If no Party attains 300 seats either the pressure for a Grand Coalition will build and build (because of the 5 Year Act) or almost the first thing the Parliament will do will be to repeal the 5YA - or even both.
If we have, say, Tory 290, Labour 260 &c then I would expect Miliband to offer a Grand Coalition & Cameron to refuse it (and regret it later, but, hey, that's life).
No way will Milliband offer a Grand Coalition. Even if he were to be PM.
Good morning all and unless something dramatic is said, I would expect today's final PMQs to be overshadowed by the French plane crash and the ongoing tragedy.
Alex Salmond is really doing his best for the Tory campaign in England. His announcement that the SNP would block a minority Tory government should go down like a bag of sick in the southern shires.
Unfortunately it is not in the southern shires that the election will be won - but in the midlands and north west. A lot will depend on how the Tories spin it I suppose. raising envy over free tuition and other benefits 'paid on the backs of the hard working English workers' would be a god start.
If no Party attains 300 seats either the pressure for a Grand Coalition will build and build (because of the 5 Year Act) or almost the first thing the Parliament will do will be to repeal the 5YA - or even both.
If we have, say, Tory 290, Labour 260 &c then I would expect Miliband to offer a Grand Coalition & Cameron to refuse it (and regret it later, but, hey, that's life).
A Grand Coalition is worth considering just for the look on Alex Salmond's face....
That would be his fish well and truly smoked. First agenda item at the first Grand Coalition Cabinet Meeting: axing the Barnett formula as it applies to Scotland...
My tip of the week suggestion this time is for the Tories to recapture the Rochester & Strood seat they lost last November after Mark Reckless defected to UKIP and successfully defended the seat in the subsequent by-election with a modest majority of a little over 2,000 votes.
The recent polls are suggesting that UKIP has lost a significant share, perhaps as much as a third of their support since then, added to which the Tories will benefit considerably from the inevitably very much higher turnout in the forthcoming General Election (65% in 2010), compared with the 50% who voted at the by-election.
Taken together therefore, Reckless looks likely to be roundly defeated in six weeks time and on this basis the best available odds of 5/6 (1.83 decimal) on a Tory win from those nice people at SkyBet appear to offer sound value.
As ever DYOR.
You can have 10/11 with me
Thanks but I've already taken Laddies' 5/6. What odds are you offering for a Tory Majority of 1,000+ in R & S for say a £20 stake?
Interestingly, UKIP's relative decline in these polls does not seem to have disproportionately benefited the Tories.
Labour have benefitted from a reduction in Green support. The Conservatives from a reduction in UKIP support.
The first, certainly. I'm still to be convinced by the latter.
The LibDems also appear to have lost some support in favour to UKIP, which appears to be returning.
I question whether the Kippers are simply returning to their former polarisations as the election approaches, or whether they have noticed the disaster that a populist party has foisted upon Greece. Front National and Podemus seem to be in similar decline.
For the avoidance of doubt: The disaster that Syriza is inflicting on Greece results from the fact they are socialists - not because they are populists. They want to keep spending other people's money and remain in the Euro - an insane delusion. Those other people who might lend them money to spend will only do so if, shock horror, retirement ages rise from 50 or civil servants don't get danger money for having to use a PC, etc.
The bottom line message is 'if you want to borrow money from someone else then that someone else may have terms'. And you can't borrow forever. Basic maths still applies.
Podemos are another lefty freak show. Spendy dreamers.
UKIP is, clearly, a very different beast. Populist yes. Lefty Euro-fantasists no. If UKIP were running Greece they'd accept that the choice is reform or quit. They'd almost certainly take the tough but intellectually honest option to quit. Syriza want to have their cake and eat it. It's no surprise that Germany is not playing ball.
My tip of the week suggestion this time is for the Tories to recapture the Rochester & Strood seat they lost last November after Mark Reckless defected to UKIP and successfully defended the seat in the subsequent by-election with a modest majority of a little over 2,000 votes.
The recent polls are suggesting that UKIP has lost a significant share, perhaps as much as a third of their support since then, added to which the Tories will benefit considerably from the inevitably very much higher turnout in the forthcoming General Election (65% in 2010), compared with the 50% who voted at the by-election.
Taken together therefore, Reckless looks likely to be roundly defeated in six weeks time and on this basis the best available odds of 5/6 (1.83 decimal) on a Tory win from those nice people at SkyBet appear to offer sound value.
As ever DYOR.
You can have 10/11 with me
Thanks but I've already taken Laddies' 5/6. What odds are you offering for a Tory Majority of 1,000+ in R & S for say a £20 stake?
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)
You are right that it is the numbers which in the end count. But so does political common sense. The coalition of the losers you postulate would be a desperately unstable government which would be portrayed as having been foisted on the English. Labour is going to be hammered in Scotland. Taking office in the circumstances you envisage would lead to a fairly swift second election in which they would be hammered in England too. Just because you are offered a poison chalice does not mean you have to drink of it.
The poison chalice comes with ministerial red boxes, big pay rises, limos and the ability to spend tax payers money on patronage for their interest groups. Pretty sure they'd drink from that chalice.
I'm not sure the 2nd election hammering is a foregone conclusion either, Miliband may be difficult to envision as PM, but when you see him in a government limo driving from the Palace to Downing St it becomes a whole lot easier.
Disagree, trying to run a minority or very small majority Westminster government is very difficult for all concerned.
The deals to keep your own MP's in line, while getting backing for C&S from minor parties and disillusioned members of the other side is a nightmare while the strain on your own MP's puts them in hospital/coffins etc.. An attack minded opposition would make being in government a living hell.
Hard to see Ed and attack in the same sentence however. Unless there was a big change Labour would seem toothless and full of no hopers.
My tip of the week suggestion this time is for the Tories to recapture the Rochester & Strood seat they lost last November after Mark Reckless defected to UKIP and successfully defended the seat in the subsequent by-election with a modest majority of a little over 2,000 votes.
The recent polls are suggesting that UKIP has lost a significant share, perhaps as much as a third of their support since then, added to which the Tories will benefit considerably from the inevitably very much higher turnout in the forthcoming General Election (65% in 2010), compared with the 50% who voted at the by-election.
Taken together therefore, Reckless looks likely to be roundly defeated in six weeks time and on this basis the best available odds of 5/6 (1.83 decimal) on a Tory win from those nice people at SkyBet appear to offer sound value.
As ever DYOR.
You can have 10/11 with me
Reaches for his betting notes.... what was my bet again?
My tip of the week suggestion this time is for the Tories to recapture the Rochester & Strood seat they lost last November after Mark Reckless defected to UKIP and successfully defended the seat in the subsequent by-election with a modest majority of a little over 2,000 votes.
The recent polls are suggesting that UKIP has lost a significant share, perhaps as much as a third of their support since then, added to which the Tories will benefit considerably from the inevitably very much higher turnout in the forthcoming General Election (65% in 2010), compared with the 50% who voted at the by-election.
Taken together therefore, Reckless looks likely to be roundly defeated in six weeks time and on this basis the best available odds of 5/6 (1.83 decimal) on a Tory win from those nice people at SkyBet appear to offer sound value.
As ever DYOR.
You can have 10/11 with me
Thanks but I've already taken Laddies' 5/6. What odds are you offering for a Tory Majority of 1,000+ in R & S for say a £20 stake?
An interesting survey of regional attitudes reported by the BBC. My old town, Boston, manage to hit the headlines by coming top for neuroticism and introversion.
Just the place to import a load of "foreigners" and double the population in a short time. That should encourage diversity.
Of course, the neuroticism and introversion may not have been so high beforehand. But rubbing their faces in it won't do any harm, will it?
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game,
You are right that it is the numbers which in the end count. But so does political common sense. The coalition of the losers you postulate would be a desperately unstable government which would be portrayed as having been foisted on the English. Labour is going to be hammered in Scotland. Taking office in the circumstances you envisage would lead to a fairly swift second election in which they would be hammered in England too. Just because you are offered a poison chalice does not mean you have to drink of it.
The poison chalice comes with ministerial red boxes, big pay rises, limos and the ability to spend tax payers money on patronage for their interest groups. Pretty sure they'd drink from that chalice.
Callaghan and Wilson managed it for 5 years. In very trying circumstances.
And what happened in 1979?
Apart from which, while I know that Westminster is a very different place from the 70's, where MP's in hospital (some of whom were literally on their death beds) were sent by ambulance to cross into the Westminster courtyard so that their vote could be counted.
While technology has brought more changes in the chances of MP's not getting caught by the respective whips offices in rebellions before they happen.
All whilst looking after their own constituency work, trying to sort out who the powerbrokers are and what opportunities there are for their own advancement.
You have a high opinion of MP's and their work rate. More likely mean less time in the subsidised bars at best. Constituency work is the real belly laugh though.
On topic, I have to say that probably the best outcome for the Tories- aside from an 11% lead - is probably to go into the campaign level pegging. It keeps things nicely focused. Are you really going to leave the wife, the kids, the house - all for a holiday shag? When the grim reality is that you would be taken to the cleaners, is she REALLY that good in bed?
If no Party attains 300 seats either the pressure for a Grand Coalition will build and build (because of the 5 Year Act) or almost the first thing the Parliament will do will be to repeal the 5YA - or even both.
If we have, say, Tory 290, Labour 260 &c then I would expect Miliband to offer a Grand Coalition & Cameron to refuse it (and regret it later, but, hey, that's life).
A Grand Coalition is worth considering just for the look on Alex Salmond's face....
That would be his fish well and truly smoked. First agenda item at the first Grand Coalition Cabinet Meeting: axing the Barnett formula as it applies to Scotland...
Jeez, you really think he wouldn't consider all his Christmasses had come at once?
Permanent destruction of SLab - ✓ SNP cemented in as the party that stands up for Scotland - ✓ The Union and all the Bettertogether bollox a busted flush - ✓ 2nd referendum here we come - ✓
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game,
You are right that it is the numbers which in the end count. But so does political common sense. The coalition of the losers you postulate would be a desperately unstable government which would be portrayed as having been foisted on the English. Labour is going to be hammered in Scotland. Taking office in the circumstances you envisage would lead to a fairly swift second election in which they would be hammered in England too. Just because you are offered a poison chalice does not mean you have to drink of it.
The poison chalice comes with ministerial red boxes, big pay rises, limos and the ability to spend tax payers money on patronage for their interest groups. Pretty sure they'd drink from that chalice.
Callaghan and Wilson managed it for 5 years. In very trying circumstances.
And what happened in 1979?
Apart from which, while I know that Westminster is a very different place from the 70's, where MP's in hospital (some of whom were literally on their death beds) were sent by ambulance to cross into the Westminster courtyard so that their vote could be counted.
While technology has brought more changes in the chances of MP's not getting caught by the respective whips offices in rebellions before they happen.
All whilst looking after their own constituency work, trying to sort out who the powerbrokers are and what opportunities there are for their own advancement.
You have a high opinion of MP's and their work rate. More likely mean less time in the subsidised bars at best. Constituency work is the real belly laugh though.
NO malc NO. subsidise the bars, keep them open 24/7, fill them with hookers and rent boys just anything to fill their time so they don't pass any more bloody stupid laws.
The female vote could hold the key to the general election as women are twice as likely to be undecided about how to vote in May, according to a major new poll.
A YouGov survey of 8,271 voters for The Times found 17 per cent of women still making up their minds compared with only 8 per cent of men. Among those female voters who have made a choice, the race is neck and neck on 35 per cent.
When forced to choose between Ed Miliband and David Cameron as prime minister, Mr Cameron enjoys a much smaller lead among women than men. While 47 per cent of men say they want a Conservative government led by Mr Cameron and 41 per cent say they want a
Labour administration led by Mr Miliband, women say 42 per cent for the incumbent and 39 per cent for the Labour challenger.
The poll reveals that women are more open-minded than men about ruling out supporting the two big parties: some 49 per cent of women say they will not vote Labour compared with 57 per cent of men, while 50 per cent of women will not vote Tory, against 54 per cent of men.
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)
300 seats makes a Conservative government very likely, in my view.
295+ seats means the Conservatives stay in office, but, given the number and composition of the Lib Dems post election, I can't see that government being particularly "Conservative".
310 is the magic number to be sure of carrying the EU referendum Bill. 315 seats if they want to implement the vast majority of their programme.
Don't you think 300 or so would be ideal for Cameron? He could turn to his MPs and say he did his best, but the numbers weren't there. And he'd avoid a divisive referendum campaign.
Good morning all and unless something dramatic is said, I would expect today's final PMQs to be overshadowed by the French plane crash and the ongoing tragedy.
Alex Salmond is really doing his best for the Tory campaign in England. His announcement that the SNP would block a minority Tory government should go down like a bag of sick in the southern shires.
Unfortunately it is not in the southern shires that the election will be won - but in the midlands and north west. A lot will depend on how the Tories spin it I suppose. raising envy over free tuition and other benefits 'paid on the backs of the hard working English workers' would be a god start.
Surely you mean "hard working immigrants" , the ones you mention are all living large at taxpayers expense. We see them most nights on television and it is not a pretty sight to be sure, but they live high on the hog nevertheless whilst whinging.
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)
You are right that it is the numbers which in the end count. But so does political common sense. The coalition of the losers you postulate would be a desperately unstable government which would be portrayed as having been foisted on the English. Labour is going to be hammered in Scotland.
The poison chalice comes with ministerial red boxes, big pay rises, limos and the ability to spend tax payers money on patronage for their interest groups. Pretty sure they'd drink from that chalice.
I'm not sure the 2nd election hammering is a foregone conclusion either, Miliband may be difficult to envision as PM, but when you see him in a government limo driving from the Palace to Downing St it becomes a whole lot easier.
Disagree, trying to run a minority or very small majority Westminster government is very difficult for all concerned.
The deals to keep your own MP's in line, while getting backing for C&S from minor parties and disillusioned members of the other side is a nightmare while the strain on your own MP's puts them in hospital/coffins etc.. An attack minded opposition would make being in government a living hell.
Hard to see Ed and attack in the same sentence however. Unless there was a big change Labour would seem toothless and full of no hopers.
With any potential SNP MP's as gagged as the muppets sitting behind Nippy Sweetie at FMQ's, your point is?
If no Party attains 300 seats either the pressure for a Grand Coalition will build and build (because of the 5 Year Act) or almost the first thing the Parliament will do will be to repeal the 5YA - or even both.
If we have, say, Tory 290, Labour 260 &c then I would expect Miliband to offer a Grand Coalition & Cameron to refuse it (and regret it later, but, hey, that's life).
A Grand Coalition is worth considering just for the look on Alex Salmond's face....
That would be his fish well and truly smoked. First agenda item at the first Grand Coalition Cabinet Meeting: axing the Barnett formula as it applies to Scotland...
That would be complete victory for him, game over.
The female vote could hold the key to the general election as women are twice as likely to be undecided about how to vote in May, according to a major new poll.
A YouGov survey of 8,271 voters for The Times found 17 per cent of women still making up their minds compared with only 8 per cent of men. Among those female voters who have made a choice, the race is neck and neck on 35 per cent.
When forced to choose between Ed Miliband and David Cameron as prime minister, Mr Cameron enjoys a much smaller lead among women than men. While 47 per cent of men say they want a Conservative government led by Mr Cameron and 41 per cent say they want a
Labour administration led by Mr Miliband, women say 42 per cent for the incumbent and 39 per cent for the Labour challenger.
The poll reveals that women are more open-minded than men about ruling out supporting the two big parties: some 49 per cent of women say they will not vote Labour compared with 57 per cent of men, while 50 per cent of women will not vote Tory, against 54 per cent of men.
Dave could neutralise the whole female vote by asking which shoes Sam should wear to the polling station, by the time they'd decided the booths would have closed.
My tip of the week suggestion this time is for the Tories to recapture the Rochester & Strood seat they lost last November after Mark Reckless defected to UKIP and successfully defended the seat in the subsequent by-election with a modest majority of a little over 2,000 votes.
The recent polls are suggesting that UKIP has lost a significant share, perhaps as much as a third of their support since then, added to which the Tories will benefit considerably from the inevitably very much higher turnout in the forthcoming General Election (65% in 2010), compared with the 50% who voted at the by-election.
Taken together therefore, Reckless looks likely to be roundly defeated in six weeks time and on this basis the best available odds of 5/6 (1.83 decimal) on a Tory win from those nice people at SkyBet appear to offer sound value.
As ever DYOR.
You can have 10/11 with me
Thanks but I've already taken Laddies' 5/6. What odds are you offering for a Tory Majority of 1,000+ in R & S for say a £20 stake?
Can't be all that different really, Evens?
Thanks but no thanks.
Strange you wouldn't top up the bet of the week at a better price. Each to their own
An interesting survey of regional attitudes reported by the BBC. My old town, Boston, manage to hit the headlines by coming top for neuroticism and introversion.
Just the place to import a load of "foreigners" and double the population in a short time. That should encourage diversity.
Of course, the neuroticism and introversion may not have been so high beforehand. But rubbing their faces in it won't do any harm, will it?
Of course the negative economic and social effects of immigration have been well documented but the effect on the psychology of the indigenous population has been neglected.
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game,
You are right that it is the numbers which in the end count. But so does political common sense. The coalition of the losers you postulate would be a desperately unstable government which would be portrayed as having been foisted on the English. Labour is going to be hammered in Scotland. Taking office in the circumstances you envisage would lead to a fairly swift second election in which they would be hammered in England too. Just because you are offered a poison chalice does not mean you have to drink of it.
The poison chalice comes with ministerial red boxes, big pay rises, limos and the ability to spend tax payers money on patronage for their interest groups. Pretty sure they'd drink from that chalice.
Callaghan and Wilson managed it for 5 years. In very trying circumstances.
And what happened in 1979?
Apart from which, while I know that Westminster is a very different place from the 70's, where MP's in hospital (some of whom were literally on their death beds) were sent by ambulance to cross into the Westminster courtyard so that their vote could be counted.
While technology has brought more changes in the chances of MP's not getting caught by the respective whips offices in rebellions before they happen.
All whilst looking after their own constituency work, trying to sort out who the powerbrokers are and what opportunities there are for their own advancement.
You have a high opinion of MP's and their work rate. More likely mean less time in the subsidised bars at best. Constituency work is the real belly laugh though.
NO malc NO. subsidise the bars, keep them open 24/7, fill them with hookers and rent boys just anything to fill their time so they don't pass any more bloody stupid laws.
LOL, why are you not doing interviews in your kitchen.
On topic, I have to say that probably the best outcome for the Tories- aside from an 11% lead - is probably to go into the campaign level pegging. It keeps things nicely focused. Are you really going to leave the wife, the kids, the house - all for a holiday shag? When the grim reality is that you would be taken to the cleaners, is she REALLY that good in bed?
I rather think that the "soft kippers" and undecided voters DC has his eye on are over 60% female, so I'm not sure your metaphor is the most tasteful.
But hey, when have there ever been tasteful comments on this site?
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)
You are right that it is the numbers which in the end count. But so does political common sense. The coalition of the losers you postulate would be a desperately unstable government which would be portrayed as having been foisted on the English. Labour is going to be hammered in Scotland.
The poison chalice comes with ministerial red boxes, big pay rises, limos and the ability to spend tax payers money on patronage for their interest groups. Pretty sure they'd drink from that chalice.
I'm not sure the 2nd election hammering is a foregone conclusion either, Miliband may be difficult to envision as PM, but when you see him in a government limo driving from the Palace to Downing St it becomes a whole lot easier.
Disagree, trying to run a minority or very small majority Westminster government is very difficult for all concerned.
The deals to keep your own MP's in line, while getting backing for C&S from minor parties and disillusioned members of the other side is a nightmare while the strain on your own MP's puts them in hospital/coffins etc.. An attack minded opposition would make being in government a living hell.
Hard to see Ed and attack in the same sentence however. Unless there was a big change Labour would seem toothless and full of no hopers.
With any potential SNP MP's as gagged as the muppets sitting behind Nippy Sweetie at FMQ's, your point is?
Good morning all and unless something dramatic is said, I would expect today's final PMQs to be overshadowed by the French plane crash and the ongoing tragedy.
Alex Salmond is really doing his best for the Tory campaign in England. His announcement that the SNP would block a minority Tory government should go down like a bag of sick in the southern shires.
On the other hand, as I read on scotgoespop , it will play very differently in Scotland, by shooting dead the SLAB argument that voting SNP is a vote for the Tories. Indeed, discussion is beginning to shift to whether LABOUR would even try to block the Tories - and that is an interesting question.
Certainly politics is presenting very differently north and south of Tweed. Here's a particularly fine example:
When will someone actually do some polling on the voter registration gap between old and young? Those numbers look EXTREMELY promising for the Tories in May.
* As Chestnut notes, YouGov Scottish samples are showing the SNP lead narrowing. Yeah, they're subsamples, but...? The YouGov 6000 survey which Scotslass was predicting for today's Times hasn't materialised so far. * Conversely, the Red Liberal boost to Labour has weakened slightly lately - high 20s of the 2010 LD vote rather than 30s. The Greens are the main culprits here, obviously benefiting from occupying the "REALLY radical non-Tory alternative" space. Will it last, and does it happen in marginals? * To reply to Casino: Red Liberals in 2010 were constantly told by activists and friends that their party was much more excitingly left-wing than Labour, and after 13 years of government with all the usual compromises, left-wing voters felt that was credible. Now they really don't. * Hoping for low turnout among traditional Labour voters is a mirage that reappears every time. Like some traditional Tories, they're often not that interested, but every 5 years they do their bit. A glance at the certainty to vote polls illustrates the point. * Both Cameron and Miliband are improving their ratings from a low level (both +2 to +4 on their strongest points today) as bipolarisation takes hold.
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)
300 seats makes a Conservative government very likely, in my view.
295+ seats means the Conservatives stay in office, but, given the number and composition of the Lib Dems post election, I can't see that government being particularly "Conservative".
310 is the magic number to be sure of carrying the EU referendum Bill. 315 seats if they want to implement the vast majority of their programme.
Don't you think 300 or so would be ideal for Cameron? He could turn to his MPs and say he did his best, but the numbers weren't there. And he'd avoid a divisive referendum campaign.
Losing is the new winning.
Dave will be gone and a new election with another leader in a few months and we get a majority.
Tory hypocrisy alert - Sarah Vine, Mrs Gove savaged the Milibands over their kitchen without mentioning that the Goves kitted out their own kitchen with £7000 of public funds. No smoke without fire comes to mind as the Goves repaid the money ' on principle.'
If no Party attains 300 seats either the pressure for a Grand Coalition will build and build (because of the 5 Year Act) or almost the first thing the Parliament will do will be to repeal the 5YA - or even both.
If we have, say, Tory 290, Labour 260 &c then I would expect Miliband to offer a Grand Coalition & Cameron to refuse it (and regret it later, but, hey, that's life).
'You cannot be serious!' What would be the point of a grand coalition? We have seen how even just with the lib dems in coalition that was diluted. Do we really think spending would be cut? We are at peace, there are no panzers at the channel. A grand coalition would see flight to the LDs and probably UKIP. How would a grand coalition do anything about immigration or renegotiation with the EU or deal with the Eurozone ever closer union?
Tory hypocrisy alert - Sarah Vine, Mrs Gove savaged the Milibands over their kitchen without mentioning that the Goves kitted out their own kitchen with £7000 of public funds. No smoke without fire comes to mind as the Goves repaid the money ' on principle.'
As I recall the Gove's didn't sit in their "snack preparation area" trying to kid the nation that it was the main kitchen in their £2m North London mansion.
Anyway you sound desperate, the nation moved on from that episode a week ago.
* As Chestnut notes, YouGov Scottish samples are showing the SNP lead narrowing. Yeah, they're subsamples, but...? The YouGov 6000 survey which Scotslass was predicting for today's Times hasn't materialised so far. * Conversely, the Red Liberal boost to Labour has weakened slightly lately - high 20s of the 2010 LD vote rather than 30s. The Greens are the main culprits here, obviously benefiting from occupying the "REALLY radical non-Tory alternative" space. Will it last, and does it happen in marginals? * To reply to Casino: Red Liberals in 2010 were constantly told by activists and friends that their party was much more excitingly left-wing than Labour, and after 13 years of government with all the usual compromises, left-wing voters felt that was credible. Now they really don't. * Hoping for low turnout among traditional Labour voters is a mirage that reappears every time. Like some traditional Tories, they're often not that interested, but every 5 years they do their bit. A glance at the certainty to vote polls illustrates the point. * Both Cameron and Miliband are improving their ratings from a low level (both +2 to +4 on their strongest points today) as bipolarisation takes hold.
Mm, interesting. Re the Scottish subsample, scotgoespop (comments to the 'alligator' thread) has been noting the very heavy downweighting of SNP + PC of 65 to 38 combined with a Scottish upweight of 141 to 175. Said to be a consequence of the shift in party identificatiton, though I'm out of my depth here ...
Tory hypocrisy alert - Sarah Vine, Mrs Gove savaged the Milibands over their kitchen without mentioning that the Goves kitted out their own kitchen with £7000 of public funds. No smoke without fire comes to mind as the Goves repaid the money ' on principle.'
To be fair, the Goves only fitted out one kitchen....
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)
You are right that it is the numbers which in the end count. But so does political common sense. The coalition of the losers you postulate would be a desperately unstable government which would be portrayed as having been foisted on the English. Labour is going to be hammered in Scotland. Taking office in the circumstances you envisage would lead to a fairly swift second election in which they would be hammered in England too. Just because you are offered a poison chalice does not mean you have to drink of it.
The poison chalice comes with ministerial red boxes, big pay rises, limos and the ability to spend tax payers money on patronage for their interest groups. Pretty sure they'd drink from that chalice.
I'm not sure the 2nd election hammering is a foregone conclusion either, Miliband may be difficult to envision as PM, but when you see him in a government limo driving from the Palace to Downing St it becomes a whole lot easier.
Disagree, trying to run a minority or very small majority Westminster government is very difficult for all concerned.
The deals to keep your own MP's in line, while getting backing for C&S from minor parties and disillusioned members of the other side is a nightmare while the strain on your own MP's puts them in hospital/coffins etc.. An attack minded opposition would make being in government a living hell.
Callaghan and Wilson managed it for 5 years. In very trying circumstances.
Callaghan and Wilson almost had a majority. Labour on 260 seats would be 63 short.
They started with a small majority didn't they? Then lost it in by elections. And they left the country in deep horse manure.
Interestingly, UKIP's relative decline in these polls does not seem to have disproportionately benefited the Tories.
Labour have benefitted from a reduction in Green support. The Conservatives from a reduction in UKIP support.
The first, certainly. I'm still to be convinced by the latter.
The LibDems also appear to have lost some support in favour to UKIP, which appears to be returning.
I question whether the Kippers are simply returning to their former polarisations as the election approaches, or whether they have noticed the disaster that a populist party has foisted upon Greece. Front National and Podemus seem to be in similar decline.
For the avoidance of doubt: The disaster that Syriza is inflicting on Greece results from the fact they are socialists - not because they are populists. They want to keep spending other people's money and remain in the Euro - an insane delusion. Those other people who might lend them money to spend will only do so if, shock horror, retirement ages rise from 50 or civil servants don't get danger money for having to use a PC, etc.
The bottom line message is 'if you want to borrow money from someone else then that someone else may have terms'. And you can't borrow forever. Basic maths still applies.
Podemos are another lefty freak show. Spendy dreamers.
UKIP is, clearly, a very different beast. Populist yes. Lefty Euro-fantasists no. If UKIP were running Greece they'd accept that the choice is reform or quit. They'd almost certainly take the tough but intellectually honest option to quit. Syriza want to have their cake and eat it. It's no surprise that Germany is not playing ball.
Right. So Syriza, elected a couple of months ago, is inflicting the disaster upon Greece that has been going on now for nearly five years?
You make a good point and is it any wonder it's now fertile soil (no pun intended) for Ukip. It never seemed neurotic or introverted when I was growing up there.
From the BBC survey ...
"Extrovert: Hammersmith and Fulham: - Not: Boston, Lincolnshire ... Neurotic: Boston, Lincolnshire - Not so: Orkney "
The sitting Conservative MP has done a runner.
"For the strangers came and tried to teach us their way They scorned us just for being what we are" as the old song goes.
For strangers, read London Metropolitan etc.
So it could easily be a response to sudden upheaval with zero sympathy for any complaints.
If no Party attains 300 seats either the pressure for a Grand Coalition will build and build (because of the 5 Year Act) or almost the first thing the Parliament will do will be to repeal the 5YA - or even both.
If we have, say, Tory 290, Labour 260 &c then I would expect Miliband to offer a Grand Coalition & Cameron to refuse it (and regret it later, but, hey, that's life).
A Grand Coalition is worth considering just for the look on Alex Salmond's face....
That would be his fish well and truly smoked. First agenda item at the first Grand Coalition Cabinet Meeting: axing the Barnett formula as it applies to Scotland...
A Grand Coalition kills the Labour party in Scotland stone cold dead forever and would virtually guarantee Scottish independence within 5 years.
The equivalent of Tim going on about Cameron's bald patch
How must teenagers with hang ups on their appearance feel when they see the government ridiculing opponents for how they look?
I find this to be highly juvenile behaviour from CCHQ. Anybody in public life will have so many photos taken of them, a vast number of them will be unflattering. You have to be a particularly sad type of teenage scribbler to publish them on the official Twitter feed of the main government party. It really makes me question the recruitment policies at central office. The Conservatives should have more self-resepct than this.
@isam Part of Lynton's game plan....It worked in Australia. Attack your opponent viciously and ridicule them, while repeating the core message. If it survives the cultural differences, it will be a winner.
If no Party attains 300 seats either the pressure for a Grand Coalition will build and build (because of the 5 Year Act) or almost the first thing the Parliament will do will be to repeal the 5YA - or even both.
If we have, say, Tory 290, Labour 260 &c then I would expect Miliband to offer a Grand Coalition & Cameron to refuse it (and regret it later, but, hey, that's life).
A Grand Coalition is worth considering just for the look on Alex Salmond's face....
That would be his fish well and truly smoked. First agenda item at the first Grand Coalition Cabinet Meeting: axing the Barnett formula as it applies to Scotland...
A Grand Coalition kills the Labour party in Scotland stone cold dead forever and would virtually guarantee Scottish independence within 5 years.
The meme is Labour = Tories, all the same.
Yeah, he'd hate that.
It would also be Farage's dream come true, every time he has repeated the LibLabCon meme and everyone rolled they eyes would suddenly be shown to be true. Every time he told the right of the Conservative Party that Dave was just another Metropolitan Liberal indistinguishable from the LDs and New Labour types would be shown to be true. Every time he told those old Labour patriotic types that Cameron didn't love his country he just wanted to get elected at any cost, it would be shown to be true. After that UKIP could have gaffes and find endless racists in the closet and its vote would still go through the roof.
I suspect the kippers are much more handicapped by the appearance of not being in contention for many seats than any image problem they might have. There might be any number of people that like the cut of Farage's jib, but if the kippers are currently fourth in their seat, they are unlikely to give him their vote while there is an important Ed/Dave contest which appears too close to call.
If the kippers come second in 50-100 seats this time around as seems likely, GE2020 is going to be a completely different kettle of fish.
It would largely depend on how UKIP holds together. The internal contradictions may become very overt over the 5 years.
And with a Euroreferendum out of the way (assuming a Tory govt), and Cameron replaced, what would a UKIP party offer?
The IndiRef is out the way, I didn't notice it slowing the SNP down.
If Cameron wins the EU referendum by say 55/45 (that number sounds familiar) it is going to be the rallying cry for every "we was robbed" grievance merchant within 1000 miles (that sounds familiar as well). The 45% who wanted OUT might decide to try and get it through the ballot box instead. Conversely five years of EdM euro-idiocy will stiffen their vote quite considerably I would expect.
In 2020 we may well have had the referendum and made the decision, which will have shot UKIP’s fox. Unless of course a) Ed wins, doesn’t hold a referendim but his government (thanks to Salmond?) lasts the course . If that happens and there’s still thought to be an issue with “europe” then they might do well, although a significant share of their current vote may well have died off!
I don't by the died off bit, there will be just as many people with blue rinses in five years time as there are now, different people, but lots of people get more conservative, and more insular as they get older.
Even if the Conservatives form a minority government, they may not have the votes to carry a referendum bill.
If you are so unsure then vote conservative. If the results of the negotiations were widely seen as broadly sensible then any party voting them down would be pretty foolish. Of course if a parliament were to deny the referendum (a vote would count as a vote of confidence) then there would either be a new general election or the negotiation results implemented without one. Either way, those results would stay on the table for when an election did take place. All such tortuous issues resolved if we have a tory majority.
So two main parties now have 70% of vote.main movement appears to be from UKIP back to both Con and lab -would have thought bigger movement from UKIP to Cons rather than Lab? Lib Dems holding ground but getting squeezed in the Con?lab air war.They need to get some sustained publicity to edge their ratings into double figures and ahead of UKIP.
Very odd polling indeed this week - I’m not normally one for conspiracy theories but…!
You may have a point. Reasons to distrust the polls have often been discussed here, and I suspect the pollsters themselves have far less faith in their product than they had in past elections.
The polls seem reasonable to me. The country is pretty evenly divided. But the key to the election is voter motivation. And right now just about the only motivation Labour voters have to vote is to prevent a Tory majority. With EdM the alternative, will that really be enough? I can't see it myself.
On the other hand, if you are a Tory voter the government has delivered for you by and large over the last five years. Why wouldn't you go out and vote Tory again?
Spot on - but the bit I cannot fathom is the whole Scotland effect - who will come off best there - Labour or Tories? If the SNP look like doing as well as we think how will this play in the rUK? Has Salmond over-egged the haggis? And how will this all impact after May on the UK economy? If you haven't bought your £s for your Costa hols yet it's almost too late
The equivalent of Tim going on about Cameron's bald patch
How must teenagers with hang ups on their appearance feel when they see the government ridiculing opponents for how they look?
But look at those pictures. Then imagine him as our Prime Minister, tasked with going to Moscow to negotiate the gas to Europe being turned back on.
Like it or not, looking the part is part of the job spec.
Sorry I disagree and I don't believe you would say the same if the roles were reversed
Come off it. You have made as many bacon sandwich references as anyone on here, you just don't like it because it comes from CCHQ. Are you really going to vote kipper ? You views have been moving in a very Labour direction over the last couple of weeks.
@isam Talking of "reverse" you will notice the Tory press office will try to avoid pictures of Dave's back. Tim had a point about Dave's " combover", but it is more his personal vanity than anything.
If no Party attains 300 seats either the pressure for a Grand Coalition will build and build (because of the 5 Year Act) or almost the first thing the Parliament will do will be to repeal the 5YA - or even both.
If we have, say, Tory 290, Labour 260 &c then I would expect Miliband to offer a Grand Coalition & Cameron to refuse it (and regret it later, but, hey, that's life).
Absolutely not, no chance. There is no requirement to abolish the 5YA to call an early election. All that is required is a two-thirds majority to vote for one. In reality as happens in many European nations with fixed terms (but an option to vote for an early one) if the government of the day calls for an early election and the opposition lacks the votes to form a majority they'll be compelled to agree.
In reality no opposition can realistically say "no we'd rather you continue to govern than seek to win ourselves".
EDIT: Think back to 2008 and the thought that Brown was going to call an early election (that never was). Cameron and the Tories would realistically have to vote in favour of the early election, to say "no we'd rather Brown continues" is implausible and would have made them look as frit as Brown did when he cancelled the election.
The equivalent of Tim going on about Cameron's bald patch
How must teenagers with hang ups on their appearance feel when they see the government ridiculing opponents for how they look?
But look at those pictures. Then imagine him as our Prime Minister, tasked with going to Moscow to negotiate the gas to Europe being turned back on.
Like it or not, looking the part is part of the job spec.
Sorry I disagree and I don't believe you would say the same if the roles were reversed
Come off it. You have made as many bacon sandwich references as anyone on here, you just don't like it because it comes from CCHQ. Are you really going to vote kipper ? You views have been moving in a very Labour direction over the last couple of weeks.
Why would you just make something up? How strange
I never once made a negative comment about the bacon sandwich photo, so unless it was never mentioned on here you're just inventing that.
I say what I think and I am not tied to any party line. I am going to vote Ukip without any shadow of a doubt, that doesn't prevent me from disliking childish and cruel mockery of someone's physical appearance
Mm, interesting. Re the Scottish subsample, scotgoespop (comments to the 'alligator' thread) has been noting the very heavy downweighting of SNP + PC of 65 to 38 combined with a Scottish upweight of 141 to 175. Said to be a consequence of the shift in party identificatiton, though I'm out of my depth here ...
This is the same phenomenon that was putting UKIP on 13% when they were with Populus at over 300 in the raw. Now they're sub 300 Populus has decided that means 17%.
I say what I think and I am not tied to any party line. I am going to vote Ukip without any shadow of a doubt, that doesn't prevent me from disliking childish and cruel mockery of someone's physical appearance
It part of the rough and smooth of politics. Spitting Image made a lot of money for ITV over the years. Can anyone seriously imagine the Spitting Image treatment of EdM after what they did with Kinnock, Thatcher, Hattersley, Kaufman etc ?
The equivalent of Tim going on about Cameron's bald patch
How must teenagers with hang ups on their appearance feel when they see the government ridiculing opponents for how they look?
But look at those pictures. Then imagine him as our Prime Minister, tasked with going to Moscow to negotiate the gas to Europe being turned back on.
Like it or not, looking the part is part of the job spec.
Sorry I disagree and I don't believe you would say the same if the roles were reversed
Come off it. You have made as many bacon sandwich references as anyone on here, you just don't like it because it comes from CCHQ. Are you really going to vote kipper ? You views have been moving in a very Labour direction over the last couple of weeks.
Why would you just make something up? How strange
I never once made a negative comment about the bacon sandwich photo, so unless it was never mentioned on here you're just inventing that.
I say what I think and I am not tied to any party line. I am going to vote Ukip without any shadow of a doubt, that doesn't prevent me from disliking childish and cruel mockery of someone's physical appearance
I broadly agree with isam. This Level of criticality is going to put off people entering politics and so all we get of lifelong politicos. I say broadly because Ed has looked awkward , e.g. arguing with Mylene or repeating the same strikes answer, with a lot more relevance to being PM
The equivalent of Tim going on about Cameron's bald patch
How must teenagers with hang ups on their appearance feel when they see the government ridiculing opponents for how they look?
I find this to be highly juvenile behaviour from CCHQ. Anybody in public life will have so many photos taken of them, a vast number of them will be unflattering. You have to be a particularly sad type of teenage scribbler to publish them on the official Twitter feed of the main government party. It really makes me question the recruitment policies at central office. The Conservatives should have more self-resepct than this.
Except Labour MPs are themselves ashamed of their own leader. Unflattering photos and caricature are a fact of political life. I have to say I cannot believe that Miliband gurns in public like that. The comparison with Farage is uncanny, at least he does not wear yellow trousers. You cannot help how you look but there is non excuse for bad fashion sense.
Comments
That would be his fish well and truly smoked. First agenda item at the first Grand Coalition Cabinet Meeting: axing the Barnett formula as it applies to Scotland...
What odds are you offering for a Tory Majority of 1,000+ in R & S for say a £20 stake?
The bottom line message is 'if you want to borrow money from someone else then that someone else may have terms'. And you can't borrow forever. Basic maths still applies.
Podemos are another lefty freak show. Spendy dreamers.
UKIP is, clearly, a very different beast. Populist yes. Lefty Euro-fantasists no. If UKIP were running Greece they'd accept that the choice is reform or quit. They'd almost certainly take the tough but intellectually honest option to quit. Syriza want to have their cake and eat it. It's no surprise that Germany is not playing ball.
OGH on the other hand needs to leave Bedfordshire.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3010236/Unfriendly-Maybe-s-m-Londoner-Psychologists-identify-irritable-Cockneys-nice-Scots-anxious-Welsh.html
A few years ago, pumped like a dockside hooker made it into the Guardian.
I'm doing so much for feminism.
An interesting survey of regional attitudes reported by the BBC. My old town, Boston, manage to hit the headlines by coming top for neuroticism and introversion.
Just the place to import a load of "foreigners" and double the population in a short time. That should encourage diversity.
Of course, the neuroticism and introversion may not have been so high beforehand. But rubbing their faces in it won't do any harm, will it?
Jeez, you really think he wouldn't consider all his Christmasses had come at once?
Permanent destruction of SLab - ✓
SNP cemented in as the party that stands up for Scotland - ✓
The Union and all the Bettertogether bollox a busted flush - ✓
2nd referendum here we come - ✓
A YouGov survey of 8,271 voters for The Times found 17 per cent of women still making up their minds compared with only 8 per cent of men. Among those female voters who have made a choice, the race is neck and neck on 35 per cent.
When forced to choose between Ed Miliband and David Cameron as prime minister, Mr Cameron enjoys a much smaller lead among women than men. While 47 per cent of men say they want a Conservative government led by Mr Cameron and 41 per cent say they want a
Labour administration led by Mr Miliband, women say 42 per cent for the incumbent and 39 per cent for the Labour challenger.
The poll reveals that women are more open-minded than men about ruling out supporting the two big parties: some 49 per cent of women say they will not vote Labour compared with 57 per cent of men, while 50 per cent of women will not vote Tory, against 54 per cent of men.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/fragmented-future/
But hey, when have there ever been tasteful comments on this site?
Certainly politics is presenting very differently north and south of Tweed. Here's a particularly fine example:
http://wingsoverscotland.com/planet-of-the-twin-suns/
* As Chestnut notes, YouGov Scottish samples are showing the SNP lead narrowing. Yeah, they're subsamples, but...? The YouGov 6000 survey which Scotslass was predicting for today's Times hasn't materialised so far.
* Conversely, the Red Liberal boost to Labour has weakened slightly lately - high 20s of the 2010 LD vote rather than 30s. The Greens are the main culprits here, obviously benefiting from occupying the "REALLY radical non-Tory alternative" space. Will it last, and does it happen in marginals?
* To reply to Casino: Red Liberals in 2010 were constantly told by activists and friends that their party was much more excitingly left-wing than Labour, and after 13 years of government with all the usual compromises, left-wing voters felt that was credible. Now they really don't.
* Hoping for low turnout among traditional Labour voters is a mirage that reappears every time. Like some traditional Tories, they're often not that interested, but every 5 years they do their bit. A glance at the certainty to vote polls illustrates the point.
* Both Cameron and Miliband are improving their ratings from a low level (both +2 to +4 on their strongest points today) as bipolarisation takes hold.
Dave will be gone and a new election with another leader in a few months and we get a majority.
The "principle" being defined as "being caught"?
Labour should be terrified that its Scottish Plague heads south. There doesn't appear to be a vaccine.....
What would be the point of a grand coalition? We have seen how even just with the lib dems in coalition that was diluted. Do we really think spending would be cut? We are at peace, there are no panzers at the channel. A grand coalition would see flight to the LDs and probably UKIP. How would a grand coalition do anything about immigration or renegotiation with the EU or deal with the Eurozone ever closer union?
Anyway you sound desperate, the nation moved on from that episode a week ago.
https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/status/580653929647718400
"Labour should be terrified that its Scottish Plague heads south. There doesn't appear to be a vaccine..... "
The further south you go, the more the inbuilt immunity kicks in, down there, they don't care about anyone else anyway.
http://times-deck.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/projects/846c260d715e5b854ffad5f70a516c88.html
Cheers TSE, I just snotted tea through my nose - a little warning next time perhaps?
And I made that prediction ahead of the SNP surge!
The equivalent of Tim going on about Cameron's bald patch
How must teenagers with hang ups on their appearance feel when they see the government ridiculing opponents for how they look?
RIghtwing logic.
You make a good point and is it any wonder it's now fertile soil (no pun intended) for Ukip. It never seemed neurotic or introverted when I was growing up there.
From the BBC survey ...
"Extrovert: Hammersmith and Fulham: - Not: Boston, Lincolnshire ... Neurotic: Boston, Lincolnshire - Not so: Orkney "
The sitting Conservative MP has done a runner.
"For the strangers came and tried to teach us their way
They scorned us just for being what we are" as the old song goes.
For strangers, read London Metropolitan etc.
So it could easily be a response to sudden upheaval with zero sympathy for any complaints.
The meme is Labour = Tories, all the same.
Yeah, he'd hate that.
Horrible from CCHQ, but a sad reflection of modern society generally
Part of Lynton's game plan....It worked in Australia.
Attack your opponent viciously and ridicule them, while repeating the core message.
If it survives the cultural differences, it will be a winner.
edit: should be ALL of his game plan.
If the results of the negotiations were widely seen as broadly sensible then any party voting them down would be pretty foolish. Of course if a parliament were to deny the referendum (a vote would count as a vote of confidence) then there would either be a new general election or the negotiation results implemented without one. Either way, those results would stay on the table for when an election did take place.
All such tortuous issues resolved if we have a tory majority.
Like it or not, looking the part is part of the job spec.
Lib Dems holding ground but getting squeezed in the Con?lab air war.They need to get some sustained publicity to edge their ratings into double figures and ahead of UKIP.
A fitting final topic for the chap.
Arrogant, weak, liar, racist: Voters' Verdicts on the party leaders revealed in their own blunt (and often very rude) words
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3009653/Arrogant-weak-liar-racist-Voters-Verdicts-party-leaders-revealed-blunt-rude-words.html
Talking of "reverse" you will notice the Tory press office will try to avoid pictures of Dave's back.
Tim had a point about Dave's " combover", but it is more his personal vanity than anything.
In reality no opposition can realistically say "no we'd rather you continue to govern than seek to win ourselves".
EDIT: Think back to 2008 and the thought that Brown was going to call an early election (that never was). Cameron and the Tories would realistically have to vote in favour of the early election, to say "no we'd rather Brown continues" is implausible and would have made them look as frit as Brown did when he cancelled the election.
I never once made a negative comment about the bacon sandwich photo, so unless it was never mentioned on here you're just inventing that.
I say what I think and I am not tied to any party line. I am going to vote Ukip without any shadow of a doubt, that doesn't prevent me from disliking childish and cruel mockery of someone's physical appearance
45 days till we find out if it is the Scottish or the Yorkshire one?
Essentially the SNP is on more than 37%.
It's also why Mrs May has no chance of her Party's leadership.
Life is cruel.
I'd probably laugh myself silly at the collected "awkward" photos of Michael Gove, if he were put forward as the next PM....
You could well be right, the animated Wallace isn't dour, stingy and insular.