Mr. Freggles, the energy price freeze is populist insanity. There's nothing clever about promising something deranged (free owls!) and pretending it actually belongs in the realm of politics.
Mr. G, jein. I think Labour would try to **** up England with regional assemblies, and call that federalism. Doesn't answer the West Lothian Question, would deeply anger many English people (I believe and hope), and it doesn't address the Holyrood dilemma [give lots of power and it's almost all the way to independence, give little power and a second referendum becomes a realistic possibility].
French fries with mayonaisse are surprisingly good. And the beer is wonderful.
My brother and I once went on a two week motorcycle tour of Belgium, almost as a bit of a joke (who goes on holiday there?) with a battlefields theme. We took in Waterloo, Bastogne, Ypres, Wiltz, Eben Emael, and popped over the border to take in Sedan and Dunkirk.
Lovely rolling scenery south of the Meuse and interesting Flemish towns. We had a great time.
I have to admit my only visit to Belgium was a drive from Ostend to the German border,
I don't detect any electoral desire to stuff the Scots - given that 45% of them recently wanted to leave us, there is clearly something amiss and we should be willing to discuss how to address that. There is certainly a desire not to have the SNP blackmail the government successfully, but the SNP aversion to helping a Tory government weakens their negotiating position - "Do what I say! Or I'll...er..."
Or they will abstain on any non-confidence motion (unless there is a definite quid pro quo for Scotland) and watch the Tories shred your legislative program. There is a whole world of difference between helping the Tories get elected, and being a good partner to Labour. The idea that they are going to help Labour more than the bare minimum is laughable considering they want to demonstrate to the Scots voters who is the daddy for the Holyrood elections in 2016.
Mr. Freggles, the energy price freeze is populist insanity. There's nothing clever about promising something deranged (free owls!) and pretending it actually belongs in the realm of politics.
Mr. G, jein. I think Labour would try to **** up England with regional assemblies, and call that federalism. Doesn't answer the West Lothian Question, would deeply anger many English people (I believe and hope), and it doesn't address the Holyrood dilemma [give lots of power and it's almost all the way to independence, give little power and a second referendum becomes a realistic possibility].
Mr. Oliver, welcome to pb.com.
"Mr. Freggles, the energy price freeze is populist insanity. "
Selling Housing Association stock is OK, I suppose ? Surprisingly, I find Tories are quite in favour of distorting the market when votes are involved.
"Early elections can be held only: if a motion for an early general election is agreed either by at least two-thirds of the whole House or without division; or if a motion of no confidence is passed and no alternative government is confirmed by the Commons within 14 days."
The above is from the text in the FTPA 2011.
What does "confirmed" mean ? Successful passage of a Queen's speech. Otherwise, even George Galloway could form a government !
That is exactly what "confirmed" means. It means you have the support of the House of Commons, as evidenced by you passing a Queens' Speech and/or passing a confidence motion.
I've written before that there won't be a Grand Coalition prompted by anything less than a worse economic crisis than that in 1931, or the sort of situation the country found itself in in 1940. I stand by that.
It's worth noting, for historical context, that there wasn't a Grand Coalition in 1939, when war broke out, nor in 1914 when the earlier war broke out, nor after 1916 when the Asquith Liberals walked out. By coincidence, I'm reading Samuel Hoare's memoirs of the 1931-40 period at the moment and it's clear that the 1931 coalition formed only because Labour happened to be in government at the time and that MacDonald and Snowden preferred to stay in office when their government became unviable. Had either of those two conditions not been met, a Grand Coalition (or National Government, as was the British phrase for this sort of thing), would not have formed.
So, fast forward to 2015. We are not in anything like the position of peril that the country faced in 1931, or 1915, or 1940. If Greece defaults, leaves the Euro and the EU, it won't happen overnight. Nor will it happen in the next three weeks. And if it does happen, I'm highly sceptical about the 10% loss of GDP claim. The European governments have done much to isolate the damage that a Greek default would do and the domino effect that might well have occurred had the danger been realised in 2011, should not now apply (and such an effect can be the only cause of a bigger recession than the last one). If it does, all bets are off. But then if it does, Europe would be plunged back into the politics of the early 1930s.
Put simply, that means there is no reason for the Tories and Labour to get together after the election, whatever the numbers. In fact, I disagree with both TSE's thinking on the party leaders' thinking and on the political dynamics.
Suppose Cameron cannot put together a government post election, either because he cannot find coalition partners or because even if he could, he doesn't have the numbers. He would have no option but to resign. It would be absurd to be appearing to be (or to actually be) clinging on to office merely because parliament hadn't met and done what it inevitably would do: No Confidence him. And the media would be making the point vociferously.
No, he would have to go and the Queen would have to call Miliband. There is nothing constitutionally amiss about that, nor is it placing the Palace in a partisan position. Vernon Bogdanor once wrote that it would be the duty of the monarch to call the Leader of the Opposition in the event that the PM were no confidence and a PM resigning in anticipation of such a vote amounts to the same thing (as an aside, this article now means that the research I did 20 years ago for my university dissertation now has some practical value!). As it happened, I think Bogdanor put it a bit strongly - one can well imagine Blair being No Confidenced over Iraq had the Tories voted against, but Brown would then have been the right call - but assuming parties aren't deeply split, the point is right.
And Miliband would then try to form a government. He is not going to refuse when handed the keys to No 10 on a plate and when he has the backing of the SNP, Plaid, the Greens and the SDLP, and with the Lib Dems either amenable or lacking the numbers to matter.
Governing may prove difficult and it's possible to imagine a second election before too long if the Labour programme is repeatedly voted down (though as I've said before, I'm highly sceptical of the SNP risking a return of the Conservatives before 2016), but I cannot see a National Government forming short of a massive crisis or - at the minimum - three consecutive inconclusive elections.
French fries with mayonaisse are surprisingly good. And the beer is wonderful.
My brother and I once went on a two week motorcycle tour of Belgium, almost as a bit of a joke (who goes on holiday there?) with a battlefields theme. We took in Waterloo, Bastogne, Ypres, Wiltz, Eben Emael, and popped over the border to take in Sedan and Dunkirk.
Lovely rolling scenery south of the Meuse and interesting Flemish towns. We had a great time.
I would agree that chips with Mayo are very good but, the sauce you get with Flemish fries is not really Mayo, being far thinner and slimier than a decent mayonnaise.
Since the SNP are here in force the only patriotic thing to do is vote Labour, to avoid the chaos
How very unionist, anything but democracy.
Happy for you to go your own way but having Scottish MPs voting on English matters will quickly become untenable. Better a balanced federal solution than a Tory half measure
I agree , but chances of the London parties implementing a real federal solution are NIL They would rather break up the UK.
I don't think they would rather break up the UK, technically, they are just incapable of agreeing how to implement such a solution and so that would follow as a matter of course.
There is no possibility of us being left without a government. If there is no alternative obvious then regardless of deals being or not being done the current government continues.
But I don't think it will come to that. There will be a left block and a right block in the Commons. The left block won't fragment to bring in the right block (so Sturgeon has no effective veto to threaten Milliband with) so we will have stability even if its a rainbow coalition.
As for legitimacy its very simple. If that's what the electorate vote for, its legitimate.
Quite so. It may not be idea for forming a strong government, but we will ask 650 MPs who represent us if they can cobble together some sort of functioning government, and if they can then that is legitimate. As someone linked to yesterday, it is not as though any MP is not allowed to deviate from what they campaigned on, manifesto promises are not enforceable by law, if people don't like it then fine, punish those involved next time (as is happening with the LDs), but the legitimacy is not affected.
Mr. Surbiton, I'm unsure about the RTB extension. Is it fundamentally different to the original version, and if money raised is used to build more houses, surely that's a good thing?
On the other hand, there have been concerns raised about the charitable status of housing associations.
What I am sure of is that the freezing of commodity prices is a measure so deranged it was derided by educated men seventeen centuries ago.
I don't detect any electoral desire to stuff the Scots - given that 45% of them recently wanted to leave us, there is clearly something amiss and we should be willing to discuss how to address that. There is certainly a desire not to have the SNP blackmail the government successfully, but the SNP aversion to helping a Tory government weakens their negotiating position - "Do what I say! Or I'll...er..."
Or I'll propose amendments which gut the legislation you are trying to pass. Or vote you down in a No confidence or Budget motion with no chance of a Tory government unless LABOUR support it.
There really is no-where for Labour to go other than accept anything the SNP demand.
Parties would only vote to cause a second election if they thought their situation would improve, surely. With the SNP on track to win all but a handful of seats anyway, absent of all the other considerations which would make them reluctant to go to the polls again so soon, unless they felt they could go for a total clean sweep, what would be the advantage in them doing so.
Parties would only vote to cause a second election if they thought their situation would improve, surely. With the SNP on track to win all but a handful of seats anyway, absent of all the other considerations which would make them reluctant to go to the polls again so soon, unless they felt they could go for a total clean sweep, what would be the advantage in them doing so.
50-100 Labour MPs in the Midlands and North that just survived a near death experience as the kippers took 80% off their majorities and have just found their safe seats are now rather more marginal than before aren't going to go near an election either.
I have just flicked through the last thread. Two points. The reason the audience at the last leader's debate appeared disproportionately left wing had nothing to do with how it was chosen but the human response to compassion.
The compassionate line will always get a bigger cheer than the mean spirited one however much we might think the mean spirited one is in our interest.
Thus 'I don't want foreigners bringing diseases into this country' will not get the same applause as 'Shame on you! How could you turn away sick children who through no fault of their own...." So suing the BBC is just a Farage/Dessmond fantasy.
Second point for Tyson.
The meaning of 'A PBHodge''.
Stems from the old PBian saying 'PBBurleys'. Coined by Tim to ridicule those who like Burley found the Olympic opening ceremony embassing and left wing only to discover it was universally considered the most creative and relevant of all time.
.....A PBHodge is someone who believes something is bad news for Ed/Labour when all available evidence proves the contrary.
Leading to another 'Timism' 'BPTories always wrong never learn'
No, he would have to go and the Queen would have to call Miliband. There is nothing constitutionally amiss about that, nor is it placing the Palace in a partisan position. Vernon Bogdanor once wrote that it would be the duty of the monarch to call the Leader of the Opposition in the event that the PM were no confidence and a PM resigning in anticipation of such a vote amounts to the same thing (as an aside, this article now means that the research I did 20 years ago for my university dissertation now has some practical value!). As it happened, I think Bogdanor put it a bit strongly - one can well imagine Blair being No Confidenced over Iraq had the Tories voted against, but Brown would then have been the right call - but assuming parties aren't deeply split, the point is right.
And Miliband would then try to form a government. He is not going to refuse when handed the keys to No 10 on a plate and when he has the backing of the SNP, Plaid, the Greens and the SDLP, and with the Lib Dems either amenable or lacking the numbers to matter.
Governing may prove difficult and it's possible to imagine a second election before too long if the Labour programme is repeatedly voted down (though as I've said before, I'm highly sceptical of the SNP risking a return of the Conservatives before 2016), but I cannot see a National Government forming short of a massive crisis or - at the minimum - three consecutive inconclusive elections.
Why would the SNP not want a Conservative government, particularly a weak one ? It helps their narrative for Holyrood 2016 just about perfectly.
On Grexit causing our GDP to collapse 10%; who has said that? It seems really quite implausible to me. I cannot see it affecting anyone but the Greeks themselves to that degree.
I forecast a minority govt, getting by on a vote by vote basis. It worked quite well for Scotland with the SCUP even voting with Salmond at times.
I'll try and dig it out, I think it was a 3% immediate fall, and then if it was a particularly disorderly exit, the contagion would spread to the Eurozone, and given our trade with the Eurozone countries, we'd experience a secondary hit.
Target2 is not our friend, its going to hit for Germans for ridiculous amounts if GrExit happens.
Hans-Werner Sinn, from Munich's IFO Institute, has become a cult figure in the German press with Gothic warnings that Target2 is a "secret bailout" for the debtor countries, leaving the Bundesbank and German taxpayers on the hook for staggering sums. Great efforts have made to discredit him. His vindication would be doubly powerful.
An identical debate is raging in Holland and Finland. Yet the figures for Germany dwarf the rest. The Target2 claims of the Bundesbank on the ECB system have jumped from €443bn in July to €515bn as of January 31. Most of this is due to capital outflows from Greek banks into German banks, either through direct transfers or indirectly through Switzerland, Cyprus and Britain.
Grexit would detonate the system. "The risks would suddenly become a reality and create a political storm in Germany," said Eric Dor, from the IESEG business school in Lille. "That is the moment when the Bundestag would start to question the whole project of the euro. The risks are huge," he said.
Most people - and this includes Hans-Werner Sinn and Amrbose Evans-Pritchard - do not understand TARGET2.
In the event of Euro break-up, TARGET2 will not cause German taxpayers one Euro cent of cost, because TARGET2 is newly created money advanced by the ECB. So, rather than acting as a destabilising feature in the event of Euro break-up, TARGET2 will actually act as a buffer to prevent contagion.
Where Eurozone taxpayers will take a Grexit hit is money owed in Euros by the Greek government to the EFSF - which is in the region of €175-200bn (if memory serves). Of course, it is worth remembering that in the event of default, Greece still owes the money. And therefore an agreement will need be made for the newly Drachma based economy to make repayments. I would expect that the EFSF would end up accepting a c. 60% haircut. So, the taxpayers of the Eurozone would end up paying (eventually) around €100bn in the event of Grexit.
Gordon Brown is coming to Sheffield Hallam to support the Labour candidate this week.
The Sunday Times say
Helping to defeat Clegg would be a sweet revenge for Brown, whose attempts to stitch together a “rainbow coalition” after the 2010 general election were rejected by the Liberal Democrat leader in favour of a deal with David Cameron. Worse, Clegg said if any deal was to be done with Labour, Brown would have to resign first.
But the presence of the big clunking fist in Sheffield has privately delighted Lib Dems. “Tory voters loathe Brown,” a source said. “This will encourage them to vote tactically for Nick.”
The compassionate line will always get a bigger cheer than the mean spirited one however much we might think the mean spirited one is in our interest.
Thus 'I don't want foreigners bringing diseases into this country' will not get the same applause as 'Shame on you! How could you turn away sick children who through no fault of their own...." So suing the BBC is just a Farage/Dessmond fantasy.
Smug metropolitan types bask in the glow of approval from their peers as they applaud warm words and the milk of human kindness, then go to the polling booth and vote for self-interest and the contents of their wallets.
Incidentally (since I am currently apply for a visa for a relative to move to the UK) I see that not only do you need to earn £18k to bring a relative to the UK (with a few exceptions), you also need to pay a NHS surcharge of £200 per year (paid in advance) until you apply for settlement. This later seems to be a very new development, don't recall seeing it there last year.
"That's right. On current polling, I reckon the outcome is going to be a Lab-LD coalition or CS agreement reasonably close to a majority, getting votes from others as required from issue to issue."
Parties would only vote to cause a second election if they thought their situation would improve, surely. With the SNP on track to win all but a handful of seats anyway, absent of all the other considerations which would make them reluctant to go to the polls again so soon, unless they felt they could go for a total clean sweep, what would be the advantage in them doing so.
50-100 Labour MPs in the Midlands and North that just survived a near death experience as the kippers took 80% off their majorities and have just found their safe seats are now rather more marginal than before aren't going to go near an election either.
An insurgent minor party getting 5% to 10% of the vote is not going to take 80% off the majority of the typical Labour safe seat in Northern England.
Incidentally, I'd question the assumption that Labour in particular couldn't afford to fight another election. As constituency level the money has been coming for months in moderate donations (typically £200 or so) even though I've not made a fund-raising appeal for 6 months, because we already have enough for a second election and I'm squeamish about pleading for money to fight a wildly hypothetical third one. Sure, the national Conservatives clearly have loads more money, but this campaign is showing the limits of what they can do with it without ground troops. Billboards? Phone canvassing the minority of voters with known numbers? Mounds of DMs? Meh.
I don't really want a second election - I want Miliband to have a decent shot at governing first so people can see what they're getting. But if it's what's needed, bring it on.
Parties would only vote to cause a second election if they thought their situation would improve, surely. With the SNP on track to win all but a handful of seats anyway, absent of all the other considerations which would make them reluctant to go to the polls again so soon, unless they felt they could go for a total clean sweep, what would be the advantage in them doing so.
50-100 Labour MPs in the Midlands and North that just survived a near death experience as the kippers took 80% off their majorities and have just found their safe seats are now rather more marginal than before aren't going to go near an election either.
Canvassing in the Far East is not a very good predictor!
With a few exceptions such as Rotherham and Dudley there is not going to be a surge of kipperism in the Midlands or North. I have yet to see a kipper poster.
Indeed the kippers are looking worried. The expected bonus from "Major Party" status and debates have proven illusory. The Express headline today is all about getting excuses in early.
Mr. Eagles, Brown being an electoral liability in England? Surely not.
Mr. StClare, if only we had an Aurelian to lead us. By now we would've reconquered Henry II's territories, compelled the EU to submit to a one-sided trade agreement and destroyed the entire Argentine navy to safeguard the Falklands.
'Funny how little we have heard from British liberals about a rather nasty outbreak of anti-immigrant violence this week.
Black South Africans burst on to the streets of Durban and Johannesburg, savagely attacking and threatening black immigrants from other parts of Africa.
Whatever this is, it isn’t ‘racist’. The assailants and victims alike are almost all black Africans. The fact that it is happening in a country liberals pretend is a rainbow paradise (when it isn't) is also hard for them to handle.
The sad truth is that mass migration, whatever the colour of the skins of those involved, upsets and worries indigenous people, especially the poorest. If it is not controlled – and South Africa has utterly failed to control it for many years – it can lead to serious social conflict.'
All the forecasters are predicting that the SNP will have the third largest number of seats at the election. Hence, if in the very unlikely prospect of a grand coalition being formed, then the SNP would officially become H.M.Opposition. And perhaps Alex Salmon would replace Angus Robertson as their leader too.
An adversarial English versus Scottish front bench in Parliament would suit the SNP down to the ground. Another reason why it won't happen.
Mr. Eagles, Brown being an electoral liability in England? Surely not.
Mr. StClare, if only we had an Aurelian to lead us. By now we would've reconquered Henry II's territories, compelled the EU to submit to a one-sided trade agreement and destroyed the entire Argentine navy to safeguard the Falklands.
'Funny how little we have heard from British liberals about a rather nasty outbreak of anti-immigrant violence this week. /
That's not 'funny' at all - it's foreign news from somewhere that's not close by or one of the anglosphere nations, I imagine most people haven't heard about it.
I expect a minority government of one flavour or another would be cobbled together if necessary.
I'm currently wondering how low Labour minority is going to go. In my view it should be odds on, but I expect that it will remain odds against because of the perceived wider uncertainty.
I'd say the current price for Conservative minority is almost exactly right.
I've been busy the last few days but am I right in assuming 'audience gate' has been put to bed. As Dimbleby pointed out on the programme itself the audience was selected by an independent polling firm. I agree with Roger about compassion and surely what this does is fully vindicate May's warnings about the nasty party and Cameron's initial attempt at compassionate conservatism wrongly written off as metropolitan and an appeal to Guardian readers when in reality the Tories were in a dire position with young voters.
If Ukip proves anything it is surely that the messenger matters just as much as the message. You can have a policy that is wildly popular but if people don't like you or the way you deal with the issue, you have no chance. So we have the remarkable spectacle of a party with one notable policy, a very popular one, being disliked by a significant majority of the public. For those who think Britain or even England is at heart a right wing country just compare the approval ratings for those 'third' party outsiders going into general elections - Ashdown in '97, Kennedy in 2001 and 05, Clegg in 2010 and Farage in 2015.
'Funny how little we have heard from British liberals about a rather nasty outbreak of anti-immigrant violence this week.
Black South Africans burst on to the streets of Durban and Johannesburg, savagely attacking and threatening black immigrants from other parts of Africa.
Whatever this is, it isn’t ‘racist’. The assailants and victims alike are almost all black Africans. The fact that it is happening in a country liberals pretend is a rainbow paradise (when it isn't) is also hard for them to handle.
The sad truth is that mass migration, whatever the colour of the skins of those involved, upsets and worries indigenous people, especially the poorest. If it is not controlled – and South Africa has utterly failed to control it for many years – it can lead to serious social conflict.'
Lots of interesting secondaries in the YG, and important to note that the sample doesn't loook biased - the questions on Government doing a good job, economic optimism etc. aren't different from usual.
Er! Can't see a Grand Coalition government under present party leaderships. Both parties know that such an arrangement would open the allegiances, of their respective grass root members, to question.
Too many minor parties would then be more acceptable.
If you thought the possibilities of the May election being a mess, the resulting GE after a Grand Coalition would be amazing.
It would take another couple of GE's to get a stable Government. I don't think any of the following governments would last the 5 years before collapsing under the pressures.
That's right. On current polling, I reckon the outcome is going to be a Lab-LD coalition or CS agreement reasonably close to a majority, getting votes from others as required from issue to issue. I would not support a Grand Coalition on the basis of the election campaigns to date (which have given no hint whatever of such a possibility) and I'm not a particularly radical chap.
I don't detect any electoral desire to stuff the Scots - given that 45% of them recently wanted to leave us, there is clearly something amiss and we should be willing to discuss how to address that. There is certainly a desire not to have the SNP blackmail the government successfully, but the SNP aversion to helping a Tory government weakens their negotiating position - "Do what I say! Or I'll...er..."
In any case I think the Tories need a period to sort themselves out. If they did squeak back with a majority of 3 or something, with a bit of Ulster help, the following years of wrestling with their backbenchers over Europe would be really painful to watch, even for those of us who are not fans.
I'm puzzled that you chose to so carefully analyse the YG poll from last night yet completely ignored that for Opinium. Surely such an even-handed and reasonable lefty like yourself wouldn't be guilty of such a pathetic tactic.
Quite odd round here, in a safe Tory seat. For the Tories, two or three big posters in fields, one or two window poster, all naming the GE candidate. For Labour several clusters of generic “Vote Labour” boards, not naming either candidate. We’ve been canvassed by Labour and had documents of various sorts from all except the LD’s (and a weird fringe candidate). We also have Local elections and have had a flyer from the Tories. Quite a lot of discussion among the public, though. Very, very quiet.
Risible talk from Cameron on Marr that the snp don't care about the rest of the UK. Is this the level our politics has sunk to?
He seem rather charmed by the First Minister. Certainly he was much weaker than he usually is in terms of interruption and trying to stop politicians making any point.
No, he would have to go and the Queen would have to call Miliband. There is nothing constitutionally amiss about that, nor is it placing the Palace in a partisan position. Vernon Bogdanor once wrote that it would be the duty of the monarch to call the Leader of the Opposition in the event that the PM were no confidence and a PM resigning in anticipation of such a vote amounts to the same thing (as an aside, this article now means that the research I did 20 years ago for my university dissertation now has some practical value!). As it happened, I think Bogdanor put it a bit strongly - one can well imagine Blair being No Confidenced over Iraq had the Tories voted against, but Brown would then have been the right call - but assuming parties aren't deeply split, the point is right.
And Miliband would then try to form a government. He is not going to refuse when handed the keys to No 10 on a plate and when he has the backing of the SNP, Plaid, the Greens and the SDLP, and with the Lib Dems either amenable or lacking the numbers to matter.
Governing may prove difficult and it's possible to imagine a second election before too long if the Labour programme is repeatedly voted down (though as I've said before, I'm highly sceptical of the SNP risking a return of the Conservatives before 2016), but I cannot see a National Government forming short of a massive crisis or - at the minimum - three consecutive inconclusive elections.
Why would the SNP not want a Conservative government, particularly a weak one ? It helps their narrative for Holyrood 2016 just about perfectly.
Because a weak Labour one suits them more.
1. By far the most important point is that putting Labour in power in Westminster doesn't undermine their claim to the left-wing vote in Scotland. Booting Labour out and causing the Tories to return would taint them dreadfully with all those central belt-type voters they've won over.
2. If the SNP can replace Labour as the main repository for left-wing votes in Scotland, what then is the point of Scottish Labour? The battleground looks far easier for Sturgeon if their main opposition is the Tories or Lib Dems (or an amalgam of the two). We're still some way from that point but such a realignment is possible, particularly if both parties divorce their Scottish sections entirely, as they now should.
3. A weak Labour government in Westminster will provide more dosh for Scotland.
4. It will also do nothing to raise the popularity of Scottish Labour if it behaves as most new governments do, by getting the most unpopular bits done first (with its own eyes focussed on 2020 rather than 2016).
5. The SNP have said it would under no circumstances back the Tories. No Confidencing Labour before 2016 would send very mixed messages which Labour could exploit as 'you can't trust their word'.
I've been busy the last few days but am I right in assuming 'audience gate' has been put to bed. As Dimbleby pointed out on the programme itself the audience was selected by an independent polling firm.
You assume wrong. Even though that fact does make a difference on whether the BBC screwed up or not (that is, if they picked a slanted audience that is more of an issue than if the company they selected to do it picked a slanted audience), it will run and run. I expect a tirade in a tell all book after the GE about what it shows about the establishment keeping the man down (I still thought Farage was the best one there, Kippers).
Mr. kle4, at that stage of history it had become commonplace for emperors to be named (or name themselves) all sorts of wonderful things, but he actually did deserve his titles.
His entire reign was basically kicking the crap out of barbarians and rebels. It's a damned shame he got murdered (although if he'd been killed earlier the Western Empire might've fallen two centuries earlier than it did. Then there would've been no Constantine to make Christianity the European religion, and no Byzantium to fend off the Turks/Muslims [although if Christianity hadn't spread so Islam might not have been founded]).
Mr. Psepho, welcome to the site. I concur a grand coalition simply won't happen.
Mr. Hunchman, it's technically inaccurate, as the SNP clearly want to create division with and separation from the rest of the UK.
'Funny how little we have heard from British liberals about a rather nasty outbreak of anti-immigrant violence this week.
Black South Africans burst on to the streets of Durban and Johannesburg, savagely attacking and threatening black immigrants from other parts of Africa.
Whatever this is, it isn’t ‘racist’. The assailants and victims alike are almost all black Africans. The fact that it is happening in a country liberals pretend is a rainbow paradise (when it isn't) is also hard for them to handle.
The sad truth is that mass migration, whatever the colour of the skins of those involved, upsets and worries indigenous people, especially the poorest. If it is not controlled – and South Africa has utterly failed to control it for many years – it can lead to serious social conflict.'
I'm not sure why you are trying to find support for UKIPs racism based on the existance of racism in other countries.
It comes across as a rather weak and pathetic argument from a supporter of a race hate party.
How would it be racist for black people from Africa to attack each other? Only in socialist Orwellian nightmare land where one word covers all conflict
I expect a minority government of one flavour or another would be cobbled together if necessary.
I'm currently wondering how low Labour minority is going to go. In my view it should be odds on, but I expect that it will remain odds against because of the perceived wider uncertainty.
I'd say the current price for Conservative minority is almost exactly right.
What I don't understand about a lot of these bets is the timeframe. Surely in the short term a Conservative minority is highly likely even if it feel quickly?
We should be getting the next Survation/DR for Scotland soon, which will hopefully give us some insight into whether the Lord A polls are evidencing a further SNP surge at a national level. My gut feeling is that SNP will be over 50% for both GE2015 and Holyrood 2016. The Tories will be around 15% and SLAB will be less than 25%. Unfortunately for SLAB I think there's a soft chunk of their support which may yet leak away, 20% is probably their core level of support.
Risible talk from Cameron on Marr that the snp don't care about the rest of the UK. Is this the level our politics has sunk to?
People are always and have always been saying our politics is sinking to new levels. I no longer believe such talk. In this instance, call it campaigning artistic licence, as the SNP obviously do not care about it as much as they do Scotland specifically, which is perfectly appropriate for them to do. I certainly won't condemn it so long as I see parties accusing their opponents of not caring about entire sections/geographic areas of the UK as well, which they do, no one could honestly claim otherwise.
'Funny how little we have heard from British liberals about a rather nasty outbreak of anti-immigrant violence this week.
Black South Africans burst on to the streets of Durban and Johannesburg, savagely attacking and threatening black immigrants from other parts of Africa.
Whatever this is, it isn’t ‘racist’. The assailants and victims alike are almost all black Africans. The fact that it is happening in a country liberals pretend is a rainbow paradise (when it isn't) is also hard for them to handle.
The sad truth is that mass migration, whatever the colour of the skins of those involved, upsets and worries indigenous people, especially the poorest. If it is not controlled – and South Africa has utterly failed to control it for many years – it can lead to serious social conflict.'
I'm not sure why you are trying to find support for UKIPs racism based on the existance of racism in other countries.
It comes across as a rather weak and pathetic argument from a supporter of a race hate party.
How would it be racist for black people from Africa to attack each other? Only in socialist Orwellian nightmare land where one word covers all conflict
You are an idiot I'm glad you think bad of me
Because not all people with black skin are the same race.
Just off the phone to my mother for the usual chat. Almost her first words (and half of the rest of the conversation) were about her dislike of Nicola Sturgeon:
1) "the BBC are really going to town, focussing on her every day".
2) "we don't hear anything about Nigel Farage any more, he's been forgotten about with all this fuss about Nicola Sturgeon".
Most people - and this includes Hans-Werner Sinn and Amrbose Evans-Pritchard - do not understand TARGET2.
In the event of Euro break-up, TARGET2 will not cause German taxpayers one Euro cent of cost, because TARGET2 is newly created money advanced by the ECB. So, rather than acting as a destabilising feature in the event of Euro break-up, TARGET2 will actually act as a buffer to prevent contagion.
Where Eurozone taxpayers will take a Grexit hit is money owed in Euros by the Greek government to the EFSF - which is in the region of €175-200bn (if memory serves). Of course, it is worth remembering that in the event of default, Greece still owes the money. And therefore an agreement will need be made for the newly Drachma based economy to make repayments. I would expect that the EFSF would end up accepting a c. 60% haircut. So, the taxpayers of the Eurozone would end up paying (eventually) around €100bn in the event of Grexit.
If destroying the TARGET claims were irrelevant, then destroying the Bundesbank's stock of gold reserves would also be irrelevant, because this stock was accumulated from TARGET-like imbalances under the Bretton-Woods system.
Parties would only vote to cause a second election if they thought their situation would improve, surely. With the SNP on track to win all but a handful of seats anyway, absent of all the other considerations which would make them reluctant to go to the polls again so soon, unless they felt they could go for a total clean sweep, what would be the advantage in them doing so.
A successful retention of their gains would cement their position as they party of Scotland and the deal makers/breakers of Westminster.
Parties would only vote to cause a second election if they thought their situation would improve, surely. With the SNP on track to win all but a handful of seats anyway, absent of all the other considerations which would make them reluctant to go to the polls again so soon, unless they felt they could go for a total clean sweep, what would be the advantage in them doing so.
50-100 Labour MPs in the Midlands and North that just survived a near death experience as the kippers took 80% off their majorities and have just found their safe seats are now rather more marginal than before aren't going to go near an election either.
An insurgent minor party getting 5% to 10% of the vote is not going to take 80% off the majority of the typical Labour safe seat in Northern England.
I think that is what they said in Heywood & Middleton.
Just off the phone to my mother for the usual chat. Almost her first words (and half of the rest of the conversation) were about her dislike of Nicola Sturgeon:
1) "the BBC are really going to town, focussing on her every day".
2) "we don't hear anything about Nigel Farage any more, he's been forgotten about with all this fuss about Nicola Sturgeon".
As usual, as a dutiful son I just listened.
Maybe sturgeon on tv with her anti Tory talk may just galvanise the tory vote
Risible talk from Cameron on Marr that the snp don't care about the rest of the UK. Is this the level our politics has sunk to?
People are always and have always been saying our politics is sinking to new levels. I no longer believe such talk. In this instance, call it campaigning artistic licence, as the SNP obviously do not care about it as much as they do Scotland specifically, which is perfectly appropriate for them to do. I certainly won't condemn it so long as I see parties accusing their opponents of not caring about entire sections/geographic areas of the UK as well, which they do, no could honestly claim otherwise.
Indeed. Labour have gone as far as explicitly pledging to scrap infrastructure investment in areas where Labour are uncompetitive in their manifesto, while the Conservatives' inheritance tax pledge is of interest almost exclusively in the south east.
Just off the phone to my mother for the usual chat. Almost her first words (and half of the rest of the conversation) were about her dislike of Nicola Sturgeon:
1) "the BBC are really going to town, focussing on her every day".
2) "we don't hear anything about Nigel Farage any more, he's been forgotten about with all this fuss about Nicola Sturgeon".
As usual, as a dutiful son I just listened.
For some reason this comment has had me sitting chuckling out loud.
''Sources close to the royal household said last night that neither leader should approach the Queen to form a government until they are sure they can command the confidence of the House of Commons.''
This is the constitutional convention and always has been. The Queen must believe her prime minister. It is the PM who goes to the Palace and recommends either someone else to her or claims the ability himself. If the PM feels he cannot form a government it is really not his problem about who might... he will have had talks and his recommendation is just that. If the issue of succession is confused then the question might be 'does the PM resign if he feels he cannot form a government'?
Dreadful interview with Cameron by Marr. The BBC shows him far too much respect, hardly challenging him at al.
Cameron goes on and on about a weak Labour Government; let's face it, he's hardly going to be in any stronger position himself and Marr should have called him on it.
Most people - and this includes Hans-Werner Sinn and Amrbose Evans-Pritchard - do not understand TARGET2.
In the event of Euro break-up, TARGET2 will not cause German taxpayers one Euro cent of cost, because TARGET2 is newly created money advanced by the ECB. So, rather than acting as a destabilising feature in the event of Euro break-up, TARGET2 will actually act as a buffer to prevent contagion.
Where Eurozone taxpayers will take a Grexit hit is money owed in Euros by the Greek government to the EFSF - which is in the region of €175-200bn (if memory serves). Of course, it is worth remembering that in the event of default, Greece still owes the money. And therefore an agreement will need be made for the newly Drachma based economy to make repayments. I would expect that the EFSF would end up accepting a c. 60% haircut. So, the taxpayers of the Eurozone would end up paying (eventually) around €100bn in the event of Grexit.
If destroying the TARGET claims were irrelevant, then destroying the Bundesbank's stock of gold reserves would also be irrelevant, because this stock was accumulated from TARGET-like imbalances under the Bretton-Woods system.
It's not controversial at all. We live in a fiat money world, not in a Bretton-Woods convertibility world. The TARGET2 imbalances are advances from the ECB, and therefore constitute newly created money.
Do you really think that - in the event of Grexit - that the ECB will go round the constituent members of the Eurozone and demand €90bn for Greece's losses?
In reality, what will happen is that the ECB will continue to have a line item "Money owed by the Hellenic Republic of Greece €90bn", and the world will continue as it was before.
'Funny how little we have heard from British liberals about a rather nasty outbreak of anti-immigrant violence this week.
Black South Africans burst on to the streets of Durban and Johannesburg, savagely attacking and threatening black immigrants from other parts of Africa.
Whatever this is, it isn’t ‘racist’. The assailants and victims alike are almost all black Africans. The fact that it is happening in a country liberals pretend is a rainbow paradise (when it isn't) is also hard for them to handle.
The sad truth is that mass migration, whatever the colour of the skins of those involved, upsets and worries indigenous people, especially the poorest. If it is not controlled – and South Africa has utterly failed to control it for many years – it can lead to serious social conflict.'
I'm not sure why you are trying to find support for UKIPs racism based on the existance of racism in other countries.
It comes across as a rather weak and pathetic argument from a supporter of a race hate party.
How would it be racist for black people from Africa to attack each other? Only in socialist Orwellian nightmare land where one word covers all conflict
You are an idiot I'm glad you think bad of me
Because not all people with black skin are the same race.
Typical Kipper.
Oh and the fighting was due to the differences in race was it?
Typical divisive socialist, sees racism in everything, while dividing and ruling. You go this category, you can go in that category etc etc
Carry on smearing, it's a compliment. Looking forward to you being proven wrong about the Ukip vote share, Shane you won't bet #anothercoward #allmouth
The sad truth is that mass migration, whatever the colour of the skins of those involved, upsets and worries indigenous people, especially the poorest. If it is not controlled – and South Africa has utterly failed to control it for many years – it can lead to serious social conflict.'
Except in a minority of cases is never about the colour of someone's skin, that is just the drum banged by guardianistas to close down the debate. Its almost always about culture and the impact of that culture on people's way of life. If a group of immigrants (from where ever) arrived and started, for example, urinating in public places, most of the local population are not going to like it, because it jars with their sense of how people should behave, irrespective of the skin colour of the immigrant, and irrespective of the skin colour of the local person.
Dair...Marr is in awe of his own reflection.. for him that is as good as it gets..
Yes your right. But that's why it is so fascinating to see him interviewing a politician he clearly adores. It's that difference which is most telling.
Just off the phone to my mother for the usual chat. Almost her first words (and half of the rest of the conversation) were about her dislike of Nicola Sturgeon:
1) "the BBC are really going to town, focussing on her every day".
2) "we don't hear anything about Nigel Farage any more, he's been forgotten about with all this fuss about Nicola Sturgeon".
As usual, as a dutiful son I just listened.
Maybe sturgeon on tv with her anti Tory talk may just galvanise the tory vote
My mother has probably voted Conservative at every election since 1964 when she was first eligible to vote. She is of the sensible wing of the Conservatives, rather than having any interest in ideology of any type. I've never asked but I suspect that she would regard voting for the Lib Dems as being the sort of thing that people with weak handshakes do.
The sad truth is that mass migration, whatever the colour of the skins of those involved, upsets and worries indigenous people, especially the poorest. If it is not controlled – and South Africa has utterly failed to control it for many years – it can lead to serious social conflict.'
Except in a minority of cases is never about the colour of someone's skin, that is just the drum banged by guardianistas to close down the debate. Its almost always about culture and the impact of that culture on people's way of life. If a group of immigrants (from where ever) arrived and started, for example, urinating in public places, most of the local population are not going to like it, because it jars with their sense of how people should behave, irrespective of the skin colour of the immigrant, and irrespective of the skin colour of the local person.
Of course most normal intelligent people see this. Lefties like @dair are so stupid they think clinging to 1970s polytechnic attitudes is still far sighted
I can't see the SNP voting with the Tories against Labour in a vote of confidence, particularly if it triggers a second election. The most the SNP will do is withhold their support and abstain.
I think the LDs will be split and in turmoil and will probably also abstain.
That takes about 80 MPs out of the equation so Labour would only need about 282 (taking SF and Speaker into account) to survive a vote of no confidence.
It might all depend on George Galloway, Caroline Lucas and The Queen. Fascinating.
Just off the phone to my mother for the usual chat. Almost her first words (and half of the rest of the conversation) were about her dislike of Nicola Sturgeon:
1) "the BBC are really going to town, focussing on her every day".
2) "we don't hear anything about Nigel Farage any more, he's been forgotten about with all this fuss about Nicola Sturgeon".
As usual, as a dutiful son I just listened.
For some reason this comment has had me sitting chuckling out loud.
My mother as a good non-conformist strongly disapproves of gambling. If she knew that I stood to win a lot of money from the SNP's success, she would be doubly aghast.
'Funny how little we have heard from British liberals about a rather nasty outbreak of anti-immigrant violence this week.
Black South Africans burst on to the streets of Durban and Johannesburg, savagely attacking and threatening black immigrants from other parts of Africa.
Whatever this is, it isn’t ‘racist’. The assailants and victims alike are almost all black Africans. The fact that it is happening in a country liberals pretend is a rainbow paradise (when it isn't) is also hard for them to handle.
The sad truth is that mass migration, whatever the colour of the skins of those involved, upsets and worries indigenous people, especially the poorest. If it is not controlled – and South Africa has utterly failed to control it for many years – it can lead to serious social conflict.'
I'm not sure why you are trying to find support for UKIPs racism based on the existance of racism in other countries.
It comes across as a rather weak and pathetic argument from a supporter of a race hate party.
How would it be racist for black people from Africa to attack each other? Only in socialist Orwellian nightmare land where one word covers all conflict
You are an idiot I'm glad you think bad of me
South Africa has been noted for tribalism for quite a while. South Africa under Zuma and the ANC carries a major risk of being a second Zimbabwe on a larger scale.
These riots are Zulu led against other language groups. Economic failure leads to social conflict, as it nearly always does.
It was economic failure in Tunisia that set off the arab spring, the wars in Syria and Libya and the current migrant and refugee crisis there.
TSE, you quote Antifrank and today's Sunday Times as saying "Her Majesty is trying not to get involved with the formation of the government."
The queen is showing good sense here. Indeed we ought to run with the idea.
We are very lucky to have Her Majesty on the throne right now. How likely is it that Prince Charles could resist getting involved, if he were king, following a very confused election result?
Risible talk from Cameron on Marr that the snp don't care about the rest of the UK. Is this the level our politics has sunk to?
The clue is in the name and the desire to leave the United Kingdom. It seems fair comment to me. Given that 40-odd SNP MPs would not have responsibility for a mass of Scottish legislation but would be able to dictate their views on English law which does not affect Scotland then I think it is perfectly right to shout out a big warning.
French fries with mayonaisse are surprisingly good. And the beer is wonderful.
Jupiler and crappy thin fries? Waterloo was good for a battle but shyte for anything since....
Waterloo battlefield was rather disappointing. Suburban Brussels and a dual carriageway. Moules, fries and mayo washed down with a few Trappist or Lambic beers were wonderful after a hot day in the saddle. Good times!
TSE, you quote Antifrank and today's Sunday Times as saying "Her Majesty is trying not to get involved with the formation of the government."
The queen is showing good sense here. Indeed we ought to run with the idea.
We are very lucky to have Her Majesty on the throne right now. How likely is it that Prince Charles could resist getting involved, if he were king, following a very confused election result?
I agree somewhat. In response to your query I dunno. But I found the current play "King Charles iii" to be written well and with sensitivity.
Meanwhile, after one poll confirmed the wipeout of Labour MPs in Scotland, a Labour MP described the mood: “It’s like the last days of Rome. Without the sex. Or the wine. In fact, with none of the fun bits.”
On Grexit causing our GDP to collapse 10%; who has said that? It seems really quite implausible to me. I cannot see it affecting anyone but the Greeks themselves to that degree.
I forecast a minority govt, getting by on a vote by vote basis. It worked quite well for Scotland with the SCUP even voting with Salmond at times.
I'll try and dig it out, I think it was a 3% immediate fall, and then if it was a particularly disorderly exit, the contagion would spread to the Eurozone, and given our trade with the Eurozone countries, we'd experience a secondary hit.
Target2 is not our friend, its going to hit for Germans for ridiculous amounts if GrExit happens.
Hans-Werner Sinn, from Munich's IFO Institute, has become a cult figure in the German press with Gothic warnings that Target2 is a "secret bailout" for the debtor countries, leaving the Bundesbank and German taxpayers on the hook for staggering sums. Great efforts have made to discredit him. His vindication would be doubly powerful.
....
Grexit would detonate the system. "The risks would suddenly become a reality and create a political storm in Germany," said Eric Dor, from the IESEG business school in Lille. "That is the moment when the Bundestag would start to question the whole project of the euro. The risks are huge," he said.
Most people - and this includes Hans-Werner Sinn and Amrbose Evans-Pritchard - do not understand TARGET2.
In the event of Euro break-up, TARGET2 will not cause German taxpayers one Euro cent of cost, because TARGET2 is newly created money advanced by the ECB. So, rather than acting as a destabilising feature in the event of Euro break-up, TARGET2 will actually act as a buffer to prevent contagion.
Where Eurozone taxpayers will take a Grexit hit is money owed in Euros by the Greek government to the EFSF - which is in the region of €175-200bn (if memory serves). Of course, it is worth remembering that in the event of default, Greece still owes the money. And therefore an agreement will need be made for the newly Drachma based economy to make repayments. I would expect that the EFSF would end up accepting a c. 60% haircut. So, the taxpayers of the Eurozone would end up paying (eventually) around €100bn in the event of Grexit.
Any predictions of Greek levels of perpetual devaluation and inflation (and hence continued relative poverty)?
Er! Can't see a Grand Coalition government under present party leaderships. Both parties know that such an arrangement would open the allegiances, of their respective grass root members, to question.
Too many minor parties would then be more acceptable.
If you thought the possibilities of the May election being a mess, the resulting GE after a Grand Coalition would be amazing.
It would take another couple of GE's to get a stable Government. I don't think any of the following governments would last the 5 years before collapsing under the pressures.
OK, how about different party leaders? And if not a Grand Coalition then what? And if not at this GE, then what about after the next which produced a similar result? There doesn't seem to be an easy way out - except how about: 1. Agreement between the parties to introduce STV in multi-member constituencies. 2. Another General Election once that is in place. 3. Result of election gives SNP 30 seats instead of 55 4. UKIP get 30 instead of 3 5. LibDems get 50 instead of 25 6. Greens get 15 instead of 1. 6. People don't need to vote tactically so much. 7. MPs defect to the party they really support rather than the one they think will let them win. 8. More options and likelihood for a stable coalition
That would be nowhere near the result of an STV election, which if using constituencies of about five members, I'd guess would be more like:
Con 194 (28%) Lab 203 (27%) LD 35 (7%) UKIP 100 (18%) Green 55 (8%) SNP 35 (5%) Plaid 6 (1%) NI (18 MPs, say 5 DUP, 4 SF, 3 UUP, 2 SDLP, 1 Alliance, 1 Ind, 1 Con*) * Included in Con total
Based on the Greens and Labour being relatively transfer-friendly, and Con, LD and UKIP being not so much; and on changes in first preference based on lessened 'can't win here' considerations.
That really would make for an interesting set of post-election negotiations.
People are way too fixed on majorities. A minority Conservative government is surely the most likely outcome, a grand coalition one of the least likely.
I believe a minority of Conservatives could pass a (moderate) budget given Labour 's desire to be seen as a responsible party. The same goes for the Queen's speech.
Plus MPs don't vote for elections any more than turkeys vote for Christmas.
Welcome. I agree that the possibilities of a minority Tory government are being underestimated. If the parties ended up on their Spin midpoints with the Tories being 19-20 ahead and having got the most votes I think people would take very badly to Ed trying to push his way into Downing Street with SNP support.
The consequences for Labour could be catastrophic. Having lost Scotland they can hardly afford to lose England too.
I can't see the SNP voting with the Tories against Labour in a vote of confidence, particularly if it triggers a second election. The most the SNP will do is withhold their support and abstain.
I think the LDs will be split and in turmoil and will probably also abstain.
That takes about 80 MPs out of the equation so Labour would only need about 282 (taking SF and Speaker into account) to survive a vote of no confidence.
It might all depend on George Galloway, Caroline Lucas and The Queen. Fascinating.
Your post succinctly explains the dilemma. Labour may not be able to muster the 282. The SNP has a publicly stated position not to allow a Tory government. After all their recent Labour converts would not be best pleased.
They also know what happened to the Liberal Democrats. The consequence of going to bed with the Tories is a very nasty hangover.
“Because not all people with black skin are the same race.
Typical Kipper.”
(Dair) ‘Yes your right. But that's why it is so fascinating to see him interviewing a politician he clearly adores. It's that difference which is most telling.’
French fries with mayonaisse are surprisingly good. And the beer is wonderful.
Jupiler and crappy thin fries? Waterloo was good for a battle but shyte for anything since....
Waterloo battlefield was rather disappointing. Suburban Brussels and a dual carriageway. Moules, fries and mayo washed down with a few Trappist or Lambic beers were wonderful after a hot day in the saddle. Good times!
And all I learnt were lychees and 'swinging'. Should - have!
No, he would have to go and the Queen would have to call Miliband. There is nothing constitutionally amiss about that, nor is it placing the Palace in a partisan position. Vernon Bogdanor once wrote that it would be the duty of the monarch to call the Leader of the Opposition in the event that the PM were no confidence and a PM resigning in anticipation of such a vote amounts to the same thing (as an aside, this article now means that the research I did 20 years ago for my university dissertation now has some practical value!). As it happened, I think Bogdanor put it a bit strongly - one can well imagine Blair being No Confidenced over Iraq had the Tories voted against, but Brown would then have been the right call - but assuming parties aren't deeply split, the point is right.
And Miliband would then try to form a government. He is not going to refuse when handed the keys to No 10 on a plate and when he has the backing of the SNP, Plaid, the Greens and the SDLP, and with the Lib Dems either amenable or lacking the numbers to matter.
Governing may prove difficult and it's possible to imagine a second election before too long if the Labour programme is repeatedly voted down (though as I've said before, I'm highly sceptical of the SNP risking a return of the Conservatives before 2016), but I cannot see a National Government forming short of a massive crisis or - at the minimum - three consecutive inconclusive elections.
Why would the SNP not want a Conservative government, particularly a weak one ? It helps their narrative for Holyrood 2016 just about perfectly.
Yes fair comment - and as Cameron said on TV this AM - the SNP do not have UK interests at heart, just their own. I would argue they do not really have Scottish interests at heart, just the SNP prejudice which they need to justify.
But if they were in a Lab coalition they would by your same token not have any interest in governing in any other way but to favour their own local benefit. Plus they have a left wing ideology to feed.
People are way too fixed on majorities. A minority Conservative government is surely the most likely outcome, a grand coalition one of the least likely.
I believe a minority of Conservatives could pass a (moderate) budget given Labour 's desire to be seen as a responsible party. The same goes for the Queen's speech.
Plus MPs don't vote for elections any more than turkeys vote for Christmas.
Welcome. I agree that the possibilities of a minority Tory government are being underestimated. If the parties ended up on their Spin midpoints with the Tories being 19-20 ahead and having got the most votes I think people would take very badly to Ed trying to push his way into Downing Street with SNP support.
The consequences for Labour could be catastrophic. Having lost Scotland they can hardly afford to lose England too.
But how would the Tories command a majority? Perhaps it would be in Labour's interests to let the Tories carry on in the short term whilst they elect a more popular leader.
People are way too fixed on majorities. A minority Conservative government is surely the most likely outcome, a grand coalition one of the least likely.
I believe a minority of Conservatives could pass a (moderate) budget given Labour 's desire to be seen as a responsible party. The same goes for the Queen's speech.
Plus MPs don't vote for elections any more than turkeys vote for Christmas.
Welcome. I agree that the possibilities of a minority Tory government are being underestimated. If the parties ended up on their Spin midpoints with the Tories being 19-20 ahead and having got the most votes I think people would take very badly to Ed trying to push his way into Downing Street with SNP support.
The consequences for Labour could be catastrophic. Having lost Scotland they can hardly afford to lose England too.
But how would the Tories command a majority? Perhaps it would be in Labour's interests to let the Tories carry on in the short term whilst they elect a more popular leader.
A minority govt is still a govt. It simply can only do things by agreement with the make up of the Commons. Cohabitation
People are way too fixed on majorities. A minority Conservative government is surely the most likely outcome, a grand coalition one of the least likely.
I believe a minority of Conservatives could pass a (moderate) budget given Labour 's desire to be seen as a responsible party. The same goes for the Queen's speech.
Plus MPs don't vote for elections any more than turkeys vote for Christmas.
Welcome. I agree that the possibilities of a minority Tory government are being underestimated. If the parties ended up on their Spin midpoints with the Tories being 19-20 ahead and having got the most votes I think people would take very badly to Ed trying to push his way into Downing Street with SNP support.
The consequences for Labour could be catastrophic. Having lost Scotland they can hardly afford to lose England too.
But how would the Tories command a majority? Perhaps it would be in Labour's interests to let the Tories carry on in the short term whilst they elect a more popular leader.
No party is going to refuse power, and the patronage and money that goes with it.
People are way too fixed on majorities. A minority Conservative government is surely the most likely outcome, a grand coalition one of the least likely.
I believe a minority of Conservatives could pass a (moderate) budget given Labour 's desire to be seen as a responsible party. The same goes for the Queen's speech.
Plus MPs don't vote for elections any more than turkeys vote for Christmas.
Welcome. I agree that the possibilities of a minority Tory government are being underestimated. If the parties ended up on their Spin midpoints with the Tories being 19-20 ahead and having got the most votes I think people would take very badly to Ed trying to push his way into Downing Street with SNP support.
The consequences for Labour could be catastrophic. Having lost Scotland they can hardly afford to lose England too.
I think people would at least expect Labour to vote that they didn't have confidence in the Tories. Putting it the other way around, Labour supporters would not react kindly to Labour voting that they had confidence in David Cameron's government.
Beyond that he needs to be a bit careful about the kind of deal he takes with the SNP and needs to be prepared to call a new election (or defy the Tories to vote one down.) But if the pork isn't too sordid I doubt it'll be the main motivating factor for English voters.
Comments
Mr. G, jein. I think Labour would try to **** up England with regional assemblies, and call that federalism. Doesn't answer the West Lothian Question, would deeply anger many English people (I believe and hope), and it doesn't address the Holyrood dilemma [give lots of power and it's almost all the way to independence, give little power and a second referendum becomes a realistic possibility].
Mr. Oliver, welcome to pb.com.
Selling Housing Association stock is OK, I suppose ? Surprisingly, I find Tories are quite in favour of distorting the market when votes are involved.
It's worth noting, for historical context, that there wasn't a Grand Coalition in 1939, when war broke out, nor in 1914 when the earlier war broke out, nor after 1916 when the Asquith Liberals walked out. By coincidence, I'm reading Samuel Hoare's memoirs of the 1931-40 period at the moment and it's clear that the 1931 coalition formed only because Labour happened to be in government at the time and that MacDonald and Snowden preferred to stay in office when their government became unviable. Had either of those two conditions not been met, a Grand Coalition (or National Government, as was the British phrase for this sort of thing), would not have formed.
So, fast forward to 2015. We are not in anything like the position of peril that the country faced in 1931, or 1915, or 1940. If Greece defaults, leaves the Euro and the EU, it won't happen overnight. Nor will it happen in the next three weeks. And if it does happen, I'm highly sceptical about the 10% loss of GDP claim. The European governments have done much to isolate the damage that a Greek default would do and the domino effect that might well have occurred had the danger been realised in 2011, should not now apply (and such an effect can be the only cause of a bigger recession than the last one). If it does, all bets are off. But then if it does, Europe would be plunged back into the politics of the early 1930s.
Put simply, that means there is no reason for the Tories and Labour to get together after the election, whatever the numbers. In fact, I disagree with both TSE's thinking on the party leaders' thinking and on the political dynamics.
Suppose Cameron cannot put together a government post election, either because he cannot find coalition partners or because even if he could, he doesn't have the numbers. He would have no option but to resign. It would be absurd to be appearing to be (or to actually be) clinging on to office merely because parliament hadn't met and done what it inevitably would do: No Confidence him. And the media would be making the point vociferously.
[continued ...]
No, he would have to go and the Queen would have to call Miliband. There is nothing constitutionally amiss about that, nor is it placing the Palace in a partisan position. Vernon Bogdanor once wrote that it would be the duty of the monarch to call the Leader of the Opposition in the event that the PM were no confidence and a PM resigning in anticipation of such a vote amounts to the same thing (as an aside, this article now means that the research I did 20 years ago for my university dissertation now has some practical value!). As it happened, I think Bogdanor put it a bit strongly - one can well imagine Blair being No Confidenced over Iraq had the Tories voted against, but Brown would then have been the right call - but assuming parties aren't deeply split, the point is right.
And Miliband would then try to form a government. He is not going to refuse when handed the keys to No 10 on a plate and when he has the backing of the SNP, Plaid, the Greens and the SDLP, and with the Lib Dems either amenable or lacking the numbers to matter.
Governing may prove difficult and it's possible to imagine a second election before too long if the Labour programme is repeatedly voted down (though as I've said before, I'm highly sceptical of the SNP risking a return of the Conservatives before 2016), but I cannot see a National Government forming short of a massive crisis or - at the minimum - three consecutive inconclusive elections.
On the other hand, there have been concerns raised about the charitable status of housing associations.
What I am sure of is that the freezing of commodity prices is a measure so deranged it was derided by educated men seventeen centuries ago.
There really is no-where for Labour to go other than accept anything the SNP demand.
http://www.chesterchronicle.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/ed-miliband-hit-chester-ladies-9073908
In the event of Euro break-up, TARGET2 will not cause German taxpayers one Euro cent of cost, because TARGET2 is newly created money advanced by the ECB. So, rather than acting as a destabilising feature in the event of Euro break-up, TARGET2 will actually act as a buffer to prevent contagion.
Where Eurozone taxpayers will take a Grexit hit is money owed in Euros by the Greek government to the EFSF - which is in the region of €175-200bn (if memory serves). Of course, it is worth remembering that in the event of default, Greece still owes the money. And therefore an agreement will need be made for the newly Drachma based economy to make repayments. I would expect that the EFSF would end up accepting a c. 60% haircut. So, the taxpayers of the Eurozone would end up paying (eventually) around €100bn in the event of Grexit.
Gordon Brown is coming to Sheffield Hallam to support the Labour candidate this week.
The Sunday Times say
Helping to defeat Clegg would be a sweet revenge for Brown, whose attempts to stitch together a “rainbow coalition” after the 2010 general election were rejected by the Liberal Democrat leader in favour of a deal with David Cameron. Worse, Clegg said if any deal was to be done with Labour, Brown would have to resign first.
But the presence of the big clunking fist in Sheffield has privately delighted Lib Dems. “Tory voters loathe Brown,” a source said. “This will encourage them to vote tactically for Nick.”
Not particularly in favour of grand coalitions but would happily support a military junta led by either Michael Heseltine or Paddy Ashdown.
I think the nation is ready for the new way forward.
Incidentally (since I am currently apply for a visa for a relative to move to the UK) I see that not only do you need to earn £18k to bring a relative to the UK (with a few exceptions), you also need to pay a NHS surcharge of £200 per year (paid in advance) until you apply for settlement. This later seems to be a very new development, don't recall seeing it there last year.
"That's right. On current polling, I reckon the outcome is going to be a Lab-LD coalition or CS agreement reasonably close to a majority, getting votes from others as required from issue to issue."
...........................................................................
Looks like Nick is turning his face toward my ARSE albeit he seems more inclined to the left cheek rather than the right.
I don't really want a second election - I want Miliband to have a decent shot at governing first so people can see what they're getting. But if it's what's needed, bring it on.
With a few exceptions such as Rotherham and Dudley there is not going to be a surge of kipperism in the Midlands or North. I have yet to see a kipper poster.
Indeed the kippers are looking worried. The expected bonus from "Major Party" status and debates have proven illusory. The Express headline today is all about getting excuses in early.
Mr. StClare, if only we had an Aurelian to lead us. By now we would've reconquered Henry II's territories, compelled the EU to submit to a one-sided trade agreement and destroyed the entire Argentine navy to safeguard the Falklands.
Aurelian's the best emperor most people have never heard of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurelian
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/review-restorer-of-world-emperor.html
Black South Africans burst on to the streets of Durban and Johannesburg, savagely attacking and threatening black immigrants from other parts of Africa.
Whatever this is, it isn’t ‘racist’. The assailants and victims alike are almost all black Africans. The fact that it is happening in a country liberals pretend is a rainbow paradise (when it isn't) is also hard for them to handle.
The sad truth is that mass migration, whatever the colour of the skins of those involved, upsets and worries indigenous people, especially the poorest. If it is not controlled – and South Africa has utterly failed to control it for many years – it can lead to serious social conflict.'
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/
Ladbrokes do not seem to have a market for this.
An adversarial English versus Scottish front bench in Parliament would suit the SNP down to the ground. Another reason why it won't happen.
I'm currently wondering how low Labour minority is going to go. In my view it should be odds on, but I expect that it will remain odds against because of the perceived wider uncertainty.
I'd say the current price for Conservative minority is almost exactly right.
If Ukip proves anything it is surely that the messenger matters just as much as the message. You can have a policy that is wildly popular but if people don't like you or the way you deal with the issue, you have no chance. So we have the remarkable spectacle of a party with one notable policy, a very popular one, being disliked by a significant majority of the public. For those who think Britain or even England is at heart a right wing country just compare the approval ratings for those 'third' party outsiders going into general elections - Ashdown in '97, Kennedy in 2001 and 05, Clegg in 2010 and Farage in 2015.
It comes across as a rather weak and pathetic argument from a supporter of a race hate party.
Don't worry about the rest
Quite a lot of discussion among the public, though.
Very, very quiet.
1. By far the most important point is that putting Labour in power in Westminster doesn't undermine their claim to the left-wing vote in Scotland. Booting Labour out and causing the Tories to return would taint them dreadfully with all those central belt-type voters they've won over.
2. If the SNP can replace Labour as the main repository for left-wing votes in Scotland, what then is the point of Scottish Labour? The battleground looks far easier for Sturgeon if their main opposition is the Tories or Lib Dems (or an amalgam of the two). We're still some way from that point but such a realignment is possible, particularly if both parties divorce their Scottish sections entirely, as they now should.
3. A weak Labour government in Westminster will provide more dosh for Scotland.
4. It will also do nothing to raise the popularity of Scottish Labour if it behaves as most new governments do, by getting the most unpopular bits done first (with its own eyes focussed on 2020 rather than 2016).
5. The SNP have said it would under no circumstances back the Tories. No Confidencing Labour before 2016 would send very mixed messages which Labour could exploit as 'you can't trust their word'.
His entire reign was basically kicking the crap out of barbarians and rebels. It's a damned shame he got murdered (although if he'd been killed earlier the Western Empire might've fallen two centuries earlier than it did. Then there would've been no Constantine to make Christianity the European religion, and no Byzantium to fend off the Turks/Muslims [although if Christianity hadn't spread so Islam might not have been founded]).
Mr. Psepho, welcome to the site. I concur a grand coalition simply won't happen.
Mr. Hunchman, it's technically inaccurate, as the SNP clearly want to create division with and separation from the rest of the UK.
You are an idiot I'm glad you think bad of me
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/former-labour-mp-calls-for-snp-vote-across-scotland-1-3747076
We should be getting the next Survation/DR for Scotland soon, which will hopefully give us some insight into whether the Lord A polls are evidencing a further SNP surge at a national level. My gut feeling is that SNP will be over 50% for both GE2015 and Holyrood 2016. The Tories will be around 15% and SLAB will be less than 25%. Unfortunately for SLAB I think there's a soft chunk of their support which may yet leak away, 20% is probably their core level of support.
I quite fancy some money on Stuart Hosie.
Typical Kipper.
1) "the BBC are really going to town, focussing on her every day".
2) "we don't hear anything about Nigel Farage any more, he's been forgotten about with all this fuss about Nicola Sturgeon".
As usual, as a dutiful son I just listened.
http://www.voxeu.org/article/target-losses-case-euro-breakup
This is the constitutional convention and always has been.
The Queen must believe her prime minister. It is the PM who goes to the Palace and recommends either someone else to her or claims the ability himself. If the PM feels he cannot form a government it is really not his problem about who might... he will have had talks and his recommendation is just that.
If the issue of succession is confused then the question might be 'does the PM resign if he feels he cannot form a government'?
Cameron goes on and on about a weak Labour Government; let's face it, he's hardly going to be in any stronger position himself and Marr should have called him on it.
Do you really think that - in the event of Grexit - that the ECB will go round the constituent members of the Eurozone and demand €90bn for Greece's losses?
In reality, what will happen is that the ECB will continue to have a line item "Money owed by the Hellenic Republic of Greece €90bn", and the world will continue as it was before.
Typical divisive socialist, sees racism in everything, while dividing and ruling. You go this category, you can go in that category etc etc
Carry on smearing, it's a compliment. Looking forward to you being proven wrong about the Ukip vote share, Shane you won't bet #anothercoward #allmouth
I think the LDs will be split and in turmoil and will probably also abstain.
That takes about 80 MPs out of the equation so Labour would only need about 282 (taking SF and Speaker into account) to survive a vote of no confidence.
It might all depend on George Galloway, Caroline Lucas and The Queen. Fascinating.
The queen is showing good sense here.
Indeed we ought to run with the idea.
These riots are Zulu led against other language groups. Economic failure leads to social conflict, as it nearly always does.
It was economic failure in Tunisia that set off the arab spring, the wars in Syria and Libya and the current migrant and refugee crisis there.
In response to your query I dunno. But I found the current play "King Charles iii" to be written well and with sensitivity.
Meanwhile, after one poll confirmed the wipeout of Labour MPs in Scotland, a Labour MP described the mood: “It’s like the last days of Rome. Without the sex. Or the wine. In fact, with none of the fun bits.”
In the event of Euro break-up, TARGET2 will not cause German taxpayers one Euro cent of cost, because TARGET2 is newly created money advanced by the ECB. So, rather than acting as a destabilising feature in the event of Euro break-up, TARGET2 will actually act as a buffer to prevent contagion.
Where Eurozone taxpayers will take a Grexit hit is money owed in Euros by the Greek government to the EFSF - which is in the region of €175-200bn (if memory serves). Of course, it is worth remembering that in the event of default, Greece still owes the money. And therefore an agreement will need be made for the newly Drachma based economy to make repayments. I would expect that the EFSF would end up accepting a c. 60% haircut. So, the taxpayers of the Eurozone would end up paying (eventually) around €100bn in the event of Grexit.
Any predictions of Greek levels of perpetual devaluation and inflation (and hence continued relative poverty)?
Con 194 (28%)
Lab 203 (27%)
LD 35 (7%)
UKIP 100 (18%)
Green 55 (8%)
SNP 35 (5%)
Plaid 6 (1%)
NI (18 MPs, say 5 DUP, 4 SF, 3 UUP, 2 SDLP, 1 Alliance, 1 Ind, 1 Con*) * Included in Con total
Based on the Greens and Labour being relatively transfer-friendly, and Con, LD and UKIP being not so much; and on changes in first preference based on lessened 'can't win here' considerations.
That really would make for an interesting set of post-election negotiations.
The consequences for Labour could be catastrophic. Having lost Scotland they can hardly afford to lose England too.
They also know what happened to the Liberal Democrats. The consequence of going to bed with the Tories is a very nasty hangover.
Stalemate.
But we have a stupid FTPA 2011.
Cameron and Miliband haven't had the guts to let Neil interview them this parliament
“Because not all people with black skin are the same race.
Typical Kipper.”
(Dair) ‘Yes your right. But that's why it is so fascinating to see him interviewing a politician he clearly adores. It's that difference which is most telling.’
Typical SNPer
I would argue they do not really have Scottish interests at heart, just the SNP prejudice which they need to justify.
But if they were in a Lab coalition they would by your same token not have any interest in governing in any other way but to favour their own local benefit. Plus they have a left wing ideology to feed.
Beyond that he needs to be a bit careful about the kind of deal he takes with the SNP and needs to be prepared to call a new election (or defy the Tories to vote one down.) But if the pork isn't too sordid I doubt it'll be the main motivating factor for English voters.