"Does anyone else here head straight to the Scottish crosstab when a poll comes out btw ? Or is that just me."
And the scotes on the boards today is 46% SNP, 28% Lab and 11% Tory!
And for an explanation for this continuing surge look no further than the prejudices and bile flowing from the regular posters to this site . They claim, and perhaps even believe, they are mounting penetrating attacks on the SNP. They come across as purile assaults on an entire country, which are reflected to a greater or lesser extent by the Westminster parties struggling in the SNP's wake.
"Does anyone else here head straight to the Scottish crosstab when a poll comes out btw ? Or is that just me."
And the scotes on the boards today is 46% SNP, 28% Lab and 11% Tory!
And for an explanation for this continuing surge look no further than the prejudices and bile flowing from the regular posters to this site . They claim, and perhaps even believe, they are mounting penetrating attacks on the SNP. They come across as purile assaults on an entire country, which are reflected to a greater or lesser extent by the Westminster parties struggling in the SNP's wake.
You seem to have forgotten La Sturgeon calling the Scottish people who don't vote for her .. Er .. 'Anti-Scottish'.
I'm waiting to see what happens when all the new Nats discover they've been repeatedly lied to over a period of years by Salmond, Sturgeon et al.
I'd rather it all happened in a different country .. Ie that we'd got shot of Scotland last year .. but happen it will.
Is it plausible that the powers that pull the Tory party strings might not mind losing this election? A narrow Tory win means a new (potentially) competent Labour leader and even a tiny swing towards Labour in 2010 would put the Tories out of power. A Miliband led government could be chaotic and suspectible to collapsing within a couple of years leading to a potential Tory landslide and 10 years of coalition free government. All ifs and buts of course but certain backroom figures and the likes of Mr Johnson might be licking their lips at the prospect of taking on a weak PM Miliband.
Nonsense, of course they want to win.
@Southamobserver has suggested the SNP don't want to win too big. All parties want and, are playing to win.
It is the Tory air war vs the Labour ground game. The SNP meanwhile have 100,000 strong army to target just 59 seats.
That depends I suppose on what you count as 'winning'. If the end game is running the country then surely engineering 10 years in sole power from 2020 is better than 5 years in co-power from tomorrow. All hypothetical of course, but looking at the long game I don't view this as a bad election for the Tories to lose (unlike 97' of course!)
"...It was very cynical, very rational and, thanks to the ineptitude of the Westminster parties, almost successful. "
You write that as if the Scots voting against independence was a good thing. A delay in the inevitable separation will just mean that it will be more acrimonious and difficult that it need have been.
Timing when that one was done would be nice to know.
Following on from OGH's drawing to our attention of the 36% of 2010 Lib Dems switching to Labour in the marginals. That kin of swing would probably see them take Sheffield Hallam, though it would be close.
Fieldwork was Wednesday and Thursday.
That's 36% of 2010 Lib Dem switching in the Con/Lab marginals.
They are very different beasts in the Lib Dem held seats.
I'd assume they are doing more work in defending their own seats. However the biggest reason their own seats are different is surely because of tactical voting. But if the Tories cannot win Hallam and they can't I'd think, why should a Labour supporter not vote for who they want? Different scenario to the south west.
The mystery for me is why tories don't appear to want to vote tactically for Clegg. Surely, they'd far prefer to see him returned than see the seat go to Labour? If Tory voters had anything like the propensity of Labour voters to vote tactically there'd be no discussion about this seat - Clegg would be absolutely safe.
"Does anyone else here head straight to the Scottish crosstab when a poll comes out btw ? Or is that just me."
And the scotes on the boards today is 46% SNP, 28% Lab and 11% Tory!
And for an explanation for this continuing surge look no further than the prejudices and bile flowing from the regular posters to this site . They claim, and perhaps even believe, they are mounting penetrating attacks on the SNP. They come across as purile assaults on an entire country, which are reflected to a greater or lesser extent by the Westminster parties struggling in the SNP's wake.
You seem to have forgotten La Sturgeon calling the Scottish people who don't vote for her .. Er .. 'Anti-Scottish'.
I'm waiting to see what happens when all the new Nats discover they've been repeatedly lied to over a period of years by Salmond, Sturgeon et al.
I'd rather it all happened in a different country .. Ie that we'd got shot of Scotland last year .. but happen it will.
Scotland one of only 2 regions where unemployment is rising and it is rising the fastest of those two.
How long can the SNP dodge the blame - that's the question.
Crazy odds. The one thing that would concern me about Labour's position is that it's potentially a bit similar to the Lib Dems in 2010. Younger people who didn't vot last time. Miliband's problem remains very clear though. If you look at ICM's figures it's 53% to 21% amongst over 65s. Forget being weird, Ed's problem is pensioners. I'm amazed by the lack of research into why Labour has got such a problem with the over 65s.
Is it plausible that the powers that pull the Tory party strings might not mind losing this election? A narrow Tory win means a new (potentially) competent Labour leader and even a tiny swing towards Labour in 2010 would put the Tories out of power. A Miliband led government could be chaotic and suspectible to collapsing within a couple of years leading to a potential Tory landslide and 10 years of coalition free government. All ifs and buts of course but certain backroom figures and the likes of Mr Johnson might be licking their lips at the prospect of taking on a weak PM Miliband.
Nonsense, of course they want to win.
@Southamobserver has suggested the SNP don't want to win too big. All parties want and, are playing to win.
It is the Tory air war vs the Labour ground game. The SNP meanwhile have 100,000 strong army to target just 59 seats.
That depends I suppose on what you count as 'winning'. If the end game is running the country then surely engineering 10 years in sole power from 2020 is better than 5 years in co-power from tomorrow. All hypothetical of course, but looking at the long game I don't view this as a bad election for the Tories to lose (unlike 97' of course!)
Timing when that one was done would be nice to know.
Following on from OGH's drawing to our attention of the 36% of 2010 Lib Dems switching to Labour in the marginals. That kin of swing would probably see them take Sheffield Hallam, though it would be close.
Fieldwork was Wednesday and Thursday.
That's 36% of 2010 Lib Dem switching in the Con/Lab marginals.
They are very different beasts in the Lib Dem held seats.
I'd assume they are doing more work in defending their own seats. However the biggest reason their own seats are different is surely because of tactical voting. But if the Tories cannot win Hallam and they can't I'd think, why should a Labour supporter not vote for who they want? Different scenario to the south west.
The mystery for me is why tories don't appear to want to vote tactically for Clegg. Surely, they'd far prefer to see him returned than see the seat go to Labour? If Tory voters had anything like the propensity of Labour voters to vote tactically there'd be no discussion about this seat - Clegg would be absolutely safe.
Is it plausible that the powers that pull the Tory party strings might not mind losing this election? A narrow Tory win means a new (potentially) competent Labour leader and even a tiny swing towards Labour in 2010 would put the Tories out of power. A Miliband led government could be chaotic and suspectible to collapsing within a couple of years leading to a potential Tory landslide and 10 years of coalition free government. All ifs and buts of course but certain backroom figures and the likes of Mr Johnson might be licking their lips at the prospect of taking on a weak PM Miliband.
Nonsense, of course they want to win.
@Southamobserver has suggested the SNP don't want to win too big. All parties want and, are playing to win.
It is the Tory air war vs the Labour ground game. The SNP meanwhile have 100,000 strong army to target just 59 seats.
That's not quite what I said. My argument is that if the SNP wants to exercise significant influence over a Labour minority government it has to hope that Labour does not come close to winning most seats in England, because should that happen it will lead to EV4EL - something that will largely neuter the SNP at Westminster.
Short of huge gains in England, the only other way that Labour realistically has a chance of forming a government is for it to win a decent number of English seats plus more seats in Scotland than currently looks possible. Thus, the SNP may feel that not maxing on seats is a price worth paying for having more influence. But, as I also said, in reality I think they'd take every seat possible.
I would even more but I'm already in pretty deep (and below water!)
It's a good value bet, but be careful - it could turn out as a loser and Ed still walks into number 10 - which I assume would be a nightmare scenario for you as a voter and punter.
"...It was very cynical, very rational and, thanks to the ineptitude of the Westminster parties, almost successful. "
You write that as if the Scots voting against independence was a good thing. A delay in the inevitable separation will just mean that it will be more acrimonious and difficult that it need have been.
It was a very good thing for all concerned that they did not vote for separation on the basis of a false prospectus.
Does Labour write the BBC articles... today's good debt numbers..
"February's government borrowing totalled £6.9bn, a fall of £3.5bn.
The government's latest target to borrow £90.2bn in the current fiscal year looks likely but it has failed in its plans to eliminate the deficit by 2015. "
@carrieapples: Say what? Douglas Alexander: "Our focus will not be on negative billboards but on taking a positive message of hope" http://t.co/pS2zJlbx7w
I would even more but I'm already in pretty deep (and below water!)
It's a good value bet, but be careful - it could turn out as a loser and Ed still walks into number 10 - which I assume would be a nightmare scenario for you as a voter and punter.
Yes that combination would indeed put me in a bad mood!
Timing when that one was done would be nice to know.
Following on from OGH's drawing to our attention of the 36% of 2010 Lib Dems switching to Labour in the marginals. That kin of swing would probably see them take Sheffield Hallam, though it would be close.
Fieldwork was Wednesday and Thursday.
That's 36% of 2010 Lib Dem switching in the Con/Lab marginals.
They are very different beasts in the Lib Dem held seats.
I'd assume they are doing more work in defending their own seats. However the biggest reason their own seats are different is surely because of tactical voting. But if the Tories cannot win Hallam and they can't I'd think, why should a Labour supporter not vote for who they want? Different scenario to the south west.
The mystery for me is why tories don't appear to want to vote tactically for Clegg. Surely, they'd far prefer to see him returned than see the seat go to Labour? If Tory voters had anything like the propensity of Labour voters to vote tactically there'd be no discussion about this seat - Clegg would be absolutely safe.
Tories don't do tactical voting.
Yes, but if ever there was a case for it, it's 2015 in Sheffield Hallam. Personally as a lefty I think Clegg losing his seat would be hilarious - but as I say I just don't understand why tories in the seat wouldn't want to prevent him losing. Arguably, they owe him a certain amount of gratitude ...
Timing when that one was done would be nice to know.
Following on from OGH's drawing to our attention of the 36% of 2010 Lib Dems switching to Labour in the marginals. That kin of swing would probably see them take Sheffield Hallam, though it would be close.
Fieldwork was Wednesday and Thursday.
That's 36% of 2010 Lib Dem switching in the Con/Lab marginals.
They are very different beasts in the Lib Dem held seats.
I'd assume they are doing more work in defending their own seats. However the biggest reason their own seats are different is surely because of tactical voting. But if the Tories cannot win Hallam and they can't I'd think, why should a Labour supporter not vote for who they want? Different scenario to the south west.
The mystery for me is why tories don't appear to want to vote tactically for Clegg. Surely, they'd far prefer to see him returned than see the seat go to Labour? If Tory voters had anything like the propensity of Labour voters to vote tactically there'd be no discussion about this seat - Clegg would be absolutely safe.
Tories don't do tactical voting.
Yes, but if ever there was a case for it, it's 2015 in Sheffield Hallam. Personally as a lefty I think Clegg losing his seat would be hilarious - but as I say I just don't understand why tories in the seat wouldn't want to prevent him losing. Arguably, they owe him a certain amount of gratitude ...
Because voting tactically requires voting rationally rather than instinctively.
@NCPoliticsUK: Polls around LAST YEAR'S budget: Populus showed no change for the lead on the Friday, move only came on the Monday... http://t.co/FtAiHTJJr5
@michaelsavage: Another day, another attempt by a party to really reach out and make an ambitious, inventive offer to the electorate: http://t.co/RZFjYa9fTV
Timing when that one was done would be nice to know.
Following on from OGH's drawing to our attention of the 36% of 2010 Lib Dems switching to Labour in the marginals. That kin of swing would probably see them take Sheffield Hallam, though it would be close.
Fieldwork was Wednesday and Thursday.
That's 36% of 2010 Lib Dem switching in the Con/Lab marginals.
They are very different beasts in the Lib Dem held seats.
I'd assume they are doing more work in defending their own seats. However the biggest reason their own seats are different is surely because of tactical voting. But if the Tories cannot win Hallam and they can't I'd think, why should a Labour supporter not vote for who they want? Different scenario to the south west.
The mystery for me is why tories don't appear to want to vote tactically for Clegg. Surely, they'd far prefer to see him returned than see the seat go to Labour? If Tory voters had anything like the propensity of Labour voters to vote tactically there'd be no discussion about this seat - Clegg would be absolutely safe.
Tories don't do tactical voting.
Yes, but if ever there was a case for it, it's 2015 in Sheffield Hallam. Personally as a lefty I think Clegg losing his seat would be hilarious - but as I say I just don't understand why tories in the seat wouldn't want to prevent him losing. Arguably, they owe him a certain amount of gratitude ...
I'm tempted to vote tactically for Clegg.
What it is, but his perfidy over boundary reforms and him vetoing Lord Howard as our next man in Bruxelles when I was on at 25/1 have really pissed me off.
Plus I also want to do everything that the Tories win the popular vote in May.
@paulwaugh: Tories already quoting Dougie Alexander "Our focus will not be on negative billboards but on a positive msg of hope" http://t.co/Rfy9XtENju
Underwhelmed seems to be the market's reaction as Ladbrokes' share price is down another 1.8% this morning following the announcement that Jim Mullen is to become the Group's CEO from 1 April, following his two year stint as Managing Director of Ladbrokes Digital.
Timing when that one was done would be nice to know.
Following on from OGH's drawing to our attention of the 36% of 2010 Lib Dems switching to Labour in the marginals. That kin of swing would probably see them take Sheffield Hallam, though it would be close.
Fieldwork was Wednesday and Thursday.
That's 36% of 2010 Lib Dem switching in the Con/Lab marginals.
They are very different beasts in the Lib Dem held seats.
I'd assume they are doing more work in defending their own seats. However the biggest reason their own seats are different is surely because of tactical voting. But if the Tories cannot win Hallam and they can't I'd think, why should a Labour supporter not vote for who they want? Different scenario to the south west.
The mystery for me is why tories don't appear to want to vote tactically for Clegg. Surely, they'd far prefer to see him returned than see the seat go to Labour? If Tory voters had anything like the propensity of Labour voters to vote tactically there'd be no discussion about this seat - Clegg would be absolutely safe.
Tories don't do tactical voting.
Yes, but if ever there was a case for it, it's 2015 in Sheffield Hallam. Personally as a lefty I think Clegg losing his seat would be hilarious - but as I say I just don't understand why tories in the seat wouldn't want to prevent him losing. Arguably, they owe him a certain amount of gratitude ...
I'm tempted to vote tactically for Clegg.
What it is, but his perfidy over boundary reforms and him vetoing Lord Howard as our next man in Bruxelles when I was on at 25/1 have really pissed me off.
Plus I also want to do everything that the Tories win the popular vote in May.
Surely the #1 reason not to vote tactically for Nick Clegg is because you'd have to vote for Nick Clegg?
Timing when that one was done would be nice to know.
Following on from OGH's drawing to our attention of the 36% of 2010 Lib Dems switching to Labour in the marginals. That kin of swing would probably see them take Sheffield Hallam, though it would be close.
Fieldwork was Wednesday and Thursday.
That's 36% of 2010 Lib Dem switching in the Con/Lab marginals.
They are very different beasts in the Lib Dem held seats.
I'd assume they are doing more work in defending their own seats. However the biggest reason their own seats are different is surely because of tactical voting. But if the Tories cannot win Hallam and they can't I'd think, why should a Labour supporter not vote for who they want? Different scenario to the south west.
The mystery for me is why tories don't appear to want to vote tactically for Clegg. Surely, they'd far prefer to see him returned than see the seat go to Labour? If Tory voters had anything like the propensity of Labour voters to vote tactically there'd be no discussion about this seat - Clegg would be absolutely safe.
Tories don't do tactical voting.
Yes, but if ever there was a case for it, it's 2015 in Sheffield Hallam. Personally as a lefty I think Clegg losing his seat would be hilarious - but as I say I just don't understand why tories in the seat wouldn't want to prevent him losing. Arguably, they owe him a certain amount of gratitude ...
I'm tempted to vote tactically for Clegg.
What it is, but his perfidy over boundary reforms and him vetoing Lord Howard as our next man in Bruxelles when I was on at 25/1 have really pissed me off.
Plus I also want to do everything that the Tories win the popular vote in May.
Yesterday's events may have put one or two Blue-Yellow waverers in Red-Yellow seats off voting yellow I reckon.
Does Labour write the BBC articles... today's good debt numbers..
"February's government borrowing totalled £6.9bn, a fall of £3.5bn.
The government's latest target to borrow £90.2bn in the current fiscal year looks likely but it has failed in its plans to eliminate the deficit by 2015. "
Timing when that one was done would be nice to know.
Following on from OGH's drawing to our attention of the 36% of 2010 Lib Dems switching to Labour in the marginals. That kin of swing would probably see them take Sheffield Hallam, though it would be close.
Fieldwork was Wednesday and Thursday.
That's 36% of 2010 Lib Dem switching in the Con/Lab marginals.
They are very different beasts in the Lib Dem held seats.
.
The mystery for me is why tories don't appear to want to vote tactically for Clegg. Surely, they'd far prefer to see him returned than see the seat go to Labour? If Tory voters had anything like the propensity of Labour voters to vote tactically there'd be no discussion about this seat - Clegg would be absolutely safe.
Tories don't do tactical voting.
Yes, but if ever there was a case for it, it's 2015 in Sheffield Hallam. Personally as a lefty I think Clegg losing his seat would be hilarious - but as I say I just don't understand why tories in the seat wouldn't want to prevent him losing. Arguably, they owe him a certain amount of gratitude ...
I'm tempted to vote tactically for Clegg.
What it is, but his perfidy over boundary reforms and him vetoing Lord Howard as our next man in Bruxelles when I was on at 25/1 have really pissed me off.
Plus I also want to do everything that the Tories win the popular vote in May.
If I lived in Yeovil I'd vote tactically for the Tories. I haven't seen any odds on them winning it though.
Timing when that one was done would be nice to know.
Following on from OGH's drawing to our attention of the 36% of 2010 Lib Dems switching to Labour in the marginals. That kin of swing would probably see them take Sheffield Hallam, though it would be close.
Fieldwork was Wednesday and Thursday.
That's 36% of 2010 Lib Dem switching in the Con/Lab marginals.
They are very different beasts in the Lib Dem held seats.
I'd assume they are doing more work in defending their own seats. However the biggest reason their own seats are different is surely because of tactical voting. But if the Tories cannot win Hallam and they can't I'd think, why should a Labour supporter not vote for who they want? Different scenario to the south west.
The mystery for me is why tories don't appear to want to vote tactically for Clegg. Surely, they'd far prefer to see him returned than see the seat go to Labour? If Tory voters had anything like the propensity of Labour voters to vote tactically there'd be no discussion about this seat - Clegg would be absolutely safe.
Tories don't do tactical voting.
Yes, but if ever there was a case for it, it's 2015 in Sheffield Hallam. Personally as a lefty I think Clegg losing his seat would be hilarious - but as I say I just don't understand why tories in the seat wouldn't want to prevent him losing. Arguably, they owe him a certain amount of gratitude ...
I'm tempted to vote tactically for Clegg.
What it is, but his perfidy over boundary reforms and him vetoing Lord Howard as our next man in Bruxelles when I was on at 25/1 have really pissed me off.
Plus I also want to do everything that the Tories win the popular vote in May.
Don't vote tactically for the LibDems! I did that last time and I'm still traumatised!
@michaelsavage: Another day, another attempt by a party to really reach out and make an ambitious, inventive offer to the electorate: http://t.co/RZFjYa9fTV
Underwhelmed seems to be the market's reaction as Ladbrokes' share price is down another 1.8% this morning following the announcement that Jim Mullen is to become the Group's CEO from 1 April, following his two year stint as Managing Director of Ladbrokes Digital.
Presumably he had absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for the website in his previous role as that would be the ultimate reward for failure.
Does Labour write the BBC articles... today's good debt numbers..
"February's government borrowing totalled £6.9bn, a fall of £3.5bn.
The government's latest target to borrow £90.2bn in the current fiscal year looks likely but it has failed in its plans to eliminate the deficit by 2015. "
No otherwise the headline would be Tories miss deficit target by £90.2 BILLION.
Which is of course 100% FACT
Perhaps the SUN will include it in its FACT series
I believe that the original target was for a deficit of £37bn this financial year, so the year-to-date deficit of £80bn is £43bn higher than forecast.
This is undoubtedly a fail by the government, but since this forecast was built on the dubious assumption that consumers would embark on a debt-fuelled spending spree (which I believe has not come to pass), it is something about which I have mixed feelings.
Timing when that one was done would be nice to know.
Following on from OGH's drawing to our attention of the 36% of 2010 Lib Dems switching to Labour in the marginals. That kin of swing would probably see them take Sheffield Hallam, though it would be close.
Fieldwork was Wednesday and Thursday.
That's 36% of 2010 Lib Dem switching in the Con/Lab marginals.
They are very different beasts in the Lib Dem held seats.
I'd assume they are doing more work in defending their own seats. However the biggest reason their own seats are different is surely because of tactical voting. But if the Tories cannot win Hallam and they can't I'd think, why should a Labour supporter not vote for who they want? Different scenario to the south west.
The mystery for me is why tories don't appear to want to vote tactically for Clegg. Surely, they'd far prefer to see him returned than see the seat go to Labour? If Tory voters had anything like the propensity of Labour voters to vote tactically there'd be no discussion about this seat - Clegg would be absolutely safe.
Tories don't do tactical voting.
Yes, but if ever there was a case for it, it's 2015 in Sheffield Hallam. Personally as a lefty I think Clegg losing his seat would be hilarious - but as I say I just don't understand why tories in the seat wouldn't want to prevent him losing. Arguably, they owe him a certain amount of gratitude ...
I'm tempted to vote tactically for Clegg.
What it is, but his perfidy over boundary reforms and him vetoing Lord Howard as our next man in Bruxelles when I was on at 25/1 have really pissed me off.
Plus I also want to do everything that the Tories win the popular vote in May.
Yesterday's events may have put one or two Blue-Yellow waverers in Red-Yellow seats off voting yellow I reckon.
It was the political equivalent of trying to pee all over your opponents with your flies closed.
Long time lurker, first time poster: looking at these numbers - bad for Lab, dire for LD - I think Con winning 2+ Scottish seats at 2/1 looks a value bet, which I just put on. Especially with SNP moving so far left under Sturgeon, feels like the Tories have a chance of nicking something in Perth or Angus, as well as Berwickshire from LDs.
Timing when that one was done would be nice to know.
Following on from OGH's drawing to our attention of the 36% of 2010 Lib Dems switching to Labour in the marginals. That kin of swing would probably see them take Sheffield Hallam, though it would be close.
Fieldwork was Wednesday and Thursday.
That's 36% of 2010 Lib Dem switching in the Con/Lab marginals.
They are very different beasts in the Lib Dem held seats.
.
The mystery for me is why tories don't appear to want to vote tactically for Clegg. Surely, they'd far prefer to see him returned than see the seat go to Labour? If Tory voters had anything like the propensity of Labour voters to vote tactically there'd be no discussion about this seat - Clegg would be absolutely safe.
Tories don't do tactical voting.
Yes, but if ever there was a case for it, it's 2015 in Sheffield Hallam. Personally as a lefty I think Clegg losing his seat would be hilarious - but as I say I just don't understand why tories in the seat wouldn't want to prevent him losing. Arguably, they owe him a certain amount of gratitude ...
I'm tempted to vote tactically for Clegg.
What it is, but his perfidy over boundary reforms and him vetoing Lord Howard as our next man in Bruxelles when I was on at 25/1 have really pissed me off.
Plus I also want to do everything that the Tories win the popular vote in May.
If I lived in Yeovil I'd vote tactically for the Tories. I haven't seen any odds on them winning it though.
Isnt a vote for David Laws a tactical vote for a Tory? (A Tory who is not too careful about expenses claims at that.)
David Aaronovitch @DAaronovitch 4m4 minutes ago So Labour will destroy the economy versus the Tories will destroy the NHS. Message from the 2 big parties is clear. Vote for someone else.
Holy heartbreak! I couldn't find any tinted glasses, even at Sainsbury's! Had to watch the BBC Eclipse show on the big screen outside Coventry Transport Museum. Was strange to see the sun still brilliantly bright (far too bright to look at directly) despite being 90% eclipsed in the Midlands. And yet the sunlight was diminished, being almost like sunset at around 9.35am.
"Does anyone else here head straight to the Scottish crosstab when a poll comes out btw ? Or is that just me."
And the scotes on the boards today is 46% SNP, 28% Lab and 11% Tory!
And for an explanation for this continuing surge look no further than the prejudices and bile flowing from the regular posters to this site . They claim, and perhaps even believe, they are mounting penetrating attacks on the SNP. They come across as purile assaults on an entire country, which are reflected to a greater or lesser extent by the Westminster parties struggling in the SNP's wake.
This is the key of the Loyalist economic insanity. they lack any willingness to believe there is a weakness in the UK, that the UK is challenged financially and that the UK is fiscally bankrupt.
They believe without question the gerrymandering of figures, the burdening of the Scottish accounts with £5bn of debt interest payments Scotland never needed or wanted, £3bn of "UK wide Spending" that ends up spent on London and £1.5bn of Defense spending beyond that which Scotland would reasonably need.
There is no understanding amongst Loyalists that all Scotland needs to do is refuse to fund a continuing English subsidy and it has no borrowing requirement, fiscally positive even at Trough Oil.
The problem is that they have grown up in an indoctrinal State where every part of their education and media provide an echo chamber for a Paternalist "Britain is Best" view of the world which hasn't had any basis in reality for at least 100 years.
"Does anyone else here head straight to the Scottish crosstab when a poll comes out btw ? Or is that just me."
And the scotes on the boards today is 46% SNP, 28% Lab and 11% Tory!
And for an explanation for this continuing surge look no further than the prejudices and bile flowing from the regular posters to this site . They claim, and perhaps even believe, they are mounting penetrating attacks on the SNP. They come across as purile assaults on an entire country, which are reflected to a greater or lesser extent by the Westminster parties struggling in the SNP's wake.
You seem to have forgotten La Sturgeon calling the Scottish people who don't vote for her .. Er .. 'Anti-Scottish'.
I'm waiting to see what happens when all the new Nats discover they've been repeatedly lied to over a period of years by Salmond, Sturgeon et al.
I'd rather it all happened in a different country .. Ie that we'd got shot of Scotland last year .. but happen it will.
Scotland one of only 2 regions where unemployment is rising and it is rising the fastest of those two.
How long can the SNP dodge the blame - that's the question.
Here's a paradox for you though. Whilst Scotland's unemployment rate is higher than the UK's by 0.2 of a percentage point Scotland's employment rate is a full percentage point higher than the UK average.
Underwhelmed seems to be the market's reaction as Ladbrokes' share price is down another 1.8% this morning following the announcement that Jim Mullen is to become the Group's CEO from 1 April, following his two year stint as Managing Director of Ladbrokes Digital.
Presumably he had absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for the website in his previous role as that would be the ultimate reward for failure.
Or the chronic advertising campaign featuring five clueless idiots of the type never likely to have their accounts closed for winning too much money.
Long time lurker, first time poster: looking at these numbers - bad for Lab, dire for LD - I think Con winning 2+ Scottish seats at 2/1 looks a value bet, which I just put on. Especially with SNP moving so far left under Sturgeon, feels like the Tories have a chance of nicking something in Perth or Angus, as well as Berwickshire from LDs.
Thoughts?
Welcome.
Betting on a "Scottish Tory Surge" as it is known locally is a fine PB tradition :-)
Long time lurker, first time poster: looking at these numbers - bad for Lab, dire for LD - I think Con winning 2+ Scottish seats at 2/1 looks a value bet, which I just put on. Especially with SNP moving so far left under Sturgeon, feels like the Tories have a chance of nicking something in Perth or Angus, as well as Berwickshire from LDs.
Long time lurker, first time poster: looking at these numbers - bad for Lab, dire for LD - I think Con winning 2+ Scottish seats at 2/1 looks a value bet, which I just put on. Especially with SNP moving so far left under Sturgeon, feels like the Tories have a chance of nicking something in Perth or Angus, as well as Berwickshire from LDs.
Thoughts?
Dumfries and Galloway will be the third seat, Aberdeen the fourth if it is to be the Tories night in Scotland.
They'd very happily settle for two I suspect at this point though.
0 25 1 45 2 20 3 10
Is what I reckon at this point, but Ashcroft hasn't been down the rabbit hole in Berwickshire so your 2-1 could well be value.
"Does anyone else here head straight to the Scottish crosstab when a poll comes out btw ? Or is that just me."
And the scotes on the boards today is 46% SNP, 28% Lab and 11% Tory!
And for an explanation for this continuing surge look no further than the prejudices and bile flowing from the regular posters to this site . They claim, and perhaps even believe, they are mounting penetrating attacks on the SNP. They come across as purile assaults on an entire country, which are reflected to a greater or lesser extent by the Westminster parties struggling in the SNP's wake.
You seem to have forgotten La Sturgeon calling the Scottish people who don't vote for her .. Er .. 'Anti-Scottish'.
I'm waiting to see what happens when all the new Nats discover they've been repeatedly lied to over a period of years by Salmond, Sturgeon et al.
I'd rather it all happened in a different country .. Ie that we'd got shot of Scotland last year .. but happen it will.
Scotland one of only 2 regions where unemployment is rising and it is rising the fastest of those two.
How long can the SNP dodge the blame - that's the question.
Here's a paradox for you though. Whilst Scotland's unemployment rate is higher than the UK's by 0.2 of a percentage point Scotland's employment rate is a full percentage point higher than the UK average.
Meh - I was talking about the trend - why is Scotland bucking the jobs trend ?
Timing when that one was done would be nice to know.
Following on from OGH's drawing to our attention of the 36% of 2010 Lib Dems switching to Labour in the marginals. That kin of swing would probably see them take Sheffield Hallam, though it would be close.
Fieldwork was Wednesday and Thursday.
That's 36% of 2010 Lib Dem switching in the Con/Lab marginals.
They are very different beasts in the Lib Dem held seats.
I'd assume they are doing more work in defending their own seats. However the biggest reason their own seats are different is surely because of tactical voting. But if the Tories cannot win Hallam and they can't I'd think, why should a Labour supporter not vote for who they want? Different scenario to the south west.
The mystery for me is why tories don't appear to want to vote tactically for Clegg. Surely, they'd far prefer to see him returned than see the seat go to Labour? If Tory voters had anything like the propensity of Labour voters to vote tactically there'd be no discussion about this seat - Clegg would be absolutely safe.
Tories don't do tactical voting.
Yes, but if ever there was a case for it, it's 2015 in Sheffield Hallam. Personally as a lefty I think Clegg losing his seat would be hilarious - but as I say I just don't understand why tories in the seat wouldn't want to prevent him losing. Arguably, they owe him a certain amount of gratitude ...
Tactical voting is a classic case of borrowing from the future. If the Tories vote tactically for Clegg in Sheffield Hallam they lose any future hope of winning the seat themselves. If they vote Tory then they have a chance of coming second behind Labour, which would put them in the best position for winning the seat in the election afterwards.
Labour show the danger of what happens if you tactically vote yourself to extinction in vast swathes of the country.
David Aaronovitch @DAaronovitch 4m4 minutes ago So Labour will destroy the economy versus the Tories will destroy the NHS. Message from the 2 big parties is clear. Vote for someone else.
@michaelsavage: Another day, another attempt by a party to really reach out and make an ambitious, inventive offer to the electorate: http://t.co/RZFjYa9fTV
Going down well with the press corp then...
John Rentoul LOL
Yeah, blokes called John have no idea about politics.
Underwhelmed seems to be the market's reaction as Ladbrokes' share price is down another 1.8% this morning following the announcement that Jim Mullen is to become the Group's CEO from 1 April, following his two year stint as Managing Director of Ladbrokes Digital.
Presumably he had absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for the website in his previous role as that would be the ultimate reward for failure.
Or the chronic advertising campaign featuring five clueless idiots of the type never likely to have their accounts closed for winning too much money.
Shadsy for CEO!
I propose we gather the finest campaign team ever assembled in modern politics (JohnO's Hersham helpers) to push for Shadsy to get the top job in Ladbrokes!
Underwhelmed seems to be the market's reaction as Ladbrokes' share price is down another 1.8% this morning following the announcement that Jim Mullen is to become the Group's CEO from 1 April, following his two year stint as Managing Director of Ladbrokes Digital.
Presumably he had absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for the website in his previous role as that would be the ultimate reward for failure.
Or the chronic advertising campaign featuring five clueless idiots of the type never likely to have their accounts closed for winning too much money.
Welcome Mr Alan S and don;t be put off if you get a completely unwarranted personal insult from a Scottish nationalist following your interesting comment.
Meanwhile, Labour most seats on Betfair is 3.2. You have to admire the chirpiness of Conservative gamblers.
The market reaction to the budget gives an interesting insight into the psychology of punters currently betting on the GE.
The beauty of betfair is that one or two gamblers with a lot of cash and an irrational conviction can skew the odds. In most sports markets, these punters get weeded out very quickly - there's only so many times you can bet on your team winning at crap odds before you realise your bank balance keeps going down.
In politics, those punters only have one opportunity to lose their shirt every 5 years.
Timing when that one was done would be nice to know.
Following on from OGH's drawing to our attention of the 36% of 2010 Lib Dems switching to Labour in the marginals. That kin of swing would probably see them take Sheffield Hallam, though it would be close.
Fieldwork was Wednesday and Thursday.
That's 36% of 2010 Lib Dem switching in the Con/Lab marginals.
They are very different beasts in the Lib Dem held seats.
I'd assume they are doing more work in defending their own seats. However the biggest reason their own seats are different is surely because of tactical voting. But if the Tories cannot win Hallam and they can't I'd think, why should a Labour supporter not vote for who they want? Different scenario to the south west.
The mystery for me is why tories don't appear to want to vote tactically for Clegg. Surely, they'd far prefer to see him returned than see the seat go to Labour? If Tory voters had anything like the propensity of Labour voters to vote tactically there'd be no discussion about this seat - Clegg would be absolutely safe.
Tories don't do tactical voting.
Yes, but if ever there was a case for it, it's 2015 in Sheffield Hallam. Personally as a lefty I think Clegg losing his seat would be hilarious - but as I say I just don't understand why tories in the seat wouldn't want to prevent him losing. Arguably, they owe him a certain amount of gratitude ...
I'm tempted to vote tactically for Clegg.
That was never a condition of our agreement, nor was giving Han to this bounty hunter!
Timing when that one was done would be nice to know.
Following on from OGH's drawing to our attention of the 36% of 2010 Lib Dems switching to Labour in the marginals. That kin of swing would probably see them take Sheffield Hallam, though it would be close.
Fieldwork was Wednesday and Thursday.
That's 36% of 2010 Lib Dem switching in the Con/Lab marginals.
They are very different beasts in the Lib Dem held seats.
.
The mystery for me is why tories don't appear to want to vote tactically for Clegg.
Tories don't do tactical voting.
Yes, but if ever there was a case for it, it's 2015 in Sheffield Hallam. Personally as a lefty I think Clegg losing his seat would be hilarious - but as I say I just don't understand why tories in the seat wouldn't want to prevent him losing. Arguably, they owe him a certain amount of gratitude ...
I'm tempted to vote tactically for Clegg.
What it is, but his perfidy over boundary reforms and him vetoing Lord Howard as our next man in Bruxelles when I was on at 25/1 have really pissed me off.
Plus I also want to do everything that the Tories win the popular vote in May.
If I lived in Yeovil I'd vote tactically for the Tories. I haven't seen any odds on them winning it though.
Isnt a vote for David Laws a tactical vote for a Tory? (A Tory who is not too careful about expenses claims at that.)
Yep, to be sure when I say vote Tory I mean for the one who actually has a blue rosette. Easy to get confused of course.
Long time lurker, first time poster: looking at these numbers - bad for Lab, dire for LD - I think Con winning 2+ Scottish seats at 2/1 looks a value bet, which I just put on. Especially with SNP moving so far left under Sturgeon, feels like the Tories have a chance of nicking something in Perth or Angus, as well as Berwickshire from LDs.
Thoughts?
Welcome.
Betting on a "Scottish Tory Surge" as it is known locally is a fine PB tradition :-)
So who gets to deliver a budget speech today then? I'd like to hear a double act by Lucas and Galloway - let's see what they've got to offer.
In all honesty, Danny delivered the biggest wtf moment of this parliament yesterday, stood there with his yellow box. He'll be packing a few more bags soon.
As I said yesterday I felt sorry for him.
He really deserved better than that - Whomever thought that was a good idea needs shooting. (or a transfer to Scottish Labour)
Timing when that one was done would be nice to know.
Following on from OGH's drawing to our attention of the 36% of 2010 Lib Dems switching to Labour in the marginals. That kin of swing would probably see them take Sheffield Hallam, though it would be close.
Fieldwork was Wednesday and Thursday.
That's 36% of 2010 Lib Dem switching in the Con/Lab marginals.
They are very different beasts in the Lib Dem held seats.
.
The mystery for me is why tories don't appear to want to vote tactically for Clegg.
Tories don't do tactical voting.
Yes, but if ever there was a case for it, it's 2015 in Sheffield Hallam. Personally as a lefty I think Clegg losing his seat would be hilarious - but as I say I just don't understand why tories in the seat wouldn't want to prevent him losing. Arguably, they owe him a certain amount of gratitude ...
I'm tempted to vote tactically for Clegg.
What it is, but his perfidy over boundary reforms and him vetoing Lord Howard as our next man in Bruxelles when I was on at 25/1 have really pissed me off.
Plus I also want to do everything that the Tories win the popular vote in May.
If I lived in Yeovil I'd vote tactically for the Tories. I haven't seen any odds on them winning it though.
Isnt a vote for David Laws a tactical vote for a Tory? (A Tory who is not too careful about expenses claims at that.)
Yep, to be sure when I say vote Tory I mean for the one who actually has a blue rosette. Easy to get confused of course.
I can see one or two Labour sympathisers actually doing this in Yellow-Blue marginals. Better the enemy than a traitor.
Meanwhile, Labour most seats on Betfair is 3.2. You have to admire the chirpiness of Conservative gamblers.
The market reaction to the budget gives an interesting insight into the psychology of punters currently betting on the GE.
The beauty of betfair is that one or two gamblers with a lot of cash and an irrational conviction can skew the odds. In most sports markets, these punters get weeded out very quickly - there's only so many times you can bet on your team winning at crap odds before you realise your bank balance keeps going down.
In politics, those punters only have one opportunity to lose their shirt every 5 years.
Sheer lunacy to be nakedly backing the Tories at 1.45 now.
"Does anyone else here head straight to the Scottish crosstab when a poll comes out btw ? Or is that just me."
And the scotes on the boards today is 46% SNP, 28% Lab and 11% Tory!
And for an explanation for this continuing surge look no further than the prejudices and bile flowing from the regular posters to this site . They claim, and perhaps even believe, they are mounting penetrating attacks on the SNP. They come across as purile assaults on an entire country, which are reflected to a greater or lesser extent by the Westminster parties struggling in the SNP's wake.
This is the key of the Loyalist economic insanity. they lack any willingness to believe there is a weakness in the UK, that the UK is challenged financially and that the UK is fiscally bankrupt.
They believe without question the gerrymandering of figures, the burdening of the Scottish accounts with £5bn of debt interest payments Scotland never needed or wanted, £3bn of "UK wide Spending" that ends up spent on London and £1.5bn of Defense spending beyond that which Scotland would reasonably need.
There is no understanding amongst Loyalists that all Scotland needs to do is refuse to fund a continuing English subsidy and it has no borrowing requirement, fiscally positive even at Trough Oil.
The problem is that they have grown up in an indoctrinal State where every part of their education and media provide an echo chamber for a Paternalist "Britain is Best" view of the world which hasn't had any basis in reality for at least 100 years.
@IsabelHardman: tbh, if no party can even keep promise to avoid a campaign of fears/smears, little reason for voters to believe any other promise it makes
Does Labour write the BBC articles... today's good debt numbers..
"February's government borrowing totalled £6.9bn, a fall of £3.5bn.
The government's latest target to borrow £90.2bn in the current fiscal year looks likely but it has failed in its plans to eliminate the deficit by 2015. "
No otherwise the headline would be Tories miss deficit target by £90.2 BILLION.
Which is of course 100% FACT
Perhaps the SUN will include it in its FACT series
I believe that the original target was for a deficit of £37bn this financial year, so the year-to-date deficit of £80bn is £43bn higher than forecast.
This is undoubtedly a fail by the government, but since this forecast was built on the dubious assumption that consumers would embark on a debt-fuelled spending spree (which I believe has not come to pass), it is something about which I have mixed feelings.
You are wrong about the assumption of a debt fuelled spending spree. The 'FACT' as delivered by the OBR was that the structural deficit inherited from Labour was much bigger than originally believed. The tory plans were to eliminate the non cyclical structural deficit over the life of the parliament. Anyone paying attention to budget statements would have known that the bigger structural deficit was announced in the 2012 budget and the timetable for eliminating it extended by two years. This was wise of Osborne since sticking to a target for doctrinaire reasons would have damaged the economy. The economy being smaller than expected after the crash is a 'FACT' that would have applied to any government.
BJO talking on this subject out of his backside in the manner of Fraser Nelson does him no credit at all.
Additionally, another issue inherited from Labour was a tax avoidance on a massive scale. The indications of this were there all through the Brown years when he increased spending by 50% in real ('REAL') terms between 2000 and 2010. Despite growth in the economy (no doubt generated by this massive increase in spending) taxes nowhere near came to paying for all that spending.
The plain 'FACT' is that the economy cannot afford the level of spending postulated by Labour.
In 2010 [the LibDems] got 465,000 votes in Scotland: 186,000 of them across the 11 seats they hold. They are consistently now polling at only 4%, which means only 99,000 votes over the whole of Scotland. In 2010 in the 48 seats they did NOT win, they averaged 5,825 votes. Even if this time round they lose 85% of those votes (surely not even the LDs can do worse than that!), that still leaves only 57,000 votes to spread among the 11 seats they hold, or an average of 5,170.
(Other people have made similar points about Labour's total UK vote after adjusting for Scotland). I think this is a flawed way of looking at it. Of course, arithmetically, what Mike says is correct if you assume that the 4% polling will translate into 99,000 votes. But there's a major problem with that assumption when you combine it with a very lumpy vote distribution in the first place. The problem is this: the pollsters aren't polling LibDem-held seats particularly; by far the largest part of their sample will come from the 48 seats which are not LibDem-held. Since the number of LibDem-held seats is small in comparison with this, any effect of the LibDem vote holding up much better in their strongholds will be heavily diluted. There's a separate problem of small sample sizes as well, of course. Combining these two effects means that subtracting an estimated number of votes in non-LibDem-held seats from the total figure of 4% of the electorate is massively error-prone.
Basically, I think you should be very wary of any calculation which involves subtracting an estimated vote in one area or set of constituencies from an estimated national total, and assuming the the difference must equate to the rest of the country. It's not a valid way of looking at it.
[None of this means that the LibDems aren't in deep do-dah in Scotland, of course!]
Timing when that one was done would be nice to know.
Following on from OGH's drawing to our attention of the 36% of 2010 Lib Dems switching to Labour in the marginals. That kin of swing would probably see them take Sheffield Hallam, though it would be close.
Fieldwork was Wednesday and Thursday.
That's 36% of 2010 Lib Dem switching in the Con/Lab marginals.
They are very different beasts in the Lib Dem held seats.
.
The mystery for me is why tories don't appear to want to vote tactically for Clegg.
Tories don't do tactical voting.
...
I'm tempted to vote tactically for Clegg.
What it is, but his perfidy over boundary reforms and him vetoing Lord Howard as our next man in Bruxelles when I was on at 25/1 have really pissed me off.
Plus I also want to do everything that the Tories win the popular vote in May.
If I lived in Yeovil I'd vote tactically for the Tories. I haven't seen any odds on them winning it though.
Isnt a vote for David Laws a tactical vote for a Tory? (A Tory who is not too careful about expenses claims at that.)
Yep, to be sure when I say vote Tory I mean for the one who actually has a blue rosette. Easy to get confused of course.
I can see one or two Labour sympathisers actually doing this in Yellow-Blue marginals. Better the enemy than a traitor.
In my case it would be strictly business not personal. I don't consider Laws a traitor. Disingenuous and happy to stand for election on one platform and then govern on a completely different one. But I'd be voting Tory because it seems to me far more important to get rid of the most Tory inclined Lib Dems than to have one more Tory MP.
Is there any evidence for this all gamblers are Tories fallacy, other than it's people who have money? Any data showing they're disproportionately in the City?
Even if that's true, I'm not sure that's be the cause. Successful city financiers aren't stupid.
Timing when that one was done would be nice to know.
Following on from OGH's drawing to our attention of the 36% of 2010 Lib Dems switching to Labour in the marginals. That kin of swing would probably see them take Sheffield Hallam, though it would be close.
Fieldwork was Wednesday and Thursday.
That's 36% of 2010 Lib Dem switching in the Con/Lab marginals.
They are very different beasts in the Lib Dem held seats.
I'd assume they are doing more work in defending their own seats. However the biggest reason their own seats are different is surely because of tactical voting. But if the Tories cannot win Hallam and they can't I'd think, why should a Labour supporter not vote for who they want? Different scenario to the south west.
The mystery for me is why tories don't appear to want to vote tactically for Clegg. Surely, they'd far prefer to see him returned than see the seat go to Labour? If Tory voters had anything like the propensity of Labour voters to vote tactically there'd be no discussion about this seat - Clegg would be absolutely safe.
Tories don't do tactical voting.
Yes, but if ever there was a case for it, it's 2015 in Sheffield Hallam. Personally as a lefty I think Clegg losing his seat would be hilarious - but as I say I just don't understand why tories in the seat wouldn't want to prevent him losing. Arguably, they owe him a certain amount of gratitude ...
I'm tempted to vote tactically for Clegg.
That was never a condition of our agreement, nor was giving Han to this bounty hunter!
I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
Meanwhile, Labour most seats on Betfair is 3.2. You have to admire the chirpiness of Conservative gamblers.
The market reaction to the budget gives an interesting insight into the psychology of punters currently betting on the GE.
The beauty of betfair is that one or two gamblers with a lot of cash and an irrational conviction can skew the odds. In most sports markets, these punters get weeded out very quickly - there's only so many times you can bet on your team winning at crap odds before you realise your bank balance keeps going down.
In politics, those punters only have one opportunity to lose their shirt every 5 years.
If your theory is correct then those odds may stay in place all the way up until the night itself ?
"Does anyone else here head straight to the Scottish crosstab when a poll comes out btw ? Or is that just me."
And the scotes on the boards today is 46% SNP, 28% Lab and 11% Tory!
And for an explanation for this continuing surge look no further than the prejudices and bile flowing from the regular posters to this site . They claim, and perhaps even believe, they are mounting penetrating attacks on the SNP. They come across as purile assaults on an entire country, which are reflected to a greater or lesser extent by the Westminster parties struggling in the SNP's wake.
This is the key of the Loyalist economic insanity. they lack any willingness to believe there is a weakness in the UK, that the UK is challenged financially and that the UK is fiscally bankrupt.
They believe without question the gerrymandering of figures, the burdening of the Scottish accounts with £5bn of debt interest payments Scotland never needed or wanted, £3bn of "UK wide Spending" that ends up spent on London and £1.5bn of Defense spending beyond that which Scotland would reasonably need.
There is no understanding amongst Loyalists that all Scotland needs to do is refuse to fund a continuing English subsidy and it has no borrowing requirement, fiscally positive even at Trough Oil.
The problem is that they have grown up in an indoctrinal State where every part of their education and media provide an echo chamber for a Paternalist "Britain is Best" view of the world which hasn't had any basis in reality for at least 100 years.
Long time lurker, first time poster: looking at these numbers - bad for Lab, dire for LD - I think Con winning 2+ Scottish seats at 2/1 looks a value bet, which I just put on. Especially with SNP moving so far left under Sturgeon, feels like the Tories have a chance of nicking something in Perth or Angus, as well as Berwickshire from LDs.
Thoughts?
Welcome aboard. And you first post is actually about betting! Bodes well :-)
Is there any evidence for this all gamblers are Tories fallacy, other than it's people who have money? Any data showing they're disproportionately in the City?
Even if that's true, I'm not sure that's be the cause. Successful city financiers aren't stupid.
Some of these punters could be selling Sterling on the other side. Could be some sort of arb and middle in that lot, though it's beyond my punting reach.
If we need an on topic angle that is about the same proportion of the UK population as the 100,000 Conspiraloons who signed the petition calling for a internationoally supervised recount because the shadowy establishment had rigged the Referendum Vote.
If we need an on topic angle that is about the same proportion of the UK population as the 100,000 Conspiraloons who signed the petition calling for a internationoally supervised recount because the shadowy establishment had rigged the Referendum Vote.
I'm not entirely sure which petition you'd have to be madder to sign. Sure the referendum one betrays a certain paranoia. But what kind of weirdo thinks there shouldnt be recriminations for punching a fellow worker?
If we need an on topic angle that is about the same proportion of the UK population as the 100,000 Conspiraloons who signed the petition calling for a internationoally supervised recount because the shadowy establishment had rigged the Referendum Vote.
Despite the Tory lead in last night's YG, Lab retain their slight revival in the "part-ELBOW" for the 9 polls so far this week (with Opinium and the Sunday YG remaining). LDs also edging 8% for the first time in 4 weeks, but Greens lowest since mid-December. And UKIP scoring lowest since August (they've scored 14 or more every week up to this week):
Lab 33.8 Con 33.3 UKIP 13.6 LD 8.0 Green 5.7
Lab lead 0.5% (cf. 0.0% w/e 15th Mar, 0.3% 8th Mar, 0.7% 1st Mar)
David Aaronovitch @DAaronovitch 4m4 minutes ago So Labour will destroy the economy versus the Tories will destroy the NHS. Message from the 2 big parties is clear. Vote for someone else.
The only difference is that Labour have Previous on destroying the economy - there are only (unfounded) FEARS of the Tories destroying the NHS.
If we need an on topic angle that is about the same proportion of the UK population as the 100,000 Conspiraloons who signed the petition calling for a internationoally supervised recount because the shadowy establishment had rigged the Referendum Vote.
Comments
I'm waiting to see what happens when all the new Nats discover they've been repeatedly lied to over a period of years by Salmond, Sturgeon et al.
I'd rather it all happened in a different country .. Ie that we'd got shot of Scotland last year .. but happen it will.
"...It was very cynical, very rational and, thanks to the ineptitude of the Westminster parties, almost successful. "
You write that as if the Scots voting against independence was a good thing. A delay in the inevitable separation will just mean that it will be more acrimonious and difficult that it need have been.
Berwickshire Roxburgh Selkirk is a real through the looking glass seat too.
I would even more but I'm already in pretty deep (and below water!)
How long can the SNP dodge the blame - that's the question.
o_O
Short of huge gains in England, the only other way that Labour realistically has a chance of forming a government is for it to win a decent number of English seats plus more seats in Scotland than currently looks possible. Thus, the SNP may feel that not maxing on seats is a price worth paying for having more influence. But, as I also said, in reality I think they'd take every seat possible.
Which is of course 100% FACT
Perhaps the SUN will include it in its FACT series
No negative campaigning...
Yes that combination would indeed put me in a bad mood!
If Israel showed anything though, it is that shameless scaremongering can work well as a tactic though.
@michaelsavage: Another day, another attempt by a party to really reach out and make an ambitious, inventive offer to the electorate: http://t.co/RZFjYa9fTV
Going down well with the press corp then...
What it is, but his perfidy over boundary reforms and him vetoing Lord Howard as our next man in Bruxelles when I was on at 25/1 have really pissed me off.
Plus I also want to do everything that the Tories win the popular vote in May.
Then people can decide if they are willing to vote for them or not.
Labour 404 Con 368
Populus (voters who actually voted last time)
Labour 326 Con 329
Same thing is evident in a number of Ashcroft's marginals.
Be interesting to see how many of these 'voters' are even registered to vote this time around. Particularly the labour score.
Do the pollsters check this point?
77,777 seconds
This is undoubtedly a fail by the government, but since this forecast was built on the dubious assumption that consumers would embark on a debt-fuelled spending spree (which I believe has not come to pass), it is something about which I have mixed feelings.
And Left backers wonder why they keep having to cut their positions with losses and double up at even lower prices.
It gives you a warm feeling but......
Thoughts?
So Labour will destroy the economy versus the Tories will destroy the NHS. Message from the 2 big parties is clear. Vote for someone else.
They believe without question the gerrymandering of figures, the burdening of the Scottish accounts with £5bn of debt interest payments Scotland never needed or wanted, £3bn of "UK wide Spending" that ends up spent on London and £1.5bn of Defense spending beyond that which Scotland would reasonably need.
There is no understanding amongst Loyalists that all Scotland needs to do is refuse to fund a continuing English subsidy and it has no borrowing requirement, fiscally positive even at Trough Oil.
The problem is that they have grown up in an indoctrinal State where every part of their education and media provide an echo chamber for a Paternalist "Britain is Best" view of the world which hasn't had any basis in reality for at least 100 years.
@CharlotteGore: Vote Labour or we'll break your fucking legs. http://t.co/Hkp0kPHBvb
Betting on a "Scottish Tory Surge" as it is known locally is a fine PB tradition :-)
They'd very happily settle for two I suspect at this point though.
0 25
1 45
2 20
3 10
Is what I reckon at this point, but Ashcroft hasn't been down the rabbit hole in Berwickshire so your 2-1 could well be value.
Labour show the danger of what happens if you tactically vote yourself to extinction in vast swathes of the country.
I propose we gather the finest campaign team ever assembled in modern politics (JohnO's Hersham helpers) to push for Shadsy to get the top job in Ladbrokes!
The beauty of betfair is that one or two gamblers with a lot of cash and an irrational conviction can skew the odds. In most sports markets, these punters get weeded out very quickly - there's only so many times you can bet on your team winning at crap odds before you realise your bank balance keeps going down.
In politics, those punters only have one opportunity to lose their shirt every 5 years.
He really deserved better than that - Whomever thought that was a good idea needs shooting. (or a transfer to Scottish Labour)
All we need is Nuala and Jan from Norway back (and ColinW's Mum) and it'll be like old times.
Are those really the same chance ?!
@IsabelHardman: tbh, if no party can even keep promise to avoid a campaign of fears/smears, little reason for voters to believe any other promise it makes
The 'FACT' as delivered by the OBR was that the structural deficit inherited from Labour was much bigger than originally believed. The tory plans were to eliminate the non cyclical structural deficit over the life of the parliament. Anyone paying attention to budget statements would have known that the bigger structural deficit was announced in the 2012 budget and the timetable for eliminating it extended by two years. This was wise of Osborne since sticking to a target for doctrinaire reasons would have damaged the economy. The economy being smaller than expected after the crash is a 'FACT' that would have applied to any government.
BJO talking on this subject out of his backside in the manner of Fraser Nelson does him no credit at all.
Additionally, another issue inherited from Labour was a tax avoidance on a massive scale. The indications of this were there all through the Brown years when he increased spending by 50% in real ('REAL') terms between 2000 and 2010. Despite growth in the economy (no doubt generated by this massive increase in spending) taxes nowhere near came to paying for all that spending.
The plain 'FACT' is that the economy cannot afford the level of spending postulated by Labour.
Basically, I think you should be very wary of any calculation which involves subtracting an estimated vote in one area or set of constituencies from an estimated national total, and assuming the the difference must equate to the rest of the country. It's not a valid way of looking at it.
[None of this means that the LibDems aren't in deep do-dah in Scotland, of course!]
Even if that's true, I'm not sure that's be the cause. Successful city financiers aren't stupid.
Pakistan chasing 84 to win are 9/1 off 4.4 overs
Surely 1.36 to succeed is generous.
Hope so anyway
Not long now...
If we need an on topic angle that is about the same proportion of the UK population as the 100,000 Conspiraloons who signed the petition calling for a internationoally supervised recount because the shadowy establishment had rigged the Referendum Vote.
Clarkson
https://www.change.org/p/bbc-reinstate-jeremy-clarkson
Referendum
https://www.change.org/p/nicola-sturgeon-we-the-undersigned-demand-a-revote-of-the-scottish-referendum-counted-by-impartial-international-parties
Lab 33.8
Con 33.3
UKIP 13.6
LD 8.0
Green 5.7
Lab lead 0.5%
(cf. 0.0% w/e 15th Mar, 0.3% 8th Mar, 0.7% 1st Mar)