Not sure I wholly support the premise behind the header - the inbuilt assumption that the SNP will deal with Labour is of course untested. It seems to take credibility and give it a good kicking (or "shellacking" or "pounding like a dockside hooker" to borrow a couple of TSE's catchphrases) to see Nicoila Sturgeon aiding David Cameron but there's something about adversity making strange bedfellows.
Labour's route to power (assuming it gets help from the SNP) looks plausible. The Conservatives, who seem to have ruled out Coalition 2.0 under any circumstances, have the DUP and perhaps/maybe UKIP so they are going to need to be somewhere close to the 307 they won last time.
31% today with Populus wouldn't be the bloodbath it was in 1997 or 2001 but it's a long way from Government at this stage but with so many people apparently still to decide it would be a fool who calls this today. One thing's for sure - the next 44 days are not going to be devoid of interest.
If Cameron offered the SNP devo max (basically everything they want short of full independence) in return for EV4EL and new constituency boundaries with a fresh election under these in 6 months time, what would the SNP do? I don't think they would say no straight away...
The critical bit is "budgetary changes nominally focused on England if ... there would be an impact in Scotland" - e.g. through Barnett or through other factors such as TTIP. No impact, no problem: impact, becomes entirely legitimate.
Ah, all becomes clear - cheers for clearing that up Mr Carnyx. - I do wonder however, if factors "involving Scotland" could become a little more tenuous in the future.
If we have to have a union with Scotland then it's only fair they are represented in govt, and if they want the SNP to be the representatives then fair enough, who can complain?
Those who think we should have PR?
If we do get the vaunted SNP near-clean-sweep it will be devastatingly anti-democratic. I'm generally a fan of FPTT and the constituency link, but having 90-95% of a country's representation coming from 40-50% of national vote share brings it into sharp relief.
I too have always backed FPTP. But the prospects of truly grotesque anomalies now mean electoral reform will inevitably be on the agenda in the near future.
The critical bit is "budgetary changes nominally focused on England if ... there would be an impact in Scotland" - e.g. through Barnett or through other factors such as TTIP. No impact, no problem: impact, becomes entirely legitimate.
... which is an impressive piece of sophistry and cant, given that they can plausibly find some minor impact on Scotland in anything at all, as indeed they do already.
I should have been clearer and said, I think the SNP will be far more selective than any blanket support for Mr Miliband & co. But note that they have already shown themselves to be so in practice.
Absolutely, I agree with that.
How many motions will Mr Miliband want to make confidence ones outside the Budget - is he a better poker player than Salmond/Sturgeon ?
So far as I can work out the SNP's position is - agree to Trident or you'll be passing less laws than you think sunny Ed boy.
If we have to have a union with Scotland then it's only fair they are represented in govt, and if they want the SNP to be the representatives then fair enough, who can complain?
Those who think we should have PR?
If we do get the vaunted SNP near-clean-sweep it will be devastatingly anti-democratic. I'm generally a fan of FPTT and the constituency link, but having 90-95% of a country's representation coming from 40-50% of national vote share brings it into sharp relief.
What was the seats / votes ratio in Surrey / Sussex / Hampshire last time ?
Afternoon all. Would the potential loss of 41 Labour seats to SNP have a marked effect on Labour’s campaign strategy, effectively tying up both vital capital and man power north of the border where in the past, they could take large numbers of returning MPs for granted? It strikes me that Ed’s problem is that he is now fighting a battle on two fronts and Ed is no Wellington.
Very true and it is this Clear and Present Danger, that Labour HQ have ignored and ploughed on without diverting cash there. They seem to believe Scotland will sort itself out. The Conservatives did that and could not get back. Labour are now staring at a realistic prospect of being the permanant 2nd choice for left wing socialist votes in Scotland. The funny side is that Labour HQ's head of their GE campaign is a chap (Alexander) who does not know how to win in his own back yard.
The critical bit is "budgetary changes nominally focused on England if ... there would be an impact in Scotland" - e.g. through Barnett or through other factors such as TTIP. No impact, no problem: impact, becomes entirely legitimate.
Ah, all becomes clear - cheers for clearing that up Mr Carnyx. - I do wonder however, if factors "involving Scotland" could become a little more tenuous in the future.
Thanks. Yes, now you mention it, that is a key point. I suspect legislative drafting will have to become more explicit on such matters. Anyway, we will see - we are not even at that position yet.
If we have to have a union with Scotland then it's only fair they are represented in govt, and if they want the SNP to be the representatives then fair enough, who can complain?
Those who think we should have PR?
If we do get the vaunted SNP near-clean-sweep it will be devastatingly anti-democratic. I'm generally a fan of FPTT and the constituency link, but having 90-95% of a country's representation coming from 40-50% of national vote share brings it into sharp relief.
What was the seats / votes ratio in Surrey / Sussex / Hampshire last time ?
ssshhh these are places where Labour are almost unelectable.
If we have to have a union with Scotland then it's only fair they are represented in govt, and if they want the SNP to be the representatives then fair enough, who can complain?
Those who think we should have PR?
If we do get the vaunted SNP near-clean-sweep it will be devastatingly anti-democratic. I'm generally a fan of FPTT and the constituency link, but having 90-95% of a country's representation coming from 40-50% of national vote share brings it into sharp relief.
You can't complain about the system just because it gives you an answer you don't like. UK wide governments get workable majorities (at least) from around 40% of the vote.
Its responsive design...totally standard these days. The problem is like the Guardian, the Telegraph etc, what has happened is that they have shoved way too much on the page and it it is really messy. It is tricky with a news site...Sky Front Page is a mess too..
If you look what the best responsive designs are like, they do the opposite.
If we have to have a union with Scotland then it's only fair they are represented in govt, and if they want the SNP to be the representatives then fair enough, who can complain?
Those who think we should have PR?
If we do get the vaunted SNP near-clean-sweep it will be devastatingly anti-democratic. I'm generally a fan of FPTT and the constituency link, but having 90-95% of a country's representation coming from 40-50% of national vote share brings it into sharp relief.
What was the seats / votes ratio in Surrey / Sussex / Hampshire last time ?
Reading Danczuk's remarks in context, wasn't he actually calling Harriet Harman a "f**king knob"?
Quite right. Mischevious misreporting in some quarters.
I admit I thought he called Miliband a knob till I went back after your post and read the interview
The preceding sentence says "how could he be right on both counts". It looks as though when he said the door handle comment, he was commenting on Ed's supposed duplicity on this.
If we have to have a union with Scotland then it's only fair they are represented in govt, and if they want the SNP to be the representatives then fair enough, who can complain?
Those who think we should have PR?
If we do get the vaunted SNP near-clean-sweep it will be devastatingly anti-democratic. I'm generally a fan of FPTT and the constituency link, but having 90-95% of a country's representation coming from 40-50% of national vote share brings it into sharp relief.
Except that in Westminster the country is the UK, Scottish MPs are a subset of it. There are many subsets you could draw already where that happens.
Furthermore the purpose of FPTP isn't to get equal representation, its to get a Parliament of Representatives, each representing local areas. If a whole region decides they want almost all of their representatives to be from the same party - well that was their choice. I don't see why we need to mollycoddle the losers.
Because a parliament is supposed to speak for the nation, hence the name.
FPTP broadly works when you have a small number of parties, none of which is dominant and where there is a reasonable number of swing voters.
I've advocated PR for some time now because I don't believe FPTP can produce a parliament which adequately speaks for the country; the prerequisites are simply not being met. Open lists in constituencies of between 4 and 7 MPs is the way to go.
If we have to have a union with Scotland then it's only fair they are represented in govt, and if they want the SNP to be the representatives then fair enough, who can complain?
Those who think we should have PR?
If we do get the vaunted SNP near-clean-sweep it will be devastatingly anti-democratic. I'm generally a fan of FPTT and the constituency link, but having 90-95% of a country's representation coming from 40-50% of national vote share brings it into sharp relief.
Except that in Westminster the country is the UK, Scottish MPs are a subset of it. There are many subsets you could draw already where that happens.
Furthermore the purpose of FPTP isn't to get equal representation, its to get a Parliament of Representatives, each representing local areas. If a whole region decides they want almost all of their representatives to be from the same party - well that was their choice. I don't see why we need to mollycoddle the losers.
Yes, there are other regional or categorical subsets you can say that about, but Scotland is popularly understood as a coherent entity with its own political spectrum (more so than e.g. Merseyside). It would bring more outcry at FPTT's relative un-democratic-ness (N.B. not a real word) if the scenario came to pass.
The critical bit is "budgetary changes nominally focused on England if ... there would be an impact in Scotland" - e.g. through Barnett or through other factors such as TTIP. No impact, no problem: impact, becomes entirely legitimate.
... which is an impressive piece of sophistry and cant, given that they can plausibly find some minor impact on Scotland in anything at all, as indeed they do already.
I should have been clearer and said, I think the SNP will be far more selective than any blanket support for Mr Miliband & co. But note that they have already shown themselves to be so in practice.
Absolutely, I agree with that.
How many motions will Mr Miliband want to make confidence ones outside the Budget - is he a better poker player than Salmond/Sturgeon ?
So far as I can work out the SNP's position is - agree to Trident or you'll be passing less laws than you think sunny Ed boy.
And then? Agree to fund the replacement jobs? Transfer work from say Southampton? Agree to fund the entire cost of moving Trident from the English budget? Agree not to replace trident anywhere else?
If Cameron offered the SNP devo max (basically everything they want short of full independence) in return for EV4EL and new constituency boundaries with a fresh election under these in 6 months time, what would the SNP do? I don't think they would say no straight away...
I confess to some ifgnorance on this but wasn't this in effect "The Vow" that Messrs Cameron, Miliband and Clegg signed up to when it looked (on the basis of a couple of polls) that the IndyRef wasn't going to go the way of the Union ?
The SNP won't sign up to an Osborne (or Hammond) Budget containing spending cuts and especially not if those impact on Scotland.
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 17 hrs 17 hours ago LibDems and Greens in ELBOW (Electoral LeaderBoard Of the Week) w/e 22nd March. Greens on 5.5% lowest since November
The reason we should have a different electoral system is not because of an abstract notion of fairness towards parties - as Rod has shown in the past, all electoral systems have defects - but because FPTP encourages so many electors to vote tactically against a candidate, rather than for the policies that they favour.
FPTP means we have to endure horrendously anti-democratic arguments from the likes of Nabavi, arguing that a vote for UKIP is a vote to elect PM Miliband. Such reasoning simply would not be the case with an electoral system that allowed the electorate to choose between more than two parties.
It's interesting to note that despite Labour's persistent lead in the polls, Sporting has this morning stretched its Tory Lead over Labour to a hefty 17 seats, no less. It's also good to see that Sporting has been forced to reduce its GE Seats market spread from 6 seats originally to 4 seats now, in order to compete with IG's corresponding market .... not before time!
The critical bit is "budgetary changes nominally focused on England if ... there would be an impact in Scotland" - e.g. through Barnett or through other factors such as TTIP. No impact, no problem: impact, becomes entirely legitimate.
... which is an impressive piece of sophistry and cant, given that they can plausibly find some minor impact on Scotland in anything at all, as indeed they do already.
Indeed. If the Department on Education spends more of teabags, then a proportion of that needs to be sent north of border, anything at all can be defended as "having an impact on Scotland".
Hell even the changes to tuition fees which had no impact in Scotland were counted as addition taxation, so more money got sent to Scotland even though they don't have any tuition fees.
IN practice, as I should have been clearer, it is evident that the SNP will be selective - as it historically has been in contrast to SLAB and the LDs.
Tuition fees - other way round surely: the grants to universities to pay them were cut so the unis had to replace them by getting the fees off the students.
Apparently not, Here is the relevant quote from wikipedia (usual caveats apply):
Taxation and charges applied in only one nation or region controversially affect the Barnett formula. In one example, the top-up tuition fees introduced in England are counted as additional English public expenditure (as the extra income is spent by the universities) and, therefore, an equivalent amount from the Consolidated Fund, paid for by UK-wide taxation, has been transferred to the Scottish Government. It was argued that this meant that only the English paid tuition fees, yet this money is shared with Scottish universities, despite Scottish students studying at those universities not having to contribute any extra fees.
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 17 hrs 17 hours ago Conservatives and UKIP in ELBOW (Electoral LeaderBoard Of the Week) w/e 22nd March. UKIP on 13.9% lowest since August
It's interesting to note that despite Labour's persistent lead in the polls, Sporting has this morning stretched its Tory Lead over Labour to a hefty 17 seats, no less. It's also good to see that Sporting has been forced to reduce its GE Seats market spread from 6 seats originally to 4 seats now, in order to compete with IG's corresponding market .... not before time!
Isn't that indicative of the weight of money and the direction of travel rather than any serious polling or probability ?
Favourites don't win every race and neither does the most well-backed horse either.
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 17 hrs 17 hours ago LibDems and Greens in ELBOW (Electoral LeaderBoard Of the Week) w/e 22nd March. Greens on 5.5% lowest since November
@SamCoatesTimes: Paxman confirms he was tapped up as candidate for Kensington and Chelsea as well as Mayor of London
@SamCoatesTimes: Paxman: Doesn't know how election will end. But "I get the sense things running the Tories way"
Paxman's going to make a great neutral interviewer, isn't he? Perhaps the candidates will be allowed to ask him questions back?
Perhaps you would prefer Andrew Marr, a man whose politics have been known about for a decade, - unlike Paxman, who appears to have demonstrated neutral professionalism throughout his tenure on Newsnight, without an inkling of his recently declared interests.
Interesting piece on interviews with people in Glasgow East. Strong consensus that Labour had "betrayed" Scotland by siding with the Tories on the referendum, and on austerity:
Many of our panel identified as ‘wanting to want to vote Labour’ but the party having damaged their appeal, either by ‘not being for working people’ anymore or, even more significantly, because of their role in the referendum campaign • Labour’s unpopularity was connected to their perceived closeness to the Conservatives on both of these issues (and our panel couldn’t identify any policy differences between the two) • Miliband was criticised for being too similar to David Cameron: he was seen as posh and out-of-touch with the concerns of people in the Glasgow East area
“I feel as though Labour don’t want to come out and say anything that they really want to do because they wouldn’t get the votes down in England as they would in Scotland. They can’t come out and say they’d raise taxes because people would be up in arms. Everything the Tories say, they just follow suit. They’re not fighting for what I consider Labour should be fighting for.”
That said, there's one glimmer of hope for Labour in there: a few people currently leaning towards the SNP apparently said they might end up voting Labour when it comes down to it, because they want the Tories out so much.
Isn't that indicative of the weight of money and the direction of travel rather than any serious polling or probability ?
Nah, I reckon punters are a pretty hard headed lot.
People think the polls are b8llocks. They base that on what they see whenever there is a real election. Or what they hear in the pub. Or, like Simon Danczuk, what they hear when they knock on doors and actually ask people stuff.
Interesting piece on interviews with people in Glasgow East. Strong consensus that Labour had "betrayed" Scotland by siding with the Tories on the referendum, and on austerity:
Many of our panel identified as ‘wanting to want to vote Labour’ but the party having damaged their appeal, either by ‘not being for working people’ anymore or, even more significantly, because of their role in the referendum campaign • Labour’s unpopularity was connected to their perceived closeness to the Conservatives on both of these issues (and our panel couldn’t identify any policy differences between the two) • Miliband was criticised for being too similar to David Cameron: he was seen as posh and out-of-touch with the concerns of people in the Glasgow East area
“I feel as though Labour don’t want to come out and say anything that they really want to do because they wouldn’t get the votes down in England as they would in Scotland. They can’t come out and say they’d raise taxes because people would be up in arms. Everything the Tories say, they just follow suit. They’re not fighting for what I consider Labour should be fighting for.”
That said, there's one glimmer of hope for Labour in there: a few people currently leaning towards the SNP apparently said they might end up voting Labour when it comes down to it, because they want the Tories out so much.
I'd refer back to the comment made this morning (I forget by who - sorry) about Labour having been captured by the London liberal middle class. It's absolutely right. Compare and contrast with the early founders of Labour and their personal background. Men like Hardie, Clynes, MacDonald or Henderson.
@SamCoatesTimes: Paxman confirms he was tapped up as candidate for Kensington and Chelsea as well as Mayor of London
@SamCoatesTimes: Paxman: Doesn't know how election will end. But "I get the sense things running the Tories way"
Paxman's going to make a great neutral interviewer, isn't he? Perhaps the candidates will be allowed to ask him questions back?
Perhaps you would prefer Andrew Marr, a man whose politics have been known about for a decade, - unlike Paxman, who appears to have demonstrated neutral professionalism throughout his tenure on Newsnight, without an inkling of his recently declared interests.
Good lord, why not get a robot to mediate? Everyone has bias, they're all professionals, grow up!!
Paxman gave Howard a hard time didn't he? Neil lays into everyone. Marr doesn't seem biased to me
How many motions will Mr Miliband want to make confidence ones outside the Budget - is he a better poker player than Salmond/Sturgeon ?
So far as I can work out the SNP's position is - agree to Trident or you'll be passing less laws than you think sunny Ed boy.
I don't think it quite works like that. What I expect to see is a repeated pattern of something like this:
- Ed Balls or Ed Miliband proposes something.
- Alex says 'No way, sunny Ed boy'
- There's a vote, the proposal gets defeated (or passed with Tory votes, the SNP are happy either way)
- If it's defeated and is something important, Ed M says: 'OK, big boy, let's have a confidence vote and see if you're still going to kick sand in my face'.
- Alex and his merry 45 MPs sit on their hands, so the confidence vote narrowly passes
@SamCoatesTimes: Paxman confirms he was tapped up as candidate for Kensington and Chelsea as well as Mayor of London
@SamCoatesTimes: Paxman: Doesn't know how election will end. But "I get the sense things running the Tories way"
Paxman's going to make a great neutral interviewer, isn't he? Perhaps the candidates will be allowed to ask him questions back?
Perhaps you would prefer Andrew Marr, a man whose politics have been known about for a decade, - unlike Paxman, who appears to have demonstrated neutral professionalism throughout his tenure on Newsnight, without an inkling of his recently declared interests.
Good lord, why not get a robot to mediate? Everyone has bias, they're all professionals, grow up!!
Paxman gave Howard a hard time didn't he? Neil lays into everyone. Marr doesn't seem biased to me
FPTP means we have to endure horrendously anti-democratic arguments from the likes of Nabavi, arguing that a vote for UKIP is a vote to elect PM Miliband. Such reasoning simply would not be the case with an electoral system that allowed the electorate to choose between more than two parties.
Nonsense.
The simple fact of the matter, which advocates of PR don't seem to be able to get their heads around, is that choosing a government is to choose between conflicting alternatives, and that means voters don't get everything they want. Mish-mashing in a percentage of MPs from different parties doesn't alter that simple fact, it merely means that the choice is made in haggling in smoke-free rooms after the election, rather than by an explicit choice by voters at the election.
@SamCoatesTimes: Paxman confirms he was tapped up as candidate for Kensington and Chelsea as well as Mayor of London
@SamCoatesTimes: Paxman: Doesn't know how election will end. But "I get the sense things running the Tories way"
Paxman's going to make a great neutral interviewer, isn't he? Perhaps the candidates will be allowed to ask him questions back?
Perhaps you would prefer Andrew Marr, a man whose politics have been known about for a decade, - unlike Paxman, who appears to have demonstrated neutral professionalism throughout his tenure on Newsnight, without an inkling of his recently declared interests.
Good lord, why not get a robot to mediate? Everyone has bias, they're all professionals, grow up!!
Paxman gave Howard a hard time didn't he? Neil lays into everyone. Marr doesn't seem biased to me
What are you waffling on about?
This would be Andrew Marr married to Jackey Ashley of The Guardian, generally held to be the nexus of leftie media circles, who amongst his nasty views held forth this disgraceful tract:
"And the final answer, frankly, is the vigorous use of state power to coerce and repress. It may be my Presbyterian background, but I firmly believe that repression can be a great, civilising instrument for good. Stamp hard on certain 'natural' beliefs for long enough and you can almost kill them off. The police are first in line to be burdened further, but a new Race Relations Act will impose the will of the state on millions of other lives too."
How many motions will Mr Miliband want to make confidence ones outside the Budget - is he a better poker player than Salmond/Sturgeon ?
So far as I can work out the SNP's position is - agree to Trident or you'll be passing less laws than you think sunny Ed boy.
I don't think it quite works like that. What I expect to see is a repeated pattern of something like this:
- Ed Balls or Ed Miliband proposes something.
- Alex says 'No way, sunny Ed boy'
- There's a vote, the proposal gets defeated (or passed with Tory votes, the SNP are happy either way)
- If it's defeated and is something important, Ed M says: 'OK, big boy, let's have a confidence vote and see if you're still going to kick sand in my face'.
- Alex and his merry 45 MPs sit on their hands, so the confidence vote narrowly passes
- Rinse and repeat
Sounds like a good idea to me. Maybe the government having to have a good think before any vote will put the kibosh on things like destructive and self-defeating spending cuts, badly-thought-through reforms of public services, silly wars which haven't been planned for, etc.
Interesting piece on interviews with people in Glasgow East. Strong consensus that Labour had "betrayed" Scotland by siding with the Tories on the referendum, and on austerity:
Many of our panel identified as ‘wanting to want to vote Labour’ but the party having damaged their appeal, either by ‘not being for working people’ anymore or, even more significantly, because of their role in the referendum campaign • Labour’s unpopularity was connected to their perceived closeness to the Conservatives on both of these issues (and our panel couldn’t identify any policy differences between the two) • Miliband was criticised for being too similar to David Cameron: he was seen as posh and out-of-touch with the concerns of people in the Glasgow East area
“I feel as though Labour don’t want to come out and say anything that they really want to do because they wouldn’t get the votes down in England as they would in Scotland. They can’t come out and say they’d raise taxes because people would be up in arms. Everything the Tories say, they just follow suit. They’re not fighting for what I consider Labour should be fighting for.”
That said, there's one glimmer of hope for Labour in there: a few people currently leaning towards the SNP apparently said they might end up voting Labour when it comes down to it, because they want the Tories out so much.
I'd refer back to the comment made this morning (I forget by who - sorry) about Labour having been captured by the London liberal middle class. It's absolutely right. Compare and contrast with the early founders of Labour and their personal background. Men like Hardie, Clynes, MacDonald or Henderson.
Push comes to shove,Tories are more hated in Scotland than Labour.
And that could swing a vital few points Labour`s way come May 2015.
And with Salmond blustering to hell,this could annoy a few people too.
Interesting piece on interviews with people in Glasgow East. Strong consensus that Labour had "betrayed" Scotland by siding with the Tories on the referendum, and on austerity:
Many of our panel identified as ‘wanting to want to vote Labour’ but the party having damaged their appeal, either by ‘not being for working people’ anymore or, even more significantly, because of their role in the referendum campaign • Labour’s unpopularity was connected to their perceived closeness to the Conservatives on both of these issues (and our panel couldn’t identify any policy differences between the two) • Miliband was criticised for being too similar to David Cameron: he was seen as posh and out-of-touch with the concerns of people in the Glasgow East area
“I feel as though Labour don’t want to come out and say anything that they really want to do because they wouldn’t get the votes down in England as they would in Scotland. They can’t come out and say they’d raise taxes because people would be up in arms. Everything the Tories say, they just follow suit. They’re not fighting for what I consider Labour should be fighting for.”
That said, there's one glimmer of hope for Labour in there: a few people currently leaning towards the SNP apparently said they might end up voting Labour when it comes down to it, because they want the Tories out so much.
I'd refer back to the comment made this morning (I forget by who - sorry) about Labour having been captured by the London liberal middle class. It's absolutely right. Compare and contrast with the early founders of Labour and their personal background. Men like Hardie, Clynes, MacDonald or Henderson.
Push comes to shove,Tories are more hated in Scotland than Labour.
And that could swing a vital few points Labour`s way come May 2015.
And with Salmond blustering to hell,this could annoy a few people too.
So why does Dave have a better rating in Scotland than Ed Miliband.
An English Eton Educated Tory Toff has better ratings in Scotland than the Labour leader.
I still think that is the most astonishing polling of this parliament.
How many motions will Mr Miliband want to make confidence ones outside the Budget - is he a better poker player than Salmond/Sturgeon ?
So far as I can work out the SNP's position is - agree to Trident or you'll be passing less laws than you think sunny Ed boy.
I don't think it quite works like that. What I expect to see is a repeated pattern of something like this:
- Ed Balls or Ed Miliband proposes something.
- Alex says 'No way, sunny Ed boy'
- There's a vote, the proposal gets defeated (or passed with Tory votes, the SNP are happy either way)
- If it's defeated and is something important, Ed M says: 'OK, big boy, let's have a confidence vote and see if you're still going to kick sand in my face'.
- Alex and his merry 45 MPs sit on their hands, so the confidence vote narrowly passes
- Rinse and repeat
It's even worse than that, since the vote of confidence is in effect a procedural motion and doesn't actually attach directly to the parliamentary business in question, so its possible to vote through the motion of confidence, and then vote the business down anyway. In effect "yes we have got confidence in the government, but you are still not passing this damn law"
It's interesting to note that despite Labour's persistent lead in the polls, Sporting has this morning stretched its Tory Lead over Labour to a hefty 17 seats, no less. It's also good to see that Sporting has been forced to reduce its GE Seats market spread from 6 seats originally to 4 seats now, in order to compete with IG's corresponding market .... not before time!
Isn't that indicative of the weight of money and the direction of travel rather than any serious polling or probability ?
Favourites don't win every race and neither does the most well-backed horse either.
Yes, absolutely, weight of money is the only thing which moves spread markets. But having been 13 seats behind Labour to the Tories now holding a 17 seat lead must surely involve quite a weight of money.
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 1m1 minute ago Ashcroft National Poll, 20-22 March: CON 33%, LAB 33%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 12%, GRN 5%. Details on @ConHome, 4pm.
Interesting piece on interviews with people in Glasgow East. Strong consensus that Labour had "betrayed" Scotland by siding with the Tories on the referendum, and on austerity:
Many of our panel identified as ‘wanting to want to vote Labour’ but the party having damaged their appeal, either by ‘not being for working people’ anymore or, even more significantly, because of their role in the referendum campaign • Labour’s unpopularity was connected to their perceived closeness to the Conservatives on both of these issues (and our panel couldn’t identify any policy differences between the two) • Miliband was criticised for being too similar to David Cameron: he was seen as posh and out-of-touch with the concerns of people in the Glasgow East area
“I feel as though Labour don’t want to come out and say anything that they really want to do because they wouldn’t get the votes down in England as they would in Scotland. They can’t come out and say they’d raise taxes because people would be up in arms. Everything the Tories say, they just follow suit. They’re not fighting for what I consider Labour should be fighting for.”
That said, there's one glimmer of hope for Labour in there: a few people currently leaning towards the SNP apparently said they might end up voting Labour when it comes down to it, because they want the Tories out so much.
I'd refer back to the comment made this morning (I forget by who - sorry) about Labour having been captured by the London liberal middle class. It's absolutely right. Compare and contrast with the early founders of Labour and their personal background. Men like Hardie, Clynes, MacDonald or Henderson.
Yes they were mostly all Scots. You might as well dig up Willie Gallacher. Everyone of them helped to ruin what was once Great Britain. Scottish envy of the English and England, still at work in the SNP today.
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 1m1 minute ago Ashcroft National Poll, 20-22 March: CON 33%, LAB 33%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 12%, GRN 5%. Details on @ConHome, 4pm.
I don't think that really lives up to "should be interesting".
I suggested to Lord Ashcroft this week's questions
One aspect of the contest that some feel has received too little attention is this: if each of the leaders were a band or singer, which band or singer would they be? Mr Miliband would be something inoffensive but perhaps not entirely current – Wham, say, or Daniel O’Donnell. Mr Clegg? Something middle-of-the-road – the Lighthouse Family or Simply Red, or Cliff Richard who “pops up at Christmas then goes back down again” , or “someone’s sidekick, like Sonny in Sonny and Cher”.
Mr Cameron was harder to place: Take That (“he’d be Gary Barlow”), Coldplay, Justin Bieber or Keith Urban – though some saw him as Simon Cowell, the impresario rather than the performer. No such ambiguity with Mr Farage, though: three of our four groups spontaneously said he would be Johnny Rotten or the Sex Pistols: “he just wants to swear and drink beer and wee all over people”. That or The Wurzels.
Interesting piece on interviews with people in Glasgow East. Strong consensus that Labour had "betrayed" Scotland by siding with the Tories on the referendum, and on austerity:
Many of our panel identified as ‘wanting to want to vote Labour’ but the party having damaged their appeal, either by ‘not being for working people’ anymore or, even more significantly, because of their role in the referendum campaign • Labour’s unpopularity was connected to their perceived closeness to the Conservatives on both of these issues (and our panel couldn’t identify any policy differences between the two) • Miliband was criticised for being too similar to David Cameron: he was seen as posh and out-of-touch with the concerns of people in the Glasgow East area
“I feel as though Labour don’t want to come out and say anything that they really want to do because they wouldn’t get the votes down in England as they would in Scotland. They can’t come out and say they’d raise taxes because people would be up in arms. Everything the Tories say, they just follow suit. They’re not fighting for what I consider Labour should be fighting for.”
That said, there's one glimmer of hope for Labour in there: a few people currently leaning towards the SNP apparently said they might end up voting Labour when it comes down to it, because they want the Tories out so much.
I'd refer back to the comment made this morning (I forget by who - sorry) about Labour having been captured by the London liberal middle class. It's absolutely right. Compare and contrast with the early founders of Labour and their personal background. Men like Hardie, Clynes, MacDonald or Henderson.
Push comes to shove,Tories are more hated in Scotland than Labour.
And that could swing a vital few points Labour`s way come May 2015.
And with Salmond blustering to hell,this could annoy a few people too.
So why does Dave have a better rating in Scotland than Ed Miliband.
An English Eton Educated Tory Toff has better ratings in Scotland than the Labour leader.
I still think that is the most astonishing polling of this parliament.
And why are the Tories polling the same circa 14-18% they seem to have done forever?
I alluded to the fact that quite a few people (according to the Guardian) while admitting that they were angry with Labour said they might still vote for them to keep the Tories out.
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 1m1 minute ago Ashcroft National Poll, 20-22 March: CON 33%, LAB 33%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 12%, GRN 5%. Details on @ConHome, 4pm.
Sounds like a good idea to me. Maybe the government having to have a good think before any vote will put the kibosh on things like destructive and self-defeating spending cuts, badly-thought-through reforms of public services, silly wars which haven't been planned for, etc.
Unfortunately it will also put the kibosh on being solvent, resisting unreasonable demands from public-sector unions, getting our kids properly educated, addressing long-term problems such as care for the elderly or productivity in the NHS, maintaining our security, and running the country's affairs in a coherent manner.
I suppose most voters are too young to remember 1974-1979. The scenario we're looking at would be even worse.
The simple fact of the matter, which advocates of PR don't seem to be able to get their heads around, is that choosing a government is to choose between conflicting alternatives, and that means voters don't get everything they want. Mish-mashing in a percentage of MPs from different parties doesn't alter that simple fact, it merely means that the choice is made in haggling in smoke-free rooms after the election, rather than by an explicit choice by voters at the election.
Wish I had had time to say hello at the gathering last week but you always seemed to be in earnest discussion with someone.
That old line doesn't really wash. We know that under any form of proportionality blocs of parties emerge - there would be a centre-left bloc and a centre-right bloc as happens in most countries with variants of PR.
There would perhaps be a UKIP-style party (there is in most countries) sitting outside the concensus until it comes in and becomes part of the problem.
You could argue that inherently the Conservative and Labour Parties are coalitions themselves containing wide strands of opinion. Within each Party, one of the factions enjoys a period of ascendancy before another aspect comes along and takes over.
I support STV but it's not a panacea or "the answer" - it's just fairer than FPTP or AV. I simply find it hard to support a system that delivers 100% of the power on 36% of the vote (2005).
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 1m1 minute ago Ashcroft National Poll, 20-22 March: CON 33%, LAB 33%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 12%, GRN 5%. Details on @ConHome, 4pm.
I don't think that really lives up to "should be interesting".
With all the talk about disillusionment with the two main parties and the growth of other parties wouldn't it be ironic if the total Con+Lab score actually rises, and rises quite significantly, in this GE.
I think it's quite likely to happen - because people expect the result to be close and people also perceive bigger differences between Con and Lab than in recent GEs.
Plus neither UKIP nor Green really have the same credibility that the LDs managed to secure for themselves last time. Nor are they helped by a much worse debate format for themselves than LD had last time.
Comments
The only way out of the hole for Labour that I can see is for them to win England.
If they don't , everything will be viewed through an England v Scotland prism south of the border.
I admit I thought he called Miliband a knob till I went back after your post and read the interview
I too have always backed FPTP. But the prospects of truly grotesque anomalies now mean electoral reform will inevitably be on the agenda in the near future.
So far as I can work out the SNP's position is - agree to Trident or you'll be passing less laws than you think sunny Ed boy.
@SamCoatesTimes: Paxman: Doesn't know how election will end. But "I get the sense things running the Tories way"
..... as indeed is every seat which the Tories might gain from Labour.
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 17 hrs 17 hours ago
ELBOW for w/e 22nd Mar 2015:
Lab 33.8 (+0.6)
Con 33.3 (+0.1)
UKIP 13.9 (-0.9)
LD 8.0 (+0.6)
Green 5.5 (-0.2)
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/579764172013068288
All muslims? We see how you think.
If you look what the best responsive designs are like, they do the opposite.
FPTP broadly works when you have a small number of parties, none of which is dominant and where there is a reasonable number of swing voters.
I've advocated PR for some time now because I don't believe FPTP can produce a parliament which adequately speaks for the country; the prerequisites are simply not being met. Open lists in constituencies of between 4 and 7 MPs is the way to go.
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 17 hrs 17 hours ago
Conservative and Labour in ELBOW (Electoral LeaderBoard Of the Week) w/e 22 March: Labour lead 0.5% (0.0% last week)
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/579767206008995841
The SNP won't sign up to an Osborne (or Hammond) Budget containing spending cuts and especially not if those impact on Scotland.
Labour % leads in ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week) w/e 22nd March. Labour lead 0.5% (+0.5%)
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/579768223928844288
LibDems and Greens in ELBOW (Electoral LeaderBoard Of the Week) w/e 22nd March. Greens on 5.5% lowest since November
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/579769538851549184
Ah, the growing Thought Police at work. I see you've found your natural place in life.
FPTP means we have to endure horrendously anti-democratic arguments from the likes of Nabavi, arguing that a vote for UKIP is a vote to elect PM Miliband. Such reasoning simply would not be the case with an electoral system that allowed the electorate to choose between more than two parties.
It's also good to see that Sporting has been forced to reduce its GE Seats market spread from 6 seats originally to 4 seats now, in order to compete with IG's corresponding market .... not before time!
Conservatives and UKIP in ELBOW (Electoral LeaderBoard Of the Week) w/e 22nd March. UKIP on 13.9% lowest since August
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/579771605259296769
Did Danczuk retract or did he merely apologise for saying it?
A bit like saying "I'm sorry you're a knob and I shouldn't have said it but ..."
Favourites don't win every race and neither does the most well-backed horse either.
http://order-order.com/2015/03/23/respect-labour-launch-white-van-campaign/
"I am sorry if you find being called a knob offensive"
Mr. Jimmy, huzzah! Is it happiness in the form of cake?
Star signing Bashir liked to knock about w terrorists as well
http://britainthinks.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/BritainThinks_Guardian Battleground Britain Glasgow East Wave 1.pdf
Nah, I reckon punters are a pretty hard headed lot.
People think the polls are b8llocks. They base that on what they see whenever there is a real election. Or what they hear in the pub. Or, like Simon Danczuk, what they hear when they knock on doors and actually ask people stuff.
http://britainthinks.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/BritainThinks_Guardian Battleground Britain Glasgow East Wave 1.pdf
I'd refer back to the comment made this morning (I forget by who - sorry) about Labour having been captured by the London liberal middle class. It's absolutely right. Compare and contrast with the early founders of Labour and their personal background. Men like Hardie, Clynes, MacDonald or Henderson.
Paxman gave Howard a hard time didn't he? Neil lays into everyone. Marr doesn't seem biased to me
- Ed Balls or Ed Miliband proposes something.
- Alex says 'No way, sunny Ed boy'
- There's a vote, the proposal gets defeated (or passed with Tory votes, the SNP are happy either way)
- If it's defeated and is something important, Ed M says: 'OK, big boy, let's have a confidence vote and see if you're still going to kick sand in my face'.
- Alex and his merry 45 MPs sit on their hands, so the confidence vote narrowly passes
- Rinse and repeat
The simple fact of the matter, which advocates of PR don't seem to be able to get their heads around, is that choosing a government is to choose between conflicting alternatives, and that means voters don't get everything they want. Mish-mashing in a percentage of MPs from different parties doesn't alter that simple fact, it merely means that the choice is made in haggling in smoke-free rooms after the election, rather than by an explicit choice by voters at the election.
8 mins to LARGER
Danczuk language might be robustly Anglo-Saxon but in context he's essentially verifying that :
Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister
Push comes to shove,Tories are more hated in Scotland than Labour.
And that could swing a vital few points Labour`s way come May 2015.
And with Salmond blustering to hell,this could annoy a few people too.
And that could swing a vital few points Labour`s way come May 2015.
And with Salmond blustering to hell,this could annoy a few people too.
So why does Dave have a better rating in Scotland than Ed Miliband.
An English Eton Educated Tory Toff has better ratings in Scotland than the Labour leader.
I still think that is the most astonishing polling of this parliament.
14th September = 36.0
21st September = 35.3
28th September = 36.0
He has called Harriet Harman a knob rather than Ed Miliband.
His Bounciness's results are sometimes credible and sometimes interesting, but sadly never both at once.
Con 33 (+2) Lab 33 (+4) LD 8 (nc) UKIP 12 (-3) Greens 5 (-3)
5th October = 35.6
12th October = 34.1
19th October = 33.6
Ashcroft National Poll, 20-22 March: CON 33%, LAB 33%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 12%, GRN 5%. Details on @ConHome, 4pm.
God bless His Lordship's bouncy castle of polling.....
His Lordship appears to have adjusted his springs - lots of little bounces all over the place.
Yes they were mostly all Scots. You might as well dig up Willie Gallacher. Everyone of them helped to ruin what was once Great Britain. Scottish envy of the English and England, still at work in the SNP today.
Are all the polls now showing a budget unbounce?
One aspect of the contest that some feel has received too little attention is this: if each of the leaders were a band or singer, which band or singer would they be? Mr Miliband would be something inoffensive but perhaps not entirely current – Wham, say, or Daniel O’Donnell. Mr Clegg? Something middle-of-the-road – the Lighthouse Family or Simply Red, or Cliff Richard who “pops up at Christmas then goes back down again” , or “someone’s sidekick, like Sonny in Sonny and Cher”.
Mr Cameron was harder to place: Take That (“he’d be Gary Barlow”), Coldplay, Justin Bieber or Keith Urban – though some saw him as Simon Cowell, the impresario rather than the performer. No such ambiguity with Mr Farage, though: three of our four groups spontaneously said he would be Johnny Rotten or the Sex Pistols: “he just wants to swear and drink beer and wee all over people”. That or The Wurzels.
An English Eton Educated Tory Toff has better ratings in Scotland than the Labour leader.
I still think that is the most astonishing polling of this parliament.
And why are the Tories polling the same circa 14-18% they seem to have done forever?
I alluded to the fact that quite a few people (according to the Guardian) while admitting that they were angry with Labour said they might still vote for them to keep the Tories out.
I suppose most voters are too young to remember 1974-1979. The scenario we're looking at would be even worse.
Must have missed it.
That old line doesn't really wash. We know that under any form of proportionality blocs of parties emerge - there would be a centre-left bloc and a centre-right bloc as happens in most countries with variants of PR.
There would perhaps be a UKIP-style party (there is in most countries) sitting outside the concensus until it comes in and becomes part of the problem.
You could argue that inherently the Conservative and Labour Parties are coalitions themselves containing wide strands of opinion. Within each Party, one of the factions enjoys a period of ascendancy before another aspect comes along and takes over.
I support STV but it's not a panacea or "the answer" - it's just fairer than FPTP or AV. I simply find it hard to support a system that delivers 100% of the power on 36% of the vote (2005).
I think it's quite likely to happen - because people expect the result to be close and people also perceive bigger differences between Con and Lab than in recent GEs.
Plus neither UKIP nor Green really have the same credibility that the LDs managed to secure for themselves last time. Nor are they helped by a much worse debate format for themselves than LD had last time.