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 ?
Spitting image was independent satire, if the government or opposition of the day had produced it (only featuring their opponents) it would have been completely different
Ed's last PMQs - should imagine he will go on head to head debates.
A fitting final topic for the chap.
It'll be the NHS.
His Stalingrad point of retreat.
Suprised the Com res figures on what influence vote - ie best PM and manifesto haven't been discussed - well actually Im not surprised given their results.
They need to repeat the 1992 "late swing" (mythical though it may largely be). I am sure though that there were a good deal of people who with pencil in hand couldn't bring themselves to put Kinnock in number 10. Tories need to hope the same is true of Miliband E...
I have booked 8th May off work - gonna be a long night!
Ed's last PMQs - should imagine he will go on head to head debates.
A fitting final topic for the chap.
It'll be the NHS.
His Stalingrad point of retreat.
Suprised the Com res figures on what influence vote - ie best PM and manifesto haven't been discussed - well actually Im not surprised given their results.
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 ?
Why did you make that up about the bacon sandwich?
I do not find this surprising. Con/Labour switchers have always been non existent. In fact Tory support has been remarkably solid losing less than 10% points at its worst. The downside of this is there is not much to swing back and what there is has largely occurred now.
A classic online Kipper trope of the last few years has been the one about how Labour imported million of immigrants and put them on benefits to shore up Labour's vote.
No Kipper ever seems to wonder whether the actual vague goal of all this might rather have been to foster the electorally beneficial nuttiness of UKIP, so as to split the Tory vote fatally.
It was always obvious to Blair that he couldn't detach 10% of the Tories' vote share permanently to the left. So what about if the idea was just to detach it? It doesn't matter in what direction. Ir matters not who UKIPpers support as long it's not the Tories. Everything else is in its consequences a vote for Labour.
Either Labour or the Tories should be polling 45% at this point. The economy has been rescued and is now on the mend. So you either want that to continue and daren't risk letting Labour f>ck it all again; or you figure it's safe and past due for a few billion of other people's money to start getting firehosed your way again.
That neither party is in this position is largely due to measures taken by Labour between 1997 and 2010 that have weakened both itself and the Conservatives. Immigration and Scotch separatism have shot both parties in the feet.
Interestingly, though, Labour's let's-create-UKIP strategy (if that's what it was) has engineered a situation whereby they can f>ck the economy worse than WW2 and still be in with a very strong chance of getting straight back into power. Labour's legendary economic incompetence has been made moot.
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?
Do I detect a whiff of green cheese there
Are you talking about Swinney? His new job seems to be giving the answers to Nicola at FMQ's when she hasn't done her homework, again.
They need to repeat the 1992 "late swing" (mythical though it may largely be). I am sure though that there were a good deal of people who with pencil in hand couldn't bring themselves to put Kinnock in number 10. Tories need to hope the same is true of Miliband E...
I have booked 8th May off work - gonna be a long night!
Fear of a Labour government backed up by the SNP is easily the most potent weapon in the Conservatives' armoury.
I do not find this surprising. Con/Labour switchers have always been non existent. In fact Tory support has been remarkably solid losing less than 10% points at its worst. The downside of this is there is not much to swing back and what there is has largely occurred now.
A classic online Kipper trope of the last few years has been the one about how Labour imported million of immigrants and put them on benefits to shore up Labour's vote.
No Kipper ever seems to wonder whether the actual vague goal of all this might rather have been to foster the electorally beneficial nuttiness of UKIP, so as to split the Tory vote fatally.
It was always obvious to Blair that he couldn't detach 10% of the Tories' vote share permanently to the left. So what about if the idea was just to detach it? It doesn't matter in what direction. Ir matters not who UKIPpers support as long it's not the Tories. Everything else is in its consequences a vote for Labour.
Either Labour or the Tories should be polling 45% at this point. The economy has been rescued and is now on the mend. So you either want that to continue and daren't risk letting Labour f>ck it all again; or you figure it's safe and past due for a few billion of other people's money to start getting firehosed your way again.
That neither party is in this position is largely due to measures taken by Labour between 1997 and 2010 that have weakened both itself and the Conservatives. Immigration and Scotch separatism have shot both parties in the feet.
Interestingly, though, Labour's let's-create-UKIP strategy (if that's what it was) has engineered a situation whereby they can f>ck the economy worse than WW2 and still be in with a very strong chance of getting straight back into power. Labour's legendary economic incompetence has been made moot.
Blair casts a bloody long shadow does he not.
You could point out a similiar thing with the Indy ref, Conservatives and the SNP, but I don't think our politicians are that clever.
They need to repeat the 1992 "late swing" (mythical though it may largely be). I am sure though that there were a good deal of people who with pencil in hand couldn't bring themselves to put Kinnock in number 10. Tories need to hope the same is true of Miliband E...
I have booked 8th May off work - gonna be a long night!
Are you intending to attend PB.com's all-nighter on 7 - 8 May in Earl's Court wherever it may be held?
"The market was forced to restructure. An ambitious plan entitled Reconstruction and Renewal was produced in 1995, with proposals for separating the ongoing Lloyd's from its past losses. Liability for all pre-1993 business was to be compulsorily transferred (by RITC) into a special vehicle called Equitas, which would require the approval of the UK's Department of Trade & Industry (DTI) at a cost of around $21 billion. Many Names faced large bills, but the plan also provided for a settlement of their disputes, a tax on recent profits, and the write-off of nearly $ 5 billion of debts - skewed towards those with the biggest losses. The plan was debated at length, modified, and eventually strongly supported by the Association of Lloyd's Members (ALM) and most leaders of Names' Action Groups. Money was raised in many ways, including the sale and leaseback of Lloyd's building, and a tax on future business. Individual offers were accepted by 95% of Lloyd's Names. The past liabilities of all Names were transferred to Equitas in September 1996.
The 'recruit to dilute' fraud allegations were heard in court in 2000 in the case Sir William Jaffray & Ors v. The Society of Lloyd's (see first instance judgment) and the appeal was heard in 2002. On each occasion the allegation that there had been a policy of "recruit to dilute" was rejected; however, at first instance the judge described the Names as "the innocent victims [...] of staggering incompetence" and at appeal the court found (see appeal judgment) that representations that Lloyd's had a rigorous auditing system were false ([item 376 of the judgment:] [...] the answer to the question [...] whether there was in existence a rigorous system of auditing which involved the making of a reasonable estimate of outstanding liabilities, including unknown and unnoted losses, is no. Moreover, the answer would be no even if the word 'rigorous' were removed.) and strongly hinted that one of Lloyd's main witnesses, Murray Lawrence, a previous chairman, had lied in his testimony ([item 405 of the judgment:] We have serious reservations about the veracity of Mr. Lawrence's evidence [...].)."
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.
I think this is a very good point and not one that has been so far discussed. If the Conservatives are defeated on the Queen's Speech can they move such a motion before they are forced to resign and Miliband is given the opportunity to form a government. I believe they can- under the FTPA the only motion that can force the government to resign is 'This house has no confidence in her Majesty's Government'- not the approval of the Queen's Speech as such.
"The market was forced to restructure. An ambitious plan entitled Reconstruction and Renewal was produced in 1995, with proposals for separating the ongoing Lloyd's from its past losses. Liability for all pre-1993 business was to be compulsorily transferred (by RITC) into a special vehicle called Equitas, which would require the approval of the UK's Department of Trade & Industry (DTI) at a cost of around $21 billion. Many Names faced large bills, but the plan also provided for a settlement of their disputes, a tax on recent profits, and the write-off of nearly $ 5 billion of debts - skewed towards those with the biggest losses. The plan was debated at length, modified, and eventually strongly supported by the Association of Lloyd's Members (ALM) and most leaders of Names' Action Groups. Money was raised in many ways, including the sale and leaseback of Lloyd's building, and a tax on future business. Individual offers were accepted by 95% of Lloyd's Names. The past liabilities of all Names were transferred to Equitas in September 1996.
The 'recruit to dilute' fraud allegations were heard in court in 2000 in the case Sir William Jaffray & Ors v. The Society of Lloyd's (see first instance judgment) and the appeal was heard in 2002. On each occasion the allegation that there had been a policy of "recruit to dilute" was rejected; however, at first instance the judge described the Names as "the innocent victims [...] of staggering incompetence" and at appeal the court found (see appeal judgment) that representations that Lloyd's had a rigorous auditing system were false ([item 376 of the judgment:] [...] the answer to the question [...] whether there was in existence a rigorous system of auditing which involved the making of a reasonable estimate of outstanding liabilities, including unknown and unnoted losses, is no. Moreover, the answer would be no even if the word 'rigorous' were removed.) and strongly hinted that one of Lloyd's main witnesses, Murray Lawrence, a previous chairman, had lied in his testimony ([item 405 of the judgment:] We have serious reservations about the veracity of Mr. Lawrence's evidence [...].)."
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
Well, you're wrong.
I'd probably laugh myself silly at the collected "awkward" photos of Michael Gove, if he were put forward as the next PM....
Doesn't say much for you really
Probably not. But I would just observe that in recent years the Tory party only seems to feel comfortable with those who are "middling". John Major - middling. Hague. IDS. Howard. All middling. Heseltine, Portillo? A bit too flash, a bit too full of themselves.
Cameron was a bit risky, being an attractive, fresh-faced guy. But it was either him or a bloke who was in the SAS. The SAS is so not middling....
And just to show I am equally vacuous to the left and the right, I would say that Theresa May has no chance of leadership whilst ever she has those panda eyes. The Uncle Fester tribute act is not a good look when becoming party leader. Not middling enough. She's gonna need to take a break for a few weeks - and have a bit of work done....
Liability for all pre-1993 business was to be compulsorily transferred (by RITC) into a special vehicle called Equitas, which would require the approval of the UK's Department of Trade & Industry (DTI) at a cost of around $21 billion.
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
Its not mocking his appearance - its mocking the way he gurns ie chooses to appear - something he has in common with Farage. Cartoons mock appearance.
I am saying it because it is true. I couldn't care less what any of them look like myself... It shows what a shallow and vacuous fool you must be to think that I am somehow saying it to defend the non existent attacks on Farages appearance.. Why would I care? I am a 40 year old man interested in politics not a teenager who puts posters on my wall
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
Its not mocking his appearance - its mocking the way he gurns ie chooses to appear - something he has in common with Farage. Cartoons mock appearance.
They need to repeat the 1992 "late swing" (mythical though it may largely be). I am sure though that there were a good deal of people who with pencil in hand couldn't bring themselves to put Kinnock in number 10. Tories need to hope the same is true of Miliband E...
I have booked 8th May off work - gonna be a long night!
I can claim to be a 1992 late swinger, I recall I made my mind up to vote Tory on the way to the polling station. Mind you it didn't make any difference as I lived in a safe Labour seat at the time..
They need to repeat the 1992 "late swing" (mythical though it may largely be). I am sure though that there were a good deal of people who with pencil in hand couldn't bring themselves to put Kinnock in number 10. Tories need to hope the same is true of Miliband E...
I have booked 8th May off work - gonna be a long night!
Are you intending to attend PB.com's all-nighter on 7 - 8 May in Earl's Court wherever it may be held?
Speaking of fictional characters who look like politicians - I'm just watching the second incarnation of Midsomer Murders - and crikey, I can't look at DCI Barnaby without thinking it's David Cameron's brother.
Liability for all pre-1993 business was to be compulsorily transferred (by RITC) into a special vehicle called Equitas, which would require the approval of the UK's Department of Trade & Industry (DTI) at a cost of around $21 billion.
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
Well, you're wrong.
I'd probably laugh myself silly at the collected "awkward" photos of Michael Gove, if he were put forward as the next PM....
Doesn't say much for you really
Probably not. But I would just observe that in recent years the Tory party only seems to feel comfortable with those who are "middling". John Major - middling. Hague. IDS. Howard. All middling. Heseltine, Portillo? A bit too flash, a bit too full of themselves.
Cameron was a bit risky, being an attractive, fresh-faced guy. But it was either him or a bloke who was in the SAS. The SAS is so not middling....
And just to show I am equally vacuous to the left and the right, I would say that Theresa May has no chance of leadership whilst ever she has those panda eyes. The Uncle Fester tribute act is not a good look when becoming party leader. Not middling enough. She's gonna need to take a break for a few weeks - and have a bit of work done....
I agree that unattractive politicians are at a disadvantage, rightly or wrongly. I've said the same as you re May. But I would be angry and disappointed at Ukip if they put out tweets/posters mocking her for her appearance, or pointing out her physical bad points... I would probably not vote for them if they did that in fact
Speaking of fictional characters who look like politicians - I'm just watching the second incarnation of Midsomer Murders - and crikey, I can't look at DCI Barnaby without thinking it's David Cameron's brother.
Weighted base of 80 odd - I'm keeping my faith in the fully weighted polls !
Likewise, but worth noting that's three in two days since Salmond was all over the telly and Miliband ruled out a coalition.
Today's Yougov subsample has SNP/PC downweight from 65 to 38 though and Scotland upweight from 141 to 175 so I'm not reading a sudden collapse into that
Speaking of fictional characters who look like politicians - I'm just watching the second incarnation of Midsomer Murders - and crikey, I can't look at DCI Barnaby without thinking it's David Cameron's brother.
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.
I was going to argue that looking silly in the occasional photo did not seem to be correlated with electoral success, but then the only embarrassing photo I could find that even approached the awfulness of those Miliband photos was this one of Al Gore, which, um, would make the opposite point (I was actually searching for silly photos involving Merkel when that one came up).
Perhaps someone else would be able to find silly photos of successful leading politicians?
@TheScreamingEagles Privatise the profit, and hand the public the liabilities. Whenever you see a "special vehicle" in finance, it means debt is being delivered to the average Joe....or Joline at the end of it's journey, and they are copping the fare.
Speaking of fictional characters who look like politicians - I'm just watching the second incarnation of Midsomer Murders - and crikey, I can't look at DCI Barnaby without thinking it's David Cameron's brother.
Speaking of fictional characters who look like politicians - I'm just watching the second incarnation of Midsomer Murders - and crikey, I can't look at DCI Barnaby without thinking it's David Cameron's brother.
Said that for a long time, and Mrs Barnaby is v Sam Cam
@TheScreamingEagles Privatise the profit, and hand the public the liabilities. Whenever you see a "special" vehicle" in finance, it means debt is being delivered to the average Joe....or Joline at the end of it's journey, and they are copping the fare.
Chortle
You're giving us opinions, not facts.
Bit like you did over the TSB dividends, showing you didn't know what you were talking about, as everyone knew the difference between cum and ex dividend.
This is just about the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. A Grand Coalition is Alex Salmond and the SNP's dream scenario.
The remaining Labour voters in Scotland would join the exodus from their party, that teamed up with the hated Tories. Alex Salmond could position himself as 'Leader of the Opposistion' grilling David Cameron (or another Tory replacement) whilst the Labour leader sat sheepishly by his side. And finally axing the Barnett Formula would see support for independence skyrocket.
Of course, none of this will happen, as nobody is that stupid.
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...
Gerry Hassan @GerryHassan · 28 mins 28 minutes ago YouGov poll: 2/3rds of Scots say Labour has lost touch with ordinary people; a majority believe Lab doesnt care for their needs. #GE2015
Gerry Hassan @GerryHassan · 27 mins 27 minutes ago YouGov poll: 51% of Scots believe the #SNP care abt them; 31% believe the SNP do not represent their interests. #GE2015
Gerry Hassan @GerryHassan · 23 mins 23 minutes ago YouGov poll: 69% of Scots believe "Labour has seriously lost touch with ordinary working people." #GE2015
Speaking of fictional characters who look like politicians - I'm just watching the second incarnation of Midsomer Murders - and crikey, I can't look at DCI Barnaby without thinking it's David Cameron's brother.
@TheScreamingEagles So where did the money come from to pay for all this "bad debt"? Did the City in an act of generosity buy the package? Who would be stupid enough to buy billions in liabilities?
@TheScreamingEagles Even I struggled with the idea the public would have bought shares and refused the dividend. But hey? the public are gullible and deserve to get shafted by the smart.
Speaking of fictional characters who look like politicians - I'm just watching the second incarnation of Midsomer Murders - and crikey, I can't look at DCI Barnaby without thinking it's David Cameron's brother.
DCI = David Cameron's Identical.
I kept expecting George Osborne to shout "bazinga!" in triumph in his budget speech.
They need to repeat the 1992 "late swing" (mythical though it may largely be). I am sure though that there were a good deal of people who with pencil in hand couldn't bring themselves to put Kinnock in number 10. Tories need to hope the same is true of Miliband E...
I have booked 8th May off work - gonna be a long night!
As I've pointed out before, the Kinnock-led Labour party made 36 net gains from the Conservatives at the 1992 general election. If Ed Miliband makes the same number of gains this time, and we assume a Labour wipeout in Scotland, ten gains each from the Lib Dems and five UKIP gains from the Conservatives, then the final seat totals will be:
Conservative 275 Labour 263
A damned close-run thing as someone might once have (not quite) said.
@TheScreamingEagles So where did the money come from to pay for all this "bad debt"? Did the City in an act of generosity buy the package? Who would be stupid enough to buy billions in liabilities?
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.
This is true, but I think you are missing the point slightly - it's not UKIP's economic positioning which might frighten people back to the Tories, but Miliband's (and especially Miliband dancing the Salmond jig).
The choice at the next election is very simple: Conservative competence and further economic progress, or a chaotic, Miliband-led, anti-business shambles.
@TheScreamingEagles Even I struggled with the idea the public would have bought shares and refused the dividend. But hey? the public are gullible and deserve to get shafted by the smart.
Stop wriggling, it is unbecoming.
Lots of shares are sold ex dividend.
They don't refuse it. They just aren't eligible to have the dividend.
You take the assesment that the increase in share price in the future is worth buying it ex dividend.
On topic, it seems tolerably clear that the two main parties are tied right now. If you can't draw that conclusion after four ties in a row, when can you?
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.
I think this is a very good point and not one that has been so far discussed. If the Conservatives are defeated on the Queen's Speech can they move such a motion before they are forced to resign and Miliband is given the opportunity to form a government. I believe they can- under the FTPA the only motion that can force the government to resign is 'This house has no confidence in her Majesty's Government'- not the approval of the Queen's Speech as such.
If Labour had enough votes to form a government they'd reject the early election vote and seek to govern themselves.
Its only if the opposition can't realistically govern that they'd be compelled to vote with the government in calling for an election. But if the opposition can't there's no need to dissolve the government and wait weeks before dissolving Parliament, a two-thirds vote for an early election is a more realistic alternative.
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.
I was going to argue that looking silly in the occasional photo did not seem to be correlated with electoral success, but then the only embarrassing photo I could find that even approached the awfulness of those Miliband photos was this one of Al Gore, which, um, would make the opposite point (I was actually searching for silly photos involving Merkel when that one came up).
Perhaps someone else would be able to find silly photos of successful leading politicians?
They really need to be photos of politicians BEFORE the voters gave them their votes. It is easy enough to look a prat once you have the keys to the White House....
On topic, it seems tolerably clear that the two main parties are tied right now. If you can't draw that conclusion after four ties in a row, when can you?
Although the Tories moved ahead 9 ticks ago, with a longer moving average.
This is just about the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. A Grand Coalition is Alex Salmond and the SNP's dream scenario.
The remaining Labour voters in Scotland would join the exodus from their party, that teamed up with the hated Tories. Alex Salmond could position himself as 'Leader of the Opposistion' grilling David Cameron (or another Tory replacement) whilst the Labour leader sat sheepishly by his side. And finally axing the Barnett Formula would see support for independence skyrocket.
Of course, none of this will happen, as nobody is that stupid.
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 is a reasonable point of view. But the choice will be between:
unstable minority government lacking authority or genuine mandate; second election; grand coalition.
"The man who lost the referendum on Scottish independence is swanning around like he owns the Union"
"I cannot account for whatever is going on inside that great big head of a gifted man who used to have a greater grasp of reality. Perhaps it is denial, or addiction to attention, or excitement about his return to the Commons (a place he loves). Whatever it is, he is behaving as though Nicola Sturgeon is still his deputy and he didn't resign."
On topic, it seems tolerably clear that the two main parties are tied right now. If you can't draw that conclusion after four ties in a row, when can you?
When your appropriately weighted average of a month's worth of polls comes to the same conclusion? Incidentally, the average of the last phone polls from each pollster is: Conservative 34.3% Labour 34.3% UKIP 11.0% Liberal Democrat 8.0% Green 5.5% Exactly tied! Earlier in the year the Tories had a modest lead on an average of the phone polls.
This is just about the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. A Grand Coalition is Alex Salmond and the SNP's dream scenario.
The remaining Labour voters in Scotland would join the exodus from their party, that teamed up with the hated Tories. Alex Salmond could position himself as 'Leader of the Opposistion' grilling David Cameron (or another Tory replacement) whilst the Labour leader sat sheepishly by his side. And finally axing the Barnett Formula would see support for independence skyrocket.
Of course, none of this will happen, as nobody is that stupid.
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 is a reasonable point of view. But the choice will be between:
unstable minority government lacking authority or genuine mandate; second election; grand coalition.
Which is the least worst?
Either of the other two options is a better bet. This is not going to be a National govt like 1932, and no Labour frontbencher wants to be Ramsey MacDonald.
@TheScreamingEagles So, you are saying "Gordo" struck a brilliant deal for the general public, in the same way the DTI struck one with Lloyds? Strange? I thought you blue boys reckoned he was an idiot?
Comments
Suprised the Com res figures on what influence vote - ie best PM and manifesto haven't been discussed - well actually Im not surprised given their results.
They need to repeat the 1992 "late swing" (mythical though it may largely be). I am sure though that there were a good deal of people who with pencil in hand couldn't bring themselves to put Kinnock in number 10. Tories need to hope the same is true of Miliband E...
I have booked 8th May off work - gonna be a long night!
It's just that Ed encapsulates that so wonderfully.
No Kipper ever seems to wonder whether the actual vague goal of all this might rather have been to foster the electorally beneficial nuttiness of UKIP, so as to split the Tory vote fatally.
It was always obvious to Blair that he couldn't detach 10% of the Tories' vote share permanently to the left. So what about if the idea was just to detach it? It doesn't matter in what direction. Ir matters not who UKIPpers support as long it's not the Tories. Everything else is in its consequences a vote for Labour.
Either Labour or the Tories should be polling 45% at this point. The economy has been rescued and is now on the mend. So you either want that to continue and daren't risk letting Labour f>ck it all again; or you figure it's safe and past due for a few billion of other people's money to start getting firehosed your way again.
That neither party is in this position is largely due to measures taken by Labour between 1997 and 2010 that have weakened both itself and the Conservatives. Immigration and Scotch separatism have shot both parties in the feet.
Interestingly, though, Labour's let's-create-UKIP strategy (if that's what it was) has engineered a situation whereby they can f>ck the economy worse than WW2 and still be in with a very strong chance of getting straight back into power. Labour's legendary economic incompetence has been made moot.
Blair casts a bloody long shadow does he not.
I would argue back and insult you, but I am far to agreeable for that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31816926
4 polls with the two parties level but the direction of travel indicates only one party is up in the last 3 weeks.
Will feature the Godfather.
http://may2015.com/ideas/what-makes-us-think-the-snp-can-hold-labour-to-ransom/
At least 50% correct anyway
http://times-deck.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/projects/846c260d715e5b854ffad5f70a516c88.html
Might end up costing Labour in England.
Wonder if there is an unofficial agreement between the Tories and SNP.
The Tories reveal two posters of Salmond and Miliband and then Alec Salmond starts playing up.Seems rather suspicious.
"Dilution of liabilities and the consequences
"The market was forced to restructure. An ambitious plan entitled Reconstruction and Renewal was produced in 1995, with proposals for separating the ongoing Lloyd's from its past losses. Liability for all pre-1993 business was to be compulsorily transferred (by RITC) into a special vehicle called Equitas, which would require the approval of the UK's Department of Trade & Industry (DTI) at a cost of around $21 billion. Many Names faced large bills, but the plan also provided for a settlement of their disputes, a tax on recent profits, and the write-off of nearly $ 5 billion of debts - skewed towards those with the biggest losses. The plan was debated at length, modified, and eventually strongly supported by the Association of Lloyd's Members (ALM) and most leaders of Names' Action Groups. Money was raised in many ways, including the sale and leaseback of Lloyd's building, and a tax on future business. Individual offers were accepted by 95% of Lloyd's Names. The past liabilities of all Names were transferred to Equitas in September 1996.
The 'recruit to dilute' fraud allegations were heard in court in 2000 in the case Sir William Jaffray & Ors v. The Society of Lloyd's (see first instance judgment) and the appeal was heard in 2002. On each occasion the allegation that there had been a policy of "recruit to dilute" was rejected; however, at first instance the judge described the Names as "the innocent victims [...] of staggering incompetence" and at appeal the court found (see appeal judgment) that representations that Lloyd's had a rigorous auditing system were false ([item 376 of the judgment:] [...] the answer to the question [...] whether there was in existence a rigorous system of auditing which involved the making of a reasonable estimate of outstanding liabilities, including unknown and unnoted losses, is no. Moreover, the answer would be no even if the word 'rigorous' were removed.) and strongly hinted that one of Lloyd's main witnesses, Murray Lawrence, a previous chairman, had lied in his testimony ([item 405 of the judgment:] We have serious reservations about the veracity of Mr. Lawrence's evidence [...].)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd's_of_London
Am I forgiven?
Miliband will actually have a better hand if it comes down to this but the best hand doesn't always win.
Do you even understand what you post?
Harperson the interim leader again ?
Cameron was a bit risky, being an attractive, fresh-faced guy. But it was either him or a bloke who was in the SAS. The SAS is so not middling....
And just to show I am equally vacuous to the left and the right, I would say that Theresa May has no chance of leadership whilst ever she has those panda eyes. The Uncle Fester tribute act is not a good look when becoming party leader. Not middling enough. She's gonna need to take a break for a few weeks - and have a bit of work done....
Farage must be the only leader who looks like a Spitting Image puppet. If there were one and you put them together you could not tell them apart.
He looks like a human in same way this guy does:
https://camo.githubusercontent.com/18255c771959400f51177270ec4ab3044ed2ac82/687474703a2f2f686f6d6570616765732e6e696c6472616d2e636f2e756b2f253745706f6c796d6f72702f7478742f6b727974656e2e676966
Liability for all pre-1993 business was to be compulsorily transferred (by RITC) into a special vehicle called Equitas, which would require the approval of the UK's Department of Trade & Industry (DTI) at a cost of around $21 billion.
?
Next we'll get part two of the SNP rope a dope strategy, good cop Nicola.
Might end up costing Labour in England."
Not so much a question of might, most definitely will!
Cartoons mock appearance.
Given it`s granted they will lose seats in Scotland they don`t want this to affect their chances in England.
Wallace & Gromit are successful, popular and award-winning.
Perhaps someone else would be able to find silly photos of successful leading politicians?
Privatise the profit, and hand the public the liabilities.
Whenever you see a "special vehicle" in finance, it means debt is being delivered to the average Joe....or Joline at the end of it's journey, and they are copping the fare.
I'm sure Dave won't be reminding using his quotes from this week.
Labour under Blair: "Michael Howard is Fagin/a vampire and William Hague a fetus! Ewww, don't they look weird?! (Not like Blair)"
Labour post-Blair: "Voters care about policies, not appearances!"
You're giving us opinions, not facts.
Bit like you did over the TSB dividends, showing you didn't know what you were talking about, as everyone knew the difference between cum and ex dividend.
A Grand Coalition is Alex Salmond and the SNP's dream scenario.
The remaining Labour voters in Scotland would join the exodus from their party, that teamed up with the hated Tories.
Alex Salmond could position himself as 'Leader of the Opposistion' grilling David Cameron (or another Tory replacement) whilst the Labour leader sat sheepishly by his side.
And finally axing the Barnett Formula would see support for independence skyrocket.
Of course, none of this will happen, as nobody is that stupid.
Gerry Hassan @GerryHassan · 28 mins 28 minutes ago
YouGov poll: 2/3rds of Scots say Labour has lost touch with ordinary people; a majority believe Lab doesnt care for their needs. #GE2015
Gerry Hassan @GerryHassan · 27 mins 27 minutes ago
YouGov poll: 51% of Scots believe the #SNP care abt them; 31% believe the SNP do not represent their interests. #GE2015
Gerry Hassan @GerryHassan · 23 mins 23 minutes ago
YouGov poll: 69% of Scots believe "Labour has seriously lost touch with ordinary working people." #GE2015
So where did the money come from to pay for all this "bad debt"? Did the City in an act of generosity buy the package?
Who would be stupid enough to buy billions in liabilities?
Even I struggled with the idea the public would have bought shares and refused the dividend.
But hey? the public are gullible and deserve to get shafted by the smart.
Stop wriggling, it is unbecoming.
Conservative 275
Labour 263
A damned close-run thing as someone might once have (not quite) said.
The choice at the next election is very simple: Conservative competence and further economic progress, or a chaotic, Miliband-led, anti-business shambles.
They don't refuse it. They just aren't eligible to have the dividend.
You take the assesment that the increase in share price in the future is worth buying it ex dividend.
Sometimes it pays. Sometimes it doesn't.
Of course it did, that's why they needed a "special vehicle" that contained all the liabilities.
A sort of magic money tree for the needy rich.
Its only if the opposition can't realistically govern that they'd be compelled to vote with the government in calling for an election. But if the opposition can't there's no need to dissolve the government and wait weeks before dissolving Parliament, a two-thirds vote for an early election is a more realistic alternative.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/g20-brisbane-summit-that-awkward-moment-when-world-leaders-meet-funny-photos-1474875
"They don't refuse it. They just aren't eligible to have the dividend. "
Lower class shares for the idiots? Do they get a vote on the company board?
unstable minority government lacking authority or genuine mandate;
second election;
grand coalition.
Which is the least worst?
"The man who lost the referendum on Scottish independence is swanning around like he owns the Union"
"I cannot account for whatever is going on inside that great big head of a gifted man who used to have a greater grasp of reality. Perhaps it is denial, or addiction to attention, or excitement about his return to the Commons (a place he loves). Whatever it is, he is behaving as though Nicola Sturgeon is still his deputy and he didn't resign."
Conservative 34.3%
Labour 34.3%
UKIP 11.0%
Liberal Democrat 8.0%
Green 5.5%
Exactly tied! Earlier in the year the Tories had a modest lead on an average of the phone polls.
It is a near 9,000 strong GB wide poll with a hefty Scottish subsample
You can get future dividends.
You really should stop talking about things you have no knowledge about.
So, you are saying "Gordo" struck a brilliant deal for the general public, in the same way the DTI struck one with Lloyds?
Strange? I thought you blue boys reckoned he was an idiot?
Make your mind up?