from Copenhagen it might be swedish, Malmo has degenerated into a middle eastern city including tribal warfare and multiple car bombs lately (hence the rise of the Swedish Democrats).
The suspect from earlier is believed to be 'Arab' ethnicity. Given tonights shooting also by the looks of it carried out by a AK wielding bloke, there will be the suspicion that its the same person. The weapons we may find imported from elsewhere in the EU rather than purely end dealer locally sourced. If that is the case it'll both pose a problem and offer an opportunity but I will post on that if it becomes relevant.
What should be noted is the difference in methodologies in this and the attacks in Paris compared to many other originally Al Qaeda inspired actions. A lot of months back on here I pointed out that the IS inspired types were possibly not the suicide types in the absolute sense that we have seen before. Rather there was a more familiar traditional terror approach of hit and move and not just waiting to go to heaven.
We are entering a new phase.