The SNP don't need to support Labour on every measure. They've reserved to themselves the right to vote on English-only matters and can then decide on a case-by-case basis whether they abstain or not. They can create havoc by such means.
True, but every time they don't vote with Labour, they are "voting with the TORIES !!!!!" which they might not want to do too often before the Holyrood elections.
Maybe.
They can abstain on English-only matters whenever they choose on the ground that there is no Scottish angle. I expect that they will do so whenever they feel that Labour need a bit of destabilising. Simple, obvious, and very effective when you've got something like 50 MPs if Labour are far short of an overall majority in England.
Why are you so certain that pre-election statements about Coalitions will be kept? They may be, but the negotiating chamber is a funny place. Didn't Cameron rule out a deal with the LDs a couple of days before the last election?
Especially given the LDs may well change leader post-election, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the new LDs were willing to work with Labour and demanded ministerial posts.
I'm agree Lab Minority is value, but I don't think it is massively better than EdM PM.
The Lib Dems don't look as though they will have the bodies to demand anything. Their preferences simply won't count.
The SNP don't need to support Labour on every measure. They've reserved to themselves the right to vote on English-only matters and can then decide on a case-by-case basis whether they abstain or not. They can create havoc by such means.
True, but every time they don't vote with Labour, they are "voting with the TORIES !!!!!" which they might not want to do too often before the Holyrood elections.
Maybe.
They can abstain on English-only matters whenever they choose on the ground that there is no Scottish angle. I expect that they will do so whenever they feel that Labour need a bit of destabilising. Simple, obvious, and very effective when you've got something like 50 MPs if Labour are far short of an overall majority in England.
Why are you so certain that pre-election statements about Coalitions will be kept? They may be, but the negotiating chamber is a funny place. Didn't Cameron rule out a deal with the LDs a couple of days before the last election?
My foggy recollection is that he may have 'been prepared to rule it out', rather than ' ruled it out' - the latter being definitive, the former being politico speak meant to sound definitive by having him claim to be willing to go with a minority and so not lose any small numbers who would be offended by the idea of him cosying up to another party, without actually ruling it out.
Regardless, your point about pre-election statements seems spot on. Depending on how the numbers on all sides shake out, people will consider whatever they have to - going against previous statements, particularly if they were definitive, may be difficult, may even end up being unworkable, but would not be impossible.
I've moved to a LD/CON marginal (LD defending) and have only just received my first Tory leaflet, let alone anything like a doorstepping. Much less slick than the LDs (who also happen to have very plugged in councillors - one of whom got in touch to welcome us to the area) who I'm pretty sure will hang on here. Stark contrast to the LAB/LD battleground (again LD defending) I moved out of a month ago where I was being lovebombed by the Labour PPC even though he's nailed on (1/19 at last look) to win.
I was very impressed with the lib dem Councillors who helped with the setting up of our local residents association (just advice on how to go about it and local issues - nothing overtly political). They are also active on facebook.
For my wife and I we did begin to wonder how much is just talk when they responded to one of our complaints about council services and told us they were getting it sorted - for nothing to happen - but it did get resolved when my wife rang the council directly.
In Colchester the Lib Dems approach seems to be don't vote tory they want to concrete over the entire area..... whilst ignoring all the housebuilding that's gone on / going on / planned already.
As to Labour, tumbleweed.
Same here on Facebook.
Interesting that I've seen nothing on Facebook of the much-trailed Conservative attack ads. Declaring an interest, I'm a social media manager by trade and know how quick and easy (and cheap!) it is to promote your ad to a tight geographical area so I find it odd that I've not seen one yet.
I expect I'll get sight of one before too long. What'll be interesting is if they've got specific anti-LD content they'll use, or if it'll be the generic anti-Ed stuff.
Personally, I think that UNS is not going to be of much help predicting the result of this most unpredictable of all elections. 2010 saw marked differentials in swing from one constituency to another - and I think that is just going to be all the more marked this time, given the complicating factors of the SNP surge and the rise of UKIP.
No the last election did not "saw marked differentials in swing from one constituency to another."
From PB Blog May 31st 2010 research carried out by some very eminent professors. Below.
"The change in Conservative vote varied by less than two percentage points moving from their weakest to their strongest areas, and they actually underperformed somewhat in their weakest areas relative to the average
The change in Labour vote varied somewhat more, but there was no systematic relationship with prior strength – if anything the party performed worse in areas where it started off somewhat weaker.
The change in Liberal Democrat vote showed more evidence of proportionality, falling back three points in the strongest areas while rising in the weaker areas. But even here the evidence of proportional swing was weak and patchy at best."
Electoral reform back on the agenda? Right after an election seems the time most people will be interested in it, but also when they will appear most self interested (as presumably they did not like how the seats ended up on the votes cast). I can see some amusement at a far more fractious coalition/alternative arrangement and divided opposition essentially arguing that the people made a mistake voting the way they did and how the system should be changed so if they make that mistake again the MP situation is not as confused at least.
The SNP don't need to support Labour on every measure. They've reserved to themselves the right to vote on English-only matters and can then decide on a case-by-case basis whether they abstain or not. They can create havoc by such means.
Do the people who run the spectator have a clue about anything? The far left who want to take over the SNP want to use it to exert influence (ie scrapping) of Trident.
Talking of coalitions, Eric Joyce wrote an thoughtful article about a possible Labour/SNP coalition a few days ago, which (thoughtful though it was), I didn't quite agree with. I challenged him in the comments, and he has had the courtesy to post a considered reply. Worth a read, I think - for all his demons, he's an interesting observer of Scottish politics.
Aside from the 5 Year Fixed Term Parliament act - in a minority situation, what's going to happen to the boundary legislation? If nothing happens then the Boundary Commission are duty bound to come up with suggestions for 600 seats and minimal variation - which would presumably be thrown out again by the Commons - but could a 2020 election conceivably be run on the same boundaries yet again with any regard to 'fairness' at all?
The SNP don't need to support Labour on every measure. They've reserved to themselves the right to vote on English-only matters and can then decide on a case-by-case basis whether they abstain or not. They can create havoc by such means.
Do the people who run the spectator have a clue about anything? The far left who want to take over the SNP want to use it to exert influence (ie scrapping) of Trident.
The SNP don't set their sights that low. They're aiming at causing as much disruption to the British state as they can get away with. It's the most rational way of furthering their longterm aim of Scottish independence.
Talking of coalitions, Eric Joyce wrote an thoughtful article about a possible Labour/SNP coalition a few days ago, which (thoughtful though it was), I didn't quite agree with. I challenged him in the comments, and he has had the courtesy to post a considered reply. Worth a read, I think - for all his demons, he's an interesting observer of Scottish politics.
(I still think he's wrong, but it's good to get a different view).
Falkirk looks like a probable SNP gain to me
Also think you're right, a minority Labour Gov't wants the SNP inside the tent, rather than able to piss on it from the outside whenever the fancy takes them.
The SNP don't need to support Labour on every measure. They've reserved to themselves the right to vote on English-only matters and can then decide on a case-by-case basis whether they abstain or not. They can create havoc by such means.
Do the people who run the spectator have a clue about anything? The far left who want to take over the SNP want to use it to exert influence (ie scrapping) of Trident.
The SNP don't set their sights that low. They're aiming at causing as much disruption to the British state as they can get away with. It's the most rational way of furthering their longterm aim of Scottish independence.
I don't get people who say that they (The SNP) would prefer a Conservative Government either. Just get bored stiff on the opposition benches wielding not alot of power for five years. Surely they want Miliband in, the weaker the better.
it does seem a little unfair that Suarez gets banned for half a season by his professional body for biting an opponent as does Mike Tyson. And I've no doubt that doctors lawyers accountants and any other serious professional would be severely reprimanded if not kicked out of the profession altogether for doing what Clarkson did. Why shouldn't the media luvvies be held to similar high standards?
JohnO the yougov last night 35/33 equates to a 5% swing,a little more than these Ashcroft polls are showing.No need to consult your guru
I believe you owe me an apology old bean.
Re the Arsenal to qualify bet, when Monaco went 2-0 up at the Emirates, they were 1.56 to qualify.. amazing price. Obviously 3-1 was a much better result for them, wish I had the lack of heart to back that 1.56 though, 1.14 now
The SNP don't need to support Labour on every measure. They've reserved to themselves the right to vote on English-only matters and can then decide on a case-by-case basis whether they abstain or not. They can create havoc by such means.
Do the people who run the spectator have a clue about anything? The far left who want to take over the SNP want to use it to exert influence (ie scrapping) of Trident.
The SNP don't set their sights that low. They're aiming at causing as much disruption to the British state as they can get away with. It's the most rational way of furthering their longterm aim of Scottish independence.
I don't get people who say that they (The SNP) would prefer a Conservative Government either. Just get bored stiff on the opposition benches wielding not alot of power for five years. Surely they want Miliband in, the weaker the better.
Of course they do. They want Ed Miliband in office, and then they want to torture him relentlessly for years.
That is an occupation I have not heard of before. What does a Social Media Manager do and what sort of organisation would need one?
Definitions vary (and in all likelihood such a job title won't exist in a few years time as social media, apps and general internettery converge) but in my case it's a specific branch of marketing with a strong dash of customer service. Most large and many medium/small organisations and companies employ at least one; often several more.
Given that most people use social media for, well, social purposes, as a job title it has a whiff of frivolity. In fact, using social media as a marketing 'channel' can be terrific value because of the targeting available for advertising, and also because with care and assiduity a you can do a lot for free. Crucially, it's highly measurable so it's pretty clear whether or not I'm providing value for money for my company. Thankfully, I do.
The SNP don't need to support Labour on every measure. They've reserved to themselves the right to vote on English-only matters and can then decide on a case-by-case basis whether they abstain or not. They can create havoc by such means.
Do the people who run the spectator have a clue about anything? The far left who want to take over the SNP want to use it to exert influence (ie scrapping) of Trident.
The SNP don't set their sights that low. They're aiming at causing as much disruption to the British state as they can get away with. It's the most rational way of furthering their longterm aim of Scottish independence.
I don't get people who say that they (The SNP) would prefer a Conservative Government either. Just get bored stiff on the opposition benches wielding not alot of power for five years. Surely they want Miliband in, the weaker the better.
The SNP's only real opportunity for another independence referendum in the foreseeable future is a UK referendum vote to leave the EU in which Scotland voted to stay in. The only chance of that happening is if there is a Tory government.
it does seem a little unfair that Suarez gets banned for half a season by his professional body for biting an opponent as does Mike Tyson. And I've no doubt that doctors lawyers accountants and any other serious professional would be severely reprimanded if not kicked out of the profession altogether for doing what Clarkson did. Why shouldn't the media luvvies be held to similar high standards?
Suarez and Tyson are false comparisons, they did what they did in the act of their job. If they had a punch up in the Hotel would they have been banned? Maybe, not definitely though
I don't see what it has to do with his ability to present his show, not that I am a fan of it or him really
Talking of coalitions, Eric Joyce wrote an thoughtful article about a possible Labour/SNP coalition a few days ago, which (thoughtful though it was), I didn't quite agree with. I challenged him in the comments, and he has had the courtesy to post a considered reply. Worth a read, I think - for all his demons, he's an interesting observer of Scottish politics.
(I still think he's wrong, but it's good to get a different view).
Falkirk looks like a probable SNP gain to me
Also think you're right, a minority Labour Gov't wants the SNP inside the tent, rather than able to piss on it from the outside whenever the fancy takes them.
Why on earth would the SNP agree any deal which prevents them from causing trouble to the government of the day?
Personally, I think that UNS is not going to be of much help predicting the result of this most unpredictable of all elections. 2010 saw marked differentials in swing from one constituency to another - and I think that is just going to be all the more marked this time, given the complicating factors of the SNP surge and the rise of UKIP.
No the last election did not "saw marked differentials in swing from one constituency to another."
From PB Blog May 31st 2010 research carried out by some very eminent professors. Below.
"The change in Conservative vote varied by less than two percentage points moving from their weakest to their strongest areas, and they actually underperformed somewhat in their weakest areas relative to the average
The change in Labour vote varied somewhat more, but there was no systematic relationship with prior strength – if anything the party performed worse in areas where it started off somewhat weaker.
The change in Liberal Democrat vote showed more evidence of proportionality, falling back three points in the strongest areas while rising in the weaker areas. But even here the evidence of proportional swing was weak and patchy at best."
That doesn't really contradict my point about a greater number of unpredictable results (though the Con vote was relatively stable, that of the other two parties was less so). There was a 5% overall swing from Lab to Con in 2010, but quite a number of surprising results overall. Seats such as Birmingham Edgbaston and Westminster North which would have been expected to go Con didn't (in both cases that appears to have been down to the quality of the candidates: Edgbaston a vote for Gisela Stuart and Westminster North a vote against Joanne Cash).
it does seem a little unfair that Suarez gets banned for half a season by his professional body for biting an opponent as does Mike Tyson. And I've no doubt that doctors lawyers accountants and any other serious professional would be severely reprimanded if not kicked out of the profession altogether for doing what Clarkson did. Why shouldn't the media luvvies be held to similar high standards?
Do you know the full story, or just the tittle tattle from The Daily Mail? Please spill all if you do.
The fixed term parliament act could be amusing in the next parliament.
I have every expectation the 5 year parliament act will be amended or abolished, especially if the parliament elected is a hung one.
The fixed term parliament act is a lot more flexible than people think. If no one can command a majority in the House of Commons, there will be an election.
The SNP don't need to support Labour on every measure. They've reserved to themselves the right to vote on English-only matters and can then decide on a case-by-case basis whether they abstain or not. They can create havoc by such means.
Do the people who run the spectator have a clue about anything? The far left who want to take over the SNP want to use it to exert influence (ie scrapping) of Trident.
The SNP don't set their sights that low. They're aiming at causing as much disruption to the British state as they can get away with. It's the most rational way of furthering their longterm aim of Scottish independence.
I don't get people who say that they (The SNP) would prefer a Conservative Government either. Just get bored stiff on the opposition benches wielding not alot of power for five years. Surely they want Miliband in, the weaker the better.
The SNP's only real opportunity for another independence referendum in the foreseeable future is a UK referendum vote to leave the EU in which Scotland voted to stay in. The only chance of that happening is if there is a Tory government.
They do want independence, but that is a long term aim. Being able to bury (Or keep Labour buried) Labour in Scotland is the short-medium term aim. If the Cons get in the Labour mantra of vote SNP get Tories will appear to be true (Even though its not). No, they want Ed to dance to their tune for the next five years.
Aside from the 5 Year Fixed Term Parliament act - in a minority situation, what's going to happen to the boundary legislation? If nothing happens then the Boundary Commission are duty bound to come up with suggestions for 600 seats and minimal variation - which would presumably be thrown out again by the Commons - but could a 2020 election conceivably be run on the same boundaries yet again with any regard to 'fairness' at all?
If Labour form the next government I'd expect them to seek to instruct the Boundary Commission to draw boundaries on the basis of resident population, rather than registered electorate.
Because the current legislated for situation reduces the number of MPs it's entirely possible that such a set of boundaries would be rejected by the Commons if it is Hung. So to get new boundaries you probably need to have two votes - one to change the legislation to return the number of MPs to 650, and one to pass new boundaries. It's entirely possible that the second vote ends up being punted past the next election so that the present boundaries are used for the election after 2015 too.
The SNP don't need to support Labour on every measure. They've reserved to themselves the right to vote on English-only matters and can then decide on a case-by-case basis whether they abstain or not. They can create havoc by such means.
Do the people who run the spectator have a clue about anything? The far left who want to take over the SNP want to use it to exert influence (ie scrapping) of Trident.
The SNP don't set their sights that low. They're aiming at causing as much disruption to the British state as they can get away with. It's the most rational way of furthering their longterm aim of Scottish independence.
I don't get people who say that they (The SNP) would prefer a Conservative Government either. Just get bored stiff on the opposition benches wielding not alot of power for five years. Surely they want Miliband in, the weaker the better.
Of course they do. They want Ed Miliband in office, and then they want to torture him relentlessly for years.
The SNP don't need to support Labour on every measure. They've reserved to themselves the right to vote on English-only matters and can then decide on a case-by-case basis whether they abstain or not. They can create havoc by such means.
Indeed. And that means Massie is right: Labour will not offer the SNP any kind of deal.
Of course, if Labour is close to forming a government after being wiped out in Scotland it will probably mean that the Tories do not have close to an overall majority of English MPs. At that point EV4EL becomes pretty attractive for Labour. And should that come to pass the SNP will be more or less irrelevant unless they break their solemn vow and vote with the Tories to bring a labour government down.
it does seem a little unfair that Suarez gets banned for half a season by his professional body for biting an opponent as does Mike Tyson. And I've no doubt that doctors lawyers accountants and any other serious professional would be severely reprimanded if not kicked out of the profession altogether for doing what Clarkson did. Why shouldn't the media luvvies be held to similar high standards?
Suarez and Tyson are false comparisons, they did what they did in the act of their job. If they had a punch up in the Hotel would they have been banned? Maybe, not definitely though
I don't see what it has to do with his ability to present his show, not that I am a fan of it or him really
Repeated unacceptable incidents even not on the job can be grounds for a sacking, particular if one is a public figure. It may or may not be appropriate. In this instance, the BBC as an organisation clearly do not want to get rid of him due to his popularity and how much money he brings in as a result, but also do not want to appear powerless about someone working for them if it is confirmed he has indeed done something inappropriate.
The whole case has been ridiculous, particularly given all the uproar over the BBC's attacking him when he is apparently the one who reported the incident and the BBC are looking into that report as they are required to do. They haven't really done anything to him yet (and as I say, I am sure they are scrabbling to find a way not to do anything if they can), but people were up in arms within hours of the blooming thing.
OT Quick question. How many here get ahead of the TV schedules using Netflix or Amazon Prime?
I was thinking of say Better Call Saul the Breaking Bad spin-off or Vikings or House Of Cards et al. The number of online produced shows is expanding expotentially and looks like a serious game changer in the TV war.
EDIT for transparency - I subscribe to both and a few other network online channels.
I challenged him in the comments, and he has had the courtesy to post a considered reply.
A considered reply in the comments section is better than a punch to the head I suppose..
Mr Joyce's articles on the net were one of the minor revelations of indyref - one might not always agree with him but I always found them interesting, including this latest one - thanks to RN for posting it. His comments on the Falkirk crisis were most useful, as I recall.
Personally, I think that UNS is not going to be of much help predicting the result of this most unpredictable of all elections. 2010 saw marked differentials in swing from one constituency to another - and I think that is just going to be all the more marked this time, given the complicating factors of the SNP surge and the rise of UKIP.
No the last election did not "saw marked differentials in swing from one constituency to another."
From PB Blog May 31st 2010 research carried out by some very eminent professors. Below.
"The change in Conservative vote varied by less than two percentage points moving from their weakest to their strongest areas, and they actually underperformed somewhat in their weakest areas relative to the average
The change in Labour vote varied somewhat more, but there was no systematic relationship with prior strength – if anything the party performed worse in areas where it started off somewhat weaker.
The change in Liberal Democrat vote showed more evidence of proportionality, falling back three points in the strongest areas while rising in the weaker areas. But even here the evidence of proportional swing was weak and patchy at best."
That doesn't really contradict my point about a greater number of unpredictable results (though the Con vote was relatively stable, that of the other two parties was less so). There was a 5% overall swing from Lab to Con in 2010, but quite a number of surprising results overall. Seats such as Birmingham Edgbaston and Westminster North which would have been expected to go Con didn't (in both cases that appears to have been down to the quality of the candidates: Edgbaston a vote for Gisela Stuart and Westminster North a vote against Joanne Cash).
There will always be "a number of surprising results" and as you say often down to the candidates. This whole debate about "UNS not being reliable this time" is exactly the same debate that was held on here before the last election. But it turned out to be the best predictor. Only difference then was that it was the Tories who were going to benefit to the tune of 50 odd seats. I don't buy it, same arguments just being re-hashed. And when I say I don't buy it....its because I bought it last time, and it wasn't cheap.
The SNP don't need to support Labour on every measure. They've reserved to themselves the right to vote on English-only matters and can then decide on a case-by-case basis whether they abstain or not. They can create havoc by such means.
Do the people who run the spectator have a clue about anything? The far left who want to take over the SNP want to use it to exert influence (ie scrapping) of Trident.
The SNP don't set their sights that low. They're aiming at causing as much disruption to the British state as they can get away with. It's the most rational way of furthering their longterm aim of Scottish independence.
I don't get people who say that they (The SNP) would prefer a Conservative Government either. Just get bored stiff on the opposition benches wielding not alot of power for five years. Surely they want Miliband in, the weaker the better.
The SNP's only real opportunity for another independence referendum in the foreseeable future is a UK referendum vote to leave the EU in which Scotland voted to stay in. The only chance of that happening is if there is a Tory government.
They do want independence, but that is a long term aim. Being able to bury (Or keep Labour buried) Labour in Scotland is the short-medium term aim. If the Cons get in the Labour mantra of vote SNP get Tories will appear to be true (Even though its not). No, they want Ed to dance to their tune for the next five years.
It's not a long-term aim: it is the over-riding aim and one they want to achieve as soon as possible.
If Labour loses 30 plus seats in Scotland it will have done spectacularly well in England if it is even close to forming a minority government. On that basis, the party will miraculously decide that it does support EV4EL after all. Unless the Tories then miraculously decide they are opposed to it, that is what we will get. And at that stage, the SNP becomes pretty irrelevant - unless or until they vote with the Tories to bring the minority Labour government down.
The whole case has been ridiculous, particularly given all the uproar over the BBC's attacking him when he is apparently the one who reported the incident and the BBC are looking into that report as they are required to do.
By dobbing himself in he garnered a lot of media exposure, including praise from the Prime Minister and a petition in his support signed by nearly 1 million (51,020 to go).
What better way to advertise his worth when his contract with the BBC is up for renegotiation? Whether he stays with the BBC or not he is likely to end up considerably richer as a result.
Edit: Interesting that many of the more recent comments on the petition are from fans of Clarkson from outside the UK.
OT Quick question. How many here get ahead of the TV schedules using Netflix or Amazon Prime?
I was thinking of say Better Call Saul the Breaking Bad spin-off or Vikings or House Of Cards et al. The number of online produced shows is expanding expotentially and looks like a serious game changer in the TV war.
EDIT for transparency - I subscribe to both and a few other network online channels.
I do. Vikings is pretty great, and surprisingly grand in scale at times as things go on.
I don't watch sport TV of any kind but you can get Sky Sports using their alter ego NOW TV - for a fraction. Or buy an MX box - I have one of these totally legal streaming gadgets and bar sports and vintage movies, I'm not getting much.
I bought it for access to CBS and ABC US - if anyone knows how to make it work using these channels - I'd love to hear from you.
OT Quick question. How many here get ahead of the TV schedules using Netflix or Amazon Prime?
I was thinking of say Better Call Saul the Breaking Bad spin-off or Vikings or House Of Cards et al. The number of online produced shows is expanding expotentially and looks like a serious game changer in the TV war.
EDIT for transparency - I subscribe to both and a few other network online channels.
The American Amazon service is even better than the UK one. It is - apparently - possible to get access to it if you are reasonably technologically literate...
F1: worth recalling Coulthard drove for Red Bull then did some promotional work for them (no idea if that's still the case):
"Not everyone will agree with Red Bull team principal Christian Horner's call for the engines to be equalised to allow more teams to be competitive, but if you do nothing, nothing changes.
That's not good for the business and, through the history of F1, something has tended to be done to level the playing field in such situations. That's because dominance by one team is not good for the business or the health of the sport."
The last set of rules were in place for about 4-5 years. Changing them every couple of years piles up costs and vastly reduces the deserves rewards that those who adapt best ought to enjoy. Nobody made Renault cock up their preparation, or Ferrari be some way behind [indeed, kudos to Ferrari for a great leap forward this year, although they're still some way off the Mercedes].
Red Bull had four years on the bounce taking both titles, and their bleating now is contemptible.
So have we decided which branch of His Lordship's polling we believe: that in which things are getting better for the Tories, or that in which it is not?
Of course, it makes a bit more sense if the company that gets the big Labour leads for him has also done this round of marginals polling. Whereas the company that gets the Tory leads did the original round.
Yet more depressing polling news from Ashcroft then. There's not a scrap of evidence out there to suggest DC has much hope of remaining in power in a few weeks time.
Will the Budget and the GE campaign itself change things much? Somehow I doubt it. If anything, people might actually warm to Ed.
He's going to be the next PM, the evidence continues to mount up and time continues to run out for the Tories.
What a massive disappointment Cameron has proved to be as Tory leader and PM.
The SNP don't need to support Labour on every measure. They've reserved to themselves the right to vote on English-only matters and can then decide on a case-by-case basis whether they abstain or not. They can create havoc by such means.
Indeed. And that means Massie is right: Labour will not offer the SNP any kind of deal.
Of course, if Labour is close to forming a government after being wiped out in Scotland it will probably mean that the Tories do not have close to an overall majority of English MPs. At that point EV4EL becomes pretty attractive for Labour. And should that come to pass the SNP will be more or less irrelevant unless they break their solemn vow and vote with the Tories to bring a labour government down.
That's not how the maths necessarily stack up. To annoy isam, I'm afraid I have to refer to my post from earlier:
Using May2015's projections, the Conservatives are heading for 281 seats, Labour for 263 seats and the SNP for 55 seats. On those numbers, you can get a majority in one of three ways:
1) Labour + Conservatives 2) Conservatives + SNP 3) Labour + SNP + (Lib Dems or others)
1) and 2) are at present off the agenda. That leaves 3. But as you can see, Labour are well behind the Conservatives in England on those numbers. They need the SNP properly onside or the SNP vaguely onside and the Lib Dems properly onside.
And even if you use the more favourable (for Labour) projections from Polling Observatory which have Labour in the lead in the seat count, you can get to an overall majority with Labour plus SNP, but Labour still won't have a majority in England without SNP support (and probably are behind the Conservatives in England-only constituencies, bearing in mind their strength in Wales).
So have we decided which branch of His Lordship's polling we believe: that in which things are getting better for the Tories, or that in which it is not?
Of course, it makes a bit more sense if the company that gets the big Labour leads for him has also done this round of marginals polling. Whereas the company that gets the Tory leads did the original round.
. There's not a scrap of evidence out there to suggest DC has much hope of remaining in power in a few weeks time.
Oh, surely not - believing that there will be a sizable turnaround in support in the marginals and a sizable gap opening up in the nationals in less than 2 months when nothing has achieved that to date, purely on the basis that Ed M is crap, has to count as scrappy evidence at least? It's certainly not much higher than scrap.
Yet more depressing polling news from Ashcroft then. There's not a scrap of evidence out there to suggest DC has much hope of remaining in power in a few weeks time.
Will the Budget and the GE campaign itself change things much? Somehow I doubt it. If anything, people might actually warm to Ed.
He's going to be the next PM, the evidence continues to mount up and time continues to run out for the Tories.
What a massive disappointment Cameron has proved to be as Tory leader and PM.
I think that you may be right about Ed as next PM, but let's see how the budget goes down. But who would have been better as Tory leader in the circumstances of 2010?
Yet more depressing polling news from Ashcroft then. There's not a scrap of evidence out there to suggest DC has much hope of remaining in power in a few weeks time.
Will the Budget and the GE campaign itself change things much? Somehow I doubt it. If anything, people might actually warm to Ed.
He's going to be the next PM, the evidence continues to mount up and time continues to run out for the Tories.
What a massive disappointment Cameron has proved to be as Tory leader and PM.
A Tory Leader, but only ever a Coalition Prime Minister.
It's possible we will never get to see the real David Cameron.
Yet more depressing polling news from Ashcroft then. There's not a scrap of evidence out there to suggest DC has much hope of remaining in power in a few weeks time.
Will the Budget and the GE campaign itself change things much? Somehow I doubt it. If anything, people might actually warm to Ed.
He's going to be the next PM, the evidence continues to mount up and time continues to run out for the Tories.
What a massive disappointment Cameron has proved to be as Tory leader and PM.
Many lefty-thinking voters don't like difficult decisions and some actually believe in the money tree.
I rather like Black Sails. It's funny and sweaty and gritty.
I hated Better Call Saul during the first 4 shows - it was nonsense and too slow. Then it picked right up and found its legs. I'd give it the thumbs up.
I assume that the pace of online availability will charge up - some shows are online within weeks of S Next X broadcasting. That's the obvious end game. I just get pissed off that I can watch a show for two or three seasons online paid and then left dangling. So I go elsewhere.
OT Quick question. How many here get ahead of the TV schedules using Netflix or Amazon Prime?
I was thinking of say Better Call Saul the Breaking Bad spin-off or Vikings or House Of Cards et al. The number of online produced shows is expanding expotentially and looks like a serious game changer in the TV war.
EDIT for transparency - I subscribe to both and a few other network online channels.
I do. Vikings is pretty great, and surprisingly grand in scale at times as things go on.
I think Ed winning outright (or a practical majority accounting for Sinn Fein, speaker, deputies etc) is a possible outcome, but even if not, surely this will be the GE that at least delivers the nightmare scenario that 2010 just about made mathematically not possible - the Rainbow Coalition of the Left. Led by Ed.
I think the Tories will get most votes across the UK, but be woefully behind in seats.
I also don't see how downthread there can be predictions of the Tories holding around 277 seats - the Ashcroft polling shows that isn't going to happen. They'll lose loads more, which Labour will pick up.
I can using a proxy, but it makes more problems for me as a UKer to home based stuff.
I gave in a while ago and it grates on an honestly level. Maybe I'll try it again or Vanilla message me with a suggestion. I am prevented from doing so because I've the wrong zip code.
This seems such an obvious revenue stream that it perplexes me.
OT Quick question. How many here get ahead of the TV schedules using Netflix or Amazon Prime?
I was thinking of say Better Call Saul the Breaking Bad spin-off or Vikings or House Of Cards et al. The number of online produced shows is expanding expotentially and looks like a serious game changer in the TV war.
EDIT for transparency - I subscribe to both and a few other network online channels.
The American Amazon service is even better than the UK one. It is - apparently - possible to get access to it if you are reasonably technologically literate...
Yet more depressing polling news from Ashcroft then. There's not a scrap of evidence out there to suggest DC has much hope of remaining in power in a few weeks time.
Will the Budget and the GE campaign itself change things much? Somehow I doubt it. If anything, people might actually warm to Ed.
He's going to be the next PM, the evidence continues to mount up and time continues to run out for the Tories.
What a massive disappointment Cameron has proved to be as Tory leader and PM.
I think that you may be right about Ed as next PM, but let's see how the budget goes down. But who would have been better as Tory leader in the circumstances of 2010?
Ruth Davidson has looked like she's held the Scottish Conservative vote up very nicely ! Obviously never a runner. William Hague perhaps.
This is a fantastic quote by Massie : - "Indeed, it is becoming ever clearer that the Nationalists have trussed Labour up like a chicken ready for roasting. All that remains to be decided is whether Labour will be cooked low and slow or fast and high. The outcome is not in doubt; merely the means by which it will be delivered. The result is the same: the chicken is roasted."
This is a fantastic quote by Massie : - "Indeed, it is becoming ever clearer that the Nationalists have trussed Labour up like a chicken ready for roasting. All that remains to be decided is whether Labour will be cooked low and slow or fast and high. The outcome is not in doubt; merely the means by which it will be delivered. The result is the same: the chicken is roasted."
Yet more depressing polling news from Ashcroft then. There's not a scrap of evidence out there to suggest DC has much hope of remaining in power in a few weeks time.
Will the Budget and the GE campaign itself change things much? Somehow I doubt it. If anything, people might actually warm to Ed.
He's going to be the next PM, the evidence continues to mount up and time continues to run out for the Tories.
What a massive disappointment Cameron has proved to be as Tory leader and PM.
A Tory Leader, but only ever a Coalition Prime Minister.
It's possible we will never get to see the real David Cameron.
Or equally possible that we have.
Labour are campaigning on the principle that he is an arch conservative. They are hoping to garnet votes on the notion that he IS a conservative. When you look at the public sector job losses the control of government spending and education and welfare reforms just for starters both now and in the future then by their standards he is a true conservative. Why then should right wingers complain and allow a true left winger into power? Do the alleged right wingers on this blog have two brains to rub together?
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges @LadPolitics It's clearly the Ashcroft constituency polls that are wrong. But nobody wants to concede that. They're too newsworthy
Providing the great apathetic of Halesowen make their way to the election booths it could be a good night for Labour. If they're relying on people who actually voted last time round, they're in for a bit of a struggle judging by the sub-data.
Could the Good Lord have picked a set of marginals that would have more demonstrated the futility of voting UKIP?
Six of the eight polls are broadly consistent with national polls, with one super-bad one for the Tories in Chester, and one very good one in Worcester.
Polls broadly consistent with idea that Labour doing better then UNS in the NW, but I am surprised to see the London shift in Croydon is so small.
I can using a proxy, but it makes more problems for me as a UKer to home based stuff.
I gave in a while ago and it grates on an honestly level. Maybe I'll try it again or Vanilla message me with a suggestion. I am prevented from doing so because I've the wrong zip code.
This seems such an obvious revenue stream that it perplexes me.
OT Quick question. How many here get ahead of the TV schedules using Netflix or Amazon Prime?
I was thinking of say Better Call Saul the Breaking Bad spin-off or Vikings or House Of Cards et al. The number of online produced shows is expanding expotentially and looks like a serious game changer in the TV war.
EDIT for transparency - I subscribe to both and a few other network online channels.
The American Amazon service is even better than the UK one. It is - apparently - possible to get access to it if you are reasonably technologically literate...
Plato, I use Hola, which is a doddle to set up and can watch Netflix from any country I fancy, USA when here, UK when I'm there for example. Also allows you to watch TV services where ever you are eg Premier League football can be found at 3pm on a Saturday if you search around.
Jack Monroe was the Labour Party’s poster girl on poverty, posing for photographs alongside Ed Miliband and members of the Shadow Cabinet. A blogger for the Guardian and the face of a Sainsbury’s anti-poverty advertising campaign, she starred in a Labour Party political broadcast in 2013. In a stunning blow to the Labour leader, Monroe has defected to the Green Party, slamming the direction of Miliband’s party:
So have we decided which branch of His Lordship's polling we believe: that in which things are getting better for the Tories, or that in which it is not?
Of course, it makes a bit more sense if the company that gets the big Labour leads for him has also done this round of marginals polling. Whereas the company that gets the Tory leads did the original round.
Maybe?
It's either Populus or ICM I think.
Surely Mark's point is the important one. Who is doing the polling and when? What is the purpose behind Ashcrofts polling? It must be totally wrong to poll and not say who is doing the polls. Also you have to add to this how accurate constituency polling can be.
... if the Tories win most seats, that's game over, they get to form the government. I know that is constitutionally not strictly true, but it's hard to see Her Majesty not giving DC first dibs - especially as he is the incumbent. If the Tories cannot do it, that does open the door to Ed, I guess.
Apparently there are 533 English seats in the Commons. That's 532 if you remove the Speaker. So to get an absolute majority a party will need 267. It's conceivable that either Labour or the Tories could do that; but the Tories must be the favourites, along with NOM.
Labour got 191 seats in England last time, the Tories 298, the LDs 43 and the Greens 1. It gets interesting if the Tories have a net loss of around 40.
The SNP actually has a pretty narrow window of opportunity if it wants to spend five years tormenting Ed. It needs the Tories to win more seats in England, but Labour to win enough seats overall to have a shot at forming a government. Thus, the SNP actually does not want to do too well in Scotland and it needs Labour to do very well in Wales.
Yet more depressing polling news from Ashcroft then. There's not a scrap of evidence out there to suggest DC has much hope of remaining in power in a few weeks time.
Will the Budget and the GE campaign itself change things much? Somehow I doubt it. If anything, people might actually warm to Ed.
He's going to be the next PM, the evidence continues to mount up and time continues to run out for the Tories.
What a massive disappointment Cameron has proved to be as Tory leader and PM.
I think that you may be right about Ed as next PM, but let's see how the budget goes down. But who would have been better as Tory leader in the circumstances of 2010?
I supported David Cameron over David Davis (who I also liked), but with hindsight over the past 9 years, I think Davis would have done a better job against Brown and led probably a minority Tory Govt which might well have been re-elected by now. I suspect the UKIP threat would have been neutered, Davis having at the least avoided publically labelling them all fruitcakes and antagonising them.
So whilst I was delighted DC won and gave him my full support, even when it became clear he wasn't doing enough to win outright 5 years ago, I do think Davis might in hindsight have been the better option. But he wasn't at the time - in the circumstances of 2005, the right man won.
This is a fantastic quote by Massie : - "Indeed, it is becoming ever clearer that the Nationalists have trussed Labour up like a chicken ready for roasting. All that remains to be decided is whether Labour will be cooked low and slow or fast and high. The outcome is not in doubt; merely the means by which it will be delivered. The result is the same: the chicken is roasted."
Dan Hodges may be proved (Sort of) right
Ed Miliband PM will be a disaster for Labour !
Which begs the question, is it ever better for a political party to lose rather than win an election?
The Tories would've been better off losing narrowly in 1992 IMHO.
Yet more depressing polling news from Ashcroft then. There's not a scrap of evidence out there to suggest DC has much hope of remaining in power in a few weeks time.
Will the Budget and the GE campaign itself change things much? Somehow I doubt it. If anything, people might actually warm to Ed.
He's going to be the next PM, the evidence continues to mount up and time continues to run out for the Tories.
What a massive disappointment Cameron has proved to be as Tory leader and PM.
I think that you may be right about Ed as next PM, but let's see how the budget goes down. But who would have been better as Tory leader in the circumstances of 2010?
I supported David Cameron over David Davis (who I also liked), but with hindsight over the past 9 years, I think Davis would have done a better job against Brown and led probably a minority Tory Govt which might well have been re-elected by now. I suspect the UKIP threat would have been neutered, Davis having at the least avoided publically labelling them all fruitcakes and antagonising them.
So whilst I was delighted DC won and gave him my full support, even when it became clear he wasn't doing enough to win outright 5 years ago, I do think Davis might in hindsight have been the better option. But he wasn't at the time - in the circumstances of 2005, the right man won.
I don't think there was a realistic chance of a Tory minority government - they would have passed virtually nothing and there would have had to have been an election in late 2010 early 2011.
Yet more depressing polling news from Ashcroft then. There's not a scrap of evidence out there to suggest DC has much hope of remaining in power in a few weeks time.
Will the Budget and the GE campaign itself change things much? Somehow I doubt it. If anything, people might actually warm to Ed.
He's going to be the next PM, the evidence continues to mount up and time continues to run out for the Tories.
What a massive disappointment Cameron has proved to be as Tory leader and PM.
A Tory Leader, but only ever a Coalition Prime Minister.
It's possible we will never get to see the real David Cameron.
Or equally possible that we have.
Labour are campaigning on the principle that he is an arch conservative. They are hoping to garnet votes on the notion that he IS a conservative. When you look at the public sector job losses the control of government spending and education and welfare reforms just for starters both now and in the future then by their standards he is a true conservative. Why then should right wingers complain and allow a true left winger into power? Do the alleged right wingers on this blog have two brains to rub together?
That's the attitude, Mr. Path. Keep abusing and insulting people - a guaranteed way of getting them to come round to your point of view and vote accordingly, or perhaps not.
... if the Tories win most seats, that's game over, they get to form the government. I know that is constitutionally not strictly true, but it's hard to see Her Majesty not giving DC first dibs - especially as he is the incumbent. If the Tories cannot do it, that does open the door to Ed, I guess.
No, this is utterly and completely WRONG. WRONG.WRONG.WRONG.WRONG.WRONG.WRONG.WRONG.
I can using a proxy, but it makes more problems for me as a UKer to home based stuff.
I gave in a while ago and it grates on an honestly level. Maybe I'll try it again or Vanilla message me with a suggestion. I am prevented from doing so because I've the wrong zip code.
This seems such an obvious revenue stream that it perplexes me.
OT Quick question. How many here get ahead of the TV schedules using Netflix or Amazon Prime?
I was thinking of say Better Call Saul the Breaking Bad spin-off or Vikings or House Of Cards et al. The number of online produced shows is expanding expotentially and looks like a serious game changer in the TV war.
EDIT for transparency - I subscribe to both and a few other network online channels.
The American Amazon service is even better than the UK one. It is - apparently - possible to get access to it if you are reasonably technologically literate...
Plato, I use Hola, which is a doddle to set up and can watch Netflix from any country I fancy, USA when here, UK when I'm there for example. Also allows you to watch TV services where ever you are eg Premier League football can be found at 3pm on a Saturday if you search around.
Yet more depressing polling news from Ashcroft then. There's not a scrap of evidence out there to suggest DC has much hope of remaining in power in a few weeks time.
Will the Budget and the GE campaign itself change things much? Somehow I doubt it. If anything, people might actually warm to Ed.
He's going to be the next PM, the evidence continues to mount up and time continues to run out for the Tories.
What a massive disappointment Cameron has proved to be as Tory leader and PM.
I think that you may be right about Ed as next PM, but let's see how the budget goes down. But who would have been better as Tory leader in the circumstances of 2010?
I supported David Cameron over David Davis (who I also liked), but with hindsight over the past 9 years, I think Davis would have done a better job against Brown and led probably a minority Tory Govt which might well have been re-elected by now. I suspect the UKIP threat would have been neutered, Davis having at the least avoided publically labelling them all fruitcakes and antagonising them.
So whilst I was delighted DC won and gave him my full support, even when it became clear he wasn't doing enough to win outright 5 years ago, I do think Davis might in hindsight have been the better option. But he wasn't at the time - in the circumstances of 2005, the right man won.
Before you too depressed Mr Sykes,
October 2009 Mike Smithson wrote this
"What is interesting is that between the last national YouGov survey a fortnight ago and this one there has been the Channel 4 YouGov poll of the marginals which pointed to an overall Tory majority of 54 seats. This seems to indicate the things are working differently in the key seats where the election will be decided and where the parties are putting most of their campaigning effort."
From PB Blog May 31st 2010 research carried out by some very eminent professors. Below.
"The change in Conservative vote varied by less than two percentage points moving from their weakest to their strongest areas, and they actually underperformed somewhat in their weakest areas relative to the average
And if I recall correctly the Tories didn’t get a 54 majority (-;
''I also don't see how downthread there can be predictions of the Tories holding around 277 seats - the Ashcroft polling shows that isn't going to happen.''
There is hope for the tories in 1. the kipper vote. It's very large in these polls. Will people vote UKIP knowing they can't win this marginal when push comes to shove? Ashcroft shows that faced with Dave or Ed, Dave wins in these constituencies by almos two to one.
2. What's said to the pollster and what's cast on the ballot paper, as we've seen since 2014, are two different things. Ashcroft had Labour streets ahead H*M, and they nearly lost.
Comments
I finish work at 7.45 in Cov Gdn so will hot foot it over at half time
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11477318/Jeremy-Clarkson-should-be-banned-for-obnoxious-racist-behaviour-says-Labours-transport-spokesman.html
Regardless, your point about pre-election statements seems spot on. Depending on how the numbers on all sides shake out, people will consider whatever they have to - going against previous statements, particularly if they were definitive, may be difficult, may even end up being unworkable, but would not be impossible.
Interesting that I've seen nothing on Facebook of the much-trailed Conservative attack ads. Declaring an interest, I'm a social media manager by trade and know how quick and easy (and cheap!) it is to promote your ad to a tight geographical area so I find it odd that I've not seen one yet.
I expect I'll get sight of one before too long. What'll be interesting is if they've got specific anti-LD content they'll use, or if it'll be the generic anti-Ed stuff.
The SNP won't.
Ed won't.
2020 could either see a huge Conservative majority or the party completely destroyed if Ed gets in.
UKIP may gain 40 or 50 seats in the north.
From PB Blog May 31st 2010 research carried out by some very eminent professors. Below.
"The change in Conservative vote varied by less than two percentage points moving from their weakest to their strongest areas, and they actually underperformed somewhat in their weakest areas relative to the average
The change in Labour vote varied somewhat more, but there was no systematic relationship with prior strength – if anything the party performed worse in areas where it started off somewhat weaker.
The change in Liberal Democrat vote showed more evidence of proportionality, falling back three points in the strongest areas while rising in the weaker areas. But even here the evidence of proportional swing was weak and patchy at best."
"I'm a social media manager by trade ..."
That is an occupation I have not heard of before. What does a Social Media Manager do and what sort of organisation would need one?
The far left who want to take over the SNP want to use it to exert influence (ie scrapping) of Trident.
http://ericjoyce.co.uk/2015/03/a-full-labsnp-coalitions-more-likely-than-folk-think/
(I still think he's wrong, but it's good to get a different view).
Also think you're right, a minority Labour Gov't wants the SNP inside the tent, rather than able to piss on it from the outside whenever the fancy takes them.
Labour want Clarkson banned.
it does seem a little unfair that Suarez gets banned for half a season by his professional body for biting an opponent as does Mike Tyson. And I've no doubt that doctors lawyers accountants and any other serious professional would be severely reprimanded if not kicked out of the profession altogether for doing what Clarkson did. Why shouldn't the media luvvies be held to similar high standards?
Given that most people use social media for, well, social purposes, as a job title it has a whiff of frivolity. In fact, using social media as a marketing 'channel' can be terrific value because of the targeting available for advertising, and also because with care and assiduity a you can do a lot for free. Crucially, it's highly measurable so it's pretty clear whether or not I'm providing value for money for my company. Thankfully, I do.
I don't see what it has to do with his ability to present his show, not that I am a fan of it or him really
No, they want Ed to dance to their tune for the next five years.
Because the current legislated for situation reduces the number of MPs it's entirely possible that such a set of boundaries would be rejected by the Commons if it is Hung. So to get new boundaries you probably need to have two votes - one to change the legislation to return the number of MPs to 650, and one to pass new boundaries. It's entirely possible that the second vote ends up being punted past the next election so that the present boundaries are used for the election after 2015 too.
@MrRN - A calm and considered reply by Eric Joyce Mp, hopefully an indication that he’s turned his life around of late.
Can’t recall - does he intend to stand again as an independent in Falkirk, or does the rise of the SNP render that option moot?
Ed Miliband - Softy Walter
Of course, if Labour is close to forming a government after being wiped out in Scotland it will probably mean that the Tories do not have close to an overall majority of English MPs. At that point EV4EL becomes pretty attractive for Labour. And should that come to pass the SNP will be more or less irrelevant unless they break their solemn vow and vote with the Tories to bring a labour government down.
"Dan Hodges casting doubt on the marginals polling..."
A master's of the universe spat?
The whole case has been ridiculous, particularly given all the uproar over the BBC's attacking him when he is apparently the one who reported the incident and the BBC are looking into that report as they are required to do. They haven't really done anything to him yet (and as I say, I am sure they are scrabbling to find a way not to do anything if they can), but people were up in arms within hours of the blooming thing.
I was thinking of say Better Call Saul the Breaking Bad spin-off or Vikings or House Of Cards et al. The number of online produced shows is expanding expotentially and looks like a serious game changer in the TV war.
EDIT for transparency - I subscribe to both and a few other network online channels.
If Labour loses 30 plus seats in Scotland it will have done spectacularly well in England if it is even close to forming a minority government. On that basis, the party will miraculously decide that it does support EV4EL after all. Unless the Tories then miraculously decide they are opposed to it, that is what we will get. And at that stage, the SNP becomes pretty irrelevant - unless or until they vote with the Tories to bring the minority Labour government down.
What better way to advertise his worth when his contract with the BBC is up for renegotiation? Whether he stays with the BBC or not he is likely to end up considerably richer as a result.
Edit: Interesting that many of the more recent comments on the petition are from fans of Clarkson from outside the UK.
And I'm nearly a year behind on Game of Thrones, due to getting the DVD sets (which take a long time to come out).
"I WARNED YOU"
I bought it for access to CBS and ABC US - if anyone knows how to make it work using these channels - I'd love to hear from you.
"Not everyone will agree with Red Bull team principal Christian Horner's call for the engines to be equalised to allow more teams to be competitive, but if you do nothing, nothing changes.
That's not good for the business and, through the history of F1, something has tended to be done to level the playing field in such situations. That's because dominance by one team is not good for the business or the health of the sport."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/31923283
The last set of rules were in place for about 4-5 years. Changing them every couple of years piles up costs and vastly reduces the deserves rewards that those who adapt best ought to enjoy. Nobody made Renault cock up their preparation, or Ferrari be some way behind [indeed, kudos to Ferrari for a great leap forward this year, although they're still some way off the Mercedes].
Red Bull had four years on the bounce taking both titles, and their bleating now is contemptible.
Of course, it makes a bit more sense if the company that gets the big Labour leads for him has also done this round of marginals polling. Whereas the company that gets the Tory leads did the original round.
Maybe?
Will the Budget and the GE campaign itself change things much? Somehow I doubt it. If anything, people might actually warm to Ed.
He's going to be the next PM, the evidence continues to mount up and time continues to run out for the Tories.
What a massive disappointment Cameron has proved to be as Tory leader and PM.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/party-games-constructing-next-government_17.html
Using May2015's projections, the Conservatives are heading for 281 seats, Labour for 263 seats and the SNP for 55 seats. On those numbers, you can get a majority in one of three ways:
1) Labour + Conservatives
2) Conservatives + SNP
3) Labour + SNP + (Lib Dems or others)
1) and 2) are at present off the agenda. That leaves 3. But as you can see, Labour are well behind the Conservatives in England on those numbers. They need the SNP properly onside or the SNP vaguely onside and the Lib Dems properly onside.
And even if you use the more favourable (for Labour) projections from Polling Observatory which have Labour in the lead in the seat count, you can get to an overall majority with Labour plus SNP, but Labour still won't have a majority in England without SNP support (and probably are behind the Conservatives in England-only constituencies, bearing in mind their strength in Wales).
Anywho, must be off.
But who would have been better as Tory leader in the circumstances of 2010?
It's possible we will never get to see the real David Cameron.
Or equally possible that we have.
I hated Better Call Saul during the first 4 shows - it was nonsense and too slow. Then it picked right up and found its legs. I'd give it the thumbs up.
I assume that the pace of online availability will charge up - some shows are online within weeks of S Next X broadcasting. That's the obvious end game. I just get pissed off that I can watch a show for two or three seasons online paid and then left dangling. So I go elsewhere.
Allow me to pay for it and I will. Simples.
Reading West Labour @ 10-3 looks decent to me.
I think the Tories will get most votes across the UK, but be woefully behind in seats.
I also don't see how downthread there can be predictions of the Tories holding around 277 seats - the Ashcroft polling shows that isn't going to happen. They'll lose loads more, which Labour will pick up.
I gave in a while ago and it grates on an honestly level. Maybe I'll try it again or Vanilla message me with a suggestion. I am prevented from doing so because I've the wrong zip code.
This seems such an obvious revenue stream that it perplexes me.
"Indeed, it is becoming ever clearer that the Nationalists have trussed Labour up like a chicken ready for roasting. All that remains to be decided is whether Labour will be cooked low and slow or fast and high. The outcome is not in doubt; merely the means by which it will be delivered. The result is the same: the chicken is roasted."
Ed Miliband PM will be a disaster for Labour !
Do the alleged right wingers on this blog have two brains to rub together?
Could the Good Lord have picked a set of marginals that would have more demonstrated the futility of voting UKIP?
Six of the eight polls are broadly consistent with national polls, with one super-bad one for the Tories in Chester, and one very good one in Worcester.
Polls broadly consistent with idea that Labour doing better then UNS in the NW, but I am surprised to see the London shift in Croydon is so small.
http://order-order.com/2015/03/17/milibands-poster-girl-defects-to-the-greens/
Not sure Ed will lose much sleep over this so how.
... if the Tories win most seats, that's game over, they get to form the government. I know that is constitutionally not strictly true, but it's hard to see Her Majesty not giving DC first dibs - especially as he is the incumbent. If the Tories cannot do it, that does open the door to Ed, I guess.
Apparently there are 533 English seats in the Commons. That's 532 if you remove the Speaker. So to get an absolute majority a party will need 267. It's conceivable that either Labour or the Tories could do that; but the Tories must be the favourites, along with NOM.
Labour got 191 seats in England last time, the Tories 298, the LDs 43 and the Greens 1. It gets interesting if the Tories have a net loss of around 40.
The SNP actually has a pretty narrow window of opportunity if it wants to spend five years tormenting Ed. It needs the Tories to win more seats in England, but Labour to win enough seats overall to have a shot at forming a government. Thus, the SNP actually does not want to do too well in Scotland and it needs Labour to do very well in Wales.
So whilst I was delighted DC won and gave him my full support, even when it became clear he wasn't doing enough to win outright 5 years ago, I do think Davis might in hindsight have been the better option. But he wasn't at the time - in the circumstances of 2005, the right man won.
The Tories would've been better off losing narrowly in 1992 IMHO.
Hi, for anyone wanting to follow today's election there are a couple of liveblogs available:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-election-2015/1.647304
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-Elections/Election-Live-Blog-Follow-the-latest-updates-394059
As it's election night, I won't be going to the PB drinks, but well done to Fat Steve on finding a new venue & hope everyone enjoys it.
Thanks
DC
EDIT - giving it a download. Thanx for recommend.
I tried a few like Wuaki.tv and most unimpressed. I also attempted SyFy and others and nowt. Hmph.
It really is most irritating. Very pre-Napster behaviour.
October 2009 Mike Smithson wrote this
"What is interesting is that between the last national YouGov survey a fortnight ago and this one there has been the Channel 4 YouGov poll of the marginals which pointed to an overall Tory majority of 54 seats. This seems to indicate the things are working differently in the key seats where the election will be decided and where the parties are putting most of their campaigning effort."
From PB Blog May 31st 2010 research carried out by some very eminent professors. Below.
"The change in Conservative vote varied by less than two percentage points moving from their weakest to their strongest areas, and they actually underperformed somewhat in their weakest areas relative to the average
And if I recall correctly the Tories didn’t get a 54 majority (-;
There is hope for the tories in
1. the kipper vote. It's very large in these polls. Will people vote UKIP knowing they can't win this marginal when push comes to shove? Ashcroft shows that faced with Dave or Ed, Dave wins in these constituencies by almos two to one.
2. What's said to the pollster and what's cast on the ballot paper, as we've seen since 2014, are two different things. Ashcroft had Labour streets ahead H*M, and they nearly lost.