We leave readers to come to their own views about what would happen if both Con+DUP+UKIP+NDown+LD and Lab+Grn+SDLP+PC+SNP+LD would command a majority.
It would all come down to Nick Clegg and his re-election. Oh and you forgot George Galloway and his Respect party from the list.
The only parties that will matter are Labour, Conservative, SNP (including Plaid), DUP and possibly Liberal. No other party is likely to have a significant impact on the next government.
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
That seat math is not possible with a swing of 3% to Labour you got there, the Tories will be about 10 seats less from 292 if the LD have 28 seats and that's excluding any possible UKIP seats, if you add all of the above you can see why the fantasy of the government having a majority ,even if it's slender, is a fantasy.
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.
We are entering a new phase.
That's actually back to the old phase, like the old red marxist terrorist groups during the latter part of the cold war.
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
That seat math is not possible with a swing of 3% to Labour you got there, the Tories will be about 10 seats less from 292 if the LD have 28 seats and that's excluding any possible UKIP seats, if you add all of the above you can see why the fantasy of the government having a majority ,even if it's slender, is a fantasy.
The swing in England will be another 0.5% because Labour are most likely losing 1% of the electorate in Scotland.
By the way there is an election in Denmark on September the 14th. The Danish People's Party is in a close 3 way race for the lead, but it's coalition has a large lead anyway. After the events of tonight that barrier on the Copenhagen-Malmo bridge will become popular: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4276963.stm
"The leader of the Danish People's Party, Pia Kjaersgaard, responded to Swedish criticism by saying: "If they want to turn Stockholm, Gothenburg or Malmoe into a Scandinavian Beirut, with clan wars, honour killings and gang rapes, let them do it. We can always put a barrier on the Oeresund Bridge." '
Hermon will end her parliamentary career if she enters some kind of formal relationship with Labour.
What about the Conservatives ?
Unless she's changed, she is consistently progressive - no need for a formal agreement, but she won't be part of a Tory majority.
Apologies for absence for thr last few days - have been meeting Ministers in Mauritius for my day job and the hotel's internet connection wasn't good enough - oddly, I could read but not post. GIN's observation that Labour supporters are just counting down the days is right - As I've been poting for a while, opinion is very entrenched, and we should be in good shape in England if nothing very surprising happens in the last few weeks. I think that both leader assessments are priced in, and wouldn't expect a giveaway Budget to work as it screws up the "things are though, you must stick to our long-term plan" line. Scotland looks pretty entrenched too from a distance (I notice very high certainty to vote there, so the idea that those new referndum voters won't bother seems unfounded), but perhaps there's more scope for change there.
Speedy Pulpstar Not necessarily at all, if the Tories lead Labour by 2% and the LDs have lost more than half their seats then Labour will clearly not have won enough Tory seats for a majority and most of the LD seats lost will have been Tory gains which will help offset any Tory losses to Labour
If the Liberals loose half of their seats then the half that remains will NOT be in Government. They will regroup in opposition in an attempt to save what's left of the party. They are the least potent force of all in the balanced parliament scenarios.
Hermon will end her parliamentary career if she enters some kind of formal relationship with Labour.
What about the Conservatives ?
Unless she's changed, she is consistently progressive - no need for a formal agreement, but she won't be part of a Tory majority.
Apologies for absence for thr last few days - have been meeting Ministers in Mauritius for my day job and the hotel's internet connection wasn't good enough - oddly, I could read but not post. GIN's observation that Labour supporters are just counting down the days is right - As I've been poting for a while, opinion is very entrenched, and we should be in good shape in England if nothing very surprising happens in the last few weeks. I think that both leader assessments are priced in, and wouldn't expect a giveaway Budget to work as it screws up the "things are though, you must stick to our long-term plan" line. Scotland looks pretty entrenched too from a distance (I notice very high certainty to vote there, so the idea that those new referndum voters won't bother seems unfounded), but perhaps there's more scope for change there.
She hasn't changed and as I pointed out down thread she isn't a fan of the Conservatives but formal agreements will kill her. The good citizenry of North Down are a curious bunch who are not wholly mainstream.
She also will have hard slog to keep her seat though she is still favourite to do so.
scotslass Wrong, if the Tories are the largest party then the LDs have clearly said they will vote down a minority government if a coalition is possible, in any case the Tories could not pass a budget etc without LD support regardless of what they do
Speedy Pulpstar Not necessarily at all, if the Tories lead Labour by 2% and the LDs have lost more than half their seats then Labour will clearly not have won enough Tory seats for a majority and most of the LD seats lost will have been Tory gains which will help offset any Tory losses to Labour
Yes thats another curious fact - the absolute wipeout scenarios for the Lib Dems involve alot of their seats going blue.
Yeovil, Bath, Twickers etc - Not many potential Labour gains from the Lib Dems at the very bottom end of the barrel.
Pulpstar Indeed, the Tories could even oust Cable, the SNP could get rid of Alexander, Clegg is touch and go with Labour in Hallam. Most of the inner city LD seats will go Labour, but as you say there are more rural and suburban LD seats which would go blue, Night!
Norwich South Bradford East Brent Central Mancs Withington Burnley East Dunbartonshire* Birmingham Yardley Edinburgh West* Redcar Cardiff Central Cambridge Bristol West Leeds NW Bermondsey Sheffield Hallam
* Indicates possible SNP gain.
Excluding Ross, Skye and Caithness because there is no way those seats will go Labour. Inverness too.
That there are those on the left who feel so superior (they are not of course) as to write such condescending claptrap goes a long way explain why there is no one on the right who would return the compliment.
I get a sense of a great deal of complacency setting in in Islington. We shall see if it is misplaced or not
But there is a danger for Miliband. By announcing his opposition to tax avoidance – which is legal – and setting himself up as a moral arbiter on the issue, he has made his financial affairs and those of his Shadow Cabinet, MPs and donors a legitimate matter of public interest.
It is no longer enough for their tax arrangements to be legal and declared. They will have to pass muster in the Court of Public Opinion that Miliband has called into session to pass verdict on individuals’ tax arrangements.
The risk for Labour is that this could turn very quickly into ‘back to basics’ for financial affairs.
If that happens, this week’s tactical victory will turn into a strategic defeat.
But there is a danger for Miliband. By announcing his opposition to tax avoidance – which is legal – and setting himself up as a moral arbiter on the issue, he has made his financial affairs and those of his Shadow Cabinet, MPs and donors a legitimate matter of public interest.
It is no longer enough for their tax arrangements to be legal and declared. They will have to pass muster in the Court of Public Opinion that Miliband has called into session to pass verdict on individuals’ tax arrangements.
The risk for Labour is that this could turn very quickly into ‘back to basics’ for financial affairs.
If that happens, this week’s tactical victory will turn into a strategic defeat.
He is on safe ground, because he knows the BBC aren't going to ask any tough questions....and the Daily Mail ranting is factored in / about as discredited as the Mirror being nasty about Cameron.
Remember Ed isn't trying to replicate Tony Blair circa 97 and build a big tent, he is looking to get 35%, and I think it is nailed on that there are enough Tories who organize their affairs in an efficient manner to make sure that if it gets messy, everybody gets dirty.
But there is a danger for Miliband. By announcing his opposition to tax avoidance – which is legal – and setting himself up as a moral arbiter on the issue, he has made his financial affairs and those of his Shadow Cabinet, MPs and donors a legitimate matter of public interest.
It is no longer enough for their tax arrangements to be legal and declared. They will have to pass muster in the Court of Public Opinion that Miliband has called into session to pass verdict on individuals’ tax arrangements.
The risk for Labour is that this could turn very quickly into ‘back to basics’ for financial affairs.
If that happens, this week’s tactical victory will turn into a strategic defeat.
He is on safe ground, because he knows the BBC aren't going to ask any tough questions....and the Daily Mail ranting is factored in / about as discredited as the Mirror being nasty about Cameron.
Remember Ed isn't trying to replicate Tony Blair circa 97 and build a big tent, he is looking to get 35%, and I think it is nailed on that there are enough Tories who organize their affairs in an efficient manner to make sure that if it gets messy, everybody gets dirty.
I don't think "open season" on Labour donors in the Times, Telegraph, Mail and Sun can be assumed to be "safe ground".
I don't think "open season" on Labour donors in the Times, Telegraph, Mail and Sun can be assumed to be "safe ground".
With the exception of the Sun I seriously doubt many potential labour voters read these papers.
I seriously doubt the tories are going to be stupid enough to get into a mud throwing contest about rich donors. Regardless of the rights and wrongs, they lose that one in the court of public opinion every time
I seriously doubt the tories are going to be stupid enough to get into a mud throwing contest about rich donors. Regardless of the rights and wrongs, they lose that one in the court of public opinion every time
The unanswered question is how many of the 32ish% the Tories have actually care about this sort of story, and how many of the 3-4% they want care. We know lots of Labour voters might care, but they were never going to vote Tory anyway. The Guardianista hypocrite vote will care, but despite all the hoodie hugging, they were never going to vote Tory either.
For example the few percent the Tories are hoping to pull back from the kippers almost certainly think both LAB and CON are as bad as each other and wont care how this story plays, they will be voting either for a EU referendum or to keep out Ed, not because they like the Tories, or think they are particularly nice people.
Its even possible that Blue Labour WVM types look more favourably at the Tories because all this fuss makes them concerned that Ed might be gunning for their cash-in-hand.
The irony is if Dave hadn't been so keep to swap his traditional golfclub/retired colonel/blue-rinse vote for a few Orange LDs he wouldn't be in this mess, because none of those sort of people would care less about peoples tax arrangements, where as the people he has picked up probably do.
scotslass Wrong, if the Tories are the largest party then the LDs have clearly said they will vote down a minority government if a coalition is possible, in any case the Tories could not pass a budget etc without LD support regardless of what they do
The Tories can be the largest party, and have Liberal support and STILL not be able to vote down a Labour government with SNP backing.
I don't think "open season" on Labour donors in the Times, Telegraph, Mail and Sun can be assumed to be "safe ground".
I seriously doubt the tories are going to be stupid enough to get into a mud throwing contest about rich donors. Regardless of the rights and wrongs, they lose that one in the court of public opinion every time
They don't have to - the papers will do it for them - and (despite some suspicions on here) the BBC will cover it:
The tax arrangements of those who fund political parties are again on the front pages, with Labour backers this time the subject of newspaper claims.
The Sunday Telegraph and Sunday Times both name Labour funders who, they say, used methods that can be employed to avoid tax. The Telegraph quotes Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps accusing Labour leader Ed Miliband of "barefaced hypocrisy", given he spent the week accusing the prime minister of "turning a blind eye" to tax avoidance by Tory donors.
The paper's editorial complains: "Labour feels it has to approach the issue in a sanctimonious manner that leaves them open to the charge of hypocrisy."
scotslass Wrong, if the Tories are the largest party then the LDs have clearly said they will vote down a minority government if a coalition is possible, in any case the Tories could not pass a budget etc without LD support regardless of what they do
The Tories can be the largest party, and have Liberal support and STILL not be able to vote down a Labour government with SNP backing.
But the Labour government with SNP backing has to get in first - Cameron remains PM until he tells the queen 'ask someone else'......
Morning Folks. Been busy with the racing and doing some catching up.
Anybody that believes the polls rather than the betting markets can still sell Tory seats at 281 with SPIN, which remains a high water mark despite the run of good polls for Labour. To my surprise, I found they were open for business just now.
Those heavily committed to a Clinton nomination might like to look at the New York Sunday Post article on Bill. It might not affect her, but it ain't good.
If the Tories have most votes and most seats then Cameron will meet parliament regardless. This will test the nerve of the opposition as a coalition of the losers may not be viable and we would have to go to a second election immediately. No one would want to be blamed for that and so the opposition would play a longer game. A minority Conservative government would continue, but with another election within two years, I think.
I don't think "open season" on Labour donors in the Times, Telegraph, Mail and Sun can be assumed to be "safe ground".
I seriously doubt the tories are going to be stupid enough to get into a mud throwing contest about rich donors. Regardless of the rights and wrongs, they lose that one in the court of public opinion every time
They don't have to - the papers will do it for them - and (despite some suspicions on here) the BBC will cover it:
The tax arrangements of those who fund political parties are again on the front pages, with Labour backers this time the subject of newspaper claims.
The Sunday Telegraph and Sunday Times both name Labour funders who, they say, used methods that can be employed to avoid tax. The Telegraph quotes Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps accusing Labour leader Ed Miliband of "barefaced hypocrisy", given he spent the week accusing the prime minister of "turning a blind eye" to tax avoidance by Tory donors.
The paper's editorial complains: "Labour feels it has to approach the issue in a sanctimonious manner that leaves them open to the charge of hypocrisy."
@NickPalmer Thank you for your comment, but so far what I have seen of the Labour campaign in the crucial seat of Cannock Chase has led me to wonder not merely if your election advisers are stupid but if they are actually doing drugs.
Quick recap - Cannock Chase is part of the old MidStaffs NHS area. Several people in the constituency are still suing Stafford Hospital for criminal malpractice that happened as a result of the last Labour government's drive to force through the trust as a foundation trust, which is thought to have led to several hundred unnecessary deaths (let's leave the inquiry conclusion, which disputed this, for the moment - that's what's perceived).
So Stafford Hospital is being gradually downgraded in preparation for probable closure. This is of course opposed by its staff, some dinosaurs who would probably have opposed using fire to cook meat on the basis that it wasn't safe, and the local Labour party, including Janos Toth, Labour's PPC in Cannock Chase. However, it is actually quite popular locally as we would rather use Wolverhampton or Burton hospitals, which are staffed by decent, hard-working and caring people who may have severe problems caused by this government and the last one, but who really try to do their best by us.
Toth has decided, by contrast, that he is going to campaign on saving the NHS. I have had several leaflets from him now, the last just yesterday. This one talked about the NHS, front and back pages, which is all most people look at. In it, he blames the current government for the problems at Stafford Hospital (!) and says he and Andy Burnham (!) will ensure that 'the NHS has the time to care for you and your family'. To which the obvious answer is, 'not in f***ing Stafford he didn't.'
Morning Folks. Been busy with the racing and doing some catching up.
Anybody that believes the polls rather than the betting markets can still sell Tory seats at 281 with SPIN, which remains a high water mark despite the run of good polls for Labour. To my surprise, I found they were open for business just now.
Those heavily committed to a Clinton nomination might like to look at the New York Sunday Post article on Bill. It might not affect her, but it ain't good.
That's all for now.
Sporting have had some catching up to do with Spreadex, whose GE Seats spread market has been open 24hrs, whereas hitherto Sporting, rather sniffily, have been picking and choosing which hours they wished to be open for business. They needed a good slap and they duly got it!
The situation in Cannock Chase is very straightforward. Furious at the banker bailout while local industry struggled, the upper-working class/lower middle class white vote swung to the Conservatives en bloc at the last election. As local industry has continued to struggle and the coalition government appears to do nothing, this bloc, disillusioned and fed up, has swung away from it again. It voted UKIP in protest last year, but the likelihood is that it will go to Labour more or less by default at the next election. The only thing that might persuade them not to is if they are reminded of the disastrous local record of the last Labour government on health.
If Toth campaigns on jobs, he will win at a walk. If he didn't campaign at all, he should still win at a canter. By campaigning on health, which I presume is by order of the party's High Command, he is running the very real risk of throwing away a seat the Tories themselves admit they expect to lose and have given up on.
Furthermore, if this utter stupidity is a snapshot of how the party expects to campaign nationwide, cloth-eared to local issues and to all intents and purposes ignoring what will be the key issues - jobs and the economy - I rather think that you will be coming a poor second again.
However, I may be being ungenerous and it may just be Toth's ineptitude. He's not exactly a burning and shining light as a local councillor and in 1997 he was I believe one of only three Labour PPCs to have a large swing against him.
I am sure Ed will raise this at PMQs as just another example of the tax issues he harps on about......mainly people doing things quite legally but only those not from the left are criticised.
I am sure Ed will raise this at PMQs as just another example of the tax issues he harps on about......mainly people doing things quite legally but only those not from the left are criticised.
I am sure Ed will raise this at PMQs as just another example of the tax issues he harps on about......mainly people doing things quite legally but only those not from the left are criticised.
If he is stupid enough to raise tax avoidance at all at PMQ he risks that and the content of the Sunday papers being thrown in his face plus any bonus items that CCHQ have found in the files and are keeping ready just in case.
I am sure Ed will raise this at PMQs as just another example of the tax issues he harps on about......mainly people doing things quite legally but only those not from the left are criticised.
Morning Folks. Been busy with the racing and doing some catching up.
Anybody that believes the polls rather than the betting markets can still sell Tory seats at 281 with SPIN, which remains a high water mark despite the run of good polls for Labour. To my surprise, I found they were open for business just now.
Those heavily committed to a Clinton nomination might like to look at the New York Sunday Post article on Bill. It might not affect her, but it ain't good.
That's all for now.
Sporting have had some catching up to do with Spreadex, whose GE Seats spread market has been open 24hrs, whereas hitherto Sporting, rather sniffily, have been picking and choosing which hours they wished to be open for business. They needed a good slap and they duly got it!
Thanks PfP.
I did wonder was behind the change of policy. Now I know.
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.
We are entering a new phase.
They are also going after specific targets rather than seeking to kill random innocent people.
This attempt by rightwing newspapers and posters to show that labour also had tax evading donors not only misses the point but is actually counter productive. The voters anger has nothing to do with who is financing which party. It is that the super rich in business and big business and bankers are avoiding tax.
To exaccerbate their anger this is being done while those at the bottom are being squeezed with ever tighter austerity measures. It is offensive to people's idea of fair play
The Tories WANT to be seen as the party of business and big business which they are. They also want to be seen as the party who squeeze benefit claimants which they are.
Trying to spread the manure more widely makes things worse. I wrote yesterday how Dave should get himself out of this but I suspect Grant Shapps arrogance makes this impossible which is why he'll lose
Comments
Oh and you forgot George Galloway and his Respect party from the list.
The Danish People's Party is in a close 3 way race for the lead, but it's coalition has a large lead anyway.
After the events of tonight that barrier on the Copenhagen-Malmo bridge will become popular:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4276963.stm
"The leader of the Danish People's Party, Pia Kjaersgaard, responded to Swedish criticism by saying: "If they want to turn Stockholm, Gothenburg or Malmoe into a Scandinavian Beirut, with clan wars, honour killings and gang rapes, let them do it. We can always put a barrier on the Oeresund Bridge." '
Goodnight.
Apologies for absence for thr last few days - have been meeting Ministers in Mauritius for my day job and the hotel's internet connection wasn't good enough - oddly, I could read but not post. GIN's observation that Labour supporters are just counting down the days is right - As I've been poting for a while, opinion is very entrenched, and we should be in good shape in England if nothing very surprising happens in the last few weeks. I think that both leader assessments are priced in, and wouldn't expect a giveaway Budget to work as it screws up the "things are though, you must stick to our long-term plan" line. Scotland looks pretty entrenched too from a distance (I notice very high certainty to vote there, so the idea that those new referndum voters won't bother seems unfounded), but perhaps there's more scope for change there.
She also will have hard slog to keep her seat though she is still favourite to do so.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/14/is-mr-cameron-most-parochial-pm-ever
Yeovil, Bath, Twickers etc - Not many potential Labour gains from the Lib Dems at the very bottom end of the barrel.
Has anyone polled Leeds NW ?
Norwich South
Bradford East
Brent Central
Mancs Withington
Burnley
East Dunbartonshire*
Birmingham Yardley
Edinburgh West*
Redcar
Cardiff Central
Cambridge
Bristol West
Leeds NW
Bermondsey
Sheffield Hallam
* Indicates possible SNP gain.
Excluding Ross, Skye and Caithness because there is no way those seats will go Labour. Inverness too.
That there are those on the left who feel so superior (they are not of course) as to write such condescending claptrap goes a long way explain why there is no one on the right who would return the compliment.
I get a sense of a great deal of complacency setting in in Islington. We shall see if it is misplaced or not
It is no longer enough for their tax arrangements to be legal and declared. They will have to pass muster in the Court of Public Opinion that Miliband has called into session to pass verdict on individuals’ tax arrangements.
The risk for Labour is that this could turn very quickly into ‘back to basics’ for financial affairs.
If that happens, this week’s tactical victory will turn into a strategic defeat.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2954033/JAMES-FORSYTH-Watch-Ed-tax-triumph-bite-backside.html
Remember Ed isn't trying to replicate Tony Blair circa 97 and build a big tent, he is looking to get 35%, and I think it is nailed on that there are enough Tories who organize their affairs in an efficient manner to make sure that if it gets messy, everybody gets dirty.
I seriously doubt the tories are going to be stupid enough to get into a mud throwing contest about rich donors. Regardless of the rights and wrongs, they lose that one in the court of public opinion every time
For example the few percent the Tories are hoping to pull back from the kippers almost certainly think both LAB and CON are as bad as each other and wont care how this story plays, they will be voting either for a EU referendum or to keep out Ed, not because they like the Tories, or think they are particularly nice people.
Its even possible that Blue Labour WVM types look more favourably at the Tories because all this fuss makes them concerned that Ed might be gunning for their cash-in-hand.
The irony is if Dave hadn't been so keep to swap his traditional golfclub/retired colonel/blue-rinse vote for a few Orange LDs he wouldn't be in this mess, because none of those sort of people would care less about peoples tax arrangements, where as the people he has picked up probably do.
The tax arrangements of those who fund political parties are again on the front pages, with Labour backers this time the subject of newspaper claims.
The Sunday Telegraph and Sunday Times both name Labour funders who, they say, used methods that can be employed to avoid tax. The Telegraph quotes Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps accusing Labour leader Ed Miliband of "barefaced hypocrisy", given he spent the week accusing the prime minister of "turning a blind eye" to tax avoidance by Tory donors.
The paper's editorial complains: "Labour feels it has to approach the issue in a sanctimonious manner that leaves them open to the charge of hypocrisy."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-31475709
Anybody that believes the polls rather than the betting markets can still sell Tory seats at 281 with SPIN, which remains a high water mark despite the run of good polls for Labour. To my surprise, I found they were open for business just now.
Those heavily committed to a Clinton nomination might like to look at the New York Sunday Post article on Bill. It might not affect her, but it ain't good.
That's all for now.
I remain a little bored by the tax avoidance fuss. Of course posh people avoid tax. Bears and Popes probably don't, but they have other habits.
But the Ed attack probably enthuses a few Labour supporters so won't do any harm to them.
Unlike many others, I suspect the real campaign will be equally dull.
@dylsharpe: Bill 'Somebody' Thomas part of a tax avoidance scheme. Great exclusive by @craigawoodhouse > http://t.co/sqTMCxdzHR http://t.co/FG8fpHYCkL
Quick recap - Cannock Chase is part of the old MidStaffs NHS area. Several people in the constituency are still suing Stafford Hospital for criminal malpractice that happened as a result of the last Labour government's drive to force through the trust as a foundation trust, which is thought to have led to several hundred unnecessary deaths (let's leave the inquiry conclusion, which disputed this, for the moment - that's what's perceived).
So Stafford Hospital is being gradually downgraded in preparation for probable closure. This is of course opposed by its staff, some dinosaurs who would probably have opposed using fire to cook meat on the basis that it wasn't safe, and the local Labour party, including Janos Toth, Labour's PPC in Cannock Chase. However, it is actually quite popular locally as we would rather use Wolverhampton or Burton hospitals, which are staffed by decent, hard-working and caring people who may have severe problems caused by this government and the last one, but who really try to do their best by us.
Toth has decided, by contrast, that he is going to campaign on saving the NHS. I have had several leaflets from him now, the last just yesterday. This one talked about the NHS, front and back pages, which is all most people look at. In it, he blames the current government for the problems at Stafford Hospital (!) and says he and Andy Burnham (!) will ensure that 'the NHS has the time to care for you and your family'. To which the obvious answer is, 'not in f***ing Stafford he didn't.'
The situation in Cannock Chase is very straightforward. Furious at the banker bailout while local industry struggled, the upper-working class/lower middle class white vote swung to the Conservatives en bloc at the last election. As local industry has continued to struggle and the coalition government appears to do nothing, this bloc, disillusioned and fed up, has swung away from it again. It voted UKIP in protest last year, but the likelihood is that it will go to Labour more or less by default at the next election. The only thing that might persuade them not to is if they are reminded of the disastrous local record of the last Labour government on health.
If Toth campaigns on jobs, he will win at a walk. If he didn't campaign at all, he should still win at a canter. By campaigning on health, which I presume is by order of the party's High Command, he is running the very real risk of throwing away a seat the Tories themselves admit they expect to lose and have given up on.
Furthermore, if this utter stupidity is a snapshot of how the party expects to campaign nationwide, cloth-eared to local issues and to all intents and purposes ignoring what will be the key issues - jobs and the economy - I rather think that you will be coming a poor second again.
However, I may be being ungenerous and it may just be Toth's ineptitude. He's not exactly a burning and shining light as a local councillor and in 1997 he was I believe one of only three Labour PPCs to have a large swing against him.
Ed Miliband needs a shrink, says Alastair Campbell
As the article quickly makes clear:
Ed Miliband and every politician in Britain should be seeking psychiatric help, according to Alastair Campbell.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11413736/Ed-Miliband-needs-a-shrink-says-Alastair-Campbell.html
Actually, I doubt someone of Ed's intellectual self confidence would feel the need.....
Poll count February so far
CON lead 2 polls
CON-LAB level-pegging 2 polls
LAB lead 15
How many of the 'leads' were within MOE?
I suspects its:
Parties within MOE: 19
Or maybe not ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2953955/Key-Miliband-backer-offshore-tax-row-Labour-donor-transferred-shares-Liechtenstein-Jersey-later-sold-reported-37-million.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31450410
https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/questions-over-labour-donors-taxes
I did wonder was behind the change of policy. Now I know.
To exaccerbate their anger this is being done while those at the bottom are being squeezed with ever tighter austerity measures. It is offensive to people's idea of fair play
The Tories WANT to be seen as the party of business and big business which they are. They also want to be seen as the party who squeeze benefit claimants which they are.
Trying to spread the manure more widely makes things worse. I wrote yesterday how Dave should get himself out of this but I suspect Grant Shapps arrogance makes this impossible which is why he'll lose