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?
And telling is who did what would of course be making things far too easy.
To think people have been thrown off this site for analysing subsamples of proper polls by named BPC polling companies, while this stuff gets headline treatment.
... 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.
... 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.
... 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.
Could you come off the fence there?
It is the Jim Murphy line, he is enemy number one to me
... 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.
It's up to the MPs to present Her Majesty with an agreed solution, even if that's a minority, that they think will last for a few months at least.
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 !
Weirdly, that quote is from Alex Massie's piece in the Daily Mail, which I read first.
I then read his piece in the Spectator.
And he says the *exact* opposite. In the Mail he argues that the SNP have Labour where they want them, in the Spectator he claims Labour have the SNP by the balls.
... 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.
Could you come off the fence there?
And explain why???
If the Conservatives have most seats but either have no potential partners that can get them anywhere near 323 or the Lib Dems decide that they want a change of scenery, Labour will be in government.
The May2015 numbers are a pretty good illustration of how that might work out. With:
Con 281 Lab 263 SNP 55 LD 24
even Con + LD is only 305, and they aren't going to scoop up enough support elsewhere to get them anywhere near controlling Parliament. But Lab + SNP + LD gets there comfortably and even Lab + SNP + PC + Greens + Respect + SDLP + anyone else along for the ride gets you past 323.
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.
That's true, there was only really one viable outcome dictated by the numbers. Might be even more interesting this time.
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 long term aim of Scottish independence.
The motive for the far left is to implement far left policies on Scotland. Forcing the scrapping of Trident however strikes a blow at the whole western defence system and removes the UK from any top table and even below France, who have no intention of scrapping theirs. Given that Labour are happy to drift left anyway would mean the SNP would have an open door to leftist policies in the wider UK. What do the electorate think? Scrapping Trident would go hand in hand with more investment in Scotland to replace the jobs lost. This is English voter repellant which is what worries Lab MPs in the north. Will English voters reward Labour for working with the SNP?
... 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.
Could you come off the fence there?
It's not WRONG, WRONG etc. The Cabinet Manual on all this is quite clear. Unless a party has a majority of seats then the incumbent (one David Cameron) can remain as PM until the House has had an opportunity to meet and he can see if he can secure the confidence of the house.
Thus, the SNP actually does not want to do too well in Scotland and it needs Labour to do very well in Wales.
I think if that's the conclusion you come to then there must be a mistake in your assumptions or your working. It's definitely better for the SNP to make as near to a clean sweep in Scotland as possible. Everything else is just fiddling around playing what-if games, just as with the people who talk about a general election being a "good one to lose".
Say 55 seats for the SNP in May and they get to spend five years defending Scotland's national interest. Worth remembering that what happens in England is entirely irrelevant from their point of view, because it's a foreign country in their eyes.
If Labour have more MPs than Pandas after the election then they retain some level of legitimacy to represent the interests of Scottish voters at Westminster. That is anathema to the SNP, and thus Scottish Labour must be exterminated.
... 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.
Could you come off the fence there?
And explain why???
If the Conservatives have most seats but either have no potential partners that can get them anywhere near 323 or the Lib Dems decide that they want a change of scenery, Labour will be in government.
The May2015 numbers are a pretty good illustration of how that might work out. With:
Con 281 Lab 263 SNP 55 LD 24
even Con + LD is only 305, and they aren't going to scoop up enough support elsewhere to get them anywhere near controlling Parliament. But Lab + SNP + LD gets there comfortably and even Lab + SNP + PC + Greens + Respect + SDLP + anyone else along for the ride gets you past 323.
You must always consider Plaid as part of the SNP, this is an automatic. They are not just in Westminster alliance, they are in electoral pact and allow dual membership.
... 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.
Could you come off the fence there?
And explain why???
If the Conservatives have most seats but either have no potential partners that can get them anywhere near 323 or the Lib Dems decide that they want a change of scenery, Labour will be in government.
The May2015 numbers are a pretty good illustration of how that might work out. With:
Con 281 Lab 263 SNP 55 LD 24
even Con + LD is only 305, and they aren't going to scoop up enough support elsewhere to get them anywhere near controlling Parliament. But Lab + SNP + LD gets there comfortably and even Lab + SNP + PC + Greens + Respect + SDLP + anyone else along for the ride gets you past 323.
In this situation, Cameron could remain PM for around 14 days, until the House is sworn in and the Speaker selected. He could then test the confidence of the house.
The rainbow coalition on the other side would have to pull themselves together in this period. In the situation you describe I personally can't see Cameron feeling it right to go to the Queen and advise her that he cannot command the confidence, but Ed can, given the number of parties involved, until it was clear a formal deal had been done and even then, Cameron might be minded to force the issue to a vote of confidence, just in case it all falls down at last minute (given that Lab and SNP don't want this situation).
... 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.
Could you come off the fence there?
It's not WRONG, WRONG etc. The Cabinet Manual on all this is quite clear. Unless a party has a majority of seats then the incumbent (one David Cameron) can remain as PM until the House has had an opportunity to meet and he can see if he can secure the confidence of the house.
Well yes, but that's only breathing time for the parties that can put together a government to do their horse trading.
... 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.
Could you come off the fence there?
It's not WRONG, WRONG etc. The Cabinet Manual on all this is quite clear. Unless a party has a majority of seats then the incumbent (one David Cameron) can remain as PM until the House has had an opportunity to meet and he can see if he can secure the confidence of the house.
If Con + Lib Dem + DUP + UKIP gets to 323 then that is the absolute worst case scenario for Dave stays.
SNP+PC WILL vote against the Cons; So will Greens; SDLP take the Labour whip on confidence motions.
I think it's best to count Hermon as an abstainer.
The most important part is how this market settles up:
Who will be the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom when the first government is formed after the next UK general election. This market will be settled on the formation of the first ministry (government) after assent is given by the reigning monarch after the next UK general election.
... 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.
Could you come off the fence there?
It's not WRONG, WRONG etc. The Cabinet Manual on all this is quite clear. Unless a party has a majority of seats then the incumbent (one David Cameron) can remain as PM until the House has had an opportunity to meet and he can see if he can secure the confidence of the house.
If Con + Lib Dem + DUP + UKIP gets to 323 then that is the absolute worst case scenario for Dave stays.
SNP+PC WILL vote against the Cons; So will Greens; SDLP take the Labour whip on confidence motions.
I think it's best to count Hermon as an abstainer.
Can you seriously envisage Lib Dem + DUP + UKIP in the same government?
... 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.
Could you come off the fence there?
It's not WRONG, WRONG etc. The Cabinet Manual on all this is quite clear. Unless a party has a majority of seats then the incumbent (one David Cameron) can remain as PM until the House has had an opportunity to meet and he can see if he can secure the confidence of the house.
If Con + Lib Dem + DUP + UKIP gets to 323 then that is the absolute worst case scenario for Dave stays.
SNP+PC WILL vote against the Cons; So will Greens; SDLP take the Labour whip on confidence motions.
I think it's best to count Hermon as an abstainer.
Can you seriously envisage Lib Dem + DUP + UKIP in the same government?
Probably not, but this is "absolute worst case scenario for Dave stays". If you don't accept Cons + Lib Dems + Uncle Tom Cobbly's right wing uncle coming to his aid the scenario is worse not better for the Tories.
I'm countering a "Dave must stay as PM if Conservatives get most seats" argument here.
Seems unfair that the talented Labour scribe Eric Joyce who has served in the armed forces and worked in public service for many years should lose his job for punching a colleague when Jeremy Clarkson who has done nothing for anyone except himself gets hero status for punching a junior.
... 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.
Could you come off the fence there?
And explain why???
If the Conservatives have most seats but either have no potential partners that can get them anywhere near 323 or the Lib Dems decide that they want a change of scenery, Labour will be in government.
The May2015 numbers are a pretty good illustration of how that might work out. With:
Con 281 Lab 263 SNP 55 LD 24
even Con + LD is only 305, and they aren't going to scoop up enough support elsewhere to get them anywhere near controlling Parliament. But Lab + SNP + LD gets there comfortably and even Lab + SNP + PC + Greens + Respect + SDLP + anyone else along for the ride gets you past 323.
In this situation, Cameron could remain PM for around 14 days, until the House is sworn in and the Speaker selected. He could then test the confidence of the house.
The rainbow coalition on the other side would have to pull themselves together in this period. In the situation you describe I personally can't see Cameron feeling it right to go to the Queen and advise her that he cannot command the confidence, but Ed can, given the number of parties involved, until it was clear a formal deal had been done and even then, Cameron might be minded to force the issue to a vote of confidence, just in case it all falls down at last minute (given that Lab and SNP don't want this situation).
That's about it, I think. If Cameron is ahead on votes and seats he will meet parliament regardless. That would test the resolve of a rag-tag-and-bobtail coalition because the risk would be that that no effective government could be formed. I would expect the LibDems to abstain if they had left the coalition; EdM might find that not all his MPs would be willing to whipped into a vote that would either force them into alliance with the SNP or possibly require another election within weeks.
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.
1a. Less than one-third of the UKIP vote in these marginals voted Tory in 2010. Less than one-third. Sure, there are more ex-Tories in UKIP ranks than ex-Labour (about 1-in-8 in these polls), but the net advantage to the Tories of UKIP disappearing in a puff of smoke is still only about 1-in-6 of the UKIP score.
1b. This, though, is the big one. If the election is framed as a referendum on Cameron as PM then I'd expect Coalition Liberals and Labour centrists to rally to his banner and keep him in office.
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.
Not convinced the Tories will lose loads more, if the High Peak Ashcroft poll is a guide from a couple of weeks ago, which I confidently predict will be way out.
Labour will need to gain 90 seats to get a majority covering the Scottish losses, they are not going to get near that. That nightmare coalition led by Eddie though is a realistic possibility. Cameron, Osborne and co need to get their A game on and they need to get the message across. I am aware how much poorer I will be under a Miliband led government but I think the vast majority are unaware.
Labour are far more able to get their chosen message to the mass public and Cameron has to square that.
Thus, the SNP actually does not want to do too well in Scotland and it needs Labour to do very well in Wales.
I think if that's the conclusion you come to then there must be a mistake in your assumptions or your working. It's definitely better for the SNP to make as near to a clean sweep in Scotland as possible. Everything else is just fiddling around playing what-if games, just as with the people who talk about a general election being a "good one to lose".
Say 55 seats for the SNP in May and they get to spend five years defending Scotland's national interest. Worth remembering that what happens in England is entirely irrelevant from their point of view, because it's a foreign country in their eyes.
If Labour have more MPs than Pandas after the election then they retain some level of legitimacy to represent the interests of Scottish voters at Westminster. That is anathema to the SNP, and thus Scottish Labour must be exterminated.
It's convoluted, but if the SNP's aim is to have Miliband as PM and to torment him for five years (which is where I got involved in te argument), then they need Miliband to have the seats to somehow form a government, but one that would not be able to introduce EV4EL as means of reducing the SNP's influence. Thus, the SNP need the Tories to win in England, but Labour still to have enough seats to cobble together a government. That means Labour doing very well in Wales and having a few seats in Scotland.
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.
Not convinced the Tories will lose loads more, if the High Peak Ashcroft poll is a guide from a couple of weeks ago, which I confidently predict will be way out.
Labour will need to gain 90 seats to get a majority covering the Scottish losses, they are not going to get near that. That nightmare coalition led by Eddie though is a realistic possibility. Cameron, Osborne and co need to get their A game on and they need to get the message across. I am aware how much poorer I will be under a Miliband led government but I think the vast majority are unaware.
Labour are far more able to get their chosen message to the mass public and Cameron has to square that.
Thus, the SNP actually does not want to do too well in Scotland and it needs Labour to do very well in Wales.
I think if that's the conclusion you come to then there must be a mistake in your assumptions or your working. It's definitely better for the SNP to make as near to a clean sweep in Scotland as possible. Everything else is just fiddling around playing what-if games, just as with the people who talk about a general election being a "good one to lose".
Say 55 seats for the SNP in May and they get to spend five years defending Scotland's national interest. Worth remembering that what happens in England is entirely irrelevant from their point of view, because it's a foreign country in their eyes.
If Labour have more MPs than Pandas after the election then they retain some level of legitimacy to represent the interests of Scottish voters at Westminster. That is anathema to the SNP, and thus Scottish Labour must be exterminated.
It's convoluted, but if the SNP's aim is to have Miliband as PM and to torment him for five years (which is where I got involved in te argument), then they need Miliband to have the seats to somehow form a government, but one that would not be able to introduce EV4EL as means of reducing the SNP's influence. Thus, the SNP need the Tories to win in England, but Labour still to have enough seats to cobble together a government. That means Labour doing very well in Wales and having a few seats in Scotland.
Labour will have Murphy, possibly Coatsbridge - maybe Rutherglen and Hamilton West, possibly Edinburgh South, Kirkcaldy, maybe Coatsbridge and on a good night wee Dougie as well as Glasgow NE and possibly another one or two Glasgow seats on a good night for them in Scotland now.
Roger you keep stating that Clarkson has actually punched someone and not produced one shed of evidence..stop the wishful thinking. Joyce punched several people several times in different locations.. He is a serial puncher and drunk.
There seems to be an assumption in these comments at times that the SNPs are a bunch of monobrowed jocks who are going to sweep south after the election demanding haggis and immediate independence. In fact the people running the party are an extremely able set of politicians (Salmond and Sturgeon are probably both in the top 5 UK politicians around atm), I'm sure they have most eventualities covered in terms of what to ask for (and what not to ask for) post election.
Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) 17/03/2015 15:14 Tory strategists to urge Thanet South voters to "cut the head off snake" by voting Con in Thanet South dailym.ai/1wVyfwd 2 thoughts..
Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) 17/03/2015 15:16 1) decapitation strategies seldom work, 2) Why on earth would Lab voters vote Con when recent polls have them second? & Cons third?
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:
''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.
Agree on 2, but on 1 note how the Kipper vote has fallen since the last Ashcroft poll in most of these seats. Maybe Labour are winning some back, maybe the anti-Dave ones are just holding their noses a bit. Or maybe random variation. But I see no evidence from these polls that a fall in UKIP would help Dave much, and some evidence to the contrary/
That's about it, I think. If Cameron is ahead on votes and seats he will meet parliament regardless. That would test the resolve of a rag-tag-and-bobtail coalition because the risk would be that that no effective government could be formed. I would expect the LibDems to abstain if they had left the coalition; EdM might find that not all his MPs would be willing to whipped into a vote that would either force them into alliance with the SNP or possibly require another election within weeks.
There is no way on this earth that Labour could refuse to vote against Confidence in a Conservative government.
I've taken more than one or two stylistic influences from antifrank! But the analysis is new :-)
Yes I think analysis #3 is the most accurate, I've gone in heaviest against the Lib Dems in Somerton and Frome, have a cheeky fiver on the Tories in Bath but also have have covered 0-10 Lib Dem losses to the Cons. Evens Pompey South is a good bet imo too if its still around. Mid Dorset is another on the death list.
Thus, the SNP actually does not want to do too well in Scotland and it needs Labour to do very well in Wales.
I think if that's the conclusion you come to then there must be a mistake in your assumptions or your working. It's definitely better for the SNP to make as near to a clean sweep in Scotland as possible. Everything else is just fiddling around playing what-if games, just as with the people who talk about a general election being a "good one to lose".
Say 55 seats for the SNP in May and they get to spend five years defending Scotland's national interest. Worth remembering that what happens in England is entirely irrelevant from their point of view, because it's a foreign country in their eyes.
If Labour have more MPs than Pandas after the election then they retain some level of legitimacy to represent the interests of Scottish voters at Westminster. That is anathema to the SNP, and thus Scottish Labour must be exterminated.
It's convoluted, but if the SNP's aim is to have Miliband as PM and to torment him for five years (which is where I got involved in te argument), then they need Miliband to have the seats to somehow form a government, but one that would not be able to introduce EV4EL as means of reducing the SNP's influence. Thus, the SNP need the Tories to win in England, but Labour still to have enough seats to cobble together a government. That means Labour doing very well in Wales and having a few seats in Scotland.
Labour will have Murphy, possibly Coatsbridge - maybe Rutherglen and Hamilton West, possibly Edinburgh South, Kirkcaldy, maybe Coatsbridge and on a good night wee Dougie as well as Glasgow NE and possibly another one or two Glasgow seats on a good night for them in Scotland now.
Obviously SNP are pushing for a sweep now.
Of course. And that makes a Labour government that that the SNP can torment much less likely. We'll either have a Tory one or, at a stretch, a Labour one that will not need SNP support because it has the seats in England to introduce EV4EL.
Seems unfair that the talented Labour scribe Eric Joyce who has served in the armed forces and worked in public service for many years should lose his job for punching a colleague when Jeremy Clarkson who has done nothing for anyone except himself gets hero status for punching a junior.
Do I detect a slight Clarkson obsession ?
You still haven't revealed your special evidence that lets you jump to these conclusions, or are you relying on the third party hearsay and speculation in the press.
I've taken more than one or two stylistic influences from antifrank! But the analysis is new :-)
Good stuff, Casino. I'd be minded, though, to make a distinction between seats where the incumbent is standing down and those where he/she remains the candidate.
That's about it, I think. If Cameron is ahead on votes and seats he will meet parliament regardless. That would test the resolve of a rag-tag-and-bobtail coalition because the risk would be that that no effective government could be formed. I would expect the LibDems to abstain if they had left the coalition; EdM might find that not all his MPs would be willing to whipped into a vote that would either force them into alliance with the SNP or possibly require another election within weeks.
There is no way on this earth that Labour could refuse to vote against Confidence in a Conservative government.
None.
It would be the end of them as a political party.
You are right. But it would not take the entire party to do that, only a few rebels who might see that the long-term interest of their party would not be served by claiming government after having lost an election, having been hammered in Scotland and being forced into alliance with with a party committed to unilateral nuclear disarmament and the break up of the union. Such a government might collapse very quickly anyway and then we would face a second election. Office at all costs does not always make sense. Why not let a minority Conservative government carry on as that would collapse eventually too?
''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.
Agree on 2, but on 1 note how the Kipper vote has fallen since the last Ashcroft poll in most of these seats. Maybe Labour are winning some back, maybe the anti-Dave ones are just holding their noses a bit. Or maybe random variation. But I see no evidence from these polls that a fall in UKIP would help Dave much, and some evidence to the contrary/
I am very dubious there is any real fall in the kipper vote, they seem fairly bloody minded sorts most of the time ;-)
I think its much more likely that after the various attempts at hatchet jobs in the media and the press, and various idiocies by right-on officials against kippers (foster parents, school governors etc) that a chunk of them have grown a bit shy - but will still be voting kipper in the ballot box.
That's about it, I think. If Cameron is ahead on votes and seats he will meet parliament regardless. That would test the resolve of a rag-tag-and-bobtail coalition because the risk would be that that no effective government could be formed. I would expect the LibDems to abstain if they had left the coalition; EdM might find that not all his MPs would be willing to whipped into a vote that would either force them into alliance with the SNP or possibly require another election within weeks.
There is no way on this earth that Labour could refuse to vote against Confidence in a Conservative government.
None.
It would be the end of them as a political party.
I've got it as a higher probability than the SNP doing so actually. Can see John Mann resigning the whip at any hint of a deal with SNP (Trident issues in Barrow)
There is no way on this earth that Labour could refuse to vote against Confidence in a Conservative government.
None.
It would be the end of them as a political party.
I think they could abstain, if they didn't think an immediate election was to their advantage: 'Stability, now's not the time, financial markets, will of the people' and similar cant.
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.
What do you think Cameron would have done differently had he won a majority?
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:
That's about it, I think. If Cameron is ahead on votes and seats he will meet parliament regardless. That would test the resolve of a rag-tag-and-bobtail coalition because the risk would be that that no effective government could be formed. I would expect the LibDems to abstain if they had left the coalition; EdM might find that not all his MPs would be willing to whipped into a vote that would either force them into alliance with the SNP or possibly require another election within weeks.
There is no way on this earth that Labour could refuse to vote against Confidence in a Conservative government.
None.
It would be the end of them as a political party.
You are right. But it would not take the entire party to do that, only a few rebels who might see that the long-term interest of their party would not be served by claiming government after having lost an election, having been hammered in Scotland and being forced into alliance with with a party committed to unilateral nuclear disarmament and the break up of the union. Such a government might collapse very quickly anyway and then we would face a second election. Office at all costs does not always make sense.
Not forgetting that there are 50+ Labour MPs with northern seats who are going to be very nervous of losing their seats to the kippers if there is any second GE this year, and might find all sorts of excuses not to bring down a weak Tory government.
There is no way on this earth that Labour could refuse to vote against Confidence in a Conservative government.
None.
It would be the end of them as a political party.
I think they could abstain, if they didn't think an immediate election was to their advantage: 'Stability, now's not the time, financial markets, will of the people' and similar cant.
Hah Farron would love that, he could freely vote against the Government.
Lib Dem Gain Sheffield Central (And many more) nailed on for 2020
I've taken more than one or two stylistic influences from antifrank! But the analysis is new :-)
Interesting bit of work. Much appreciated. Does your final model assume a 9% national vote share, or does that come out as a consequence of the assumptions you make for the seats themselves?
Seems unfair that the talented Labour scribe Eric Joyce who has served in the armed forces and worked in public service for many years should lose his job for punching a colleague when Jeremy Clarkson who has done nothing for anyone except himself gets hero status for punching a junior.
Eric Joyce has not lost his job, he is still a serving MP, representing the constituency of Falkirk.
He was ejected from the Labour party after a conviction for assault and fined £3K.
WRT Jeremy Clarkson, as far as I'm aware the police are not involved, no charges have been made and no evidence that a physical assault even took place.
I may of course be wrong, but if you know different, please provide a reputable link.
I'm sticking to my long-term economic plan of a Labour minority which I see is now 3s and 5-2 fav after being available at 7-1 last summer.6-4 is available on Ed for next PM when his chances must be at least even money,a good value bet.Ed has the advantage of having the greater ability to create consensus,as he showed in the passing of the Climate Change Act and,of course,he has the greater intellectual self-confidence which stands him in good stead for working in coalition but not as a coalition.
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 long term aim of Scottish independence.
The motive for the far left is to implement far left policies on Scotland. Forcing the scrapping of Trident however strikes a blow at the whole western defence system and removes the UK from any top table and even below France, who have no intention of scrapping theirs. Given that Labour are happy to drift left anyway would mean the SNP would have an open door to leftist policies in the wider UK. What do the electorate think? Scrapping Trident would go hand in hand with more investment in Scotland to replace the jobs lost. This is English voter repellant which is what worries Lab MPs in the north. Will English voters reward Labour for working with the SNP?
You position that the far left are somehow taking over the SNP is bizarre and not remotely grounded in reality. The SNP has always been against Nuclear weapons site in Scotland. Their position on Trident is nothing new. It was only recently (as in the last two years) that the SNP voted in favour of NATO membership
And the idea that the smallest faction inside the SNP - the socialist - is somehow taking over the party from the left-of-centre Social Democarts or the Right-Of-Centre pro-business-populists is frankly laughable given that Alex Salmod (the man who was thrown out of the SNP for being a socialist republican) has stepped down and Social Democrat to the core Sturgeon is now leading.
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 !
But not for my rather exposed EICIPM betting position
Happy St Patrick's Day from the country whose MPs could yet choose the next Prime Minister... bet you didn't expect that in 1922! Looking at the handy ad above me, the midpoints of Lab and SNP spreads are 274 and 42, adding to 316 seats. Assuming seven for their allies (3 PC + 3 SDLP + 1 G), this is an effective majority after SF abstention. If the SNP declares its intention to vote for a Miliband ministry when the opportunity arises, Cameron surely can't remain in office. Minority negotiation could follow after that.
I've taken more than one or two stylistic influences from antifrank! But the analysis is new :-)
Yes I think analysis #3 is the most accurate, I've gone in heaviest against the Lib Dems in Somerton and Frome, have a cheeky fiver on the Tories in Bath but also have have covered 0-10 Lib Dem losses to the Cons. Evens Pompey South is a good bet imo too if its still around. Mid Dorset is another on the death list.
I've taken more than one or two stylistic influences from antifrank! But the analysis is new :-)
Good stuff, Casino. I'd be minded, though, to make a distinction between seats where the incumbent is standing down and those where he/she remains the candidate.
Thanks Richard. I've done that in my weightings and in my analysis. That's why I have Bath so close.
The SNP's absolute number one aim is to turn the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems into regional parties that only have MPs in England and Wales. Nothing furthers the course of independence more than the image of Scotland being governed by politicians that do not represent it.
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 long term aim of Scottish independence.
The motive for the far left is to implement far left policies on Scotland. Forcing the scrapping of Trident however strikes a blow at the whole western defence system and removes the UK from any top table and even below France, who have no intention of scrapping theirs. Given that Labour are happy to drift left anyway would mean the SNP would have an open door to leftist policies in the wider UK. What do the electorate think? Scrapping Trident would go hand in hand with more investment in Scotland to replace the jobs lost. This is English voter repellant which is what worries Lab MPs in the north. Will English voters reward Labour for working with the SNP?
You position that the far left are somehow taking over the SNP is bizarre and not remotely grounded in reality. The SNP has always been against Nuclear weapons site in Scotland. Their position on Trident is nothing new. It was only recently (as in the last two years) that the SNP voted in favour of NATO membership
And the idea that the smallest faction inside the SNP - the socialist - is somehow taking over the party from the left-of-centre Social Democarts or the Right-Of-Centre pro-business-populists is frankly laughable given that Alex Salmod (the man who was thrown out of the SNP for being a socialist republican) has stepped down and Social Democrat to the core Sturgeon is now leading.
You need to bear in mind that what Flightpath sees as far left may not necessarily be far left in reality. As far as I know, the LDs are (or were, at least) opposed to Trident and they are part of the government. Plenty of us on the centre left (and I bet some on the right too) wonder whether spending billions and billons on being at the top table when our influence over decision-making is negligible and declining is the best of ideas.
I've taken more than one or two stylistic influences from antifrank! But the analysis is new :-)
Good stuff, Casino. I'd be minded, though, to make a distinction between seats where the incumbent is standing down and those where he/she remains the candidate.
Thanks Richard. I've done that in my weightings and in my analysis. That's why I have Bath so close.
I've taken more than one or two stylistic influences from antifrank! But the analysis is new :-)
Interesting bit of work. Much appreciated. Does your final model assume a 9% national vote share, or does that come out as a consequence of the assumptions you make for the seats themselves?
Thanks OSM.
Bit complicated. It assumes a 9% vote share. I started by trying to forecast what the national vote share might be, then I analysed the seats.
Finally I backfitted it by adding up the LD votes I forecast in the seats, then deducted it off that 9% share to see where the votes might fall elsewhere (in E&W) outside their top 93 seats. But it is a very crude approximation.
That's about it, I think. If Cameron is ahead on votes and seats he will meet parliament regardless. That would test the resolve of a rag-tag-and-bobtail coalition because the risk would be that that no effective government could be formed. I would expect the LibDems to abstain if they had left the coalition; EdM might find that not all his MPs would be willing to whipped into a vote that would either force them into alliance with the SNP or possibly require another election within weeks.
There is no way on this earth that Labour could refuse to vote against Confidence in a Conservative government.
None.
It would be the end of them as a political party.
You are right. But it would not take the entire party to do that, only a few rebels who might see that the long-term interest of their party would not be served by claiming government after having lost an election, having been hammered in Scotland and being forced into alliance with with a party committed to unilateral nuclear disarmament and the break up of the union. Such a government might collapse very quickly anyway and then we would face a second election. Office at all costs does not always make sense.
Not forgetting that there are 50+ Labour MPs with northern seats who are going to be very nervous of losing their seats to the kippers if there is any second GE this year, and might find all sorts of excuses not to bring down a weak Tory government.
I've taken more than one or two stylistic influences from antifrank! But the analysis is new :-)
That is really valuable analysis and I know it will have taken you a long time. I'm going to need to spend some time making sure that I understand it correctly. Your point that not all Lib Dem votes are personal is a very important one, and one that no one has properly modelled up till now. It's one of the leading imponderables of the election just how much the Lib Dems can frame local battles on the basis of personalities rather than parties.
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 !
But not for my rather exposed EICIPM betting position
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 !
But not for my rather exposed EICIPM betting position
Coneygree rated a lb higher than Vautour !
Could be some gold cup next year
Barry Geraghty last week told all the guests in the SJ box Vautour was a poor favourite and should be opposed.
Fortunately most of us had already lumped on and ignored BG
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 !
But not for my rather exposed EICIPM betting position
Coneygree rated a lb higher than Vautour !
Could be some gold cup next year
Barry Geraghty last week told all the guests in the SJ box Vautour was a poor favourite and should be opposed.
Fortunately most of us had already lumped on and ignored BG
His price in retrospect should have been 1-6 (Think that is the correct price for a cert winner who could possibly fall (Penalty kick))
Reading Casino's interesting piece on the Lib Dems it's hard to escape the irony of the party that has been demanding PR (fair votes) should secure almost 30 seats with a vote which is likely to be half that of UKIP who will be lucky to get five.
Perhaps the moral of the story is that by sleeping with the angels for so long at last they are getting a reward.
If Mullins has Djakadam and Don Poli fit then I suspect Vautour will run in the Ryanair next year then maybe the Gold Cup in 2017. Not least woth Djakadam being in the same ownership.
Big but though... Over the years, and with the notable exception of Florida Pearl, Mullins has not been the best trainer at keeping chasers sweet. Great trainer of bumper horses and hurdlers but nowhere near Nicholls record with chasers
If Mullins has Djakadam and Don Poli fit then I suspect Vautour will run in the Ryanair next year then maybe the Gold Cup in 2017. Not least woth Djakadam being in the same ownership.
Big but though... Over the years, and with the notable exception of Florida Pearl, Mullins has not been the best trainer at keeping chasers sweet. Great trainer of bumper horses and hurdlers but nowhere near Nicholls record with chasers
Vautour is a better horse and Ricci will want him in the Gold cup. Djakadam for the Ryanair I reckon.
So Con, Lab and Green are doing slighly worse than I was predicting and LD and UKIP slightly better. But not much in it.
Tories are doing better than I predicted in Southampton Itchen, South Swindon and Worcester, and worse than I was expecting in Chester, Croydon Central and Wirral West.
I'll fine tune my model to take these latest polls into account and post my results in fifteen minutes or so.
Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound · 4s5 seconds ago One 7-way debate on Apr 2. Con source "It now appears Labour are trying to unpick that deal. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with it."
Chutzpah is a word that scores highly at Scrabble.
I've just finished analysing the Ashcroft marginals and I don't think it is particularly bad news for the Tories.
I have compared the average over the eight marginals to Q1 with my own estimate using my switching matrix model: The results are:
Ash Marg Switch model Delta Con 34.6 35.0 -0.4 Lab 38.0 39.0 -1.0 LD 4.5 3.3 +1.2 UKIP 15.8 14.5 +1.3 Green 6.0 7.9 -1.9
So Con, Lab and Green are doing slighly worse than I was predicting and LD and UKIP slightly better. But not much in it.
Tories are doing better than I predicted in Southampton Itchen, South Swindon and Worcester, and worse than I was expecting in Chester, Croydon Central and Wirral West.
I'll fine tune my model to take these latest polls into account and post my results in fifteen minutes or so.
Your model was quite bearish on the Conservatives though anyway iirc
I really don't know why they bother. It's not as though the dirty side of UKIP isn't known. By acting surprised it's as though they're dealing with something house trained.
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:
Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound · 4s5 seconds ago One 7-way debate on Apr 2. Con source "It now appears Labour are trying to unpick that deal. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with it."
Chutzpah is a word that scores highly at Scrabble.
@MsJackMonroe: Nice to see how quickly some Labour knives stick in after 10 years campaigning for them and staunch defence. With friends like these, etc.
If Ed can't get the people in his own PPB to vote for him...
@paulwaugh: I'm told on Fri/Sat No10 agreed with bcasters a package of a Paxo iview, a 7-way, a challenger debate and a #bbcqt special. But now in doubt
Ed, anytime, anywhere, anyplace, except April 2nd...
Comments
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/17/jeremy-clarkson-bbc-have-i-got-news-for-you
When is a suspension, not a suspension?
To think people have been thrown off this site for analysing subsamples of proper polls by named BPC polling companies, while this stuff gets headline treatment.
You can't really disabuse polls and favour one over the other until after the election.
Even then there will be some weasling about "snapshots"
I then read his piece in the Spectator.
And he says the *exact* opposite. In the Mail he argues that the SNP have Labour where they want them, in the Spectator he claims Labour have the SNP by the balls.
Bizarre man.
That's quite possible with Con > Lab in terms of seats.
The May2015 numbers are a pretty good illustration of how that might work out. With:
Con 281
Lab 263
SNP 55
LD 24
even Con + LD is only 305, and they aren't going to scoop up enough support elsewhere to get them anywhere near controlling Parliament. But Lab + SNP + LD gets there comfortably and even Lab + SNP + PC + Greens + Respect + SDLP + anyone else along for the ride gets you past 323.
Would you marry me?
What do the electorate think? Scrapping Trident would go hand in hand with more investment in Scotland to replace the jobs lost. This is English voter repellant which is what worries Lab MPs in the north.
Will English voters reward Labour for working with the SNP?
Say 55 seats for the SNP in May and they get to spend five years defending Scotland's national interest. Worth remembering that what happens in England is entirely irrelevant from their point of view, because it's a foreign country in their eyes.
If Labour have more MPs than Pandas after the election then they retain some level of legitimacy to represent the interests of Scottish voters at Westminster. That is anathema to the SNP, and thus Scottish Labour must be exterminated.
Judging by the Ashcroft polls, the answer is yes!
The rainbow coalition on the other side would have to pull themselves together in this period. In the situation you describe I personally can't see Cameron feeling it right to go to the Queen and advise her that he cannot command the confidence, but Ed can, given the number of parties involved, until it was clear a formal deal had been done and even then, Cameron might be minded to force the issue to a vote of confidence, just in case it all falls down at last minute (given that Lab and SNP don't want this situation).
SNP+PC WILL vote against the Cons; So will Greens; SDLP take the Labour whip on confidence motions.
I think it's best to count Hermon as an abstainer.
Who will be the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom when the first government is formed after the next UK general election. This market will be settled on the formation of the first ministry (government) after assent is given by the reigning monarch after the next UK general election.
I'm countering a "Dave must stay as PM if Conservatives get most seats" argument here.
1b. This, though, is the big one. If the election is framed as a referendum on Cameron as PM then I'd expect Coalition Liberals and Labour centrists to rally to his banner and keep him in office.
Labour will need to gain 90 seats to get a majority covering the Scottish losses, they are not going to get near that. That nightmare coalition led by Eddie though is a realistic possibility. Cameron, Osborne and co need to get their A game on and they need to get the message across. I am aware how much poorer I will be under a Miliband led government but I think the vast majority are unaware.
Labour are far more able to get their chosen message to the mass public and Cameron has to square that.
EICIPM was nearly 2.7 this morning.
LAB most seats was 3.2
Both were far too high IMO
Obviously SNP are pushing for a sweep now.
Along with a fair few other people.
https://royaleleseaux.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/libdemgeddon-you-dont-want-to-miss-a-thing/
I've taken more than one or two stylistic influences from antifrank! But the analysis is new :-)
17/03/2015 15:14
Tory strategists to urge Thanet South voters to "cut the head off snake" by voting Con in Thanet South dailym.ai/1wVyfwd 2 thoughts..
Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ)
17/03/2015 15:16
1) decapitation strategies seldom work, 2) Why on earth would Lab voters vote Con when recent polls have them second? & Cons third?
The electorate's view is more accurately summed up by Gogglebox than any poll, for me.
Whenever a political programme comes up, it's vacant, glassy eyed, uncomprehending stares all round.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2846730/Outrage-Left-wing-blogger-s-sick-tweet-saying-Cameron-resign-using-dead-son-privatise-NHS.html
None.
It would be the end of them as a political party.
http://ponyonthetories.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/will-naming-lib-dems-help-them-out-so.html That's my brief analysis.
you have previously suggested that "media luvvies" groping their juniors is acceptable behaviour.
And yet, Clarkson's behaviour is reprehensible.
Strange moral compass you have
You still haven't revealed your special evidence that lets you jump to these conclusions, or are you relying on the third party hearsay and speculation in the press.
http://www.sportingindex.com/spread-betting/politics/british/mm4.uk.meeting.5077288/the-2015-budget
That's all there is to it.
I think its much more likely that after the various attempts at hatchet jobs in the media and the press, and various idiocies by right-on officials against kippers (foster parents, school governors etc) that a chunk of them have grown a bit shy - but will still be voting kipper in the ballot box.
Lib Dem Gain Sheffield Central (And many more) nailed on for 2020
He was ejected from the Labour party after a conviction for assault and fined £3K.
WRT Jeremy Clarkson, as far as I'm aware the police are not involved, no charges have been made and no evidence that a physical assault even took place.
I may of course be wrong, but if you know different, please provide a reputable link.
And the idea that the smallest faction inside the SNP - the socialist - is somehow taking over the party from the left-of-centre Social Democarts or the Right-Of-Centre pro-business-populists is frankly laughable given that Alex Salmod (the man who was thrown out of the SNP for being a socialist republican) has stepped down and Social Democrat to the core Sturgeon is now leading.
Well done. An interesting read
Bit complicated. It assumes a 9% vote share. I started by trying to forecast what the national vote share might be, then I analysed the seats.
Finally I backfitted it by adding up the LD votes I forecast in the seats, then deducted it off that 9% share to see where the votes might fall elsewhere (in E&W) outside their top 93 seats. But it is a very crude approximation.
Could be some gold cup next year
Fortunately most of us had already lumped on and ignored BG
Perhaps the moral of the story is that by sleeping with the angels for so long at last they are getting a reward.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/17/european-parliament-urged-to-act-over-ukip-meps-islamophobic-insult
Big but though... Over the years, and with the notable exception of Florida Pearl, Mullins has not been the best trainer at keeping chasers sweet. Great trainer of bumper horses and hurdlers but nowhere near Nicholls record with chasers
@JGForsyth: Tories have also agreed to separate Cameron and Miliband interviews by Jeremy Paxman. Labour say no proposal has been made @Spectator_CH
I have compared the average over the eight marginals to Q1 with my own estimate using my switching matrix model: The results are:
........... Ash Marg ....... Switch model ....... Delta
Con ....... 34.6 ....... 35.0 ...... -0.4
Lab ...... 38.0 ....... 39.0 ....... -1.0
LD ....... 4.5 ....... 3.3 ....... +1.2
UKIP ....... 15.8 ....... 14.5 ....... +1.3
Green ....... 6.0 ....... 7.9 ....... -1.9
So Con, Lab and Green are doing slighly worse than I was predicting and LD and UKIP slightly better. But not much in it.
Tories are doing better than I predicted in Southampton Itchen, South Swindon and Worcester, and worse than I was expecting in Chester, Croydon Central and Wirral West.
I'll fine tune my model to take these latest polls into account and post my results in fifteen minutes or so.
One 7-way debate on Apr 2. Con source "It now appears Labour are trying to unpick that deal. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with it."
Chutzpah is a word that scores highly at Scrabble.
I really don't know why they bother. It's not as though the dirty side of UKIP isn't known. By acting surprised it's as though they're dealing with something house trained.
Guido might have actually run the story I am thinking of.
until the Labour veto
EDIT. Actually, a Labour veto is probably something Dave is happy with too
You do have admire the balls of the Tory party.
If Ed can't get the people in his own PPB to vote for him...
Ed, anytime, anywhere, anyplace, except April 2nd...