It's a good article by David H, but I do think the LD's figure of 30 might be optimistic.
Personally I think anything sub 300 for Cameron and he is toast.
Even allowing for possible understatement of Tories by online pollsters and a repeat of shifts towards the Tories as has generally historically happened in the later stages of campaigns, I still think a further shift in their favour is necessary.
I don't think it can happen without UKIP dropping to about 7% and therefore I feel he falls short and a rather turbulent period of politics will follow.
30 may end up on the high side for the Lib Dems, though it's where I'd place their par score right now. Even if it is though, almost all the additional losses would be to the Tories, so it wouldn't greatly affect the big picture (unless Hallam is one of them). The most significant impact it would have would be on Lib Dem thinking as to their long-term recovery strategy; a loss of two-thirds would likely make them more reluctant to repeat the experience that led to the cull than a loss of a half.
It's a good article by David H, but I do think the LD's figure of 30 might be optimistic.
Personally I think anything sub 300 for Cameron and he is toast.
Even allowing for possible understatement of Tories by online pollsters and a repeat of shifts towards the Tories as has generally historically happened in the later stages of campaigns, I still think a further shift in their favour is necessary.
I don't think it can happen without UKIP dropping to about 7% and therefore I feel he falls short and a rather turbulent period of politics will follow.
A libdem "bigwig" confirmed to me yesterday that they are extremely confident of getting at least 35 seats. He did concede though that Ed Davey maybe in trouble in Kingston.
If the libdems get 35 seats, I'll publish my own version of the ARSE in Fenwick's shop window.
Left or Right cheek?
Both - don't buy the tactical anti Nat stuff in Scotland gaining a lot a traction and I think the UKIP slump let the tories take most of the South West seats.
Independent poll of polls suggests Labour are standing still at 34 and the Tories have lost 2 points to 32 in the last 4 weeks.
Perhaps the election campaign has sharpened people`s minds to how rubbish are Cameron and co.
Labour had similar or better leads 3-4 weeks before the election in 1992. Then everyone remembered how rubbish Kinnock was.
You could be right and Labour might be heading for victory but do not count your chickens.
It`s 2015.
Is Milliband any better than Kinnock. He's isn't ginger I suppose, or Welsh (stands by for backlash from PC brigade)
He's worse than Kinnock but David Cameron is no John Major.
Both Cameron and Major were out of touch with the majority of their party. Miliband has a few more strengths than Kinnock but would/will be one of our worst PMs since WW2.
Can't Cameron cut a deal with the SNP? They don't have to actually "support" him, they just need an implicit agreement not to vote against him.
If I were Cameron, I'd introduce a Queen's speech that contains only (1) FFA for Scotland and (2) EVEL for England. State that he's heard the desire of the people of Scotland for increased autonomy and that bring harmony back to the islands is the most pressing priority and that once the constitution is settled he will call a new general election to allow the people to make up their minds who should be the next government.
DH It was of course Labour who failed to regulate the banks and bailed them out when they needed it, even George W Bush let Lehmans go bust
Indeed. FWIW, I think they were right to bail them out but it should never have got that far. In today's debate, Labour is holding its hands up to 'not having regulated enough', which is a classic socialist fallacy equating 'more' with 'better' not least because the Tories had argued for 'less'. That 'less' might have meant 'more effective' is a difficult argument to sell, despite the fact that a few dozen quality regulators checking capital bases would have proven more useful than a thousand double-checking individual retail loan agreements.
It's a good article by David H, but I do think the LD's figure of 30 might be optimistic.
Personally I think anything sub 300 for Cameron and he is toast.
Even allowing for possible understatement of Tories by online pollsters and a repeat of shifts towards the Tories as has generally historically happened in the later stages of campaigns, I still think a further shift in their favour is necessary.
I don't think it can happen without UKIP dropping to about 7% and therefore I feel he falls short and a rather turbulent period of politics will follow.
A libdem "bigwig" confirmed to me yesterday that they are extremely confident of getting at least 35 seats. He did concede though that Ed Davey maybe in trouble in Kingston.
I would have thought the 30-35 range is correct for the yellow peril.
LDs are going to lose 10 seats in Scotland taking them down to 47. They can then lose only 17 more to meet the bottom of that range.
Independent poll of polls suggests Labour are standing still at 34 and the Tories have lost 2 points to 32 in the last 4 weeks.
Perhaps the election campaign has sharpened people`s minds to how rubbish are Cameron and co.
Labour had similar or better leads 3-4 weeks before the election in 1992. Then everyone remembered how rubbish Kinnock was.
You could be right and Labour might be heading for victory but do not count your chickens.
Ho about it has been the Easter Holidays? Do pollsters weight for holiday periods?
They will weight by the types of people they require in their model. But it is my personal view that polls leading into, during or shortly after holiday periods tend to favour Labour instead of the Conservatives. I base it on recalling some polling around Xmas periods but I maybe wrong. Polls based on data gathered from Tues onwards of next week are the ones I am looking for to see where we really are.
It's a good article by David H, but I do think the LD's figure of 30 might be optimistic.
Personally I think anything sub 300 for Cameron and he is toast.
Even allowing for possible understatement of Tories by online pollsters and a repeat of shifts towards the Tories as has generally historically happened in the later stages of campaigns, I still think a further shift in their favour is necessary.
I don't think it can happen without UKIP dropping to about 7% and therefore I feel he falls short and a rather turbulent period of politics will follow.
30 may end up on the high side for the Lib Dems, though it's where I'd place their par score right now. Even if it is though, almost all the additional losses would be to the Tories, so it wouldn't greatly affect the big picture (unless Hallam is one of them). The most significant impact it would have would be on Lib Dem thinking as to their long-term recovery strategy; a loss of two-thirds would likely make them more reluctant to repeat the experience that led to the cull than a loss of a half.
I agree with much of this and think that it will be S&C only, whatever the party equations end up being - that will just suit everyone better.
It's a real shame for the LibDems that they got 'lumbered' with government as there was a real opportunity to challenge a rather lacklustre Labour party with being the main party of opposition.
I reckon they might have been up for 80-100 seats in this election had they remained in opposition. They would have had a real chance in my seat and I might have considered voting for them.
Can't Cameron cut a deal with the SNP? They don't have to actually "support" him, they just need an implicit agreement not to vote against him.
If I were Cameron, I'd introduce a Queen's speech that contains only (1) FFA for Scotland and (2) EVEL for England. State that he's heard the desire of the people of Scotland for increased autonomy and that bring harmony back to the islands is the most pressing priority and that once the constitution is settled he will call a new general election to allow the people to make up their minds who should be the next government.
Would the SNP really vote that down?
By what mechanism do you suppose he 'call[s] a new election'? Bear in mind that the FTPA is very useful to the opposition parties in a hung parliament facing a minority government.
I don't think it can happen without UKIP dropping to about 7% and therefore I feel he falls short and a rather turbulent period of politics will follow.
I am not even convinced by the kipper falling to 7% doing it, Ashcroft suggested that squeezing the kippers was working better for Labour in some seats.
Can't Cameron cut a deal with the SNP? They don't have to actually "support" him, they just need an implicit agreement not to vote against him.
If I were Cameron, I'd introduce a Queen's speech that contains only (1) FFA for Scotland and (2) EVEL for England. State that he's heard the desire of the people of Scotland for increased autonomy and that bring harmony back to the islands is the most pressing priority and that once the constitution is settled he will call a new general election to allow the people to make up their minds who should be the next government.
Would the SNP really vote that down?
By what mechanism do you suppose he 'call[s] a new election'? Bear in mind that the FTPA is very useful to the opposition parties in a hung parliament facing a minority government.
Spot on David. Why should opposition parties give this power to a minority government? Under the act as it stands they have an effective veto.
Again bizarre campaigning from the Conservatives, announcing your major 'save the NHS' counter-intuitive point on a Friday/Saturday, when few give a monkeys - whatever the rights, lies and wrongs of it. Also, Lab haven't been hammering on about the NHS as much as many thought, so it isn't as much of a 'ha you were bleating on about this, but you're bleating on about nowt'. Couldn't it wait till Sunday or Monday? Desperately need to up their game for the 'PB Tories' sake.
I don't think it can happen without UKIP dropping to about 7% and therefore I feel he falls short and a rather turbulent period of politics will follow.
I am not even convinced by the kipper falling to 7% doing it, Ashcroft suggested that squeezing the kippers was working better for Labour in some seats.
I was basing my analysis on a "Go to bed with Nige, wake up with Ed" strategy working, spooking ex-blues mainly, but inevitably not every vote would go blue, probably as many would stay at home altogether.
Makes Cam's task of keeping his job very difficult given there seems to be very little Red/Blue churn.
SMukesh The same arguments about tax apply and Miliband has worse ratings than Kinnock on some measures, he is brighter than Kinnock but a far worse speaker.
EdM looks nerdy but he wouldn't be a bad neighbour.
Kinnock looked like the neighbour from hell to much of Middle England - guaranteed to get in a feud about the hedge or parking.
Now looking nerdy isn't ideal when dealing with the likes of Putin.
But I think perhaps the accusations of EdM being a 'backstabber' or 'ruthless SOB' helps him here. After all a ruthless backstabber might deal better with Putin than someone who 'plays fair'.
Can't Cameron cut a deal with the SNP? They don't have to actually "support" him, they just need an implicit agreement not to vote against him.
If I were Cameron, I'd introduce a Queen's speech that contains only (1) FFA for Scotland and (2) EVEL for England. State that he's heard the desire of the people of Scotland for increased autonomy and that bring harmony back to the islands is the most pressing priority and that once the constitution is settled he will call a new general election to allow the people to make up their minds who should be the next government.
Again bizarre campaigning from the Conservatives, announcing your major 'save the NHS' counter-intuitive point on a Friday/Saturday, when few give a monkeys - whatever the rights, lies and wrongs of it. Also, Lab haven't been hammering on about the NHS as much as many thought, so it isn't as much of a 'ha you were bleating on about this, but you're bleating on about nowt'. Couldn't it wait till Sunday or Monday? Desperately need to up their game for the 'PB Tories' sake.
Maybe they are doing at the weekend, when the IFS staff are away from their desks and can't ask where the hell the money is suddenly coming from.
It's a good article by David H, but I do think the LD's figure of 30 might be optimistic.
Personally I think anything sub 300 for Cameron and he is toast.
Even allowing for possible understatement of Tories by online pollsters and a repeat of shifts towards the Tories as has generally historically happened in the later stages of campaigns, I still think a further shift in their favour is necessary.
I don't think it can happen without UKIP dropping to about 7% and therefore I feel he falls short and a rather turbulent period of politics will follow.
A libdem "bigwig" confirmed to me yesterday that they are extremely confident of getting at least 35 seats. He did concede though that Ed Davey maybe in trouble in Kingston.
I don't see how they can be "extremely confident" of 35. 35 is a possibility, but I think it's optimistic.
FFA for EV4EL/Barnett cancellation is a win-win, isn't it?
Both the SNP and Tories say no coalition, just fair deals for Scotland and England respectively.
The SNP would never deal with the Tories. But that doesn't preclude some of their MPs getting mysteriously lost in the Highland fog when traveling south to a crucial vote.
SMukesh The same arguments about tax apply and Miliband has worse ratings than Kinnock on some measures, he is brighter than Kinnock but a far worse speaker.
EdM looks nerdy but he wouldn't be a bad neighbour.
Kinnock looked like the neighbour from hell to much of Middle England - guaranteed to get in a feud about the hedge or parking.
Now looking nerdy isn't ideal when dealing with the likes of Putin.
But I think perhaps the accusations of EdM being a 'backstabber' or 'ruthless SOB' helps him here. After all a ruthless backstabber might deal better with Putin than someone who 'plays fair'.
Milliband undoubtedly has an image problem, but for me, what is worse is the succession of populist policies being unannounced to pander to the economically illiterate majority.
One can only hope that they keep up their fine record of not implementing manifesto promises if they do get in, otherwise the country is heading for the poorhouse.
It's a good article by David H, but I do think the LD's figure of 30 might be optimistic.
Personally I think anything sub 300 for Cameron and he is toast.
Even allowing for possible understatement of Tories by online pollsters and a repeat of shifts towards the Tories as has generally historically happened in the later stages of campaigns, I still think a further shift in their favour is necessary.
I don't think it can happen without UKIP dropping to about 7% and therefore I feel he falls short and a rather turbulent period of politics will follow.
A libdem "bigwig" confirmed to me yesterday that they are extremely confident of getting at least 35 seats. He did concede though that Ed Davey maybe in trouble in Kingston.
I would have thought the 30-35 range is correct for the yellow peril.
LDs are going to lose 10 seats in Scotland taking them down to 47. They can then lose only 17 more to meet the bottom of that range. How realistic that is I don't know.
Good point. It just looks too optimistic that the LDs will keep almost 1 in 3 of the other 46 seats they are defending. With 9 of the others having new candidates, not incumbents. Lose 10 of 11 in Scotland (4% polling). Lose all 9 non-incumbents of the rest in England & Wales = down to 38. Then, only lose 7 of the 37 seats not in Scotland..... a retention rate of 81%. Can we really see the LDs holding 8 out of 10 seats that they have an incumbent in across England & Wales? Of course this also assumes no gains! But even 1 gain hardly improves the chances of keeping 30+
Hmm ....so only modest changes this morning from JackW. He'll have OGH quaking in his boots with his Con Seats - Lab Seats = <12 Seats spread bet. Based on this latest projection, he'd face a loss of 46 Units x his unit stake (NOT £20).</p>
Fear not Peter. My judgement is superior to Jack's as we saw at Watford in 2010. I sold the CON lead over LAB at 12. This has now dropped to 8.
Jack's problem is that he made a big call several years ago and what you are seeing is confirmation bias.
I have made no call on GE15 and try to bet in the most effective way possible with the aim of making money not making political statements.
The problem with the spread markets at the moment is that they are trading like option markets..If the polls stay as they are then they will move dramatically but as when you move nearer to an option expiration they will only move in the last week. The spread itself is also an issue at present,they are too wide to enable anybody to trade out of them properly. OGH could well be right but it would be good if some of the mainline bookies such as PP or the magic sign would allow cashout on election bets. Over to you Shadsy..
I believe you are being somewhat optimistic imagining for one moment that Ladbrokes' frail and befuddled website is anywhwere close to introducing a cashout facility - indeed massive improvements are required to the basic functioning of the site before it should even contemplate this - better leave it to the bookies and exchanges with bigger brains. Meanwhile while the Stock Market reaches new highs, Ladbrokes' share price continues to flounder at just over a quid. Long gone are the days (late 2006) when it was almost 400p. What a wasted decade!
SMukesh The same arguments about tax apply and Miliband has worse ratings than Kinnock on some measures, he is brighter than Kinnock but a far worse speaker. Cameron may not have the personal appeal of Major but he does look the part of PM. All but one of the final 1992 polls had Labour ahead, only Gallup had the Tories narrowly ahead, but Major won. UKIP may deny Cameron a majority, but a yougov last week had the Tories on 37%, another Labour on 33%, still all to play for
On the debates we shall see
Milliband is certainly performing worse than Kinnock, and Labour's current poll ratings are similar to those they were getting in the 1987 general election, and worse than in 1992. The problem is that Cameron and the Conservatives are much less well rated than Thatcher/Major, and the Conservatives in 1987/92.
It's a good article by David H, but I do think the LD's figure of 30 might be optimistic.
Personally I think anything sub 300 for Cameron and he is toast.
Even allowing for possible understatement of Tories by online pollsters and a repeat of shifts towards the Tories as has generally historically happened in the later stages of campaigns, I still think a further shift in their favour is necessary.
I don't think it can happen without UKIP dropping to about 7% and therefore I feel he falls short and a rather turbulent period of politics will follow.
A libdem "bigwig" confirmed to me yesterday that they are extremely confident of getting at least 35 seats. He did concede though that Ed Davey maybe in trouble in Kingston.
I don't see how they can be "extremely confident" of 35. 35 is a possibility, but I think it's optimistic.
It's absolutely for the birds. 32-33 seats is about the best the Lib Dems can hope for IMHO.
Any thoughts of today's promise of yet more magic money tree shaking for the NHS ?
Or doesn't it count as 'mindless, ignorant, selfish and childish' when its Tory magic money tree shaking ?
I'd like to see the detail before commenting. I don't doubt that overall the government could easily find £8bn from other departments even while reducing the structural deficit (and very easily if the pledge is in nominal rather than real terms). Whether that's proposed or not I don't know. I certainly wouldn't support unfunded spending commitments from any party.
But isn't it interesting how quickly the justice process can happen when the authorities want it.
Now compare with Rotherham.
How many plods, social workers, childrens home managers, councillors and council officials have been jailed ? Or even arrested.
Isn't the answer zero, zero, zero, zero and zero.
Meanwhile the likes of Joyce Thacker continue to spend more time with their payoffs and pensions.
It's not a fair comparison. This is not defending the authorities over Rotherham, but it's much easier and quicker to prosecute a simple case of assault (especially when the culprit admits guilt) than investigate and prosecute most cases involving the sexual abuse of minors.
There are many reasons for this; but there can be no doubt that the authorities in Rotherham and elsewhere did not even try. But they were far from alone in that.
It's interesting that the latest news about the extension of the investigation into the abuse in the Nottinghamshire care system - believed to be ongoing for seventy years - has garnered exactly zero comments (that I have seen, at least) on PB.
It's a good article by David H, but I do think the LD's figure of 30 might be optimistic.
Personally I think anything sub 300 for Cameron and he is toast.
Even allowing for possible understatement of Tories by online pollsters and a repeat of shifts towards the Tories as has generally historically happened in the later stages of campaigns, I still think a further shift in their favour is necessary.
I don't think it can happen without UKIP dropping to about 7% and therefore I feel he falls short and a rather turbulent period of politics will follow.
A libdem "bigwig" confirmed to me yesterday that they are extremely confident of getting at least 35 seats. He did concede though that Ed Davey maybe in trouble in Kingston.
I don't see how they can be "extremely confident" of 35. 35 is a possibility, but I think it's optimistic.
I wonder how many they were 'extremely confident' of getting after the 2010 debates.
LibDem overoptimism has been pretty continuous since the 2005 election.
I see that both the Tories and Labour are promising the earth: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32260220 Tories: We'll find £8bn more for NHS Labour says it would guarantee one-on-one midwife care for new mothers ......and the Yellows try to get into the act: The Lib Dems promise a new law to protect people's rights online.
It's what I call the "slobbering mouth appeal", stage of the election battle.
I've had my annual horse-racing bet and followed your advice with an EW bet on Spring Heeled. If it loses my eldest will have to go to school with no shoes (he is 38) and we'll have to live on gruel and pease pudding until next year. I will, of course, also make a voodoo doll of you so you may find shooting pains in your nether regions.
If anyone wants to lay 5/4, therefore getting Best price 4/5 about the unders I will play
5/6 over 3.5 also looks v nice as does 11/4 15-20 (% of the vote)
These prices are all off the back of massive assumptions
If UKIP really are polling 14% on average, then 11/4 15-20 cant be right.. and the assumption that UNS will hurt them and they will poll 11-14% and only get 3-4 seats is just a guess
They are ahead on raw data in Basildon South, Castle Point, S Thanet and Boston. Most shrewdies think they are favs in Rochester. Clacton is a shoo in, not to mention the 5-6 seats north of Watford where they are live chances
The yougov tracker has them ahead or TCTC in several other seats as well
So lets go if you disagree, I will play in any size £1 upwards
Won't bet with you Sam because I think you are right. UKIP odds are starting t look tasty again.
On the Grand National, I've had a little more time than I expected and have expanded my portfolio. In addition to Spring Heeled (already advised), I've had small bets on: First Lieutenant 25/1 Pinea de Re 33/1 Rocky Creek 10/1
At big odds I also like Chance du Roy, Dolatulo and Owega Star, but they are obviously very speculative and you can only back so many.
Off out now. Good luck if you wade in after me....
Thanks Peter, glad you agree, always nice to have your opinion backed up
None of the haters want to play so I guess that's positive confirmation too
Good luck w the gee gees
FWIW, I think UKIP are a buy on the spreads at 6, but also more likely than not to get under 4.5 seats. It's one of those bets where the difference between the mean & median distort the odds.
On the GN - as well as backing STFD @ 10/1, I also got a bit overexcited this morning and put £25 EW on Owega Star @ 80/1. Nice that ptp thinks I ain't completely crazy
I don't really think the median/mean argument comes into it that much here
Shall we bet over under 4.5? 4/5 5/4?
We would both be getting the best odds available, everyones a winner
Can't Cameron cut a deal with the SNP? They don't have to actually "support" him, they just need an implicit agreement not to vote against him.
If I were Cameron, I'd introduce a Queen's speech that contains only (1) FFA for Scotland and (2) EVEL for England. State that he's heard the desire of the people of Scotland for increased autonomy and that bring harmony back to the islands is the most pressing priority and that once the constitution is settled he will call a new general election to allow the people to make up their minds who should be the next government.
Would the SNP really vote that down?
By what mechanism do you suppose he 'call[s] a new election'? Bear in mind that the FTPA is very useful to the opposition parties in a hung parliament facing a minority government.
That's the easy bit, you include repeal of FTPA in the same act as FFA and EVEL.
I don't think it can happen without UKIP dropping to about 7% and therefore I feel he falls short and a rather turbulent period of politics will follow.
I am not even convinced by the kipper falling to 7% doing it, Ashcroft suggested that squeezing the kippers was working better for Labour in some seats.
I was basing my analysis on a "Go to bed with Nige, wake up with Ed" strategy working, spooking ex-blues mainly, but inevitably not every vote would go blue, probably as many would stay at home altogether.
Makes Cam's task of keeping his job very difficult given there seems to be very little Red/Blue churn.
And its only true in the South, in the Midland and North you want people to vote kipper to reduce the number of Labour seats, no point in doing ourselves out of a possible most seats situation through hatred of the kippers.
I see that both the Tories and Labour are promising the earth: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32260220 Tories: We'll find £8bn more for NHS Labour says it would guarantee one-on-one midwife care for new mothers ......and the Yellows try to get into the act: The Lib Dems promise a new law to protect people's rights online.
It's what I call the "slobbering mouth appeal", stage of the election battle.
Looks like all parties intend on planting money magic trees left, right and centre.
Labour every day now are promising stuff that just isn't possible, magic money tree or not. Smaller primary school class sizes the other day, not going to happen, birth rate is higher than it has been for a long time and you can't just magic up schools, it takes years of planning. Coalition inherited a situation where already weren't keeping up with "demand" and despite new schools, the demand coming through the system in the next few years is even greater.
Can't Cameron cut a deal with the SNP? They don't have to actually "support" him, they just need an implicit agreement not to vote against him.
If I were Cameron, I'd introduce a Queen's speech that contains only (1) FFA for Scotland and (2) EVEL for England. State that he's heard the desire of the people of Scotland for increased autonomy and that bring harmony back to the islands is the most pressing priority and that once the constitution is settled he will call a new general election to allow the people to make up their minds who should be the next government.
Would the SNP really vote that down?
By what mechanism do you suppose he 'call[s] a new election'? Bear in mind that the FTPA is very useful to the opposition parties in a hung parliament facing a minority government.
Spot on David. Why should opposition parties give this power to a minority government? Under the act as it stands they have an effective veto.
I agree. There's no way a minority government could get a repeal of the FTPA through parliament. The only card Cameron would have to force an early election would be to resign his government. That could easily go wrong in at least two ways. Firstly, Miliband (or a successor) might be able to form a government; secondly, the manoeuvring may backfire in terms of public perception. Either way, he'd still be placing the Labour leader in No 10, which would be no small matter.
Any thoughts of today's promise of yet more magic money tree shaking for the NHS ?
Or doesn't it count as 'mindless, ignorant, selfish and childish' when its Tory magic money tree shaking ?
I'd like to see the detail before commenting. I don't doubt that overall the government could easily find £8bn from other departments even while reducing the structural deficit (and very easily if the pledge is in nominal rather than real terms). Whether that's proposed or not I don't know. I certainly wouldn't support unfunded spending commitments from any party.
I believe there was quite a number of billions left quietly unallocated in the budget to allow for just these sort of jollies without effecting the published finances at all, £20bn springs to mind, but it might be more than that.
@skynewsniall: .@SophyRidgeSky asks Ed Miliband if Lab commitment to spending 2.5b more than Tory plans still remains now they've said theyll spend 8b more
@skynewsniall: As far as I can tell, beyond an assertion that "we're clearly doing more" than Tories, he didn't answer @SophyRidgeSky's question directly
Can't Cameron cut a deal with the SNP? They don't have to actually "support" him, they just need an implicit agreement not to vote against him.
If I were Cameron, I'd introduce a Queen's speech that contains only (1) FFA for Scotland and (2) EVEL for England. State that he's heard the desire of the people of Scotland for increased autonomy and that bring harmony back to the islands is the most pressing priority and that once the constitution is settled he will call a new general election to allow the people to make up their minds who should be the next government.
Would the SNP really vote that down?
By what mechanism do you suppose he 'call[s] a new election'? Bear in mind that the FTPA is very useful to the opposition parties in a hung parliament facing a minority government.
Spot on David. Why should opposition parties give this power to a minority government? Under the act as it stands they have an effective veto.
I agree. There's no way a minority government could get a repeal of the FTPA through parliament. The only card Cameron would have to force an early election would be to resign his government. That could easily go wrong in at least two ways. Firstly, Miliband (or a successor) might be able to form a government; secondly, the manoeuvring may backfire in terms of public perception. Either way, he'd still be placing the Labour leader in No 10, which would be no small matter.
CON+SNP wouldn't be a minority, so you merge it into the FFA/EVEL bill and its not a problem.
Any thoughts of today's promise of yet more magic money tree shaking for the NHS ?
Or doesn't it count as 'mindless, ignorant, selfish and childish' when its Tory magic money tree shaking ?
I'd like to see the detail before commenting. I don't doubt that overall the government could easily find £8bn from other departments even while reducing the structural deficit (and very easily if the pledge is in nominal rather than real terms). Whether that's proposed or not I don't know. I certainly wouldn't support unfunded spending commitments from any party.
didnt the last budget find extra surplus coming in in final year of next parliament of around 7 - 8 billion
It will not take long before spoof wheels start appearing to further confuse the fantasy army of tactical voters, which many England based PBers think is going to ride to the "mainstream parties" rescue.
I see that both the Tories and Labour are promising the earth: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32260220 Tories: We'll find £8bn more for NHS Labour says it would guarantee one-on-one midwife care for new mothers ......and the Yellows try to get into the act: The Lib Dems promise a new law to protect people's rights online.
It's what I call the "slobbering mouth appeal", stage of the election battle.
Looks like all parties intend on planting money magic trees left, right and centre.
Labour every day now are promising stuff that just isn't possible, magic money tree or not. Smaller primary school class sizes the other day, not going to happen, birth rate is higher than it has been for a long time and you can't just magic up schools, it takes years of planning. Coalition inherited a situation where already weren't keeping up with "demand" and despite new schools, the demand coming through the system in the next few years is even greater.
@FrancisUrquhart you mean Left, Left, and Left. Not a right wing or leaning party among them.
It's not a fair comparison. This is not defending the authorities over Rotherham, but it's much easier and quicker to prosecute a simple case of assault (especially when the culprit admits guilt) than investigate and prosecute most cases involving the sexual abuse of minors.
There are many reasons for this; but there can be no doubt that the authorities in Rotherham and elsewhere did not even try. But they were far from alone in that.
It's interesting that the latest news about the extension of the investigation into the abuse in the Nottinghamshire care system - believed to be ongoing for seventy years - has garnered exactly zero comments (that I have seen, at least) on PB.
I suspect there are cases of child abuse taking place in care homes in every county in the country. You can probably say similar about every country in the world. Sadly vulnerable children attract unpleasant people.
What happened in Rotherham though was on a different level as it featured collaberation by plods and other public servants on a borough wide basis.
So its not just a situation where the authorities in Rotherham "didn't even try" its a situation where the authorities in Rotherham should themselves be getting investigated and then having action taken against them.
As to time scales, how long is it now since the Times investigation into Rotherham ?
I know it was followed by quick action by the Home Affairs Select Committee - when Keith Vaz stands as the exemplar of proper and prompt action it puts all the others to shame for their inaction.
Meanwhile we've had an investigation by the IPCC into the role the GMP played in the Rochdale abuse. A four year investigation which in the end decided nothing should be done. How very convenient. Forgive me for being cynical but I suspect we'll get a similar investigation into the SYP.
Any thoughts of today's promise of yet more magic money tree shaking for the NHS ?
Or doesn't it count as 'mindless, ignorant, selfish and childish' when its Tory magic money tree shaking ?
I'd like to see the detail before commenting. I don't doubt that overall the government could easily find £8bn from other departments even while reducing the structural deficit (and very easily if the pledge is in nominal rather than real terms). Whether that's proposed or not I don't know. I certainly wouldn't support unfunded spending commitments from any party.
So when do we hear of what cuts are going to be made in other departments ?
It's not a fair comparison. This is not defending the authorities over Rotherham, but it's much easier and quicker to prosecute a simple case of assault (especially when the culprit admits guilt) than investigate and prosecute most cases involving the sexual abuse of minors.
There are many reasons for this; but there can be no doubt that the authorities in Rotherham and elsewhere did not even try. But they were far from alone in that.
It's interesting that the latest news about the extension of the investigation into the abuse in the Nottinghamshire care system - believed to be ongoing for seventy years - has garnered exactly zero comments (that I have seen, at least) on PB.
I suspect there are cases of child abuse taking place in care homes in every county in the country. You can probably say similar about every country in the world. Sadly vulnerable children attract unpleasant people.
What happened in Rotherham though was on a different level as it featured collaberation by plods and other public servants on a borough wide basis.
So its not just a situation where the authorities in Rotherham "didn't even try" its a situation where the authorities in Rotherham should themselves be getting investigated and then having action taken against them.
As to time scales, how long is it now since the Times investigation into Rotherham ?
I know it was followed by quick action by the Home Affairs Select Committee - when Keith Vaz stands as the exemplar of proper and prompt action it puts all the others to shame for their inaction.
Meanwhile we've had an investigation by the IPCC into the role the GMP played in the Rochdale abuse. A four year investigation which in the end decided nothing should be done. How very convenient. Forgive me for being cynical but I suspect we'll get a similar investigation into the SYP.
Some reasonable points.
It's not just the authorities: it's the society around them as well. The girls are trouble; the girls are unworthy; the girls love the men; the girls will make poor witnesses; it's the girls' fault. All terrible excuses that have been used about Rotherham. Many members of the public knew that this was going on and said nothing, even if it was their fathers, husbands or brothers doing the abuse.
One of the reasons Rotherham got traction was that the abuse spread outside the care homes; to the friends of girls in care. Girls who had family and tried to complain, even if the complaints fell on fallow ground.
And we should not forget that boys get abuse as well.
Can't Cameron cut a deal with the SNP? They don't have to actually "support" him, they just need an implicit agreement not to vote against him.
If I were Cameron, I'd introduce a Queen's speech that contains only (1) FFA for Scotland and (2) EVEL for England. State that he's heard the desire of the people of Scotland for increased autonomy and that bring harmony back to the islands is the most pressing priority and that once the constitution is settled he will call a new general election to allow the people to make up their minds who should be the next government.
Would the SNP really vote that down?
Yes.
No they wouldn't. And if they did, and if they thereby triggered another GE, why shouldn't the voters who switched to SNP from LAB switch back to LAB?
But the scenario needs fleshing out. It wouldn 't just be FFA (Scotland) and EVEL. Consider a package that would involve an English referendum on EVEL-plus. With questions and talking-points set so that the result would be a strong YES. "England rises again." Change of landscape. Both the SNP and the Tories would be in seventh heaven.
(As I've said before, if the LAB leadership had any calibre, they could have got to all this first, shown some real leadership and hurt the Tories in a big way for a long period of time - but if my auntie was my uncle...)
If the SNP hold the balance of power - a quaint phrase, but apt if they get far more seats than the fourth party - expect them to consider their options.
And if one option is get into bed with the Tories and the other is cooperate with Labour but have the whole arrangement sensitive to the whims of the LibDems and maybe Respect or some UUs, it's a bit of a no-brainer. Politics is fickle. It's not about appealing to the intellect. It's only pundits who use terms such as "centre-left".
Any thoughts of today's promise of yet more magic money tree shaking for the NHS ?
Or doesn't it count as 'mindless, ignorant, selfish and childish' when its Tory magic money tree shaking ?
I'd like to see the detail before commenting. I don't doubt that overall the government could easily find £8bn from other departments even while reducing the structural deficit (and very easily if the pledge is in nominal rather than real terms). Whether that's proposed or not I don't know. I certainly wouldn't support unfunded spending commitments from any party.
So when do we hear of what cuts are going to be made in other departments ?
That's right, we wont.
After the election if the Tories win. More debt of Labour win.
Can't Cameron cut a deal with the SNP? They don't have to actually "support" him, they just need an implicit agreement not to vote against him.
If I were Cameron, I'd introduce a Queen's speech that contains only (1) FFA for Scotland and (2) EVEL for England. State that he's heard the desire of the people of Scotland for increased autonomy and that bring harmony back to the islands is the most pressing priority and that once the constitution is settled he will call a new general election to allow the people to make up their minds who should be the next government.
Would the SNP really vote that down?
Yes.
No they wouldn't. And if they did, and if they thereby triggered another GE, why shouldn't the voters who switched to SNP from LAB switch back to LAB?
But the scenario needs fleshing out. It wouldn 't just be FFA (Scotland) and EVEL. Consider a package that would involve an English referendum on EVEL-plus. With questions and talking-points set so that the result would be a strong YES. "England rises again." Change of landscape. Both the SNP and the Tories would be in seventh heaven.
(As I've said before, if the LAB leadership had any calibre, they could have got to all this first, shown some real leadership and hurt the Tories in a big way for a long period of time - but if my auntie was my uncle...)
If the SNP hold the balance of power - a quaint phrase, but apt if they get far more seats than the fourth party - expect them to consider their options.
And if one option is get into bed with the Tories and the other is cooperate with Labour but have the whole arrangement sensitive to the whims of the LibDems and maybe Respect or some UUs, it's a bit of a no-brainer. Politics is fickle. It's not about appealing to the intellect. It's only pundits who use terms such as "centre-left".
So you say the SNP are lying when they say they will not vote for any conservative queen's speech?
I liked David Herdson's piece but he appears to share the assumption of so many commentators that the LibDems would stick together in the way that they did in 2010. Personally I am doubtful that this will prove to be true. If 30 Libdems survive on May 7th I rather suspect that 6 to 10 of them will simply refuse to follow Clegg into another Tory-led administration. Furthermore we may end up with LibDem members receiving conflicting advice from separate groups of its MPs with the members having to choose between them.
Just listening to 'Any Questions'. Why do the Tories persist with Grant Shapps? He clearly doesn't understand the script. The public instinctively don't like him and he's obviously not up to the job.
The funniest line though was when Paddy Ashdown said his Party was "The Green Party in Government" Caroline Lucas was asked what she thought of that claim and got the biggest cheer of the day when she said "I'd laugh"
I'm getting a real sense that the Tories are actively disliked.
Can't Cameron cut a deal with the SNP? They don't have to actually "support" him, they just need an implicit agreement not to vote against him.
If I were Cameron, I'd introduce a Queen's speech that contains only (1) FFA for Scotland and (2) EVEL for England. State that he's heard the desire of the people of Scotland for increased autonomy and that bring harmony back to the islands is the most pressing priority and that once the constitution is settled he will call a new general election to allow the people to make up their minds who should be the next government.
Would the SNP really vote that down?
By what mechanism do you suppose he 'call[s] a new election'? Bear in mind that the FTPA is very useful to the opposition parties in a hung parliament facing a minority government.
Include it as a clause in the same bill.
Of course the risk is amendment, but make it clear to the SNP it is all or nothing.
Can't Cameron cut a deal with the SNP? They don't have to actually "support" him, they just need an implicit agreement not to vote against him.
If I were Cameron, I'd introduce a Queen's speech that contains only (1) FFA for Scotland and (2) EVEL for England. State that he's heard the desire of the people of Scotland for increased autonomy and that bring harmony back to the islands is the most pressing priority and that once the constitution is settled he will call a new general election to allow the people to make up their minds who should be the next government.
Would the SNP really vote that down?
Yes.
No they wouldn't. And if they did, and if they thereby triggered another GE, why shouldn't the voters who switched to SNP from LAB switch back to LAB?
But the scenario needs fleshing out. It wouldn 't just be FFA (Scotland) and EVEL. Consider a package that would involve an English referendum on EVEL-plus. With questions and talking-points set so that the result would be a strong YES. "England rises again." Change of landscape. Both the SNP and the Tories would be in seventh heaven.
(As I've said before, if the LAB leadership had any calibre, they could have got to all this first, shown some real leadership and hurt the Tories in a big way for a long period of time - but if my auntie was my uncle...)
If the SNP hold the balance of power - a quaint phrase, but apt if they get far more seats than the fourth party - expect them to consider their options.
And if one option is get into bed with the Tories and the other is cooperate with Labour but have the whole arrangement sensitive to the whims of the LibDems and maybe Respect or some UUs, it's a bit of a no-brainer. Politics is fickle. It's not about appealing to the intellect. It's only pundits who use terms such as "centre-left".
So you say the SNP are lying when they say they will not vote for any conservative queen's speech?
He is saying circumstances changes, and its not exactly unusual for a politician to claim extenuating circumstances. After all the alternative is to vote the Tories down, get basically nothing from Labour but a bit of pork for a year or so until the government collapses and then risk a Tory majority which proceeds to completely ignore Scotland's needs for the next 5-10 years. There is an aspect of taking what is on offer while you can get it.
Not sure SNP voters would be too sympathetic to being told that the party rejected 90% of what they wanted and they are going to have to wait another 10 years before they get another chance at getting 100% of it.
Again bizarre campaigning from the Conservatives, announcing your major 'save the NHS' counter-intuitive point on a Friday/Saturday, when few give a monkeys - whatever the rights, lies and wrongs of it. Also, Lab haven't been hammering on about the NHS as much as many thought, so it isn't as much of a 'ha you were bleating on about this, but you're bleating on about nowt'. Couldn't it wait till Sunday or Monday? Desperately need to up their game for the 'PB Tories' sake.
Sunday papers will be the target. IIRC they are the ones that people read/remember the most
Just listening to 'Any Questions'. Why do the Tories persist with Grant Shapps? He clearly doesn't understand the script. The public instinctively don't like him and he's obviously not up to the job.
The funniest line though was when Paddy Ashdown said his Party was "The Green Party in Government" Caroline Lucas was asked what she thought of that claim and got the biggest cheer of the day when she said "I'd laugh"
I'm getting a real sense that the Tories are actively disliked.
That's just you an a handful of anoraks, most people neither love not hate parties or governments, it just isn't that important in their daily life, they are just "not doing so bad" or " probably time for a change".
"That's just you and a handful of anoraks, most people neither love not hate parties or governments,"
I think that's usually true. Thatcher's was an exception. I've never really found the coalition to be that bad but I'm getting the impression now they've uncoupled both halves are pretty disliked
I see that both the Tories and Labour are promising the earth: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32260220 Tories: We'll find £8bn more for NHS Labour says it would guarantee one-on-one midwife care for new mothers ......and the Yellows try to get into the act: The Lib Dems promise a new law to protect people's rights online.
It's what I call the "slobbering mouth appeal", stage of the election battle.
Listening to the lunchtime news the conservatives and lib dems have both signed upto Mr Stevens, head of NHS , requirements of £8 billion by 2020 but labour are only committing to £2.5 billion leaving them with a £5.5 billion funding shortfall. It seems both the conservatives and lib dems proposition is that as the debt is paid down and debt interest falls the extra investment will flow from lower interest payments and economic growth. It seems amazing that labour can only cry foul and really seem to have been caught out on what is their flag ship policy
Listening to the lunchtime news the conservatives and lib dems have both signed upto Mr Stevens, head of NHS , requirements of £8 billion by 2020 but labour are only committing to £2.5 billion leaving them with a £5.5 billion funding shortfall. It seems both the conservatives and lib dems proposition is that as the debt is paid down and debt interest falls the extra investment will flow from lower interest payments and economic growth. It seems amazing that labour can only cry foul and really seem to have been caught out on what is their flag ship policy
The thing that really, really aggravates me is this implicit assumption that our recovery will continue.
History tells us that we're due a recession in the next few years. Of course, they're all making these ludicrous promises because it works; the electorate doesn't want to hear the truth.
So you say the SNP are lying when they say they will not vote for any conservative queen's speech?
Circumstances change. I've just read that Alec Salmond interview, in which he says he wouldn't want to do a deal with Cameron even if Cameron offered him everything he wanted (sic). He then says, " I wouldn’t come to Westminster to make up the numbers... What I’ve got to offer of course is the experience of having run a minority government." He makes three separate references to how the stars might be in alignment. And he says the political figure he most identifies with is Nelson Mandela. That's identifies with, not admires.
Is the poor old sausage losing his marbles?
Then he talks about looking forward to holding the balance of power. How you can do that when you couldn't possibly countenance supporting one of the two sides under any conditions, I don't know.
I wouldn't take that interview too seriously. Politicians tell porkies and suffer from excess pride and Salmond is no exception.
Comments
https://shop.labour.org.uk/products/pledge-4-mug-controls-on-immigration-551/
25 Max
Miliband has a few more strengths than Kinnock but would/will be one of our worst PMs since WW2.
Would the SNP really vote that down?
How realistic that is I don't know.
It's a real shame for the LibDems that they got 'lumbered' with government as there was a real opportunity to challenge a rather lacklustre Labour party with being the main party of opposition.
I reckon they might have been up for 80-100 seats in this election had they remained in opposition. They would have had a real chance in my seat and I might have considered voting for them.
Or doesn't it count as 'mindless, ignorant, selfish and childish' when its Tory magic money tree shaking ?
Both the SNP and Tories say no coalition, just fair deals for Scotland and England respectively.
Makes Cam's task of keeping his job very difficult given there seems to be very little Red/Blue churn.
Purely relying on previous relative fiscal competence leaves them open to plenty of flack on this matter.
Kinnock looked like the neighbour from hell to much of Middle England - guaranteed to get in a feud about the hedge or parking.
Now looking nerdy isn't ideal when dealing with the likes of Putin.
But I think perhaps the accusations of EdM being a 'backstabber' or 'ruthless SOB' helps him here. After all a ruthless backstabber might deal better with Putin than someone who 'plays fair'.
Its contemptible.
I would hope there would be a point at which the electorate sees through all these lies.
One can only hope that they keep up their fine record of not implementing manifesto promises if they do get in, otherwise the country is heading for the poorhouse.
Lose 10 of 11 in Scotland (4% polling). Lose all 9 non-incumbents of the rest in England & Wales = down to 38.
Then, only lose 7 of the 37 seats not in Scotland..... a retention rate of 81%. Can we really see the LDs holding 8 out of 10 seats that they have an incumbent in across England & Wales?
Of course this also assumes no gains! But even 1 gain hardly improves the chances of keeping 30+
Meanwhile while the Stock Market reaches new highs, Ladbrokes' share price continues to flounder at just over a quid. Long gone are the days (late 2006) when it was almost 400p. What a wasted decade!
If they fail to get a majority, they could re-use Dave's excuses from the last election?
There are many reasons for this; but there can be no doubt that the authorities in Rotherham and elsewhere did not even try. But they were far from alone in that.
It's interesting that the latest news about the extension of the investigation into the abuse in the Nottinghamshire care system - believed to be ongoing for seventy years - has garnered exactly zero comments (that I have seen, at least) on PB.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-32209975
http://www.nottinghampost.com/New-investigation-launched-historic-sex-abuse/story-26299988-detail/story.html
@pressjournal: The Conservative offices in Aberdeen have been attacked overnight http://t.co/tY3o3kbzVC http://t.co/zhiCIzAyoT
LibDem overoptimism has been pretty continuous since the 2005 election.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32260220
Tories: We'll find £8bn more for NHS
Labour says it would guarantee one-on-one midwife care for new mothers
......and the Yellows try to get into the act:
The Lib Dems promise a new law to protect people's rights online.
It's what I call the "slobbering mouth appeal", stage of the election battle.
Shall we bet over under 4.5? 4/5 5/4?
We would both be getting the best odds available, everyones a winner
Labour every day now are promising stuff that just isn't possible, magic money tree or not. Smaller primary school class sizes the other day, not going to happen, birth rate is higher than it has been for a long time and you can't just magic up schools, it takes years of planning. Coalition inherited a situation where already weren't keeping up with "demand" and despite new schools, the demand coming through the system in the next few years is even greater.
Spring Heeled (PtP must get at least one winner this year...)
Shutthefrontdoor (Not because I think it will win, but I would kick myself if it did and I wasn't on it)
Oscar Time (most successful Aintree National fences jocky ever)
First Lieutenant (first female jocky winner?)
The Budget documents show that the reduction in the predicted surplus will allow an extra £29.6bn in spending by government departments in 2019-20.
@skynewsniall: As far as I can tell, beyond an assertion that "we're clearly doing more" than Tories, he didn't answer @SophyRidgeSky's question directly
Will Dave be head of the Tory party for long enough, after another "bad" election result?
http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/wheeloflolz.jpg
It will not take long before spoof wheels start appearing to further confuse the fantasy army of tactical voters, which many England based PBers think is going to ride to the "mainstream parties" rescue.
Wisdom Index predicts a draw.
Tories nudge ahead of Labour on 'cost of living'.
Is that what happens when Ed's on telly every day saying, "more taxes"? People think that somehow they will end up getting hit.
What happened in Rotherham though was on a different level as it featured collaberation by plods and other public servants on a borough wide basis.
So its not just a situation where the authorities in Rotherham "didn't even try" its a situation where the authorities in Rotherham should themselves be getting investigated and then having action taken against them.
As to time scales, how long is it now since the Times investigation into Rotherham ?
I know it was followed by quick action by the Home Affairs Select Committee - when Keith Vaz stands as the exemplar of proper and prompt action it puts all the others to shame for their inaction.
Meanwhile we've had an investigation by the IPCC into the role the GMP played in the Rochdale abuse. A four year investigation which in the end decided nothing should be done. How very convenient. Forgive me for being cynical but I suspect we'll get a similar investigation into the SYP.
That's right, we wont.
It's not just the authorities: it's the society around them as well. The girls are trouble; the girls are unworthy; the girls love the men; the girls will make poor witnesses; it's the girls' fault. All terrible excuses that have been used about Rotherham. Many members of the public knew that this was going on and said nothing, even if it was their fathers, husbands or brothers doing the abuse.
One of the reasons Rotherham got traction was that the abuse spread outside the care homes; to the friends of girls in care. Girls who had family and tried to complain, even if the complaints fell on fallow ground.
And we should not forget that boys get abuse as well.
All utterly and hideously depressing.
But the scenario needs fleshing out. It wouldn 't just be FFA (Scotland) and EVEL. Consider a package that would involve an English referendum on EVEL-plus. With questions and talking-points set so that the result would be a strong YES. "England rises again." Change of landscape. Both the SNP and the Tories would be in seventh heaven.
(As I've said before, if the LAB leadership had any calibre, they could have got to all this first, shown some real leadership and hurt the Tories in a big way for a long period of time - but if my auntie was my uncle...)
If the SNP hold the balance of power - a quaint phrase, but apt if they get far more seats than the fourth party - expect them to consider their options.
And if one option is get into bed with the Tories and the other is cooperate with Labour but have the whole arrangement sensitive to the whims of the LibDems and maybe Respect or some UUs, it's a bit of a no-brainer. Politics is fickle. It's not about appealing to the intellect. It's only pundits who use terms such as "centre-left".
Pick your poison.
The funniest line though was when Paddy Ashdown said his Party was "The Green Party in Government" Caroline Lucas was asked what she thought of that claim and got the biggest cheer of the day when she said "I'd laugh"
I'm getting a real sense that the Tories are actively disliked.
Of course the risk is amendment, but make it clear to the SNP it is all or nothing.
Not sure SNP voters would be too sympathetic to being told that the party rejected 90% of what they wanted and they are going to have to wait another 10 years before they get another chance at getting 100% of it.
"It's a die, not dye, and cast as in thrown, not moulded. Don't they teach you anything at your expensive private schools?"
I wondered about that and couldn't find an answer easily on my I pad. As to not being taught it at my expensive school. Idioms weren't encouraged!
"That's just you and a handful of anoraks, most people neither love not hate parties or governments,"
I think that's usually true. Thatcher's was an exception. I've never really found the coalition to be that bad but I'm getting the impression now they've uncoupled both halves are pretty disliked
History tells us that we're due a recession in the next few years. Of course, they're all making these ludicrous promises because it works; the electorate doesn't want to hear the truth.
Is the poor old sausage losing his marbles?
Then he talks about looking forward to holding the balance of power. How you can do that when you couldn't possibly countenance supporting one of the two sides under any conditions, I don't know.
I wouldn't take that interview too seriously. Politicians tell porkies and suffer from excess pride and Salmond is no exception.