Does anyone know how to deal with My Kids Are Growing Up Grief? My eldest, Lucy, no longer needs her child seat in the car. It has been exiled to the attic.
These transitions are so sudden, and too poignant.
More poignant than that is the first time your daughter says "Please don't go, Daddy" when you have to make a business trip. I remember that very clearly. She was four.
My 3 year old is already on "please don't got to work on a Saturday, Daddy"
Neice & nephew in floods as father returning to work after a long break were swiftly assuaged with"Telly Tubbies on TV" - a moments contemplation, then a bolt for the set.....
That's that then. She knows full well that Miliband could never agree to this - make the UK defenceless because a minority of Scots wish it so? - therefore Miliband won't even get confidence and supply from the Nats, let alone Coalition, all he will get is sporadic Nat support, vote by vote, with Sturgeon constantly threatening to pull the plug.
That government would last about 3 to 9 months. Horribly unstable
If I were a more cunning man, I would begin to wonder if Sturgeon's desired outcome is a Tory victory, which she can righteously oppose on behalf of all oppressed Caledonians.
She's sidelined - Eck will be leading the negotiations at Westminster for the Nats - she will be in the Mo Mowlem role - " 2 sugars love.."
1st impression - Looks good for Dave, gets the closer.
More detailed:
Ed never gets to follow DC directly. DC goes straight after Ed on Q2 and Q4. Farage follows DC directly on Q3 (immigration?) whereas DC follows Farage on closing statement. Sturgeon & Ed never respond directly to each other
If I were Farage id say ' what you are about to hear from Cameron will be no more believable than the promises he made , and broke, this time five years ago, no top down reorganisation of the nhs, no ifs no buts on immigration, all broken promises... Over to you Dave
"From the man who'd put Ed Miliband in Downing Street and no referendum on the EU, I need no lessons in believability"
Greater Manchester is getting the chance to locally organise and run its NHS and social services. Others will follow. The NHS reorganisation was about running it from the bottom up not top town
My mother had one or two favourites from me aged about 4 or 5yrs. Whilst talking with a woman she didn't like much and faking interest in her, I piped up and said "But you told me you wouldn't be seen dead dressed like her"
Does anyone know how to deal with My Kids Are Growing Up Grief? My eldest, Lucy, no longer needs her child seat in the car. It has been exiled to the attic.
These transitions are so sudden, and too poignant.
Yet soon he'll be a toddler, he'll start talking - and talking back -
Be careful what you wish for :-)
Yes I remember my daughter came out with 'My daddy has the biggest willy in the whole world' Thankfully she only had my 5 year old son to compare with but I was none the less mortified!
That's that then. She knows full well that Miliband could never agree to this - make the UK defenceless because a minority of Scots wish it so? - therefore Miliband won't even get confidence and supply from the Nats, let alone Coalition, all he will get is sporadic Nat support, vote by vote, with Sturgeon constantly threatening to pull the plug.
That government would last about 3 to 9 months. Horribly unstable
If I were a more cunning man, I would begin to wonder if Sturgeon's desired outcome is a Tory victory, which she can righteously oppose on behalf of all oppressed Caledonians.
Nicola, far more than Salmond, is focussed upon replacing SLAB as the party of Scotland's central belt. Her target is Ed even if she pretends to be aiming at Dave because Ed has the seats she wants and his party is the only realistic possible replacement for her party in Holyrood. A Labour party in melt down and useless opposition suits her objectives perfectly.
A tory government works for her far, far better than a Labour one and she will seek to undermine Ed every time she can. She is not to be underestimated.
For the Tories it is really all about EVEL. And that actually suits her fine, providing there is enough danegeld on the table.
It seems to me that the best result for him would be one where he gets enough seats to remain in government, but not enough to deliver the policies his backbenchers and activists want.
The chances are that there will be fewer right-wing nutjobs Conservative MPs after the next election, and more left-wing nutjobs on the Labour benches. Cameron's Conservatives will pick candidates that are like them, and Miliband's Labour will pick ones the unions want.
I fear you are making the same mistake others on here are: that they, and only they, are the true voice of a party.
It's just throwing toys out of prams because the world does not agree with you.
That's that then. She knows full well that Miliband could never agree to this - make the UK defenceless because a minority of Scots wish it so? - therefore Miliband won't even get confidence and supply from the Nats, let alone Coalition, all he will get is sporadic Nat support, vote by vote, with Sturgeon constantly threatening to pull the plug.
That government would last about 3 to 9 months. Horribly unstable
If I were a more cunning man, I would begin to wonder if Sturgeon's desired outcome is a Tory victory, which she can righteously oppose on behalf of all oppressed Caledonians.
Alex Salmond has boasted in the past how he has worked with the conservatives and the SNP must realise that David Cameron will give them far more than labour but obviously they could not give even a hint at this time that they could get the 'best' deal from the conservatives as it would play into labours hands
Ditching Trident is the clear litmus test which shows how red the SNP are. Its the far left goal which is underpinning the flight from Labour. Added to the devolution Scotland is getting, it ought to peel off SNP support in the traditional LD and Tory areas. Ought to...
Off-Topic: What has really surprised me is that the Coalition has ended with a whimper instead of a bang. In fact the LibDems are technically still in office!
I was fully expecting a formal (and self-congratulatory from both sides) disengagement a few weeks before the dissolution, with Cameron carrying on in a technical minority.
If have thought Farage will ask Cameron to explain this, bearing in mind 'no ifs, no buts... Kick us out if we don't deliver'
Going 6th w Cameron 7th is actually perfect for Farage... If he can come up with a killer line that leaves Cameron looking insincere/unable to deliver
Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) 31/03/2015 11:22 Today, #UKIP unveiled new posters, showing that net migration into Britain is THREE TIMES what the Tories promised: pic.twitter.com/cgljPURoUU
My mother had one or two favourites from me aged about 4 or 5yrs. Whilst talking with a woman she didn't like much and faking interest in her, I piped up and said "But you told me you wouldn't be seen dead dressed like her"
Does anyone know how to deal with My Kids Are Growing Up Grief? My eldest, Lucy, no longer needs her child seat in the car. It has been exiled to the attic.
These transitions are so sudden, and too poignant.
Yet soon he'll be a toddler, he'll start talking - and talking back -
Be careful what you wish for :-)
Yes I remember my daughter came out with 'My daddy has the biggest willy in the whole world' Thankfully she only had my 5 year old son to compare with but I was none the less mortified!
Ha ha, my younger daughter was with my wife, and was sitting in a supermarket trolley waiting to pay when, in a very loud voice, she came out with 'Mummy look at that man's nose' The poor unfortunate had a very large proboscis and embarrassing for my wife
As an interesting aside, what is the minimum number of seats do you think each leader needs to survive; Miliband- I would suggest anything under 265 and he will be in big trouble, anything between 265-275 he will be vulnerable, over 280 safe
Cameron- the figure is higher, under 280 and he will be an ex leader, 280-290- he maybe can carry on, and over 290 safe
30 for Clegg is the figure; 25-30 he will be able to cling on maybe, over 30 he will be jubilant.
@NickPalmer what's your source for the 'families £1600 worse off under Tories' claim on your leaflet? Does it take into account the adjustments to take low paid out of income tax? And, if it doesn't, isn't it just a deception?
tyson - no doubt whatever the result Clegg will try and use the nauseating Blair tactic of saying 'the results are nowhere near as bad as people were predicting.'
That's that then. She knows full well that Miliband could never agree to this - make the UK defenceless because a minority of Scots wish it so? - therefore Miliband won't even get confidence and supply from the Nats, let alone Coalition, all he will get is sporadic Nat support, vote by vote, with Sturgeon constantly threatening to pull the plug.
That government would last about 3 to 9 months. Horribly unstable
If I were a more cunning man, I would begin to wonder if Sturgeon's desired outcome is a Tory victory, which she can righteously oppose on behalf of all oppressed Caledonians.
Of course the SNP want a Tory government. They want an EU referendum as that gives them the opportunity to put another independence vote in their Holyrood manifesto for next year's Scottish election: we will hold a referendum in the event of a Brexit, or something like that.
As an interesting aside, what is the minimum number of seats do you think each leader needs to survive; Miliband- I would suggest anything under 265 and he will be in big trouble, anything between 265-275 he will be vulnerable, over 280 safe
Cameron- the figure is higher, under 280 and he will be an ex leader, 280-290- he maybe can carry on, and over 290 safe
30 for Clegg is the figure; 25-30 he will be able to cling on maybe, over 30 he will be jubilant.
I think you're right for Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband. For David Cameron I think the test is simpler - if he stays as Prime Minister, he stays as party leader, but otherwise he's out.
Nigel Farage needs only one seat - his own. But if he fails to get that, we could see a full-on ruck in UKIP, because it's hard to imagine him going quietly and it's hard to imagine him not being challenged if others get elected and he doesn't.
That's that then. She knows full well that Miliband could never agree to this - make the UK defenceless because a minority of Scots wish it so? - therefore Miliband won't even get confidence and supply from the Nats, let alone Coalition, all he will get is sporadic Nat support, vote by vote, with Sturgeon constantly threatening to pull the plug.
That government would last about 3 to 9 months. Horribly unstable
If I were a more cunning man, I would begin to wonder if Sturgeon's desired outcome is a Tory victory, which she can righteously oppose on behalf of all oppressed Caledonians.
Nicola, far more than Salmond, is focussed upon replacing SLAB as the party of Scotland's central belt. Her target is Ed even if she pretends to be aiming at Dave because Ed has the seats she wants and his party is the only realistic possible replacement for her party in Holyrood. A Labour party in melt down and useless opposition suits her objectives perfectly.
A tory government works for her far, far better than a Labour one and she will seek to undermine Ed every time she can. She is not to be underestimated.
For the Tories it is really all about EVEL. And that actually suits her fine, providing there is enough danegeld on the table.
The SNP may EVEN be able to vote against EVEL if the parliamentary arithmetic is correct whilst being able to have it passed.
That would be damn near perfect, especially if there are Labour rebels that back it and get it through.
As any diplomacy player knows you don't always hope your support of an "ally" will succeed.
Off-Topic: What has really surprised me is that the Coalition has ended with a whimper instead of a bang. In fact the LibDems are technically still in office!
I was fully expecting a formal (and self-congratulatory from both sides) disengagement a few weeks before the dissolution, with Cameron carrying on in a technical minority.
What is the LDs strategy here? Anyone know?
That is strange because the coalition has been a remarkable feat of political engineering. Perhaps the internal polling on both sides shows that it is best not to remind people too much, I don't know. But Cameron and Clegg deserve a huge amount of respect for keeping the boat afloat for a full five years.
Off-Topic: What has really surprised me is that the Coalition has ended with a whimper instead of a bang. In fact the LibDems are technically still in office!
I was fully expecting a formal (and self-congratulatory from both sides) disengagement a few weeks before the dissolution, with Cameron carrying on in a technical minority.
What is the LDs strategy here? Anyone know?
That is strange because the coalition has been a remarkable feat of political engineering. Perhaps the internal polling on both sides shows that it is best not to remind people too much, I don't know. But Cameron and Clegg deserve a huge amount of respect for keeping the boat afloat for a full five years.
It was all to do with the budget, there was no way the Lib Dems were going to walk out of government and let the Tories present a solo budget on the eve of the election
Off-Topic: What has really surprised me is that the Coalition has ended with a whimper instead of a bang. In fact the LibDems are technically still in office!
I was fully expecting a formal (and self-congratulatory from both sides) disengagement a few weeks before the dissolution, with Cameron carrying on in a technical minority.
What is the LDs strategy here? Anyone know?
That is strange because the coalition has been a remarkable feat of political engineering. Perhaps the internal polling on both sides shows that it is best not to remind people too much, I don't know. But Cameron and Clegg deserve a huge amount of respect for keeping the boat afloat for a full five years.
It was all to do with the budget, there was no way the Lib Dems were going to walk out of government and let the Tories present a solo budget on the eve of the election
I thought the LDs presented their own budget anyway?
Since Broxtowe is a swing marginal seat, can we expect regular updates from Nick, our Broxtowe contributor, about Labour's progress there or would that be giving away inside information?
I'll chat anecdotally as I did last time, mainly for amusement, but won't disclose anything that isn't locally known. I have a copy of the Tory campaign plan from disaffected local members - it's fairly similar to ours though there are a few interesting differences, which I'll comment on after the election. They had a big push to get leaflets out before the short campaign ended, but only have one general leaflet still to come (next weekend), plus the freeposts and selected direct mails. That might be wise as leaflet fatigue undoubtedly sets in - we'll see.
Broxtowe is a key one of the dozen. If a Tory hold despite Nicks strong ground game we will be looking at a Con majority
It's important to bear in mind that Nick's undoubtedly strong ground game also applied in 2010, so it's already 'in the price'.
Yes and no. Around 25% of the electorate has moved/died, so the personal vote by definition will have declined, in addition to anyone who has simply forgotten or feels it was all very nice but hey, it's in the past. On the other hand, I'm getting vastly more help this time (2010 was in reality just me and local mates - the national party gave up on it) and the current incumbency factor is in my opinion not proving a net positive here, especially with LibDems.
The main factor does remain the 17% of the voters that the LibDems got last time on the back of quite successful selling of the idea that they might win. Nobody is saying that this time, and it's really very rare to meet a General Election LibDem (though they're still holding a chunk of local votes). They will finally disclose their candidate (a retiring councillor) today.
It'll be a very bad night for Labour if you don't regain Broxtowe.
If you were a lab/lib/con supporter in Scotland would you not be fed up with having to agree with nationalist preaching, how many will think screw you Salmond when asked the question in the privacy of the booth?
Off-Topic: What has really surprised me is that the Coalition has ended with a whimper instead of a bang. In fact the LibDems are technically still in office!
I was fully expecting a formal (and self-congratulatory from both sides) disengagement a few weeks before the dissolution, with Cameron carrying on in a technical minority.
What is the LDs strategy here? Anyone know?
That is strange because the coalition has been a remarkable feat of political engineering. Perhaps the internal polling on both sides shows that it is best not to remind people too much, I don't know. But Cameron and Clegg deserve a huge amount of respect for keeping the boat afloat for a full five years.
It would be fun for OGH or a.n.other to look back to 2010/11 and get some quotes from regular posters on the longevity of the coalition. ISTR there were some humdingers - e.g. not even six months.
I have little doubt that history will judge the 2010 coalition kinder than the 2015 electorate. That's life, sadly.
Does anyone know how to deal with My Kids Are Growing Up Grief? My eldest, Lucy, no longer needs her child seat in the car. It has been exiled to the attic.
These transitions are so sudden, and too poignant.
More poignant than that is the first time your daughter says "Please don't go, Daddy" when you have to make a business trip. I remember that very clearly. She was four.
I remember when my daughter (aged 3) pointed at me, as I returned from yet another long trip abroad, and said to her mum: "Who's that man?"
Now THAT was painful. It also stopped me going on so many trips, right there and then.
Since that moment we have become much closer, so that now she will do what you describe, she will hug me and say "please don't go" when I'm heading out the door. It is also painful, but in a better way.
There's probably no way of escaping some kind of sadness. It is the human condition.
Does anyone know how to deal with My Kids Are Growing Up Grief? My eldest, Lucy, no longer needs her child seat in the car. It has been exiled to the attic.
These transitions are so sudden, and too poignant.
More poignant than that is the first time your daughter says "Please don't go, Daddy" when you have to make a business trip. I remember that very clearly. She was four.
I remember when my daughter (aged 3) pointed at me, as I returned from yet another long trip abroad, and said to her mum: "Who's that man?"
Now THAT was painful. It also stopped me going on so many trips, right there and then.
Since that moment we have become much closer, so that now she will do what you describe, she will hug me and say "please don't go" when I'm heading out the door. It is also painful, but in a better way.
There's probably no way of escaping some kind of sadness. It is the human condition.
As an interesting aside, what is the minimum number of seats do you think each leader needs to survive; Miliband- I would suggest anything under 265 and he will be in big trouble, anything between 265-275 he will be vulnerable, over 280 safe
Cameron- the figure is higher, under 280 and he will be an ex leader, 280-290- he maybe can carry on, and over 290 safe
30 for Clegg is the figure; 25-30 he will be able to cling on maybe, over 30 he will be jubilant.
I think you're right for Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband. For David Cameron I think the test is simpler - if he stays as Prime Minister, he stays as party leader, but otherwise he's out.
Nigel Farage needs only one seat - his own. But if he fails to get that, we could see a full-on ruck in UKIP, because it's hard to imagine him going quietly and it's hard to imagine him not being challenged if others get elected and he doesn't.
That is why I think the 280 figure is critical for Cameron. If he gets 280-late 280's or above he will hunker down at number 10 and dare Labour to oust him- Labour with fewer seats, fewer votes and backed by the SNP. Anything above 290 and Cameron is safe to run a minority govt.
You cannot help but think that the Scottish referendum has been great for Cameron. He won it and completely dismantled Labour's electoral advantage in one clean hit.
As an interesting aside, what is the minimum number of seats do you think each leader needs to survive; Miliband- I would suggest anything under 265 and he will be in big trouble, anything between 265-275 he will be vulnerable, over 280 safe
Cameron- the figure is higher, under 280 and he will be an ex leader, 280-290- he maybe can carry on, and over 290 safe
30 for Clegg is the figure; 25-30 he will be able to cling on maybe, over 30 he will be jubilant.
I think you're right for Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband. For David Cameron I think the test is simpler - if he stays as Prime Minister, he stays as party leader, but otherwise he's out.
Nigel Farage needs only one seat - his own. But if he fails to get that, we could see a full-on ruck in UKIP, because it's hard to imagine him going quietly and it's hard to imagine him not being challenged if others get elected and he doesn't.
That is why I think the 280 figure is critical for Cameron. If he gets 280-late 280's or above he will hunker down at number 10 and dare Labour to oust him- Labour with fewer seats, fewer votes and backed by the SNP. Anything above 290 and Cameron is safe to run a minority govt.
You cannot help but think that the Scottish referendum has been great for Cameron. He won it and completely dismantled Labour's electoral advantage in one clean hit.
Not bad for someone who is "not very good at politics".
Off-Topic: What has really surprised me is that the Coalition has ended with a whimper instead of a bang. In fact the LibDems are technically still in office!
I was fully expecting a formal (and self-congratulatory from both sides) disengagement a few weeks before the dissolution, with Cameron carrying on in a technical minority.
What is the LDs strategy here? Anyone know?
That is strange because the coalition has been a remarkable feat of political engineering. Perhaps the internal polling on both sides shows that it is best not to remind people too much, I don't know. But Cameron and Clegg deserve a huge amount of respect for keeping the boat afloat for a full five years.
It was all to do with the budget, there was no way the Lib Dems were going to walk out of government and let the Tories present a solo budget on the eve of the election
Yes, my understanding is that there was a late Lib Dem veto on an IHT cut.
Off-Topic: What has really surprised me is that the Coalition has ended with a whimper instead of a bang. In fact the LibDems are technically still in office!
I was fully expecting a formal (and self-congratulatory from both sides) disengagement a few weeks before the dissolution, with Cameron carrying on in a technical minority.
What is the LDs strategy here? Anyone know?
That is strange because the coalition has been a remarkable feat of political engineering. Perhaps the internal polling on both sides shows that it is best not to remind people too much, I don't know. But Cameron and Clegg deserve a huge amount of respect for keeping the boat afloat for a full five years.
It was all to do with the budget, there was no way the Lib Dems were going to walk out of government and let the Tories present a solo budget on the eve of the election
OK, but surely they could have done another rose garden conference yesterday?
It's beyond me how the LDs are going to differentiate themselves when they are still in government! What are they playing at?
As an interesting aside, what is the minimum number of seats do you think each leader needs to survive; Miliband- I would suggest anything under 265 and he will be in big trouble, anything between 265-275 he will be vulnerable, over 280 safe
Cameron- the figure is higher, under 280 and he will be an ex leader, 280-290- he maybe can carry on, and over 290 safe
30 for Clegg is the figure; 25-30 he will be able to cling on maybe, over 30 he will be jubilant.
I think you're right for Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband. For David Cameron I think the test is simpler - if he stays as Prime Minister, he stays as party leader, but otherwise he's out.
Nigel Farage needs only one seat - his own. But if he fails to get that, we could see a full-on ruck in UKIP, because it's hard to imagine him going quietly and it's hard to imagine him not being challenged if others get elected and he doesn't.
That is why I think the 280 figure is critical for Cameron. If he gets 280-late 280's or above he will hunker down at number 10 and dare Labour to oust him- Labour with fewer seats, fewer votes and backed by the SNP. Anything above 290 and Cameron is safe to run a minority govt.
You cannot help but think that the Scottish referendum has been great for Cameron. He won it and completely dismantled Labour's electoral advantage in one clean hit.
Who would vote through a Conservative budget if they have 280 seats?
And this was before some fairly stonking stats this morning.
Osborne has played an absolute blinder. Achieving this peak in the economy at the exact end of a FTP must involve a very large slice of luck but also an astonishing level of skill and judgement.
And yet - despite this - there is still a pretty good chance that Labour will become the next government.
Off-Topic: What has really surprised me is that the Coalition has ended with a whimper instead of a bang. In fact the LibDems are technically still in office!
I was fully expecting a formal (and self-congratulatory from both sides) disengagement a few weeks before the dissolution, with Cameron carrying on in a technical minority.
What is the LDs strategy here? Anyone know?
That is strange because the coalition has been a remarkable feat of political engineering. Perhaps the internal polling on both sides shows that it is best not to remind people too much, I don't know. But Cameron and Clegg deserve a huge amount of respect for keeping the boat afloat for a full five years.
It was all to do with the budget, there was no way the Lib Dems were going to walk out of government and let the Tories present a solo budget on the eve of the election
OK, but surely they could have done another rose garden conference yesterday?
It's beyond me how the LDs are going to differentiate themselves when they are still in government! What are they playing at?
I think the Lib Dems wanted to show that coalitions are stable, secure and don't force the electorate to suffer the twelve labours of Hercules.
have the pollsters adjusted their techniques to reflect that there are likely to be more marginal now that UKIP, Greens, SNP will all win votes away from main parties which might mean you get surprising results in 3-way fights that used to be safe seats? I think this is going to be a wholly unpredictable election to forecast using the traditional methods, unless a leader really puts his foot in his mouth & screws it up big time
Off-Topic: What has really surprised me is that the Coalition has ended with a whimper instead of a bang. In fact the LibDems are technically still in office!
I was fully expecting a formal (and self-congratulatory from both sides) disengagement a few weeks before the dissolution, with Cameron carrying on in a technical minority.
What is the LDs strategy here? Anyone know?
That is strange because the coalition has been a remarkable feat of political engineering. Perhaps the internal polling on both sides shows that it is best not to remind people too much, I don't know. But Cameron and Clegg deserve a huge amount of respect for keeping the boat afloat for a full five years.
It was all to do with the budget, there was no way the Lib Dems were going to walk out of government and let the Tories present a solo budget on the eve of the election
OK, but surely they could have done another rose garden conference yesterday?
It's beyond me how the LDs are going to differentiate themselves when they are still in government! What are they playing at?
The government and ministers remain in office until the Queen appoints a new PM. Twas ever thus.
I don't think from the early exchanges that differentiation in the campaign will be a problem for either the Conservatives or the LibDems.
Off-Topic: What has really surprised me is that the Coalition has ended with a whimper instead of a bang. In fact the LibDems are technically still in office!
I was fully expecting a formal (and self-congratulatory from both sides) disengagement a few weeks before the dissolution, with Cameron carrying on in a technical minority.
What is the LDs strategy here? Anyone know?
That is strange because the coalition has been a remarkable feat of political engineering. Perhaps the internal polling on both sides shows that it is best not to remind people too much, I don't know. But Cameron and Clegg deserve a huge amount of respect for keeping the boat afloat for a full five years.
It was all to do with the budget, there was no way the Lib Dems were going to walk out of government and let the Tories present a solo budget on the eve of the election
OK, but surely they could have done another rose garden conference yesterday?
It's beyond me how the LDs are going to differentiate themselves when they are still in government! What are they playing at?
I think the Lib Dems wanted to show that coalitions are stable, secure and don't force the electorate to suffer the twelve labours of Hercules.
It still doesn't answer the question, why didn't it formally end, even yesterday?
As an interesting aside, what is the minimum number of seats do you think each leader needs to survive; Miliband- I would suggest anything under 265 and he will be in big trouble, anything between 265-275 he will be vulnerable, over 280 safe
Cameron- the figure is higher, under 280 and he will be an ex leader, 280-290- he maybe can carry on, and over 290 safe
30 for Clegg is the figure; 25-30 he will be able to cling on maybe, over 30 he will be jubilant.
I think you're right for Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband. For David Cameron I think the test is simpler - if he stays as Prime Minister, he stays as party leader, but otherwise he's out.
Nigel Farage needs only one seat - his own. But if he fails to get that, we could see a full-on ruck in UKIP, because it's hard to imagine him going quietly and it's hard to imagine him not being challenged if others get elected and he doesn't.
That is why I think the 280 figure is critical for Cameron. If he gets 280-late 280's or above he will hunker down at number 10 and dare Labour to oust him- Labour with fewer seats, fewer votes and backed by the SNP. Anything above 290 and Cameron is safe to run a minority govt.
You cannot help but think that the Scottish referendum has been great for Cameron. He won it and completely dismantled Labour's electoral advantage in one clean hit.
Not bad for someone who is "not very good at politics".
Any Tory who think that Cameron hasn't been anything but a huge electoral asset for the party is bonkers. He was the right choice then, and even now towers over the others. Whether they like him or not is another matter.
You cannot help but think that the Scottish referendum has been great for Cameron. He won it and completely dismantled Labour's electoral advantage in one clean hit.
If I thought he had planned and then contrived that, I'd be really impressed.
Cameron lost my support when he pledged unlimited quantities of my money to keep those grasping selfish Scotch pr1cks in the Union. If he wanted to do that fine, but then the Scotch referendum question should also have been put to the English. That same question exactly.
Off-Topic: What has really surprised me is that the Coalition has ended with a whimper instead of a bang. In fact the LibDems are technically still in office!
I was fully expecting a formal (and self-congratulatory from both sides) disengagement a few weeks before the dissolution, with Cameron carrying on in a technical minority.
What is the LDs strategy here? Anyone know?
That is strange because the coalition has been a remarkable feat of political engineering. Perhaps the internal polling on both sides shows that it is best not to remind people too much, I don't know. But Cameron and Clegg deserve a huge amount of respect for keeping the boat afloat for a full five years.
It was all to do with the budget, there was no way the Lib Dems were going to walk out of government and let the Tories present a solo budget on the eve of the election
OK, but surely they could have done another rose garden conference yesterday?
It's beyond me how the LDs are going to differentiate themselves when they are still in government! What are they playing at?
The government and ministers remain in office until the Queen appoints a new PM. Twas ever thus.
I don't think from the early exchanges that differentiation in the campaign will be a problem for either the Conservatives or the LibDems.
That's no answer. It was perfectly possible for the LDs to formally dissolve the Coalition, and leave office yesterday or before.
Off-Topic: What has really surprised me is that the Coalition has ended with a whimper instead of a bang. In fact the LibDems are technically still in office!
I was fully expecting a formal (and self-congratulatory from both sides) disengagement a few weeks before the dissolution, with Cameron carrying on in a technical minority.
What is the LDs strategy here? Anyone know?
That is strange because the coalition has been a remarkable feat of political engineering. Perhaps the internal polling on both sides shows that it is best not to remind people too much, I don't know. But Cameron and Clegg deserve a huge amount of respect for keeping the boat afloat for a full five years.
It was all to do with the budget, there was no way the Lib Dems were going to walk out of government and let the Tories present a solo budget on the eve of the election
OK, but surely they could have done another rose garden conference yesterday?
It's beyond me how the LDs are going to differentiate themselves when they are still in government! What are they playing at?
I think the Lib Dems wanted to show that coalitions are stable, secure and don't force the electorate to suffer the twelve labours of Hercules.
It still doesn't answer the question, why didn't it formally end, even yesterday?
Because the government still carries on, and if it a rather messy hung parliament, they have the benefit of being in situ and it become difficult to shift the incumbent government.
That's that then. She knows full well that Miliband could never agree to this - make the UK defenceless because a minority of Scots wish it so? - therefore Miliband won't even get confidence and supply from the Nats, let alone Coalition, all he will get is sporadic Nat support, vote by vote, with Sturgeon constantly threatening to pull the plug.
That government would last about 3 to 9 months. Horribly unstable
If I were a more cunning man, I would begin to wonder if Sturgeon's desired outcome is a Tory victory, which she can righteously oppose on behalf of all oppressed Caledonians.
Nicola, far more than Salmond, is focussed upon replacing SLAB as the party of Scotland's central belt. Her target is Ed even if she pretends to be aiming at Dave because Ed has the seats she wants and his party is the only realistic possible replacement for her party in Holyrood. A Labour party in melt down and useless opposition suits her objectives perfectly.
A tory government works for her far, far better than a Labour one and she will seek to undermine Ed every time she can. She is not to be underestimated.
For the Tories it is really all about EVEL. And that actually suits her fine, providing there is enough danegeld on the table.
The SNP may EVEN be able to vote against EVEL if the parliamentary arithmetic is correct whilst being able to have it passed.
That would be damn near perfect, especially if there are Labour rebels that back it and get it through.
As any diplomacy player knows you don't always hope your support of an "ally" will succeed.
I think EVEL plays into SNP hands because in the theoretical situation that there is a LAB SNP pact, I personally don't think there will be, Labour might find itself in a situation where it has to go to the Tories to get some legislation through and that will go up in Labours faces in Scotland like a firestorm, since the SNP will abstain on what it perceives are EVEL situations.
I think that is what SNP wants, with 5 year fixed Parliaments Labour is stuck between a rock and a hard place and Sturgeon is a woman after all and she is going to squeeze Labours baws every chance she gets.
And this was before some fairly stonking stats this morning.
Osborne has played an absolute blinder. Achieving this peak in the economy at the exact end of a FTP must involve a very large slice of luck but also an astonishing level of skill and judgement.
And yet - despite this - there is still a pretty good chance that Labour will become the next government.
Yeah.
Sigh.
A simple average of this week's five polls has the Conservatives leading 34.8% to 33.4%, but there have been plenty of weeks where the Conservatives started well, only to fall back.
Off-Topic: What has really surprised me is that the Coalition has ended with a whimper instead of a bang. In fact the LibDems are technically still in office!
I was fully expecting a formal (and self-congratulatory from both sides) disengagement a few weeks before the dissolution, with Cameron carrying on in a technical minority.
What is the LDs strategy here? Anyone know?
That is strange because the coalition has been a remarkable feat of political engineering. Perhaps the internal polling on both sides shows that it is best not to remind people too much, I don't know. But Cameron and Clegg deserve a huge amount of respect for keeping the boat afloat for a full five years.
It was all to do with the budget, there was no way the Lib Dems were going to walk out of government and let the Tories present a solo budget on the eve of the election
OK, but surely they could have done another rose garden conference yesterday?
It's beyond me how the LDs are going to differentiate themselves when they are still in government! What are they playing at?
I think the Lib Dems wanted to show that coalitions are stable, secure and don't force the electorate to suffer the twelve labours of Hercules.
It still doesn't answer the question, why didn't it formally end, even yesterday?
Because the government still carries on, and if it a rather messy hung parliament, they have the benefit of being in situ and it become difficult to shift the incumbent government.
I'd have thought they'd at least *try* and engineer a major row near to the end of the parliament though.
Off-Topic: What has really surprised me is that the Coalition has ended with a whimper instead of a bang. In fact the LibDems are technically still in office!
I was fully expecting a formal (and self-congratulatory from both sides) disengagement a few weeks before the dissolution, with Cameron carrying on in a technical minority.
What is the LDs strategy here? Anyone know?
That is strange because the coalition has been a remarkable feat of political engineering. Perhaps the internal polling on both sides shows that it is best not to remind people too much, I don't know. But Cameron and Clegg deserve a huge amount of respect for keeping the boat afloat for a full five years.
It was all to do with the budget, there was no way the Lib Dems were going to walk out of government and let the Tories present a solo budget on the eve of the election
OK, but surely they could have done another rose garden conference yesterday?
It's beyond me how the LDs are going to differentiate themselves when they are still in government! What are they playing at?
The government and ministers remain in office until the Queen appoints a new PM. Twas ever thus.
I don't think from the early exchanges that differentiation in the campaign will be a problem for either the Conservatives or the LibDems.
That's no answer. It was perfectly possible for the LDs to formally dissolve the Coalition, and leave office yesterday or before.
Why haven't they done so?
Do they still get their Ministerial salaries for April and May this way?
Off-Topic: What has really surprised me is that the Coalition has ended with a whimper instead of a bang. In fact the LibDems are technically still in office!
I was fully expecting a formal (and self-congratulatory from both sides) disengagement a few weeks before the dissolution, with Cameron carrying on in a technical minority.
What is the LDs strategy here? Anyone know?
That is strange because the coalition has been a remarkable feat of political engineering. Perhaps the internal polling on both sides shows that it is best not to remind people too much, I don't know. But Cameron and Clegg deserve a huge amount of respect for keeping the boat afloat for a full five years.
It was all to do with the budget, there was no way the Lib Dems were going to walk out of government and let the Tories present a solo budget on the eve of the election
OK, but surely they could have done another rose garden conference yesterday?
It's beyond me how the LDs are going to differentiate themselves when they are still in government! What are they playing at?
The government and ministers remain in office until the Queen appoints a new PM. Twas ever thus.
I don't think from the early exchanges that differentiation in the campaign will be a problem for either the Conservatives or the LibDems.
That's no answer. It was perfectly possible for the LDs to formally dissolve the Coalition, and leave office yesterday or before.
Why haven't they done so?
Probably for several reasons, not least would be :
1. They agreed the Coalition would run the full course through the election. 2. Last minute chaos in government as a new Cabinet and ministers are put in place. 3. It would correctly appear as a political stunt.
As an interesting aside, what is the minimum number of seats do you think each leader needs to survive; Miliband- I would suggest anything under 265 and he will be in big trouble, anything between 265-275 he will be vulnerable, over 280 safe
Cameron- the figure is higher, under 280 and he will be an ex leader, 280-290- he maybe can carry on, and over 290 safe
30 for Clegg is the figure; 25-30 he will be able to cling on maybe, over 30 he will be jubilant.
I think you're right for Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband. For David Cameron I think the test is simpler - if he stays as Prime Minister, he stays as party leader, but otherwise he's out.
Nigel Farage needs only one seat - his own. But if he fails to get that, we could see a full-on ruck in UKIP, because it's hard to imagine him going quietly and it's hard to imagine him not being challenged if others get elected and he doesn't.
That is why I think the 280 figure is critical for Cameron. If he gets 280-late 280's or above he will hunker down at number 10 and dare Labour to oust him- Labour with fewer seats, fewer votes and backed by the SNP. Anything above 290 and Cameron is safe to run a minority govt.
You cannot help but think that the Scottish referendum has been great for Cameron. He won it and completely dismantled Labour's electoral advantage in one clean hit.
Who would vote through a Conservative budget if they have 280 seats?
I don't think they could pass a budget at 280. But at 280, Labour will be at the 260-265 range and even with the SNP's not quite there. If you remember that Gordon tried to hunker down from a much worse position; Cameron will not shift if he gets to 280- he will dig the moat and stock up on gunpowder and provisions.
Interesting. That link shows Nick Clegg has refused to rule out backing an EU referendum but is preparing to extract a big price for it; I presume he knows it's a dealbreaker for any future Con-LD coalition.
One of those conditions is that EU nationals living in the UK be permitted to vote in any in/out referendum. Whilst I think Cameron would concede that, his party would go ballistic. I'd expect defections to UKIP if he did give in on that.
Actually getting lumbered with the promise Cameron has made in the form that he's made it is utterly terrible for the Tories. The have an obviously fraudulent "renegotiation", which the leadership then oversells, followed by a referendum that splits their party in two, and a result for either "in" or "out", both of which are worse for them than the status quo of "in but grumpy". Assuming an "in" vote, they then potentially have UKIP doing to them what Salmond is doing to Labour, mopping up a large chunk of permanently miffed voters, and blaming the Tories for the lies that they'll think lost them the vote. Alternatively they get an "out" vote, their donors throw a massive huff, and the party splits over what kind of "out".
It would be hard to come up with anything as bad for the Tory Party if you tried. The back-benchers may not all see it that way, but the people they sent to the coalition negotiations will. I'm not sure how Clegg can help them through it, but pretty much anything would be better for them than what Cameron's promised.
Off-Topic: What has really surprised me is that the Coalition has ended with a whimper instead of a bang. In fact the LibDems are technically still in office!
I was fully expecting a formal (and self-congratulatory from both sides) disengagement a few weeks before the dissolution, with Cameron carrying on in a technical minority.
What is the LDs strategy here? Anyone know?
That is strange because the coalition has been a remarkable feat of political engineering. Perhaps the internal polling on both sides shows that it is best not to remind people too much, I don't know. But Cameron and Clegg deserve a huge amount of respect for keeping the boat afloat for a full five years.
It was all to do with the budget, there was no way the Lib Dems were going to walk out of government and let the Tories present a solo budget on the eve of the election
OK, but surely they could have done another rose garden conference yesterday?
It's beyond me how the LDs are going to differentiate themselves when they are still in government! What are they playing at?
I think the Lib Dems wanted to show that coalitions are stable, secure and don't force the electorate to suffer the twelve labours of Hercules.
It still doesn't answer the question, why didn't it formally end, even yesterday?
Because the government still carries on, and if it a rather messy hung parliament, they have the benefit of being in situ and it become difficult to shift the incumbent government.
I don't get it. So on 8th May the LDs remain sitting at the Cabinet table as Cameron walks out and Miliband walks in?
In 1945 the coalition broke up 6 weeks before the election, and Churchill carried on as caretaker.
The only answer I can come up with is that the LDs think it will help them in the LD-Con marginals...
Does anyone know how to deal with My Kids Are Growing Up Grief? My eldest, Lucy, no longer needs her child seat in the car. It has been exiled to the attic.
These transitions are so sudden, and too poignant.
As a rough principle I'd say kids should have flown the coop by about age 17 or 18 always with the understanding that it's there if they need it. Although, having said that, my lot do seem to have had, for centuries, a genetic "diasporic" disposition to disperse.
Off-Topic: What has really surprised me is that the Coalition has ended with a whimper instead of a bang. In fact the LibDems are technically still in office!
I was fully expecting a formal (and self-congratulatory from both sides) disengagement a few weeks before the dissolution, with Cameron carrying on in a technical minority.
What is the LDs strategy here? Anyone know?
That is strange because the coalition has been a remarkable feat of political engineering. Perhaps the internal polling on both sides shows that it is best not to remind people too much, I don't know. But Cameron and Clegg deserve a huge amount of respect for keeping the boat afloat for a full five years.
It was all to do with the budget, there was no way the Lib Dems were going to walk out of government and let the Tories present a solo budget on the eve of the election
OK, but surely they could have done another rose garden conference yesterday?
It's beyond me how the LDs are going to differentiate themselves when they are still in government! What are they playing at?
The government and ministers remain in office until the Queen appoints a new PM. Twas ever thus.
I don't think from the early exchanges that differentiation in the campaign will be a problem for either the Conservatives or the LibDems.
That's no answer. It was perfectly possible for the LDs to formally dissolve the Coalition, and leave office yesterday or before.
Why haven't they done so?
Do they still get their Ministerial salaries for April and May this way?
Yes.
The Coalition remains the government and accordingly all ministerial salaries are paid until a new administration takes office.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Changes From 28th March Projection) :
Con 316 (+6) .. Lab 242 (-4) .. LibDem 30 (-2) .. SNP 36 (+1) .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 3 (-1) .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Conservatives 10 seats short of a majority ......................................................................................
"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :
Bury North - Con Hold Pudsey - Likely Con Hold Broxtowe - Likely Con Hold from TCTC Warwickshire North - Likely Con Hold Cambridge - LibDem Hold Ipswich - Con Hold Watford - TCTC Croydon Central - Con Hold Enfield North - TCTC Cornwall North - TCTC Great Yarmouth - Con Hold Vale of Glamorgan - Con Hold Ochil and South Perthshire - SNP Gain
Changes From 28 Mar - Broxtowe moves from TCTC to Likely Con Hold.
TCTC - Too Close To Call - Less than 500 votes Likely Hold/Gain - 500 - 2500 votes Gain/Hold - Over 2500 .......................................................................................
ARSE is sponsored by Auchentennach Fine Pies (Est 1745)
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors APLOMB - Auchentennach Pies Leading Outsales Mainland Britain
Off-Topic: What has really surprised me is that the Coalition has ended with a whimper instead of a bang. In fact the LibDems are technically still in office!
I was fully expecting a formal (and self-congratulatory from both sides) disengagement a few weeks before the dissolution, with Cameron carrying on in a technical minority.
What is the LDs strategy here? Anyone know?
That is strange because the coalition has been a remarkable feat of political engineering. Perhaps the internal polling on both sides shows that it is best not to remind people too much, I don't know. But Cameron and Clegg deserve a huge amount of respect for keeping the boat afloat for a full five years.
It was all to do with the budget, there was no way the Lib Dems were going to walk out of government and let the Tories present a solo budget on the eve of the election
OK, but surely they could have done another rose garden conference yesterday?
It's beyond me how the LDs are going to differentiate themselves when they are still in government! What are they playing at?
I think the Lib Dems wanted to show that coalitions are stable, secure and don't force the electorate to suffer the twelve labours of Hercules.
It still doesn't answer the question, why didn't it formally end, even yesterday?
Because the government still carries on, and if it a rather messy hung parliament, they have the benefit of being in situ and it become difficult to shift the incumbent government.
I don't get it. So on 8th May the LDs remain sitting at the Cabinet table as Cameron walks out and Miliband walks in?
In 1945 the coalition broke up 6 weeks before the election, and Churchill carried on as caretaker.
The only answer I can come up with is that the LDs think it will help them in the LD-Con marginals...
No, when Dave resigns, the whole government resigns, including the Yellow Peril.
The 1945 comparisons don't really apply as that was 3 way coalition, and forced by necessity of war.
And this was before some fairly stonking stats this morning.
Osborne has played an absolute blinder. Achieving this peak in the economy at the exact end of a FTP must involve a very large slice of luck but also an astonishing level of skill and judgement.
And yet - despite this - there is still a pretty good chance that Labour will become the next government.
Yeah.
Sigh.
A simple average of this week's five polls has the Conservatives leading 34.8% to 33.4%, but there have been plenty of weeks where the Conservatives started well, only to fall back.
That is not nearly enough Sean. All this talk of the Labour meltdown in Scotland rather ignores the fact that the SNP will not vote for a Conservative government. So Labour losing 30 seats up here helps the Tories to be the largest party but does not get them 1 step closer to a majority (unless they win Dumfries & Galloway of course).
A 4%+ swing in England makes Labour the largest party. The Tories need to at least halve that swing to hang on. It is possible but they have a lot to do. Most election campaigns make relatively little difference. This is why Electionforecast said the swing back was over. This might be the exception. Maybe.
Absolutely nothing is set in stone for this election. But the assumption that a tory lead of 1-2% means they are winning is just wrong. They need much more than that.
Off-Topic: What has really surprised me is that the Coalition has ended with a whimper instead of a bang. In fact the LibDems are technically still in office!
I was fully expecting a formal (and self-congratulatory from both sides) disengagement a few weeks before the dissolution, with Cameron carrying on in a technical minority.
What is the LDs strategy here? Anyone know?
Well, they have lost the "none of the above" protest voters and those who thought the Lib Dems were Labour Lite. I guess they are targeting centrists who think they can be a useful and moderating part of a coalition. Still being in government helps make that point. Clegg will be introduced on Thursday to the TV audience as Deputy Prime Minister.
Off-Topic: What has really surprised me is that the Coalition has ended with a whimper instead of a bang. In fact the LibDems are technically still in office!
I was fully expecting a formal (and self-congratulatory from both sides) disengagement a few weeks before the dissolution, with Cameron carrying on in a technical minority.
What is the LDs strategy here? Anyone know?
That is strange because the coalition has been a remarkable feat of political engineering. Perhaps the internal polling on both sides shows that it is best not to remind people too much, I don't know. But Cameron and Clegg deserve a huge amount of respect for keeping the boat afloat for a full five years.
It was all to do with the budget, there was no way the Lib Dems were going to walk out of government and let the Tories present a solo budget on the eve of the election
OK, but surely they could have done another rose garden conference yesterday?
It's beyond me how the LDs are going to differentiate themselves when they are still in government! What are they playing at?
The government and ministers remain in office until the Queen appoints a new PM. Twas ever thus.
I don't think from the early exchanges that differentiation in the campaign will be a problem for either the Conservatives or the LibDems.
That's no answer. It was perfectly possible for the LDs to formally dissolve the Coalition, and leave office yesterday or before.
Why haven't they done so?
Probably for several reasons, not least would be :
1. They agreed the Coalition would run the full course through the election. 2. Last minute chaos in government as a new Cabinet and ministers are put in place. 3. It would correctly appear as a political stunt.
Still no answer.
1. They agreed a full Parliament, which ended yesterday. 2. Only if they hadn't signalled it in advance. There was no chaos in 1945, or on previous occasions. 3. On the contrary, it was the proper and usual thing to do, unless we are having a "coupon" election, which we're not!
Off-Topic: What has really surprised me is that the Coalition has ended with a whimper instead of a bang. In fact the LibDems are technically still in office!
I was fully expecting a formal (and self-congratulatory from both sides) disengagement a few weeks before the dissolution, with Cameron carrying on in a technical minority.
What is the LDs strategy here? Anyone know?
That is strange because the coalition has been a remarkable feat of political engineering. Perhaps the internal polling on both sides shows that it is best not to remind people too much, I don't know. But Cameron and Clegg deserve a huge amount of respect for keeping the boat afloat for a full five years.
It was all to do with the budget, there was no way the Lib Dems were going to walk out of government and let the Tories present a solo budget on the eve of the election
OK, but surely they could have done another rose garden conference yesterday?
It's beyond me how the LDs are going to differentiate themselves when they are still in government! What are they playing at?
I think the Lib Dems wanted to show that coalitions are stable, secure and don't force the electorate to suffer the twelve labours of Hercules.
The government has a public duty to remain in office until the election and beyond until a new government is formed.
The fact that the government is a coalition of two parties does not mean that either the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats would step down from the government before a new government was formed after the election.
It could equally be argued that the Conservatives should step down to differentiate themselves from the Lib Dems as vice versa.
Interesting. That link shows Nick Clegg has refused to rule out backing an EU referendum but is preparing to extract a big price for it; I presume he knows it's a dealbreaker for any future Con-LD coalition.
One of those conditions is that EU nationals living in the UK be permitted to vote in any in/out referendum. Whilst I think Cameron would concede that, his party would go ballistic. I'd expect defections to UKIP if he did give in on that.
Actually getting lumbered with the promise Cameron has made in the form that he's made it is utterly terrible for the Tories. The have an obviously fraudulent "renegotiation", which the leadership then oversells, followed by a referendum that splits their party in two, and a result for either "in" or "out", both of which are worse for them than the status quo of "in but grumpy". Assuming an "in" vote, they then potentially have UKIP doing to them what Salmond is doing to Labour, mopping up a large chunk of permanently miffed voters, and blaming the Tories for the lies that they'll think lost them the vote. Alternatively they get an "out" vote, their donors throw a massive huff, and the party splits over what kind of "out".
It would be hard to come up with anything as bad for the Tory Party if you tried. The back-benchers may not all see it that way, but the people they sent to the coalition negotiations will. I'm not sure how Clegg can help them through it, but pretty much anything would be better for them than what Cameron's promised.
Well put. At least those of us who would be deeply disheartened by the Tories holding on in power can rest safe in the knowledge that the Tories will tear themseves apart once we get around to the Euro referendeum.
Comments
Fieldwork 26-30 March
The NHS reorganisation was about running it from the bottom up not top town
http://www.tnsglobal.com/uk/press-release/tns-poll-all-to-play-for-but-trust-in-politics-down-since-wilson-era
The Labour + Conservative share is lower than in most recent polls.
http://www.tnsglobal.com/uk/press-release/tns-poll-all-to-play-for-but-trust-in-politics-down-since-wilson-era
A tory government works for her far, far better than a Labour one and she will seek to undermine Ed every time she can. She is not to be underestimated.
For the Tories it is really all about EVEL. And that actually suits her fine, providing there is enough danegeld on the table.
@MSmithsonPB: On range of measures Times Redbox YouGov polling finds significant improvements on last month for EdM http://t.co/4gel4QUBKn
Deficit
NHS
Immigration
look nailed on.
The 4th might well be "future of the UK" thus incorporating both devolution and the EU.
I fear you are making the same mistake others on here are: that they, and only they, are the true voice of a party.
It's just throwing toys out of prams because the world does not agree with you.
I was fully expecting a formal (and self-congratulatory from both sides) disengagement a few weeks before the dissolution, with Cameron carrying on in a technical minority.
What is the LDs strategy here? Anyone know?
Going 6th w Cameron 7th is actually perfect for Farage... If he can come up with a killer line that leaves Cameron looking insincere/unable to deliver
Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage)
31/03/2015 11:22
Today, #UKIP unveiled new posters, showing that net migration into Britain is THREE TIMES what the Tories promised: pic.twitter.com/cgljPURoUU
Those figures are still pretty poor for Ed Miliband, mind.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/generalelection/files/2015/03/miliband-cloud.png
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/generalelection/polling-matters-is-ed-miliband-heading-for-number-10/
Miliband- I would suggest anything under 265 and he will be in big trouble, anything between 265-275 he will be vulnerable, over 280 safe
Cameron- the figure is higher, under 280 and he will be an ex leader, 280-290- he maybe can carry on, and over 290 safe
30 for Clegg is the figure; 25-30 he will be able to cling on maybe, over 30 he will be jubilant.
@MattNavarra: Which political party is the BBC, Sky, Buzzfeed + others tweeting about the most? http://t.co/cvn7kMFTSD #GE2015 http://t.co/MCJLbJk2LU
https://twitter.com/MattNavarra/status/582856170156777472
Nigel Farage needs only one seat - his own. But if he fails to get that, we could see a full-on ruck in UKIP, because it's hard to imagine him going quietly and it's hard to imagine him not being challenged if others get elected and he doesn't.
That would be damn near perfect, especially if there are Labour rebels that back it and get it through.
As any diplomacy player knows you don't always hope your support of an "ally" will succeed.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/joey-essex-quiz-political-party-5409486
I thought the LDs presented their own budget anyway?
Neutral, fair, unbias ?
I have little doubt that history will judge the 2010 coalition kinder than the 2015 electorate. That's life, sadly.
http://www.broxtowelabour.com/
http://www2.tnsglobal.com/l/36112/2015-03-31/49qwpk/36112/86506/BIF_Data_Tables___31Mar2015.pdf
Anything above 290 and Cameron is safe to run a minority govt.
You cannot help but think that the Scottish referendum has been great for Cameron. He won it and completely dismantled Labour's electoral advantage in one clean hit.
Tories 1.1% ahead in this week's ELBOW so far, inc. last night's YG, but excluding TNS (inc. TNS figures to follow!)
It's beyond me how the LDs are going to differentiate themselves when they are still in government! What are they playing at?
Sigh.
I don't think from the early exchanges that differentiation in the campaign will be a problem for either the Conservatives or the LibDems.
Do we know which constituencies or type of constituency Lord A is publishing today?
Cameron lost my support when he pledged unlimited quantities of my money to keep those grasping selfish Scotch pr1cks in the Union. If he wanted to do that fine, but then the Scotch referendum question should also have been put to the English. That same question exactly.
Why haven't they done so?
ComRes/Populus/Ashcroft/YouGov/TNS
I think that is what SNP wants, with 5 year fixed Parliaments Labour is stuck between a rock and a hard place and Sturgeon is a woman after all and she is going to squeeze Labours baws every chance she gets.
For both their sakes.
1. They agreed the Coalition would run the full course through the election.
2. Last minute chaos in government as a new Cabinet and ministers are put in place.
3. It would correctly appear as a political stunt.
It would be hard to come up with anything as bad for the Tory Party if you tried. The back-benchers may not all see it that way, but the people they sent to the coalition negotiations will. I'm not sure how Clegg can help them through it, but pretty much anything would be better for them than what Cameron's promised.
In 1945 the coalition broke up 6 weeks before the election, and Churchill carried on as caretaker.
The only answer I can come up with is that the LDs think it will help them in the LD-Con marginals...
The Coalition remains the government and accordingly all ministerial salaries are paid until a new administration takes office.
The 1945 comparisons don't really apply as that was 3 way coalition, and forced by necessity of war.
A 4%+ swing in England makes Labour the largest party. The Tories need to at least halve that swing to hang on. It is possible but they have a lot to do. Most election campaigns make relatively little difference. This is why Electionforecast said the swing back was over. This might be the exception. Maybe.
Absolutely nothing is set in stone for this election. But the assumption that a tory lead of 1-2% means they are winning is just wrong. They need much more than that.
1. They agreed a full Parliament, which ended yesterday.
2. Only if they hadn't signalled it in advance. There was no chaos in 1945, or on previous occasions.
3. On the contrary, it was the proper and usual thing to do, unless we are having a "coupon" election, which we're not!
The fact that the government is a coalition of two parties does not mean that either the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats would step down from the government before a new government was formed after the election.
It could equally be argued that the Conservatives should step down to differentiate themselves from the Lib Dems as vice versa.