"I have never been of the opinion that voters make up their minds on the day..."
Well I'm pleased to note you are not one of those who think that, whatever the polls may indicate, on the day voters will contemplate the prospect of Ed (is crap) as PM and be so appalled by the prospect that they will vote for Anybody Else.
That has always seemed to me little more than a belief in magic.
What I do suspect happens, which might nett out to the same result, is that voters tell whoppers to pollsters to try and put pressure on their party. We know this happens at by-elections when voters talk about "sending a message" and then vote for their main party come the next GE. So I see no reason why a grumpy Tory might not be telling pollster they plan to vote for either Labour/LD/Kipper to put the wind up the national party when they see bad polls, but actually intends to vote Tory all along.
But don't pollsters adjust for that kind of thing, which is why on the whole the polls tend to be fairly accurate?
"Every SNP seat won from Labour increases the chance of the Tories staying in No 10 because they'll be able to do a deal with the Lib Dems and possibly DUP to get over the magic 326 mark" is something I've never heard from anyone in Scottish Labour.
First Kezia Dugdale's dad admonishes her on twitter.
Now Malcolm Bruce just said, without a flicker of irony, on BBC Reporting Scotland that "a vote for the SNP makes a Tory government more likely".
He really did.
But it is true - certainly makes them the largest party.
A vote for the SNP reduces Tory numbers and reduces the number of potential Tory Allies as the Libs get a wiping in Scotland. At the same time it makes no difference to Ed Miliband's chance of being PM whether a seat returns a Labour or SNP MP.
So it is entirely untrue.
You did not answer the "largest party" question. Each SNP win from Labour increase sthe Tory chances of being the largest party. It is a mathematical fact !
Gosh !! those naughty naughty Scots.
I mean they have the absolute audacity to express their democratic right to vote as they wish which just so happens to be the wrong way so you can't get your way . Then Here you are bitching about it and stamping your little feet.
The Scots have finally Sussed Labour out and Labour are throwing all their toys (and MP's) out of the pram as a result.
"I have never been of the opinion that voters make up their minds on the day..."
Well I'm pleased to note you are not one of those who think that, whatever the polls may indicate, on the day voters will contemplate the prospect of Ed (is crap) as PM and be so appalled by the prospect that they will vote for Anybody Else.
That has always seemed to me little more than a belief in magic.
I was sure I read something recently about a alarmingly high proportion of voters who decide on their way to the polling station. But my Google-fu is weak....
Maybe, Mark, but that was the point Francis and I were pondering.
If Ed is becoming less toxic, as the polls suggest, the number of those undecided souls who turn away from him in revulsion at the last minute will be fewer.
It's irrelevant who is the largest party. The party that commands a majority of the House gets to form the government. Period.
The correct position is that whoever can maintain the confidence of the House of Commons and secure supply for the Crown forms the government. Having a majority of seats is a sufficient but not a necessary condition to do so.
I've backed both Conservative and Labour OMs recently so it will be interesting.
Lib-Lab coalition and Con-LD coalition are quite cheap to cover on Betfair at the moment by the way. Labour would far rather do any sort of deal with the yellow peril than the Nats so if they have a good night its something to cover in a GE book imo.
Just met Tory candidate in Bristol West, have uploaded leaflets to election leaflets.org
No photo of Cameron on the leaflets. She is confident that she could squeeze in if her support holds. Local Councillor recently elected, possibly to her surprise in the first place, but has made a mark.
Was canvassing on own, no blue rosette, in district very close to home address. Though I still wonder how serious a threat Tories are to LDs. A passer by joined in the conversation, who immediately mentioned food banks, zero hours contracts, all it needed was bedroom tax to shout house - an uncharitable thought was the Tory candidate being followed? Just seemed odd that these themes came up so quickly. Claire Hiscott was civil, discussed these points, and how transport hindered unemployed taking job offer up.
Still surprised that she wasn't with other canvassers, last year's council election had several LDs & the MP knock on doors on behalf of their candidate. It seemed low key, though a good way to kill time, whilst dinner was cooking.
Mike L 'No, because the LDs will go with Con rather than Lab + SNP.
Con 290 Lab 270 LD 30 SNP 40
Cameron is PM'
But in such a scenario there would be 318 MPs prepared to vote against a Tory - led Government on a continuing vote by vote basis - Lab + SNP +Plaid + Green + SDLP + LadyH. Such a Government would hardly be stable and the LibDems might decide stability would be better achieved by siding with the 318 Labour supporting group.
Peter thePunter..sued by Tim you are avin a larf...methinks you are trying to close down the truth about your good buddy ..The Cheshire Estate owner....who wasn't.
Mike L 'No, because the LDs will go with Con rather than Lab + SNP.
Con 290 Lab 270 LD 30 SNP 40
Cameron is PM'
But in such a scenario there would be 318 MPs prepared to vote against a Tory - led Government on a continuing vote by vote basis - Lab + SNP +Plaid + Green + SDLP + LadyH. Such a Government would hardly be stable and the LibDems might decide stability would be better achieved by siding with the 318 Labour supporting group.
Doubt it. A two party coalition would be far more stable than a three party coalition, especially where one of them wants to break up the nation.
Plus of course as far as English votes are concerned there could be an English majority against the government which would by definition rely upon the SNP to force every vote through. Recipe for pure instability.
Mike L 'No, because the LDs will go with Con rather than Lab + SNP.
Con 290 Lab 270 LD 30 SNP 40
Cameron is PM'
But in such a scenario there would be 318 MPs prepared to vote against a Tory - led Government on a continuing vote by vote basis - Lab + SNP +Plaid + Green + SDLP + LadyH. Such a Government would hardly be stable and the LibDems might decide stability would be better achieved by siding with the 318 Labour supporting group.
Con 290 LD 30 DUP 9
Gets over 323. So the Lib Dems may go with Ed or just decide they need some time for "reflection"
Mike L 'No, because the LDs will go with Con rather than Lab + SNP.
Con 290 Lab 270 LD 30 SNP 40
Cameron is PM'
But in such a scenario there would be 318 MPs prepared to vote against a Tory - led Government on a continuing vote by vote basis. Such a Government would hardly be stable and the LibDems might decide stability would be better achieved by siding with the 318 Labour supporting group.
The LDs will not want to be dependent upon the SNP under any circumstances - that will be their worst case scenario.
Under my numbers Con + LD = 320. They'll get DUP support so that's 328. That's a majority of 11 even assuming UKIP vote against the Govt - and they may well not.
The LDs will consider that far, far preferable to being dependent on the SNP.
Plus the LDs exert more influence as one out of two rather than one out of three.
Finally remember the SNP will just have booted 9 LD MPs out of Parliament.
Mike L 'No, because the LDs will go with Con rather than Lab + SNP.
Con 290 Lab 270 LD 30 SNP 40
Cameron is PM'
But in such a scenario there would be 318 MPs prepared to vote against a Tory - led Government on a continuing vote by vote basis - Lab + SNP +Plaid + Green + SDLP + LadyH. Such a Government would hardly be stable and the LibDems might decide stability would be better achieved by siding with the 318 Labour supporting group.
Doubt it. A two party coalition would be far more stable than a three party coalition, especially where one of them wants to break up the nation.
Plus of course as far as English votes are concerned there could be an English majority against the government which would by definition rely upon the SNP to force every vote through. Recipe for pure instability.
The numbers put Cons + LDs in thrall to the DUP. Which may well go down quite badly with the Lib Dem members base...
Mike L 'No, because the LDs will go with Con rather than Lab + SNP.
Con 290 Lab 270 LD 30 SNP 40
Cameron is PM'
But in such a scenario there would be 318 MPs prepared to vote against a Tory - led Government on a continuing vote by vote basis. Such a Government would hardly be stable and the LibDems might decide stability would be better achieved by siding with the 318 Labour supporting group.
The LDs will not want to be dependent upon the SNP under any circumstances - that will be their worst case scenario.
Under my numbers Con + LD = 320. They'll get DUP support so that's 328. That's a majority of 11 even assuming UKIP vote against the Govt - and they may well not.
The LDs will consider that far, far preferable to being dependent on the SNP.
Also remember the SNP will just have booted 9 LD MPs out of Parliament.
I am not convinced. Clegg might want to do that but I don't think his MPs would go along with him.
Mike L 'No, because the LDs will go with Con rather than Lab + SNP.
Con 290 Lab 270 LD 30 SNP 40
Cameron is PM'
But in such a scenario there would be 318 MPs prepared to vote against a Tory - led Government on a continuing vote by vote basis. Such a Government would hardly be stable and the LibDems might decide stability would be better achieved by siding with the 318 Labour supporting group.
The LDs will not want to be dependent upon the SNP under any circumstances - that will be their worst case scenario.
Under my numbers Con + LD = 320. They'll get DUP support so that's 328. That's a majority of 11 even assuming UKIP vote against the Govt - and they may well not.
The LDs will consider that far, far preferable to being dependent on the SNP.
Also remember the SNP will just have booted 9 LD MPs out of Parliament.
I am not convinced. Clegg might want to do that but I don't think his MPs would go along with him.
People like Farron are not going to allow the libdems to go in with the Conservatives again...
Just met Tory candidate in Bristol West, have uploaded leaflets to election leaflets.org
No photo of Cameron on the leaflets. She is confident that she could squeeze in if her support holds. Local Councillor recently elected, possibly to her surprise in the first place, but has made a mark.
Was canvassing on own, no blue rosette, in district very close to home address. Though I still wonder how serious a threat Tories are to LDs. A passer by joined in the conversation, who immediately mentioned food banks, zero hours contracts, all it needed was bedroom tax to shout house - an uncharitable thought was the Tory candidate being followed? Just seemed odd that these themes came up so quickly. Claire Hiscott was civil, discussed these points, and how transport hindered unemployed taking job offer up.
Still surprised that she wasn't with other canvassers, last year's council election had several LDs & the MP knock on doors on behalf of their candidate. It seemed low key, though a good way to kill time, whilst dinner was cooking.
She is a councillor in Bristol but not in Bristol West , her ward is in the North West Parliamentary seat . The Conservatives only have one councillor in the wards making up Bristol West
No need for a coalition if the Tories and SNP strike the right deal on power division.
Not a chance.
Labour backbenchers bringing down their own Gov't if it goes into arrangement with the SNP is something I can see happening though -
John Woodcock; Simon Danczuk; Willie Bain possibles... others too maybe.
But if you put aside personal animosity, and the desire to break up the Union, on the business of government they have a lot in common, surely?
They do, but if the issue of trident comes up I can't see Woodcock especially going quietly into the night, alot of jobs in Barrow depend on it. He is safe too so wouldn't fear another General Election.
The crossbreaks are never what makes a Yougov "interesting" or well they can be for us lot here but this will mean a headline change for someone or other, the SNP floats around 3-4 and I'm not even sure Yougov always attempts to weight them coprrectly as they are trying to determine correct Green, UKIP, Lib Dem, Tory, Labour scores.
Ashcroft's catchphrase is that his polls are "snapshots not predictions", but punters seem to disagree, with many constituency odds widely divergent of UNS apparently due to slender Labour leads in polls taken several months ago when the Conservatives were significantly weaker in the Lord's national polls. If you take Ashcroft polling seriously, back Tories in Amber Valley, Lincoln and Hove.
The crossbreaks are never what makes a Yougov "interesting" or well they can be for us lot here but this will mean a headline change for someone or other, the SNP floats around 3-4 and I'm not even sure Yougov always attempts to weight them coprrectly as they are trying to determine correct Green, UKIP, Lib Dem, Tory, Labour scores.
I call another mini Milligasm or a big Con to UKIP switch, which gives Lab a hefty lead.
The crossbreaks are never what makes a Yougov "interesting" or well they can be for us lot here but this will mean a headline change for someone or other, the SNP floats around 3-4 and I'm not even sure Yougov always attempts to weight them coprrectly as they are trying to determine correct Green, UKIP, Lib Dem, Tory, Labour scores.
I call another mini Milligasm or a big Con to UKIP switch, which gives Lab a hefty lead.
I bought £15 of Lab majority @ 40ish today. Lunacy.
The crossbreaks are never what makes a Yougov "interesting" or well they can be for us lot here but this will mean a headline change for someone or other, the SNP floats around 3-4 and I'm not even sure Yougov always attempts to weight them coprrectly as they are trying to determine correct Green, UKIP, Lib Dem, Tory, Labour scores.
I call another mini Milligasm or a big Con to UKIP switch, which gives Lab a hefty lead.
I bought £15 of Lab majority @ 40ish today. Lunacy.
The crossbreaks are never what makes a Yougov "interesting" or well they can be for us lot here but this will mean a headline change for someone or other, the SNP floats around 3-4 and I'm not even sure Yougov always attempts to weight them coprrectly as they are trying to determine correct Green, UKIP, Lib Dem, Tory, Labour scores.
I call another mini Milligasm or a big Con to UKIP switch, which gives Lab a hefty lead.
I bought £15 of Lab majority @ 40ish today. Lunacy.
All it needs is one outlier and that becomes a wonderful trading bet.
The crossbreaks are never what makes a Yougov "interesting" or well they can be for us lot here but this will mean a headline change for someone or other, the SNP floats around 3-4 and I'm not even sure Yougov always attempts to weight them coprrectly as they are trying to determine correct Green, UKIP, Lib Dem, Tory, Labour scores.
I call another mini Milligasm or a big Con to UKIP switch, which gives Lab a hefty lead.
Yes, I suspect a bad YouGov for Con.
They have led by 2% in both the last two YouGovs - I can't see them sustaining that for a 3rd day in a row, especially post debate.
We know from last week that YouGov are likely to over sample people who watched the debate. I suspect a small UKIP bounce (say +2) and an overall position of a Lab lead of 1% or 2%.
The crossbreaks are never what makes a Yougov "interesting" or well they can be for us lot here but this will mean a headline change for someone or other, the SNP floats around 3-4 and I'm not even sure Yougov always attempts to weight them coprrectly as they are trying to determine correct Green, UKIP, Lib Dem, Tory, Labour scores.
I call another mini Milligasm or a big Con to UKIP switch, which gives Lab a hefty lead.
I bought £15 of Lab majority @ 40ish today. Lunacy.
How much would you win?
It's complicated. And depends how exactly Labour get their majority.
What chance that in the scenario of the hung parliament where there's no stable 2-party coalition possible, we end up with a 6-month agreement between Lab and Con?
If Cameron and Miliband agree on nothing else it's that they want to see the Union preserved. So they pass a continuity budget with either nothing for either side or a single headline, followed by boundary changes with a reduction in Scottish MPs, EV4EL and then back to the People in the Autumn.
What chance that in the scenario of the hung parliament where there's no stable 2-party coalition possible, we end up with a 6-month agreement between Lab and Con?
If Cameron and Miliband agree on nothing else it's that they want to see the Union preserved. So they pass a continuity budget with either nothing for either side or a single headline, followed by boundary changes with a reduction in Scottish MPs, EV4EL and then back to the People in the Autumn.
Or am I bonkers?
You might need an increase in Scottish MPs after the registration drive at indyref ...
Why the Tories are done. Buy-to-let is a scourge on society. Until the Tories step in and take an almighty axe to the sector either by severely restricting mortgages for BTL or by introducing a LVT on second or non-resident property the Tories are going to be out of the game long term. Labour don't offer a solution but they have recognised the problem and for that they will get credit. The Tories are burying their heads in the sand over this issue and long term it buries them.
The tax benefits given to BTL in terms of setting off the full interest costs, repairs and our rather generous CGT regime gives those with capital an unfair advantage and our absurd HB scheme under the last government where the rents were rigged in an upwards direction at the cost of the taxpayer made BTL something of a no brainer.
Reforms to HB have reduced the return somewhat but there is a great deal more to do there. At the moment the opportunity to rent property at public expense is making the cost of housing too high for all of us. Something really needs to be done.
Rent control? Nationalise rented property? Would make a difference in London but what would in do in, say, Stoke?
1% tax on all residential property would be a start
A start of what ? Losing the next election ?
Average London house at £500k for a three bedroom in a nothing special area, and they have to pay another 5 grand a year ? Courageous!
Minus about £1,000 for the centrally mandated element of council tax (if central government requires something they should pay for it)
Then stamp duty on houses eliminated.
I'd need to check the figures, but IIRC that would then leave about £30bn per year which can be used to reduce other taxes. I'd start with employers NIC, perhaps also something on both the personal allowance and the 40% tax threshold.
So deliberately designed to be tax neutral (although no one ever remembers the good stuff) but to rebalance tax to property.
I think YouGov is going to be good for Labour tonight. Nige did well on Thursday and it will have played to his core vote very well. The Cons will be damaged by that.
One of the pollsters should have a Question Three : -
"If all the parties who appeared in the leaders debate were standing in your constituency so you had a choice between Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, UKIP, SNP, Plaid Cymru or Green Party candidates, who would you vote for?"
If you really wanted to you could buy UKIP on the SPIN, back Labour Majority and put a lump on the Conservatives in Wellingborough at 1-20 (And some other 1-10 - 1-20 seats). That'd probably be an OK strategy if you have enough capital.
What chance that in the scenario of the hung parliament where there's no stable 2-party coalition possible, we end up with a 6-month agreement between Lab and Con?
If Cameron and Miliband agree on nothing else it's that they want to see the Union preserved. So they pass a continuity budget with either nothing for either side or a single headline, followed by boundary changes with a reduction in Scottish MPs, EV4EL and then back to the People in the Autumn.
Or am I bonkers?
Yes because you think that Labour care about the country, or their voters or anything other than the Labour Party.
Labour will never support EVEL because it makes it monumentally more difficult for them to ever form a government without Wales and (historically if not currently) Scotland.
What chance that in the scenario of the hung parliament where there's no stable 2-party coalition possible, we end up with a 6-month agreement between Lab and Con?
If Cameron and Miliband agree on nothing else it's that they want to see the Union preserved. So they pass a continuity budget with either nothing for either side or a single headline, followed by boundary changes with a reduction in Scottish MPs, EV4EL and then back to the People in the Autumn.
Or am I bonkers?
Yes because you think that Labour care about the country, or their voters or anything other than the Labour Party.
Labour will never support EVEL because it makes it monumentally more difficult for them to ever form a government without Wales and (historically if not currently) Scotland.
Their Welsh cohort will still be important. Indeed, have a bet on PC in Yns Mons but not too confident about that one tbh - indeed Lab could gain Arfon.
It would be great if they would open a SPIN market for Holyrood 2016 - I think that market will be even more exciting than GE2015.
Re Frenchgate, if I were a betting man (which I am), my gut is telling me that this will end up being a ham fisted LibDem leak, with the memo drafted by a SPAD. If this turns out to be the case, the LibDems have just signed their own death warrant.
What chance that in the scenario of the hung parliament where there's no stable 2-party coalition possible, we end up with a 6-month agreement between Lab and Con?
If Cameron and Miliband agree on nothing else it's that they want to see the Union preserved. So they pass a continuity budget with either nothing for either side or a single headline, followed by boundary changes with a reduction in Scottish MPs, EV4EL and then back to the People in the Autumn.
Or am I bonkers?
Yes because you think that Labour care about the country, or their voters or anything other than the Labour Party.
Labour will never support EVEL because it makes it monumentally more difficult for them to ever form a government without Wales and (historically if not currently) Scotland.
I can't believe someone actually thinks Labour would ever support EV4EL! That is unlikely in the extreme.
What chance that in the scenario of the hung parliament where there's no stable 2-party coalition possible, we end up with a 6-month agreement between Lab and Con?
If Cameron and Miliband agree on nothing else it's that they want to see the Union preserved. So they pass a continuity budget with either nothing for either side or a single headline, followed by boundary changes with a reduction in Scottish MPs, EV4EL and then back to the People in the Autumn.
Could you have a boundary change in Scotland without enacting the overdue English ones, and why would Labour agree to those if a second election was imminent?
It would be great if they would open a SPIN market for Holyrood 2016 - I think that market will be even more exciting than GE2015.
Re Frenchgate, if I were a betting man (which I am), my gut is telling me that this will end up being a ham fisted LibDem leak, with the memo drafted by a SPAD. If this turns out to be the case, the LibDems have just signed their own death warrant.
The second a SPIN market opens for Holyrood 2016 buy Greens, buy lots and lots of Greens, it's an All In bet.
It would be great if they would open a SPIN market for Holyrood 2016 - I think that market will be even more exciting than GE2015.
Re Frenchgate, if I were a betting man (which I am), my gut is telling me that this will end up being a ham fisted LibDem leak, with the memo drafted by a SPAD. If this turns out to be the case, the LibDems have just signed their own death warrant.
The way that Damian McBride has been all over this from the outset makes me suspect a Labour-inspired leak. Look at his Twitter feed, including just how quickly he was onto this last night.
So deliberately designed to be tax neutral (although no one ever remembers the good stuff) but to rebalance tax to property.
Realty is already subject to excessive taxation. The one way that tax on real property could be legitimately increased would be to remove the exemption for first homes from the charge to capital gains tax, but that is never going to happen for obvious political reasons. In any event, if the aim if greater taxation of property, why stop at realty? Why not levy a tax on personalty, such as savers' choses in action against banks, or a tax on the aggregate value of chattels? It is astonishing to see so-called conservatives and liberals supporting greater taxation of assets.
"Each SNP win from Labour increase sthe Tory chances of being the largest party. It is a mathematical fact !"
BUT, it does not increase the likelihood of the Tories having more seats than Labour plus SNP.
AND, remember that if the SNP surge continues, the combined Labour + SNP number of MPs from Scotland will exceed the 47 (GE 2015,say 55) seats they jointly held in 2010-and some seats e.g. Gordon are seats Labour would never be likely win.
So, Scotland is on target to return 55 guaranteed anti-Tory seats ((no vacillating, unreliable, unpredictable, Lib Dems) against 47 last time
It would be great if they would open a SPIN market for Holyrood 2016 - I think that market will be even more exciting than GE2015.
Re Frenchgate, if I were a betting man (which I am), my gut is telling me that this will end up being a ham fisted LibDem leak, with the memo drafted by a SPAD. If this turns out to be the case, the LibDems have just signed their own death warrant.
Yes, because the LibDems were going to win so many seats in Scotland...
What chance that in the scenario of the hung parliament where there's no stable 2-party coalition possible, we end up with a 6-month agreement between Lab and Con?
If Cameron and Miliband agree on nothing else it's that they want to see the Union preserved. So they pass a continuity budget with either nothing for either side or a single headline, followed by boundary changes with a reduction in Scottish MPs, EV4EL and then back to the People in the Autumn.
Could you have a boundary change in Scotland without enacting the overdue English ones, and why would Labour agree to those if a second election was imminent?
Secondly, would Cameron survive as Tory leader?
Boundary changes take years to implement. Never going to happen before 2018.
Mike L 'No, because the LDs will go with Con rather than Lab + SNP.
Con 290 Lab 270 LD 30 SNP 40
Cameron is PM'
But in such a scenario there would be 318 MPs prepared to vote against a Tory - led Government on a continuing vote by vote basis - Lab + SNP +Plaid + Green + SDLP + LadyH. Such a Government would hardly be stable and the LibDems might decide stability would be better achieved by siding with the 318 Labour supporting group.
Con 290 LD 30 DUP 9
Gets over 323. So the Lib Dems may go with Ed or just decide they need some time for "reflection"
If Clegg is still a LD leader I do not see how he could do otherwise (in this scenario) than side with the Tories - he gave such good reasons in May 2010 didn't he - most votes and seats - that he would be doomed if he switched. People MIGHT forgive him for reneging on his University fees - but reneging again!!!!
It would be great if they would open a SPIN market for Holyrood 2016 - I think that market will be even more exciting than GE2015.
Re Frenchgate, if I were a betting man (which I am), my gut is telling me that this will end up being a ham fisted LibDem leak, with the memo drafted by a SPAD. If this turns out to be the case, the LibDems have just signed their own death warrant.
The way that Damian McBride has been all over this from the outset makes me suspect a Labour-inspired leak. Look at his Twitter feed, including just how quickly he was onto this last night.
That was my initial thought as well, but then I thought why would SLAB leak something which says that Milliband isn't up to being PM. I think McBride just jumped on the bandwagon once he smelt blood.
If there is another Labour bounce (and there might be) no doubt the BBC and Sky will analyse it to death again. What do you think Mike - the bastion of BBC impartiality?
It would be great if they would open a SPIN market for Holyrood 2016 - I think that market will be even more exciting than GE2015.
Re Frenchgate, if I were a betting man (which I am), my gut is telling me that this will end up being a ham fisted LibDem leak, with the memo drafted by a SPAD. If this turns out to be the case, the LibDems have just signed their own death warrant.
The way that Damian McBride has been all over this from the outset makes me suspect a Labour-inspired leak. Look at his Twitter feed, including just how quickly he was onto this last night.
That was my initial thought as well, but then I thought why would SLAB leak something which says that Milliband isn't up to being PM. I think McBride just jumped on the bandwagon once he smelt blood.
You may be right. But he's rarely this single-minded on Twitter. He's really gone for it.
It would be great if they would open a SPIN market for Holyrood 2016 - I think that market will be even more exciting than GE2015.
Re Frenchgate, if I were a betting man (which I am), my gut is telling me that this will end up being a ham fisted LibDem leak, with the memo drafted by a SPAD. If this turns out to be the case, the LibDems have just signed their own death warrant.
The way that Damian McBride has been all over this from the outset makes me suspect a Labour-inspired leak. Look at his Twitter feed, including just how quickly he was onto this last night.
That was my initial thought as well, but then I thought why would SLAB leak something which says that Milliband isn't up to being PM. I think McBride just jumped on the bandwagon once he smelt blood.
NB @DPMcBride: I mean, as leaks go, interfering with a general election and damaging foreign relations is pretty big. Trouble is, FCO copy lists are huge.
It would be great if they would open a SPIN market for Holyrood 2016 - I think that market will be even more exciting than GE2015.
Re Frenchgate, if I were a betting man (which I am), my gut is telling me that this will end up being a ham fisted LibDem leak, with the memo drafted by a SPAD. If this turns out to be the case, the LibDems have just signed their own death warrant.
The second a SPIN market opens for Holyrood 2016 buy Greens, buy lots and lots of Greens, it's an All In bet.
Shhhhhhhhhhhh. That's the very position I want to build, given the vagaries of the AMS system, many SNP voters will vote Green in the regional list. I think the Greens could come 2nd/3rd. The slogan "Don't waste your regional list vote, recycle it to the Greens" .
I have heard a rumour that the Nadine Dorries thing is were she and John Bercow to be re-elected, she would call for a formal vote in the House of Commons for his re-election as speaker.
Normally the Speakers are re-elected without a vote and it only takes one MP to force a vote.
I wait with bated breath. For me this is probably the most crucial part of the campaign, when people's minds first become concentrated. If one believes that the Tories are currently around 1% ahead of Labour in the polls, at say 34.5% vs 33.5%, they probably need to gain at least 2% over the next four weeks to win the most seats, i.e 36.5% vs 31.5% .... a big ask and even that wouldn't guarantee the Blue Team forming the next government, far fom it. Especially as we know that the LibDems, however much they might be diminished on 8 May would greatly prefer getting into bed with Labour rather than with the Tories. On this basis Coral's offer of 6/4 against Miliband being PM on 1 June 2015 looks like a value bet. DYOR.
It would be great if they would open a SPIN market for Holyrood 2016 - I think that market will be even more exciting than GE2015.
Re Frenchgate, if I were a betting man (which I am), my gut is telling me that this will end up being a ham fisted LibDem leak, with the memo drafted by a SPAD. If this turns out to be the case, the LibDems have just signed their own death warrant.
The second a SPIN market opens for Holyrood 2016 buy Greens, buy lots and lots of Greens, it's an All In bet.
I think that you'll have to wait for some time before 2016 Scottish markets go up.
I have heard a rumour that the Nadine Dorries thing is were she and John Bercow to be re-elected, she would call for a formal vote in the House of Commons for his re-election as speaker.
Normally the Speakers are re-elected without a vote and it only takes one MP to force a vote.
I might be wrong.
Would be an interesting situation. Bercow would not be guaranteed to win - and losing would mean he would have to leave the Commons.
Well he should - having been effectively returned unopposed and having lost the confidence of his colleagues - but whether he would give up all that free public money (and whether Sally would let him) is another matter.
But Parliament would be better off without him - of that I have no doubt.
I have heard a rumour that the Nadine Dorries thing is were she and John Bercow to be re-elected, she would call for a formal vote in the House of Commons for his re-election as speaker.
Normally the Speakers are re-elected without a vote and it only takes one MP to force a vote.
I might be wrong.
Would be an interesting situation. Bercow would not be guaranteed to win - and losing would mean he would have to leave the Commons.
Well he should - having been effectively returned unopposed and having lost the confidence of his colleagues - but whether he would give up all that free public money (and whether Sally would let him) is another matter.
But Parliament would be better off without him - of that I have no doubt.
The Conservatives should stand a candidate. This uncontested Speaker business is a modern innovation. If they want rid of Bercow, just do it.
I have heard a rumour that the Nadine Dorries thing is were she and John Bercow to be re-elected, she would call for a formal vote in the House of Commons for his re-election as speaker.
Normally the Speakers are re-elected without a vote and it only takes one MP to force a vote.
I might be wrong.
I might be wrong as well, but I think they said on TV that the father of the house has to 'hear' the shouts. If he chooses not to hear, then there is no vote.
If true, this is one reason why the proposed changes to the system needed to go through.
Mike L 'No, because the LDs will go with Con rather than Lab + SNP.
Con 290 Lab 270 LD 30 SNP 40
Cameron is PM'
But in such a scenario there would be 318 MPs prepared to vote against a Tory - led Government on a continuing vote by vote basis - Lab + SNP +Plaid + Green + SDLP + LadyH. Such a Government would hardly be stable and the LibDems might decide stability would be better achieved by siding with the 318 Labour supporting group.
Con 290 LD 30 DUP 9
Gets over 323. So the Lib Dems may go with Ed or just decide they need some time for "reflection"
If Clegg is still a LD leader I do not see how he could do otherwise (in this scenario) than side with the Tories - he gave such good reasons in May 2010 didn't he - most votes and seats - that he would be doomed if he switched. People MIGHT forgive him for reneging on his University fees - but reneging again!!!!
I know most of us assumed he would stand down (willingly or otherwise) well before now and he has not done so, but surely after the pasting the LDs will receive even on the most positive of assumptions about outperforming the national polling he will stand down immediately as having done a 'tough but necessary' task and to allow a new leader to begin the next chapter for the party, including negotiations?
I have heard a rumour that the Nadine Dorries thing is were she and John Bercow to be re-elected, she would call for a formal vote in the House of Commons for his re-election as speaker.
Normally the Speakers are re-elected without a vote and it only takes one MP to force a vote.
I might be wrong.
I might be wrong as well, but I think they said on TV that the father of the house has to 'hear' the shouts. If he chooses not to hear, then there is no vote.
If true, this is one reason why the proposed changes to the system needed to go through.
Absolutely.
Perhaps we no longer actually need a Speaker. A panel of 4-6 drawn from all parts of the house would be more than adequate.
I have heard a rumour that the Nadine Dorries thing is were she and John Bercow to be re-elected, she would call for a formal vote in the House of Commons for his re-election as speaker.
Normally the Speakers are re-elected without a vote and it only takes one MP to force a vote.
I might be wrong.
Would be an interesting situation. Bercow would not be guaranteed to win - and losing would mean he would have to leave the Commons.
Well he should - having been effectively returned unopposed and having lost the confidence of his colleagues - but whether he would give up all that free public money (and whether Sally would let him) is another matter.
But Parliament would be better off without him - of that I have no doubt.
Nadine will not get re elected so the situation will not arise IMO
I have heard a rumour that the Nadine Dorries thing is were she and John Bercow to be re-elected, she would call for a formal vote in the House of Commons for his re-election as speaker.
Normally the Speakers are re-elected without a vote and it only takes one MP to force a vote.
I might be wrong.
I might be wrong as well, but I think they said on TV that the father of the house has to 'hear' the shouts. If he chooses not to hear, then there is no vote.
An amusing distinction indeed.
Who is going to be the father of the house btw? Clarke or Skinner I think?
I have heard a rumour that the Nadine Dorries thing is were she and John Bercow to be re-elected, she would call for a formal vote in the House of Commons for his re-election as speaker.
Normally the Speakers are re-elected without a vote and it only takes one MP to force a vote.
I might be wrong.
Would be an interesting situation. Bercow would not be guaranteed to win - and losing would mean he would have to leave the Commons.
Well he should - having been effectively returned unopposed and having lost the confidence of his colleagues - but whether he would give up all that free public money (and whether Sally would let him) is another matter.
But Parliament would be better off without him - of that I have no doubt.
Nadine will not get re elected so the situation will not arise IMO
SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon has offered to help make Ed Miliband the next prime minister, even if Labour wins fewer seats than the Tories on 7 May. Her appeal comes as she angrily rejects claims that she thinks he is not up to the job.
Writing in the Observer – as a furious row erupted over disparaging private remarks she allegedly made about the Labour leader – Sturgeon challenges him to lead Labour into an anti-austerity alliance with the SNP whichever party is the largest in the House of Commons on 8 May.
In terms that will enrage many MPs, Sturgeon throws down the gauntlet to Miliband saying: “If together our parties have the parliamentary numbers required after 7 May, and regardless of which is the biggest party, will he and Labour join with us in locking David Cameron out of Downing Street?”
I have heard a rumour that the Nadine Dorries thing is were she and John Bercow to be re-elected, she would call for a formal vote in the House of Commons for his re-election as speaker.
Normally the Speakers are re-elected without a vote and it only takes one MP to force a vote.
I might be wrong.
Would be an interesting situation. Bercow would not be guaranteed to win - and losing would mean he would have to leave the Commons.
Well he should - having been effectively returned unopposed and having lost the confidence of his colleagues - but whether he would give up all that free public money (and whether Sally would let him) is another matter.
But Parliament would be better off without him - of that I have no doubt.
Nadine will not get re elected so the situation will not arise IMO
Would you like to offer odds on that?
She has 15,000 strong majority.
Yeah 15000 majorities are impregnable, except if you're Scottish Labour
I have heard a rumour that the Nadine Dorries thing is were she and John Bercow to be re-elected, she would call for a formal vote in the House of Commons for his re-election as speaker.
Normally the Speakers are re-elected without a vote and it only takes one MP to force a vote.
I might be wrong.
I might be wrong as well, but I think they said on TV that the father of the house has to 'hear' the shouts. If he chooses not to hear, then there is no vote.
An amusing distinction indeed.
Who is going to be the father of the house btw? Clarke or Skinner I think?
Comments
Gosh !! those naughty naughty Scots.
I mean they have the absolute audacity to express their democratic right to vote as they wish which just so happens to be the wrong way so you can't get your way . Then Here you are bitching about it and stamping your little feet.
The Scots have finally Sussed Labour out and Labour are throwing all their toys (and MP's) out of the pram as a result.
LOL
If Ed is becoming less toxic, as the polls suggest, the number of those undecided souls who turn away from him in revulsion at the last minute will be fewer.
That was the theory, anyway.
Lib-Lab coalition and Con-LD coalition are quite cheap to cover on Betfair at the moment by the way. Labour would far rather do any sort of deal with the yellow peril than the Nats so if they have a good night its something to cover in a GE book imo.
No photo of Cameron on the leaflets. She is confident that she could squeeze in if her support holds. Local Councillor recently elected, possibly to her surprise in the first place, but has made a mark.
Was canvassing on own, no blue rosette, in district very close to home address. Though I still wonder how serious a threat Tories are to LDs. A passer by joined in the conversation, who immediately mentioned food banks, zero hours contracts, all it needed was bedroom tax to shout house - an uncharitable thought was the Tory candidate being followed? Just seemed odd that these themes came up so quickly. Claire Hiscott was civil, discussed these points, and how transport hindered unemployed taking job offer up.
Still surprised that she wasn't with other canvassers, last year's council election had several LDs & the MP knock on doors on behalf of their candidate. It seemed low key, though a good way to kill time, whilst dinner was cooking.
'No, because the LDs will go with Con rather than Lab + SNP.
Con 290
Lab 270
LD 30
SNP 40
Cameron is PM'
But in such a scenario there would be 318 MPs prepared to vote against a Tory - led Government on a continuing vote by vote basis - Lab + SNP +Plaid + Green + SDLP + LadyH. Such a Government would hardly be stable and the LibDems might decide stability would be better achieved by siding with the 318 Labour supporting group.
Plus of course as far as English votes are concerned there could be an English majority against the government which would by definition rely upon the SNP to force every vote through. Recipe for pure instability.
LD 30
DUP 9
Gets over 323. So the Lib Dems may go with Ed or just decide they need some time for "reflection"
Under my numbers Con + LD = 320. They'll get DUP support so that's 328. That's a majority of 11 even assuming UKIP vote against the Govt - and they may well not.
The LDs will consider that far, far preferable to being dependent on the SNP.
Plus the LDs exert more influence as one out of two rather than one out of three.
Finally remember the SNP will just have booted 9 LD MPs out of Parliament.
Labour backbenchers bringing down their own Gov't if it goes into arrangement with the SNP is something I can see happening though -
John Woodcock; Simon Danczuk; Willie Bain possibles... others too maybe.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/04/george-galloway-argues-bradford-pub-asked-him-if-he-was-still-thing-twitter
Galloway ought to take a rest, and go canvassing.
https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/584395227500302336
They have led by 2% in both the last two YouGovs - I can't see them sustaining that for a 3rd day in a row, especially post debate.
We know from last week that YouGov are likely to over sample people who watched the debate. I suspect a small UKIP bounce (say +2) and an overall position of a Lab lead of 1% or 2%.
I think that when even Derek Rae is joking about how inept your smear attempt is, the game may well be up.
https://twitter.com/RaeComm/status/584282304358514689
If Cameron and Miliband agree on nothing else it's that they want to see the Union preserved.
So they pass a continuity budget with either nothing for either side or a single headline, followed by boundary changes with a reduction in Scottish MPs, EV4EL and then back to the People in the Autumn.
Or am I bonkers?
Then stamp duty on houses eliminated.
I'd need to check the figures, but IIRC that would then leave about £30bn per year which can be used to reduce other taxes. I'd start with employers NIC, perhaps also something on both the personal allowance and the 40% tax threshold.
So deliberately designed to be tax neutral (although no one ever remembers the good stuff) but to rebalance tax to property.
"If all the parties who appeared in the leaders debate were standing in your constituency so you had a choice between Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, UKIP, SNP, Plaid Cymru or Green Party candidates, who would you vote for?"
Would be a truly interesting poll.
https://twitter.com/Jefforbited/status/584351390211956736
*deputy North British Labour branch manager
Labour will never support EVEL because it makes it monumentally more difficult for them to ever form a government without Wales and (historically if not currently) Scotland.
That would have really opened up his left flank.
Re Frenchgate, if I were a betting man (which I am), my gut is telling me that this will end up being a ham fisted LibDem leak, with the memo drafted by a SPAD. If this turns out to be the case, the LibDems have just signed their own death warrant.
Secondly, would Cameron survive as Tory leader?
Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound
I believe the Sun on Sunday has a belter this evening. Keep an eye on @DavidWooding's tweets.
"Each SNP win from Labour increase sthe Tory chances of being the largest party. It is a mathematical fact !"
BUT, it does not increase the likelihood of the Tories having more seats than Labour plus SNP.
AND, remember that if the SNP surge continues, the combined Labour + SNP number of MPs from Scotland will exceed the 47 (GE 2015,say 55) seats they jointly held in 2010-and some seats e.g. Gordon are seats Labour would never be likely win.
So, Scotland is on target to return 55 guaranteed anti-Tory seats ((no vacillating, unreliable, unpredictable, Lib Dems) against 47 last time
"Found a relic Parker pen from 1992 general election buried in a drawer, which I shall use throughout this campaign! "
twitter.com/DavidWooding/status/583939301051867136
Crikey!!
Nadine Dorries ✔ @NadineDorriesMP
And, waiting to see the Indy on Sunday to see if something I was interviewed on made it to print ...
Nadine Dorries ✔ @NadineDorriesMP
I have also written an article for the Mail on Sunday...
Normally the Speakers are re-elected without a vote and it only takes one MP to force a vote.
I might be wrong.
For me this is probably the most crucial part of the campaign, when people's minds first become concentrated.
If one believes that the Tories are currently around 1% ahead of Labour in the polls, at say 34.5% vs 33.5%, they probably need to gain at least 2% over the next four weeks to win the most seats, i.e 36.5% vs 31.5% .... a big ask and even that wouldn't guarantee the Blue Team forming the next government, far fom it. Especially as we know that the LibDems, however much they might be diminished on 8 May would greatly prefer getting into bed with Labour rather than with the Tories.
On this basis Coral's offer of 6/4 against Miliband being PM on 1 June 2015 looks like a value bet.
DYOR.
Well he should - having been effectively returned unopposed and having lost the confidence of his colleagues - but whether he would give up all that free public money (and whether Sally would let him) is another matter.
But Parliament would be better off without him - of that I have no doubt.
If true, this is one reason why the proposed changes to the system needed to go through.
Perhaps we no longer actually need a Speaker. A panel of 4-6 drawn from all parts of the house would be more than adequate.
And Nicola Sturgeon the "winner".
Who is going to be the father of the house btw? Clarke or Skinner I think?
https://twitter.com/TannadiceIad/status/584432847764774912
He's never used his twitter before.
She has 15,000 strong majority.
Writing in the Observer – as a furious row erupted over disparaging private remarks she allegedly made about the Labour leader – Sturgeon challenges him to lead Labour into an anti-austerity alliance with the SNP whichever party is the largest in the House of Commons on 8 May.
In terms that will enrage many MPs, Sturgeon throws down the gauntlet to Miliband saying: “If together our parties have the parliamentary numbers required after 7 May, and regardless of which is the biggest party, will he and Labour join with us in locking David Cameron out of Downing Street?”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/04/sturgeon-offers-new-deal-to-miliband
Unless something unpleasant happens...