I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.
And how, pray tell, will this policy discriminate between an "intern" and a "volunteer" ?
It is a meaningless gesture in any case, it will do nothing to stop the core problem of nepotism which is what the internship problem is based on.
Why would the party of Euan Blair, Emily Benn, Will Straw, Dan Hodges, Stephen Kinnock, David Prescott and Joe Dromey want "to stop the core problem of nepotism"?
How many of that list are actually MPs?
Compared to the following Tories who followed in their parents' steps:
James Arbuthnot, Richard Benyon, Dominic Grieve, Ben Gummer, Nick Hurd, Bernard Jenkin, Francis Maude, Andrew Mitchell, Mark Pawsey, Laura Sandys, Nicholas Soames, Robin Walker, Bill Wiggin.
Both parties are as bad as each other on the nepotism and unpaid internship stuff that's been talked about on here today - I have personal experience regarding the Tories and have friends who've had the same experiences regarding Labour.
I'm not defending either party in this regard (though it's surely up to the voters of a constituency to vote for an MP whose parent may previously have been an MP if they want to). Just challenging the common perception here that's it's a Labour rather than a Tory thing. It's like the idea that Jack Dromey was selected in a seat that should have been AWS. One of those things that some pbc-ers have decided is true regardless of the facts.
I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.
And how, pray tell, will this policy discriminate between an "intern" and a "volunteer" ?
It is a meaningless gesture in any case, it will do nothing to stop the core problem of nepotism which is what the internship problem is based on.
Why would the party of Euan Blair, Emily Benn, Will Straw, Dan Hodges, Stephen Kinnock, David Prescott and Joe Dromey want "to stop the core problem of nepotism"?
How many of that list are actually MPs?
Compared to the following Tories who followed in their parents' steps:
James Arbuthnot, Richard Benyon, Dominic Grieve, Ben Gummer, Nick Hurd, Bernard Jenkin, Francis Maude, Andrew Mitchell, Mark Pawsey, Laura Sandys, Nicholas Soames, Robin Walker, Bill Wiggin.
I would think if you cast the net to comprehend quangoes, charidees, luvviedom and the BBC, you'd find more left wing nepotism still. The point, however, is not that one party is more nepotistic than others. It's that the one that wants to be seen as such is failing to see and fix its own nepotism problem, which it could perfectly well do right now, and instead is focusing on somebody else's alleged problem.
Which is blatant rule by horses, of the most grotesque kind.
I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.
And how, pray tell, will this policy discriminate between an "intern" and a "volunteer" ?
It is a meaningless gesture in any case, it will do nothing to stop the core problem of nepotism which is what the internship problem is based on.
Why would the party of Euan Blair, Emily Benn, Will Straw, Dan Hodges, Stephen Kinnock, David Prescott and Joe Dromey want "to stop the core problem of nepotism"?
How many of that list are actually MPs?
Compared to the following Tories who followed in their parents' steps:
James Arbuthnot, Richard Benyon, Dominic Grieve, Ben Gummer, Nick Hurd, Bernard Jenkin, Francis Maude, Andrew Mitchell, Mark Pawsey, Laura Sandys, Nicholas Soames, Robin Walker, Bill Wiggin.
I would think if you cast the net to comprehend quangoes, charidees, luvviedom and the BBC, you'd find more left wing nepotism still. The point, however, is not that one party is more nepotistic than others. It's that the one that wants to be seen as such is failing to see and fix its own nepotism problem, which it could perfectly well do right now, and instead is focusing on somebody else's alleged problem.
Which is blatant rule by horses, of the most grotesque kind.
Yes - Labour accusing Tories of being toffs when in fact both parties are stuffed full of toffs who have no real idea of what it's like to to be unemployed or live in a rented flat with damp running down the walls or to be made redundant in your 50's with little chance of getting another job or to have a limited pension or to have savings earning little interest.
They're all out of touch toffs as far as I'm concerned. In my more ferocious moments, ropes and lamp posts is what comes to mind when thinking of our political class.
Been spending the last hour at work thinking about hung parliament permutations #saddo
The real nightmare scenario in terms of forming a new government is if the Tories are the largest party but WELL short of a majority (say, about 280 seats or less). In such a scenario, they wouldn't have the numbers to cobble together a majority since there's so few natural allies for them in parliament, but equally Labour would be seen to have no "moral authority" to lead a government if they are the second party by a distance. In that case I think an immediate second election would be unavoidable, regardless of the obstacles that the Fixed Term Parliaments Act technically pose.
In such circumstances, Labour would be well advised not to vote the Queen's Speech down and change their leader. They could then bring the government down in the autumn. Unless of course Cameron had done a deal with Salmond in the meantime...
Not even the slippery eels that are the SNP could wriggle out of their cast iron "we will not support a Tory Govt under any circumstance" and "we will lock out David Cameron" assurances. If the LDs destroyed their reputation over the "no increase in tuition fees" u-turn, imagine what it would do for the Nats to put in place a Tory administration - preventing that seems to be the raison d'etre of the independence movement anyway.
They'll support Ed, and let him do what he wants on 34% on the vote and probably no more than 285-295 seats.
The SNP are safe re a Con govt - if the LDs hold up then the SNP are at best 4th choice partners for Dave. If the LDs completely disappear then either Lab or Con will have 300.
Been spending the last hour at work thinking about hung parliament permutations #saddo
The real nightmare scenario in terms of forming a new government is if the Tories are the largest party but WELL short of a majority (say, about 280 seats or less). In such a scenario, they wouldn't have the numbers to cobble together a majority since there's so few natural allies for them in parliament, but equally Labour would be seen to have no "moral authority" to lead a government if they are the second party by a distance. In that case I think an immediate second election would be unavoidable, regardless of the obstacles that the Fixed Term Parliaments Act technically pose.
In such circumstances, Labour would be well advised not to vote the Queen's Speech down and change their leader. They could then bring the government down in the autumn. Unless of course Cameron had done a deal with Salmond in the meantime...
Not even the slippery eels that are the SNP could wriggle out of their cast iron "we will not support a Tory Govt under any circumstance" and "we will lock out David Cameron" assurances. If the LDs destroyed their reputation over the "no increase in tuition fees" u-turn, imagine what it would do for the Nats to put in place a Tory administration - preventing that seems to be the raison d'etre of the independence movement anyway.
They'll support Ed, and let him do what he wants on 34% on the vote and probably no more than 285-295 seats.
They don't have to support Ed until Ed agrees to the SNP demands.
They can vote down a Labour Queens Speech without any fear of another election. The fear of an election is entirely with Labour who will have demonstrated to their Northern England and Welsh heartlands that they cannot be trusted to work in their constituents best interest.
If the SNP vote down such a Queens Speech, the FTPA means Miliband can get ANOTHER go at being the government, this time with SNP support. In almost all circumstances this is a better choice for Labour avoiding a wipe out at a second election.
I think you are forgetting about the 1923 General Election. Did Ramsay McDonald have "Moral authority" on sub 200 seats ?
In fact I'd argue he had even less in 1931 when he scrambled together 13 whole seats and was the Prime Minister !
Or who could forget when Churchill only "got over the line" with the Ulstermen in 1951.
It isn't a presidential system and just because we've seen the biggest party "win" for the last 50 years doesn't mean it HAS to be the case now.
I dunno, I just feel that for a lot of people who don't follow politics closely, it's going to seem like an open/shut case that the party who comes second doesn't have the right to lead the government. Especially since the press will be running hysterical headlines of "LABOUR COUP" at the time.
That's why I think Ed Miliband is so vulnerable if Labour clearly finish second in the seat count. Labour will need to show that they've listened to the public's rejection of their offering, and how better than to sacrifice the leader who led them to what the public would see as defeat and replace him with a less partisan eminence grise in order to lead a government of national progressive unity?
Wouldn't they be better off letting Cameron scrabble on for 6 months, under assault from his backbenches, while they have a proper leadership contest and then force a second election?
Foisting Yvette on us may not lead to a grateful nation.
It's interesting. That would be the surest way possible of losing Scotland forever. Nicola Sturgeon could correctly claim that Labour preferred to let the Conservatives in than to work with the SNP.
On the other hand, a Conservative minority government would be a grim affair for David Cameron and Labour would probably win in England alone in the circumstances you describe.
A really tough call for Labour there.
You are talking here of trying to run a minority government in a fundamentally hostile parliament. With the FTPA there would be no automatic route either to a second election or a more stable government, either. This would be total gridlock and the market reaction would be gruesome. I would expect Cameron to be gone fairly quickly and Boris to emerge as leader and PM. EdM is an intellectually vain and stubborn man and I would not expect him to go voluntarily.
I think you are forgetting about the 1923 General Election. Did Ramsay McDonald have "Moral authority" on sub 200 seats ?
In fact I'd argue he had even less in 1931 when he scrambled together 13 whole seats and was the Prime Minister !
Or who could forget when Churchill only "got over the line" with the Ulstermen in 1951.
It isn't a presidential system and just because we've seen the biggest party "win" for the last 50 years doesn't mean it HAS to be the case now.
I dunno, I just feel that for a lot of people who don't follow politics closely, it's going to seem like an open/shut case that the party who comes second doesn't have the right to lead the government. Especially since the press will be running hysterical headlines of "LABOUR COUP" at the time.
That's why I think Ed Miliband is so vulnerable if Labour clearly finish second in the seat count. Labour will need to show that they've listened to the public's rejection of their offering, and how better than to sacrifice the leader who led them to what the public would see as defeat and replace him with a less partisan eminence grise in order to lead a government of national progressive unity?
Wouldn't they be better off letting Cameron scrabble on for 6 months, under assault from his backbenches, while they have a proper leadership contest and then force a second election?
Foisting Yvette on us may not lead to a grateful nation.
It's interesting. That would be the surest way possible of losing Scotland forever. Nicola Sturgeon could correctly claim that Labour preferred to let the Conservatives in than to work with the SNP.
On the other hand, a Conservative minority government would be a grim affair for David Cameron and Labour would probably win in England alone in the circumstances you describe.
A really tough call for Labour there.
You are talking here of trying to run a minority government in a fundamentally hostile parliament. With the FTPA there would be no automatic route either to a second election or a more stable government, either. This would be total gridlock and the market reaction would be gruesome. I would expect Cameron to be gone fairly quickly and Boris to emerge as leader and PM. EdM is an intellectually vain and stubborn man and I would not expect him to go voluntarily.
So in summary - everyone in England should vote Con until this Nat fad peters out...
Finsborough arms event not the only one happening on Election night - Check this one out:
Beach Blanket Babylon For those still up and awake from the previous election night, on Friday 8th May, Beach Blanket Babylon is giving you the chance to celebrate the results or drown your sorrows with the Monster Raving Looney Party. With politically themed cocktails, Poll Tax dancing and a mincing Marget Thatcher, there will be plenty of silliness in the air. The party kicks off at 9pm with free entry and cocktails priced from £8.90.
PB heads' average predictions at Nojam.com: CON 289, LAB 271, SNP 42, LD 26, UKIP 3, GRN 1, OTH 18. You're Cameron. What would you do? It's almost a no-brainer: make concessions to the SNP. Sure, you could try for a deal with LD and some UU's, but that wouldn't be stable and why would the LD go for it? If the UU were to hold the government to ransom and bring it down, the LD wouldn't look that distinguishable from CON. Here are the alternatives if those are the numbers: 1) CON-SNP, 2) RAINBOW.
The SNP will not do a deal with the Conservatives.
This is the biggest cert of the election.
Strong words, but differences of opinion are what makes the game interesting. If you are so certain, I'm willing to lay 25 or more SNP MPs voting against a Queen's Speech by a Cameron-led government at 1/100. Bet void if Cameron isn't PM or if CON + LD get 320 seats or more.
The Labour policy on interns is a good one. Curiously, you find interns most in the industries that are stuffed full of soi-disant progressives who are quite blind to their own exploitation of the powerless.
Yes, but note that final assembly of the engines will take place in Singapore and that no new jobs will be created due to this order. Our labour costs are just too high to be competitive.
We have the fastest growing major developed economy in the world. We have great employment figures today. We have wages growing. We have literally no inflation We have the deficit down coming year after year. We have more jobs being created than in the rest of Europe put together.
Is it only me that wishes the Conservative strategy was more about our own record and less about the SNP?
I think you are forgetting about the 1923 General Election. Did Ramsay McDonald have "Moral authority" on sub 200 seats ?
In fact I'd argue he had even less in 1931 when he scrambled together 13 whole seats and was the Prime Minister !
Or who could forget when Churchill only "got over the line" with the Ulstermen in 1951.
It isn't a presidential system and just because we've seen the biggest party "win" for the last 50 years doesn't mean it HAS to be the case now.
I dunno, I just feel that for a lot of people who don't follow politics closely, it's going to seem like an open/shut case that the party who comes second doesn't have the right to lead the government. Especially since the press will be running hysterical headlines of "LABOUR COUP" at the time.
That's why I think Ed Miliband is so vulnerable if Labour clearly finish second in the seat count. Labour will need to show that they've listened to the public's rejection of their offering, and how better than to sacrifice the leader who led them to what the public would see as defeat and replace him with a less partisan eminence grise in order to lead a government of national progressive unity?
Wouldn't they be better off letting Cameron scrabble on for 6 months, under assault from his backbenches, while they have a proper leadership contest and then force a second election?
Foisting Yvette on us may not lead to a grateful nation.
It's interesting. That would be the surest way possible of losing Scotland forever. Nicola Sturgeon could correctly claim that Labour preferred to let the Conservatives in than to work with the SNP.
On the other hand, a Conservative minority government would be a grim affair for David Cameron and Labour would probably win in England alone in the circumstances you describe.
A really tough call for Labour there.
You are talking here of trying to run a minority government in a fundamentally hostile parliament. With the FTPA there would be no automatic route either to a second election or a more stable government, either. This would be total gridlock and the market reaction would be gruesome. I would expect Cameron to be gone fairly quickly and Boris to emerge as leader and PM. EdM is an intellectually vain and stubborn man and I would not expect him to go voluntarily.
So in summary - everyone in England should vote Con until this Nat fad peters out...
Yes. And this is the only message worth pushing by Cameron for the rest of the campaign.
Good news indeed - I had just read the article a short while before you posted it and read that Rolls Royce currently employs 24,500 people in the UK. For the life of me I can't recall where RR are based. Any guesses without googling?
Been spending the last hour at work thinking about hung parliament permutations #saddo
The real nightmare scenario in terms of forming a new government is if the Tories are the largest party but WELL short of a majority (say, about 280 seats or less). In such a scenario, they wouldn't have the numbers to cobble together a majority since there's so few natural allies for them in parliament, but equally Labour would be seen to have no "moral authority" to lead a government if they are the second party by a distance. In that case I think an immediate second election would be unavoidable, regardless of the obstacles that the Fixed Term Parliaments Act technically pose.
In such circumstances, Labour would be well advised not to vote the Queen's Speech down and change their leader. They could then bring the government down in the autumn. Unless of course Cameron had done a deal with Salmond in the meantime...
Not even the slippery eels that are the SNP could wriggle out of their cast iron "we will not support a Tory Govt under any circumstance" and "we will lock out David Cameron" assurances. If the LDs destroyed their reputation over the "no increase in tuition fees" u-turn, imagine what it would do for the Nats to put in place a Tory administration - preventing that seems to be the raison d'etre of the independence movement anyway.
They'll support Ed, and let him do what he wants on 34% on the vote and probably no more than 285-295 seats.
They don't have to support Ed until Ed agrees to the SNP demands.
They can vote down a Labour Queens Speech without any fear of another election. The fear of an election is entirely with Labour who will have demonstrated to their Northern England and Welsh heartlands that they cannot be trusted to work in their constituents best interest.
If the SNP vote down such a Queens Speech, the FTPA means Miliband can get ANOTHER go at being the government, this time with SNP support. In almost all circumstances this is a better choice for Labour avoiding a wipe out at a second election.
This would be fine if it was all just a game insulated from the wider world. Markets would be in meltdown and the UK would be an international laughing stock.
Been spending the last hour at work thinking about hung parliament permutations #saddo
The real nightmare scenario in terms of forming a new government is if the Tories are the largest party but WELL short of a majority (say, about 280 seats or less). In such a scenario, they wouldn't have the numbers to cobble together a majority since there's so few natural allies for them in parliament, but equally Labour would be seen to have no "moral authority" to lead a government if they are the second party by a distance. In that case I think an immediate second election would be unavoidable, regardless of the obstacles that the Fixed Term Parliaments Act technically pose.
In such circumstances, Labour would be well advised not to vote the Queen's Speech down and change their leader. They could then bring the government down in the autumn. Unless of course Cameron had done a deal with Salmond in the meantime...
Not even the slippery eels that are the SNP could wriggle out of their cast iron "we will not support a Tory Govt under any circumstance" and "we will lock out David Cameron" assurances. If the LDs destroyed their reputation over the "no increase in tuition fees" u-turn, imagine what it would do for the Nats to put in place a Tory administration - preventing that seems to be the raison d'etre of the independence movement anyway.
They'll support Ed, and let him do what he wants on 34% on the vote and probably no more than 285-295 seats.
If Ed gets that many he'll be PM, no doubt. It's the lower range that's more interesting.
If Cameron basically gives the SNP carte blanche to run Scotland as a de facto nation state then are you telling me they'll refuse?
Yes, but note that final assembly of the engines will take place in Singapore and that no new jobs will be created due to this order. Our labour costs are just too high to be competitive.
Indeed. Although from memory, it was more to do with grants and tax incentives to build a factory there. I can't remember if it was under this government or at the dog-end of the previous one, but there was some controversy in the Derby area that the UK government refused to be anywhere near as generous.
Although it also makes sense to have a production facility near many of your customers.
Not even the slippery eels that are the SNP could wriggle out of their cast iron "we will not support a Tory Govt under any circumstance" and "we will lock out David Cameron" assurances. If the LDs destroyed their reputation over the "no increase in tuition fees" u-turn, imagine what it would do for the Nats to put in place a Tory administration - preventing that seems to be the raison d'etre of the independence movement anyway.
They'll support Ed, and let him do what he wants on 34% on the vote and probably no more than 285-295 seats.
And what goodies might the SNP get from CON? Got to weigh that in the balance before deciding which way the balance tips.
I can't see that CON would have much of a problem with EVEL or son-of-EVEL (because it's not likely to be as simple as EVEL) if the alternative is going into opposition.
Factor in that Salmond appears to have lost his marbles, saying things about star alignments and not doing a deal even if the SNP gets everything they want (sic).
Average prediction at the moment is that SNP support for LAB wouldn't put Miliband into No.10 without LD support. Current figures suggest two possibilities: CON-SNP or LAB-RAINBOW. (That's leaving aside the issue of maj or min government, which isn't the big issue - who does a deal with whom is the big issue.)
Good news indeed - I had just read the article a short while before you posted it and read that Rolls Royce currently employs 24,500 people in the UK. For the life of me I can't recall where RR are based. Any guesses without googling?
A 4.5% swing across England is pretty meaningless in terms of seats if it's because of Labour picking up excess LD votes and the Tories losing votes to Ukip in safe seats.
For example, in the north east there is a lump of 24% that voted LD but they only have 2 seats up there. Imagine Labour getting most of the votes and maybe one of the seats. The same thing can happen in the west midlands where the Lib Dems got 21% and 2 seats, and the east midlands where they got 21% and ZERO seats, and Yorkshire where they got 23% and 3 seats. Labour could pick up all the votes and seats in these areas, which would add circa 9% to their national vote tally and only 7 seats.
Under UNS, Labour would gain 54 seats from the Conservatives, and 11 from the Lib Dems. The Conservatives would gain 17 from the Lib Dems.
We can assume that incumbents will outperform these figures, however.
The LibDems will struggle against the Conservatives, as Red Liberals return home, and will hold up better against Labour thanks to people like TSE voting tactically.
Good news indeed - I had just read the article a short while before you posted it and read that Rolls Royce currently employs 24,500 people in the UK. For the life of me I can't recall where RR are based. Any guesses without googling?
Good news indeed - I had just read the article a short while before you posted it and read that Rolls Royce currently employs 24,500 people in the UK. For the life of me I can't recall where RR are based. Any guesses without googling?
Bristol or Derby?
Pretty sure it used to be Derby, and think it still is. If I walk a couple of hundred yards from my auntie's front door I can see RR over Sinfin Moor.
I visited the Finborough Arms a couple of months ago and can vouch for it being a first rate establishment and an ideal venue for General Election night. It also has a brilliant landlord in Jeff Bell who I met on my visit and I feel certain will ensure that the event is a huge success.
Oh and btw the choice and quality of the beers on offer there are great too!
I visited the Finborough Arms a couple of months ago and can vouch for it being a first rate establishment and an ideal venue for General Election night. It also has a brilliant landlord in Jeff Bell who I met on my visit and I feel certain will ensure that the event is a huge success.
Oh and btw the choice and quality of the beers on offer there are great too!
Good news indeed - I had just read the article a short while before you posted it and read that Rolls Royce currently employs 24,500 people in the UK. For the life of me I can't recall where RR are based. Any guesses without googling?
Bristol or Derby?
Just Derby apparently, although Rolls-Royce have just announced the creation of a new Composite Technology Hub that will be based in Bristol - yup, I cheated
Is it only me that wishes the Conservative strategy was more about our own record and less about the SNP?
CON, LAB and even LD had a chance to show inspired leadership as soon as the indyref result came in. I mean actually attending to the issue of improving the Union. They could have started a big British-level conversation (I don't mean wonks-only), looking towards a new settlement, perhaps even to be put to people in simultaneous referendums in each of the Union's four constituent parts. None of the party leaderships had the gumption.
CON, LAB and even LD had a chance to show inspired leadership as soon as the indyref result came in. I mean actually attending to the issue of improving the Union. They could have started a big British-level conversation (I don't mean wonks-only), looking towards a new settlement, perhaps even to be put to people in simultaneous referendums in each of the Union's four constituent parts. None of the party leaderships had the gumption.
I don't think Lib and Lab quite realised how seismic an event it would be.
With 11 and 41 MPs 'no-change' must have looked pretty attractive in mid-September.
I can recall people on here dismissing the first SNP sub-samples that started to come through at the end of September 2014 as polling aberrations.
I can't help wondering if the coming parliament will have record low amounts of legislation. If it is going to be hard to get bills through the temptation will be to try and avoid legislating and instead use ministerial powers wherever possible.
It is still not clear to me under a Lab-lead government whether the SNP/Plaid will vote on England only bills. If not, we might get the bare minimum of health, education, transport and justice bills in the next parliament.
How can Ed Miliband not know who Vice News are? You know unlike Cameron and Clegg, he lives in the real world, he knows what it is like, what is going on...oh no he doesn't.
Yes, but note that final assembly of the engines will take place in Singapore and that no new jobs will be created due to this order. Our labour costs are just too high to be competitive.
Been spending the last hour at work thinking about hung parliament permutations #saddo
The real nightmare scenario in terms of forming a new government is if the Tories are the largest party but WELL short of a majority (say, about 280 seats or less). In such a scenario, they wouldn't have the numbers to cobble together a majority since there's so few natural allies for them in parliament, but equally Labour would be seen to have no "moral authority" to lead a government if they are the second party by a distance. In that case I think an immediate second election would be unavoidable, regardless of the obstacles that the Fixed Term Parliaments Act technically pose.
In such circumstances, Labour would be well advised not to vote the Queen's Speech down and change their leader. They could then bring the government down in the autumn. Unless of course Cameron had done a deal with Salmond in the meantime...
Not even the slippery eels that are the SNP could wriggle out of their cast iron "we will not support a Tory Govt under any circumstance" and "we will lock out David Cameron" assurances. If the LDs destroyed their reputation over the "no increase in tuition fees" u-turn, imagine what it would do for the Nats to put in place a Tory administration - preventing that seems to be the raison d'etre of the independence movement anyway.
They'll support Ed, and let him do what he wants on 34% on the vote and probably no more than 285-295 seats.
If Ed gets that many he'll be PM, no doubt. It's the lower range that's more interesting.
If Cameron basically gives the SNP carte blanche to run Scotland as a de facto nation state then are you telling me they'll refuse?
Yes. Because it would mean Cameron as PM and the Tories in Government.
And on what authority or mandate could Cameron, even if he wanted to, give quasi-independence to Scotland? His MPs and the English would crucify him surely?
Been spending the last hour at work thinking about hung parliament permutations #saddo
The real nightmare scenario in terms of forming a new government is if the Tories are the largest party but WELL short of a majority (say, about 280 seats or less). In such a scenario, they wouldn't have the numbers to cobble together a majority since there's so few natural allies for them in parliament, but equally Labour would be seen to have no "moral authority" to lead a government if they are the second party by a distance. In that case I think an immediate second election would be unavoidable, regardless of the obstacles that the Fixed Term Parliaments Act technically pose.
In such circumstances, Labour would be well advised not to vote the Queen's Speech down and change their leader. They could then bring the government down in the autumn. Unless of course Cameron had done a deal with Salmond in the meantime...
Not even the slippery eels that are the SNP could wriggle out of their cast iron "we will not support a Tory Govt under any circumstance" and "we will lock out David Cameron" assurances. If the LDs destroyed their reputation over the "no increase in tuition fees" u-turn, imagine what it would do for the Nats to put in place a Tory administration - preventing that seems to be the raison d'etre of the independence movement anyway.
They'll support Ed, and let him do what he wants on 34% on the vote and probably no more than 285-295 seats.
If Ed gets that many he'll be PM, no doubt. It's the lower range that's more interesting.
If Cameron basically gives the SNP carte blanche to run Scotland as a de facto nation state then are you telling me they'll refuse?
Yes. Because it would mean Cameron as PM and the Tories in Government.
And on what authority or mandate could Cameron, even if he wanted to, give quasi-independence to Scotland? His MPs and the English would crucify him surely?
More or Ed what Ed's going to do anyway?
I can't see a future now for the union. It's dead.
F1: because the race is run after sunset (well, except the first three minutes), Mercedes just tested parts during the first practice session.
This may have implications for other, similar races (maybe Singapore/Abu Dhabi) where temperature varies a lot from P1 to qualifying/race, and there is a 'fastest in P1' market [I was tempted by Raikonen but didn't back him, alas, at 15].
Four more journalists have been cleared of charges connected with the Metropolitan Police's Operation Elveden.
Sun journalists Tom Wells, Neil Millard and Brandon Malinksy and ex-Mirror reporter Graham Brough were cleared at the Old Bailey of paying public officials for stories. DT.
Unemployment dropping like a stone, growth prospects good, widespread international praise for Britain's economic performance, while the rest of Europe teeters. It's basically a total vindication for the coalition's economic plans, a contrast to Miliband's stated preference (the Hollande approach)
Problem1: it's all coming a bit late in the day......
Problem2: people are bored of hearing "long-term economic plan", when that should have been the centrepiece of their campaign.
Unemployment dropping like a stone, growth prospects good, widespread international praise for Britain's economic performance, while the rest of Europe teeters. It's basically a total vindication for the coalition's economic performance, a contrast to Miliband's stated preference (the Hollande approach)
Problem for them though, it's all coming a bit late in the day ......
Not really the problem is Cameron told his right wing to sod off and they did.
Four more journalists have been cleared of charges connected with the Metropolitan Police's Operation Elveden.
Sun journalists Tom Wells, Neil Millard and Brandon Malinksy and ex-Mirror reporter Graham Brough were cleared at the Old Bailey of paying public officials for stories. DT.
Unemployment dropping like a stone, growth prospects good, widespread international praise for Britain's economic performance, while the rest of Europe teeters. It's basically a total vindication for the coalition's economic performance, a contrast to Miliband's stated preference (the Hollande approach)
Problem for them though, it's all coming a bit late in the day ......
Not really the problem is Cameron told his right wing to sod off and they did.
Not really. Sensible right wingers are still with us.
People more obsessed with denying equal rights to gays than running the economy though ...
Direction of travel is now all SNP - my fiver on SNP to take Orkney & Shetland looks pretty golden. My £10 of Cons in Dumfries and Galloway looks toast.
Orkney & Shetland and Glasgow NE are going to be the only non-SNP seats come May 8th.
Comments
Which is blatant rule by horses, of the most grotesque kind.
Did You Know.
In 1992 Czechoslovakia was dissolved after an UNSUCCESSFUL plebiscite when the population of both states voted No.
Better Together.
Inshallah I may get my wish.
Hard to see it though given SNP got 55% in a local by-election recently.
Hope you have a nice time at the bash, and don't drink too much tequila.
They're all out of touch toffs as far as I'm concerned. In my more ferocious moments, ropes and lamp posts is what comes to mind when thinking of our political class.
And, now, I must work.
They'll support Ed, and let him do what he wants on 34% on the vote and probably no more than 285-295 seats.
They can vote down a Labour Queens Speech without any fear of another election. The fear of an election is entirely with Labour who will have demonstrated to their Northern England and Welsh heartlands that they cannot be trusted to work in their constituents best interest.
If the SNP vote down such a Queens Speech, the FTPA means Miliband can get ANOTHER go at being the government, this time with SNP support. In almost all circumstances this is a better choice for Labour avoiding a wipe out at a second election.
Beach Blanket Babylon
For those still up and awake from the previous election night, on Friday 8th May, Beach Blanket Babylon is giving you the chance to celebrate the results or drown your sorrows with the Monster Raving Looney Party. With politically themed cocktails, Poll Tax dancing and a mincing Marget Thatcher, there will be plenty of silliness in the air. The party kicks off at 9pm with free entry and cocktails priced from £8.90.
45 Ledbury Road,
Notting Hill,
London,
W11 2AA
UKIP or CON voters allowed to this one
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32347783
We have great employment figures today.
We have wages growing.
We have literally no inflation
We have the deficit down coming year after year.
We have more jobs being created than in the rest of Europe put together.
Is it only me that wishes the Conservative strategy was more about our own record and less about the SNP?
If Cameron basically gives the SNP carte blanche to run Scotland as a de facto nation state then are you telling me they'll refuse?
Although it also makes sense to have a production facility near many of your customers.
I can't see that CON would have much of a problem with EVEL or son-of-EVEL (because it's not likely to be as simple as EVEL) if the alternative is going into opposition.
Factor in that Salmond appears to have lost his marbles, saying things about star alignments and not doing a deal even if the SNP gets everything they want (sic).
Average prediction at the moment is that SNP support for LAB wouldn't put Miliband into No.10 without LD support. Current figures suggest two possibilities: CON-SNP or LAB-RAINBOW. (That's leaving aside the issue of maj or min government, which isn't the big issue - who does a deal with whom is the big issue.)
20 -> Conservative
8 -> SNP
7 -> Labour
Give or take...
Moving day?
https://twitter.com/Footy_Jokes/status/589069880722227203
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft · 41s42 seconds ago
My latest marginals polling is coming up at 4pm on @ConHome. Worth a read, if I do say so myself...
Oh and btw the choice and quality of the beers on offer there are great too!
I'm sensing bad news for UKIP but time will tell.
"There is a chart on the wall of Labour HQ that I walk past every day"
Unless Labour HQ is in Glasgow/Paisley he's errm...
With 11 and 41 MPs 'no-change' must have looked pretty attractive in mid-September.
I can recall people on here dismissing the first SNP sub-samples that started to come through at the end of September 2014 as polling aberrations.
Trouble in Castle Point ?
Yellow Peril Scottish surge ?!
It is still not clear to me under a Lab-lead government whether the SNP/Plaid will vote on England only bills. If not, we might get the bare minimum of health, education, transport and justice bills in the next parliament.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/589071672621330433/photo/1
Also says - Germany praises wonderful job by UK
http://www.theguardian.com/media/mediamonkeyblog/2015/apr/17/ed-miliband-a-man-without-vice
Also, I love the question as well...
EM: “Oh right. What does Vice News do?”
Errrhhh News perhaps? I guess at least he didn't ask a racist question this time. He really is the son of Brown.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32354222
Cameron the job-maker
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/04/uk-jobless-rate-now-heading-to-a-40-year-low/
http://www.heidisouthcambs.co.uk/
http://www.lucyfrazer.org.uk/
And on what authority or mandate could Cameron, even if he wanted to, give quasi-independence to Scotland? His MPs and the English would crucify him surely?
Louise Mensch ✔ @LouiseMensch
Miliband speaks with forked tongue on #SNP - at least they're OPEN about scrapping Trident http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11545078/Revealed-Labour-wants-to-get-rid-of-Trident-admits-shadow-cabinet-minister.html …
@MSmithsonPB: Ne @LordAshcroft marginals poll due ar 4pm
I can't see a future now for the union. It's dead.
This may have implications for other, similar races (maybe Singapore/Abu Dhabi) where temperature varies a lot from P1 to qualifying/race, and there is a 'fastest in P1' market [I was tempted by Raikonen but didn't back him, alas, at 15].
says LA.
Sun journalists Tom Wells, Neil Millard and Brandon Malinksy and ex-Mirror reporter Graham Brough were cleared at the Old Bailey of paying public officials for stories. DT.
Problem1: it's all coming a bit late in the day......
Problem2: people are bored of hearing "long-term economic plan", when that should have been the centrepiece of their campaign.
*cough*surge*cough*
SNP GAIN DUMFRIESSHIRE, CLYDESDALE & TWEEDDALE
This is most astonishing Scotland polling yet. Jim Murphy down 9 points.
SNP could win every seat in Scotland. pic.twitter.com/zpwMu2YdqJ
On latest @LordAshcroft polling, Jim Murphy would lose his East Renfrewshire seat to the SNP http://bit.ly/1ImnofF
Unfortunate..!
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB
Ashcroft Scottish polling
SNP GAIN E Renfrewshire pic.twitter.com/HADQqilYUa
People more obsessed with denying equal rights to gays than running the economy though ...
Con now losing DCT.
Direction of travel is now all SNP - my fiver on SNP to take Orkney & Shetland looks pretty golden. My £10 of Cons in Dumfries and Galloway looks toast.
Orkney & Shetland and Glasgow NE are going to be the only non-SNP seats come May 8th.
Lord Ashcroft ✔ @LordAshcroft
Could tactical Tory votes save Jim Murphy? pic.twitter.com/ZOFtxVrcE7
Hopefully not,tories must give a anti labour message in Scotland,just like labour did with the tories.