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.
UKIP seem to have gained 6% and Greens 3% on their current level and LibDems lost 2%. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015 You've also made the constituencies larger 5 rather than 3 which is what I would expect, to make them manageable in size.
Terrible news from Lampedusa..Feared 700 drowned..poor buggers..
I know a group of "Senegalese" from my local supermarket. They call themselves "Senegalese" because that is more acceptable to the Italians- they come from maybe Somalia, but Italians view Somalia differently. Tigan and Abdullah- we speak in Italian, mine worse than theirs and they show their pictures of their families, often tearing up because they may never see them, and tell me of their stories in war torn Libya. After the fall of Gaddafi they were persecuted, so they came to Italy through Lampedusa.
The displacement of peoples through the war torn countries of Africa and Asia into northern Africa is a global problem. The vast numbers flooding into Italy, threatening the social cohesion of Italy (and other countries) is a problem for Europe. How will Europe cope if Italy turns fascist? it has form. The news of these great tragedies with hundreds drowning barely flickers on RaiUno telenews. There again, the Somme was only reported on page 3 of the Manchester Guardian, and then only given a paragraph.
In 1939 the UK mobilised over 50% of it's GDP to deal with a global problem. Germany invading Poland didn't directly affect us, but Churchill and others knew that Nazism represented an existential threat to Europe.
Where are the Churchills now in Europe or the USA? The conflicts in Africa and Asia are displaying huge swathes of populations that will impact across Europe, rupturing social networks, creating fear and hatred. The thousands dying off the seas off Italy are not going to deter them.
After displacing Gaddaffi we left a failed state with close proximity to Europe. We all know about Iraq and what is happening there. These conflicts, and the others infecting through Africa have profound consequences for us in Europe.
Tigan and Abdullah want to go home. They want to go back to a country which is safe and secure and capable of building prosperity.
The 0.7% GDP for oversees AID and 2% for defence discussions are nonsense. Instead of putting our head in the sands, as Chamberlain, hoping for things to die down, they just get worse. The West needs to mobilise it's immense resources and use the levers of soft and hard power to bring stability into these hotspots- building infrastructure, training healthcare staff and bureaucrats on one side, and yes, using military intervention on the other. And to pull out, only when the job is done.
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.
What I am really saying is that there is an enormous difference between Labour largest party proceeding with tacit SNP support and Labour having lost but effectively winning because the SNP back them in preference to the Tories. I think the first has few problems for Miliband (at least in terms of forming a government) but the latter is highly problematic.
''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'?
Yes he does.
The constitutional position is that the PM is the PM until he or she resigns, which can happen at any time. An outgoing PM may recommend a successor but is under no duty to do so and the Queen is under no duty to act on that advice. Ultimately, the appointment of a PM remains a royal prerogative. The case is sometimes asserted about Macmillan manipulating Home into position against Butler and recommending the peer to HM but the point is that this was far from his only manipulation in the case: he, and his allies, had already squared the Conservative Party to that outcome before going to the Palace.
There is no requirement for any politician to petition the Queen to form a government. If the sitting one wins, he or she just carries on as before. If not, a resignation ensues and the Queen will then call - at her discretion, though after taking appropriate soundings - someone else to form a government. Indeed, in the most recent instance, Cameron had not finished negotiations with the Lib Dems when he was commissioned to form a government. He would almost certainly have preferred to wait until the next day to be asked but didn't have the chance as Brown resigned, prompting his summons.
If we end up with a situation where Cameron (and implicitly, any other Tory) cannot form a government then HM is in the easy position of calling Miliband. She has no reason to delay.
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.
What I am really saying is that there is an enormous difference between Labour largest party proceeding with tacit SNP support and Labour having lost but effectively winning because the SNP back them in preference to the Tories. I think the first has few problems for Miliband (at least in terms of forming a government) but the latter is highly problematic.
Even the first is quite likely to have Labour as the second party in England.
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.
Labour could of course make everything a matter of confidence, in which case would the SNP vote against them?, bearing in mind that without the SNP Labour would lose the vote.
Meanwhile - any thoughts on why BOTH Miliband and Cameron have appealed to supporters of other parties directly?
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.
UKIP seem to have gained 6% and Greens 3% on their current level and LibDems lost 2%. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015 You've also made the constituencies larger 5 rather than 3 which is what I would expect, to make them manageable in size.
Yes, people vote differently in PR elections from how they vote in FPTP elections. The prospect of wasted votes is much reduced, for one thing. That means that smaller parties find it easier to gain support. The Lib Dems - though now a smaller party in that sense - would suffer through the loss of their previous bucket-opposition vote.
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.
So the Tories have Scottish interest at heart, what a joke. Tories govern to fill their chums and their own pockets. What a turnip.
In 1939 the UK mobilised over 50% of it's GDP to deal with a global problem. Germany invading Poland didn't directly affect us, but Churchill and others knew that Nazism represented an existential threat to Europe.
Where are the Churchills now in Europe or the USA? The conflicts in Africa and Asia are displaying huge swathes of populations that will impact across Europe, rupturing social networks, creating fear and hatred. The thousands dying off the seas off Italy are not going to deter them.
After displacing Gaddaffi we left a failed state with close proximity to Europe. We all know about Iraq and what is happening there. These conflicts, and the others infecting through Africa have profound consequences for us in Europe.
Tigan and Abdullah want to go home. They want to go back to a country which is safe and secure and capable of building prosperity.
The 0.7% GDP for oversees AID and 2% for defence discussions are nonsense. Instead of putting our head in the sands, as Chamberlain, hoping for things to die down, they just get worse. The West needs to mobilise it's immense resources and use the levers of soft and hard power to bring stability into these hotspots- building infrastructure, training healthcare staff and bureaucrats on one side, and yes, using military intervention on the other. And to pull out, only when the job is done.
I think you miss the point that in the 1930s Churchill was in the wilderness and considered a dangerous trouble maker by the main parties. I have no real idea who the modern day Churchill is and he or she could come from any number of leading European states, not just the UK. But the chances are they will not be one of the current leaders of those countries because, just as in the 1930s those leaders are too much a part of the problem and their history of inaction makes them incapable of taking whatever radical action might be necessary.
I am all for spending on foreign aid and defence as you suggest, but the Middle East needs to sort itself out. The history of Western intervention there is lamentable. Even the best intentions such as Libya wind up with good deeds being punished.
The root of social conflict is economic failure, and the economic history of Islamic countries is one of failure. The successful ones such as post Ottoman Turkey are due to secularisation. Until the peoples of the Middle East seperate mosque and state they will have economic failure and none of the liberties that we enjoy.
I have no problems taking in refugees provided they adopt our ways rather than trying to bring with them the attitudes that caused their own states to fail. Huegenots, Jews and Ugandan Asians all did this, but Somali and Arab jihadis - no thanks!
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.
What I am really saying is that there is an enormous difference between Labour largest party proceeding with tacit SNP support and Labour having lost but effectively winning because the SNP back them in preference to the Tories. I think the first has few problems for Miliband (at least in terms of forming a government) but the latter is highly problematic.
David , what you are saying is , it is not fair a big boy taking away our power, it is an injustice. Just whinging for the sake of it , a typical Tory trait always believing they are exclusively entitled to what they want.
WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.
WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.
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.
What I am really saying is that there is an enormous difference between Labour largest party proceeding with tacit SNP support and Labour having lost but effectively winning because the SNP back them in preference to the Tories. I think the first has few problems for Miliband (at least in terms of forming a government) but the latter is highly problematic.
People need to rethink how they use the word "lost".
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.
UKIP seem to have gained 6% and Greens 3% on their current level and LibDems lost 2%. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015 You've also made the constituencies larger 5 rather than 3 which is what I would expect, to make them manageable in size.
For STV to even approach proportionality the constituencies need to return at least Number of Major Parties + 1 outcomes. So 5 in Scotland and England and 6 in Wales. I guess if the LibDems lose major status it might be reduced by one.
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.
That would be a boo-boo of massive proportions. If the SNP voted down Labour in a VoNC, that would lead to either a Conservative PM returning directly, or to a new election which might result in a Conservative PM. What prospect then for all those newly won ex-Labour recruits the SNP have?
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.
Labour could of course make everything a matter of confidence, in which case would the SNP vote against them?, bearing in mind that without the SNP Labour would lose the vote.
Odd upside to the SLAB wipeout: SNP MPs will be motivated to avoid bringing down a Lab minority government and causing new elections. They can't gain and can only lose if they already have all the seats.
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.
Labour could of course make everything a matter of confidence, in which case would the SNP vote against them?, bearing in mind that without the SNP Labour would lose the vote.
Meanwhile - any thoughts on why BOTH Miliband and Cameron have appealed to supporters of other parties directly?
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.”
No, a coalition between the Tories and Labour is almost impossible. If Cameron doesn't think he will pass his first Queen's Speech or Budget then he will have to resign and Miliband will be invited to ponder on it. If he can't do it then it's a second election. Simples
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.
That would be a boo-boo of massive proportions. If the SNP voted down Labour in a VoNC, that would lead to either a Conservative PM returning directly, or to a new election which might result in a Conservative PM. What prospect then for all those newly won ex-Labour recruits the SNP have?
No, it wouldn't. Unless Labour agreed with the Tories to abstain from votes, it would lead to another Labour led government.
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.
Labour could of course make everything a matter of confidence, in which case would the SNP vote against them?, bearing in mind that without the SNP Labour would lose the vote.
Yes, of course they could.
Because the FTPA means they can.
Voting against them in a Vote of No Confidence would still trigger the downfall of the government and precipitate early elections if no new government could be formed.
Odd upside to the SLAB wipeout: SNP MPs will be motivated to avoid bringing down a Lab minority government and causing new elections. They can't gain and can only lose if they already have all the seats.
The problem with that is that it is based on the Westminster viewpoint that power is the only goal. The SNP's goal is not power.
F1: rumour on the gossip page Hamilton might join Ferrari [with Vettel].
Mr. Tyson, whilst I agree we [speaking broadly] should assist Italy, World War Two this is not.
Morris- what I do know is that Europe is going through a major upheaval as a direct consequence of the conflicts in African and Asia. Where it leads to, I don't know. Who could have known that a reactionary group of malcontents calling themselves National Socialists in the early 30's could have reaped the havoc across the world that they did.
What I am trying to say is that this is not the time to put our hands in the sand and expect it to go away. Europe is encountering the biggest exodus since the world war with profound implications for us all, underpinned by this undercurrent of fascist Islam publicised through these conflicts infecting our own populations.
Lampedusa is not just Italy's problem; Lampedusa represents only a small part of the global shockwaves caused by these spreading conflicts . And Europe needs another Churchill that can persuade it's people that intervention is necessary on a massive scale.
Can you honestly predict where this upheaval is leading too? Let's hope it doesn't move into a major global conflict, but do we know? 0.7% and 2% spends for aid and defence are probably OK for peacetime. But could we consider the current circumstances peacetime?
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.
Labour could of course make everything a matter of confidence, in which case would the SNP vote against them?, bearing in mind that without the SNP Labour would lose the vote.
Yes, of course they could.
Because the FTPA means they can.
Voting against them in a Vote of No Confidence would still trigger the downfall of the government and precipitate early elections if no new government could be formed.
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.
What I am really saying is that there is an enormous difference between Labour largest party proceeding with tacit SNP support and Labour having lost but effectively winning because the SNP back them in preference to the Tories. I think the first has few problems for Miliband (at least in terms of forming a government) but the latter is highly problematic.
I think that view is correct, but only so far as Miliband's life is considerably more difficult as PM if he is short of the Conservatives. It does not stop him becoming PM. But this surely means the correct tactical vote for Scots in SNP/Lab marginals is not Labour ?!
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.”
Great gallows humour that is quintessentially British.
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.
That would be a boo-boo of massive proportions. If the SNP voted down Labour in a VoNC, that would lead to either a Conservative PM returning directly, or to a new election which might result in a Conservative PM. What prospect then for all those newly won ex-Labour recruits the SNP have?
No, it wouldn't. Unless Labour agreed with the Tories to abstain from votes, it would lead to another Labour led government.
Repeat after me. Fixed-Term Parliaments Act.
Huh? So you're saying that the SNP might vote firstly against Labour on a VoNC and then in favour of the same leadership in a VoC within the space of two weeks? Or that Labour will allow the SNP to dictate who its own leader is?
Odd upside to the SLAB wipeout: SNP MPs will be motivated to avoid bringing down a Lab minority government and causing new elections. They can't gain and can only lose if they already have all the seats.
The problem with that is that it is based on the Westminster viewpoint that power is the only goal. The SNP's goal is not power.
I'm a long way from Westminster. Power is the goal of politicians, and the new SNP MPs will be politicians.
Admittedly there's a Holyrood dimension to the power politics here too.
Odd upside to the SLAB wipeout: SNP MPs will be motivated to avoid bringing down a Lab minority government and causing new elections. They can't gain and can only lose if they already have all the seats.
They'll be the most disciplined bunch you've ever laid eyes on.
Ed Miliband = Robert Baratheon Nicola Sturgeon = Tywin Lannister.
Odd upside to the SLAB wipeout: SNP MPs will be motivated to avoid bringing down a Lab minority government and causing new elections. They can't gain and can only lose if they already have all the seats.
The problem with that is that it is based on the Westminster viewpoint that power is the only goal. The SNP's goal is not power.
Dair- once you have power it's a tough gig to throw away. Scottish SNP will want to keep it's fifty odd MPs as long as possible, and not risk it on a second election. A second referendum will be kicked into the long grass as the SNP block make hay whilst the sun shines.
Odd upside to the SLAB wipeout: SNP MPs will be motivated to avoid bringing down a Lab minority government and causing new elections. They can't gain and can only lose if they already have all the seats.
The problem with that is that it is based on the Westminster viewpoint that power is the only goal. The SNP's goal is not power.
I'm a long way from Westminster. Power is the goal of politicians, and the new SNP MPs will be politicians.
Admittedly there's a Holyrood dimension to the power politics here too.
The medium term goal is a 2016 Holyrood majority. If Camo is in power it's easier but the SNP is less influential. If Ed Mili is in, it's trickier but they have more power in the meantime. If Ed Mili is in power the Nats have less cards than @Dair supposes - they will be the only party that is almost 100% guaranteed to vote against a Conservative Queen's speech for sure. All 40+ MPs.
What price John Woodcock, Frank Field, Kate Hoey and Simon Danczuk to get stuck on trains if the numbers are tight for Dave though
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.
What I am really saying is that there is an enormous difference between Labour largest party proceeding with tacit SNP support and Labour having lost but effectively winning because the SNP back them in preference to the Tories. I think the first has few problems for Miliband (at least in terms of forming a government) but the latter is highly problematic.
I think that view is correct, but only so far as Miliband's life is considerably more difficult as PM if he is short of the Conservatives. It does not stop him becoming PM. But this surely means the correct tactical vote for Scots in SNP/Lab marginals is not Labour ?!
Some things are more important than the next election. The future of my country is one of them.
F1: rumour on the gossip page Hamilton might join Ferrari [with Vettel].
Mr. Tyson, whilst I agree we [speaking broadly] should assist Italy, World War Two this is not.
Morris- what I do know is that Europe is going through a major upheaval as a direct consequence of the conflicts in African and Asia. Where it leads to, I don't know. Who could have known that a reactionary group of malcontents calling themselves National Socialists in the early 30's could have reaped the havoc across the world that they did.
What I am trying to say is that this is not the time to put our hands in the sand and expect it to go away. Europe is encountering the biggest exodus since the world war with profound implications for us all, underpinned by this undercurrent of fascist Islam publicised through these conflicts infecting our own populations.
Lampedusa is not just Italy's problem; Lampedusa represents only a small part of the global shockwaves caused by these spreading conflicts . And Europe needs another Churchill that can persuade it's people that intervention is necessary on a massive scale.
Can you honestly predict where this upheaval is leading too? Let's hope it doesn't move into a major global conflict, but do we know? 0.7% and 2% spends for aid and defence are probably OK for peacetime. But could we consider the current circumstances peacetime?
Our endless interventions in the Muslim world just seem to make the situation worse. Every time we try to help, Muslims turn around us and blame us for it. In Iraq, they reject our attempts to get a democratic system, and instead descend into sectarian warfare. In Libya, they prefer to revert to the pre-Gadaffi tribal society. In Syria, we support the moderate rebels, only to find out that a year or two later they've joined the Islamists. I've got to the point where I think we should just stay out of it. The place will still be a mess, but at least they won't be able to blame it on us. Maybe in 50 years, people in the Middle East will turn around, and see how the rest of the world has developed and succeeded, and accept there's a better way.
The one issue we can do something about is the humanitarian disaster in the Mediterranean. Ultimately, people are going to keep on trying this dangerous crossing while they get rewarded if they succeed. We should do what Australia has done, and set up a processing centre somewher else. That stopped the boats and saved thousands of lives.
Odd upside to the SLAB wipeout: SNP MPs will be motivated to avoid bringing down a Lab minority government and causing new elections. They can't gain and can only lose if they already have all the seats.
The problem with that is that it is based on the Westminster viewpoint that power is the only goal. The SNP's goal is not power.
I'm a long way from Westminster. Power is the goal of politicians, and the new SNP MPs will be politicians.
Admittedly there's a Holyrood dimension to the power politics here too.
The medium term goal is a 2016 Holyrood majority. If Camo is in power it's easier but the SNP is less influential. If Ed Mili is in, it's trickier but they have more power in the meantime. If Ed Mili is in power the Nats have less cards than @Dair supposes - they will be the only party that is almost 100% guaranteed to vote against a Conservative Queen's speech for sure. All 40+ MPs.
What price John Woodcock, Frank Field, Kate Hoey and Simon Danczuk to get stuck on trains if the numbers are tight for Dave though
You assume that Dave would want to try to remain PM in that position. Heath didn't, nor Brown.
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.
That would be a boo-boo of massive proportions. If the SNP voted down Labour in a VoNC, that would lead to either a Conservative PM returning directly, or to a new election which might result in a Conservative PM. What prospect then for all those newly won ex-Labour recruits the SNP have?
No, it wouldn't. Unless Labour agreed with the Tories to abstain from votes, it would lead to another Labour led government.
Repeat after me. Fixed-Term Parliaments Act.
Huh? So you're saying that the SNP might vote firstly against Labour on a VoNC and then in favour of the same leadership in a VoC within the space of two weeks? Or that Labour will allow the SNP to dictate who its own leader is?
Yep - the SNP position has it's limits of power. They won't dictate a leader change of Balls/Miliband - besides what do they care who the leader is... the Labour party itself might though... particularly if the LIB DEMS get involved. They could well be a third wheel to SNP/Lab negotiations - Since Lab + LD > Con in England most likely whereas Lab < Con in England for sure.
The Conservatives have hammered home two crucial messages over the last five years - economic credibility and the strength of David Cameron's leadership, the FT's Janan Ganesh thinks. But suddenly they've abandoned that and starting making big generous promises and that may scare more people than it wins over, he thinks. Nick Watt agrees it's "dangerous territory" to throw some giveaways in so late, because as Tory strategist Lynton Crosby is meant to be keen on saying, "you can't fatten a pig on market day."
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.
UKIP won the 2014 EU Parliament election. They got more votes in a national election than either the Conservative or Labour parties. The LDs have never done that.
Re: approval numbers. I don't think the negative numbers are relevant. Only the positive numbers are associated with voting behaviour.
YouGov's Feb 2015 'would consider voting for' question put LDs/Greens/UKIP in a similar bracket ~25% of the public. Lab/Con were ~40%.
I think we need to think about hung parliament much more in the sense of economic Game Theory. What is the ideal equilibrium for the country may not be the ideal for the parties, and each party will do what suits themselves.
Much seems to have been made of the fact that the SNP wouldn't want to be seen to bring in the Tories before 2016. However in the run up to 2016 the SNP and Labour in Scotland will be locked in an almost existential battle ... the notion of stable and friendly government in Westminster between these parties during bitter battles for Holyrood seems implausible.
Furthermore after 2016 if the SNP get a second majority then the question becomes what best favours a Yes in a second referendum. Again a stable Labour+SNP government in Westminster doesn't achieve this aim. After a 2016 Holyrood referendum any reasonable excuse to 'scot-free' (pardon the pun) get rid of Labour and usher in the Tories helps the SNP cause. Perhaps a by-election or a manufactured controversial vote. This brings in the Tories and the SNP say Westminster doesn't work for Scotland, we need independence.
What reason does the SNP have to seriously work with Labour during the 2016 campaign or even more after the 2016 election?
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.”
I think I would put money on that being Tom Harris.
F1: rumour on the gossip page Hamilton might join Ferrari [with Vettel].
Mr. Tyson, whilst I agree we [speaking broadly] should assist Italy, World War Two this is not.
Morris- what I do know is that Europe is going through a major upheaval as a direct consequence of the conflicts in African and Asia. Where it leads to, I don't know. Who could have known that a reactionary group of malcontents calling themselves National Socialists in the early 30's could have reaped the havoc across the world that they did.
What I am trying to say is that this is not the time to put our hands in the sand and expect it to go away. Europe is encountering the biggest exodus since the world war with profound implications for us all, underpinned by this undercurrent of fascist Islam publicised through these conflicts infecting our own populations.
Can you honestly predict where this upheaval is leading too? Let's hope it doesn't move into a major global conflict, but do we know? 0.7% and 2% spends for aid and defence are probably OK for peacetime. But could we consider the current circumstances peacetime?
Our endless interventions in the Muslim world just seem to make the situation worse. Every time we try to help, Muslims turn around us and blame us for it. In Iraq, they reject our attempts to get a democratic system, and instead descend into sectarian warfare. In Libya, they prefer to revert to the pre-Gadaffi tribal society. In Syria, we support the moderate rebels, only to find out that a year or two later they've joined the Islamists. I've got to the point where I think we should just stay out of it. The place will still be a mess, but at least they won't be able to blame it on us. Maybe in 50 years, people in the Middle East will turn around, and see how the rest of the world has developed and succeeded, and accept there's a better way.
The one issue we can do something about is the humanitarian disaster in the Mediterranean. Ultimately, people are going to keep on trying this dangerous crossing while they get rewarded if they succeed. We should do what Australia has done, and set up a processing centre somewher else. That stopped the boats and saved thousands of lives.
The trip from Somalia, Eritrea or Syria to Indonesia then Christmas Island is a more difficult one than Libya to Lampadusa.
The Italian and Maltese navies need to return the refugees to Libya rather than land them in the EU, so word gets round that the route does not work.
Recently I have heard some alarming stories from my Greek friends that some of their coastguard vessels swamp rather than rescue migrant boats when no one else is watching.
Odd upside to the SLAB wipeout: SNP MPs will be motivated to avoid bringing down a Lab minority government and causing new elections. They can't gain and can only lose if they already have all the seats.
The problem with that is that it is based on the Westminster viewpoint that power is the only goal. The SNP's goal is not power.
I'm a long way from Westminster. Power is the goal of politicians, and the new SNP MPs will be politicians.
Admittedly there's a Holyrood dimension to the power politics here too.
The medium term goal is a 2016 Holyrood majority. If Camo is in power it's easier but the SNP is less influential. If Ed Mili is in, it's trickier but they have more power in the meantime. If Ed Mili is in power the Nats have less cards than @Dair supposes - they will be the only party that is almost 100% guaranteed to vote against a Conservative Queen's speech for sure. All 40+ MPs.
What price John Woodcock, Frank Field, Kate Hoey and Simon Danczuk to get stuck on trains if the numbers are tight for Dave though
You assume that Dave would want to try to remain PM in that position. Heath didn't, nor Brown.
David Cameron will want to try to remain Prime Minister whenever he gets most seats. Whether he would be wise to try if the Conservatives get fewer seats than they got last time is very questionable, but he'll still want to.
Saw a clip of Cameron on Marr [replayed on Sunday Politics].
Cameron talked about using the Lloyds' shares money to pay down debt. Leaving aside that it's paying off debt, that's just wrong. Unless he thinks he's going to get £90bn plus and run an actual surplus due to the sale. It's making a tiny dent in the deficit.
Not a Cameron-only problem, but the media ought to be pointing out when politicians talk tosh.
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....
You don't know much about the Belgian beer scene fluffy if you think jupiler is representative; jupiler is just corporate dross of the type the global beer industry so desperately wants to pour down the throat of the lumpen proletariat
Odd upside to the SLAB wipeout: SNP MPs will be motivated to avoid bringing down a Lab minority government and causing new elections. They can't gain and can only lose if they already have all the seats.
They'll be the most disciplined bunch you've ever laid eyes on.
Ed Miliband = Robert Baratheon Nicola Sturgeon = Tywin Lannister.
Close
Ed Miliband = Robert Baratheon Nicola Sturgeon = Cersei Lannister Alex Salmond = Tywin Lannister
Salmond will be the real power behind the throne following the wedding of Ed and Nicola.
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.
UKIP won the 2014 EU Parliament election. They got more votes in a national election than either the Conservative or Labour parties. The LDs have never done that.
Re: approval numbers. I don't think the negative numbers are relevant. Only the positive numbers are associated with voting behaviour.
YouGov's Feb 2015 'would consider voting for' question put LDs/Greens/UKIP in a similar bracket ~25% of the public. Lab/Con were ~40%.
I think the negative figures matter a great deal in a FPTP election. Few seats are won with less than 30% of the vote, and even that only wins in 3 way marginals.
I think that UKIP will get 20% of votes in a dozen or so seats and win fewer than the fingers on one hand.
I also think the negative voting will have a similar effect on the LDs. Too many people want to punish us, and it only when we see what minority government looks like that we will see attitudes to coalition change.
Saw a clip of Cameron on Marr [replayed on Sunday Politics].
Cameron talked about using the Lloyds' shares money to pay down debt. Leaving aside that it's paying off debt, that's just wrong. Unless he thinks he's going to get £90bn plus and run an actual surplus due to the sale. It's making a tiny dent in the deficit.
Not a Cameron-only problem, but the media ought to be pointing out when politicians talk tosh.
Actually Cameron's phrasing is technically correct. On the day/month that the shares get sold the debt will come down (like it did in January this year despite an annual deficit).
During the rest of the year debt will increase again due to the deficit.
If Lloyds shares are likely to yield more than 2% pa over the next 5 years then, presumably, the govt is worse off as a result of selling them. And even more so if the share price also rises.
Turning an asset into cash is not usually a good idea in a low interest environment.
Odd upside to the SLAB wipeout: SNP MPs will be motivated to avoid bringing down a Lab minority government and causing new elections. They can't gain and can only lose if they already have all the seats.
The problem with that is that it is based on the Westminster viewpoint that power is the only goal. The SNP's goal is not power.
I'm a long way from Westminster. Power is the goal of politicians, and the new SNP MPs will be politicians.
Admittedly there's a Holyrood dimension to the power politics here too.
The medium term goal is a 2016 Holyrood majority. If Camo is in power it's easier but the SNP is less influential. If Ed Mili is in, it's trickier but they have more power in the meantime. If Ed Mili is in power the Nats have less cards than @Dair supposes - they will be the only party that is almost 100% guaranteed to vote against a Conservative Queen's speech for sure. All 40+ MPs.
What price John Woodcock, Frank Field, Kate Hoey and Simon Danczuk to get stuck on trains if the numbers are tight for Dave though
You assume that Dave would want to try to remain PM in that position. Heath didn't, nor Brown.
David Cameron will want to try to remain Prime Minister whenever he gets most seats. Whether he would be wise to try if the Conservatives get fewer seats than they got last time is very questionable, but he'll still want to.
If he gets a few less, and if the Con-LD total is a few less, then maybe. What I don't see is him trying to remain if there is a clear majority against him, even if that majority is not necessarily *for* anyone else. To have 315 seats with the Lib Dems is one thing - that at least gives him cause for exploring options with them, the Unionists and UKIP - but any less is simply unviable (and probably Con+LD=315 would prove unviable quickly enough too).
If Lloyds shares are likely to yield more than 2% pa over the next 5 years then, presumably, the govt is worse off as a result of selling them. And even more so if the share price also rises.
Turning an asset into cash is not usually a good idea in a low interest environment.
Well some historical debt may be being paid at higher rate (witness war loan which was 3.5% before being paid out) - but the problem is that the Government HAS to sell the shares as they are bound by EU rules.
Angela Eagle and Nigel Farage both did well with Andrew Neil just now. He's a tough questioner but they both kept their cool and gave articulate answers that will have resonated with their target audiences.
Angela Eagle and Nigel Farage both did well with Andrew Neil just now. He's a tough questioner but they both kept their cool and gave articulate answers that will have resonated with their target audiences.
Only 0.47% of the population can listen to Angela Eagles for 60 seconds without changing channel....
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.
UKIP won the 2014 EU Parliament election. They got more votes in a national election than either the Conservative or Labour parties. The LDs have never done that.
Re: approval numbers. I don't think the negative numbers are relevant. Only the positive numbers are associated with voting behaviour.
YouGov's Feb 2015 'would consider voting for' question put LDs/Greens/UKIP in a similar bracket ~25% of the public. Lab/Con were ~40%.
I think the negative figures matter a great deal in a FPTP election. Few seats are won with less than 30% of the vote, and even that only wins in 3 way marginals.
I think that UKIP will get 20% of votes in a dozen or so seats and win fewer than the fingers on one hand.
I also think the negative voting will have a similar effect on the LDs. Too many people want to punish us, and it only when we see what minority government looks like that we will see attitudes to coalition change.
That can only work where there is a clear two horse race. I can't think of any seats that are clearly UKIP vs not-UKIP.
Your 'not-UKIP' candidate will then also push not-Party_X voters _to_ UKIP.
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.
UKIP won the 2014 EU Parliament election. They got more votes in a national election than either the Conservative or Labour parties. The LDs have never done that.
Re: approval numbers. I don't think the negative numbers are relevant. Only the positive numbers are associated with voting behaviour.
YouGov's Feb 2015 'would consider voting for' question put LDs/Greens/UKIP in a similar bracket ~25% of the public. Lab/Con were ~40%.
I think the negative figures matter a great deal in a FPTP election. Few seats are won with less than 30% of the vote, and even that only wins in 3 way marginals.
I think that UKIP will get 20% of votes in a dozen or so seats and win fewer than the fingers on one hand.
I also think the negative voting will have a similar effect on the LDs. Too many people want to punish us, and it only when we see what minority government looks like that we will see attitudes to coalition change.
That can only work where there is a clear two horse race.
I can't think of any seats that are clearly UKIP vs not-UKIP.
Your 'not-UKIP' candidate will then also push not-Con/Lab/LD voters _to_ UKIP.
So long as UKIP does not develop the same antipathy that the Front National suffers from in France.
Angela Eagle and Nigel Farage both did well with Andrew Neil just now. He's a tough questioner but they both kept their cool and gave articulate answers that will have resonated with their target audiences.
Farage did better than Eagle.
Victoria Ayling (UKIP Grimsby PPC) losing it on air on Sunday Politics Yorks and Lincs. Dreadful.
Labour Candidate good, but looks like still at Uni.
WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.
WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.
Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.
Angela Eagle and Nigel Farage both did well with Andrew Neil just now. He's a tough questioner but they both kept their cool and gave articulate answers that will have resonated with their target audiences.
Only 0.47% of the population can listen to Angela Eagles for 60 seconds without changing channel....
I know what you mean about her voice. But that might be a male reaction. My wife, who is a LibDem, was very impressed by her and thought she would make a good PM!
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.
UKIP won the 2014 EU Parliament election. They got more votes in a national election than either the Conservative or Labour parties. The LDs have never done that.
Re: approval numbers. I don't think the negative numbers are relevant. Only the positive numbers are associated with voting behaviour.
YouGov's Feb 2015 'would consider voting for' question put LDs/Greens/UKIP in a similar bracket ~25% of the public. Lab/Con were ~40%.
I think the negative figures matter a great deal in a FPTP election. Few seats are won with less than 30% of the vote, and even that only wins in 3 way marginals.
I think that UKIP will get 20% of votes in a dozen or so seats and win fewer than the fingers on one hand.
I also think the negative voting will have a similar effect on the LDs. Too many people want to punish us, and it only when we see what minority government looks like that we will see attitudes to coalition change.
There have been five instances since of a candidate winning with less than 30% of the vote, of which three were in Scotland and one in Northern Ireland (Norwich South, 2010 is the other).
If Lloyds shares are likely to yield more than 2% pa over the next 5 years then, presumably, the govt is worse off as a result of selling them. And even more so if the share price also rises.
Turning an asset into cash is not usually a good idea in a low interest environment.
Well some historical debt may be being paid at higher rate (witness war loan which was 3.5% before being paid out) - but the problem is that the Government HAS to sell the shares as they are bound by EU rules.
If Lloyds shares are likely to yield more than 2% pa over the next 5 years then, presumably, the govt is worse off as a result of selling them. And even more so if the share price also rises.
Turning an asset into cash is not usually a good idea in a low interest environment.
Simplistic. The government borrows at 2% or less at the moment because everyone pretty much everywhere outside Greece is relaxed about sovereign debt. I don't need to go all Hunchman to suggest that might not always be the case.
If it ceases to be the case those shares are likely to prove to be worth considerably less than they are right now. In other words both can go the same way for the same reasons, like a related contingency. Governments should not be in the banking business except in extremis. They should sell.
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.
UKIP won the 2014 EU Parliament election. They got more votes in a national election than either the Conservative or Labour parties. The LDs have never done that.
Re: approval numbers. I don't think the negative numbers are relevant. Only the positive numbers are associated with voting behaviour.
YouGov's Feb 2015 'would consider voting for' question put LDs/Greens/UKIP in a similar bracket ~25% of the public. Lab/Con were ~40%.
I think the negative figures matter a great deal in a FPTP election. Few seats are won with less than 30% of the vote, and even that only wins in 3 way marginals.
I think that UKIP will get 20% of votes in a dozen or so seats and win fewer than the fingers on one hand.
I also think the negative voting will have a similar effect on the LDs. Too many people want to punish us, and it only when we see what minority government looks like that we will see attitudes to coalition change.
That can only work where there is a clear two horse race.
I can't think of any seats that are clearly UKIP vs not-UKIP.
Your 'not-UKIP' candidate will then also push not-Con/Lab/LD voters _to_ UKIP.
So long as UKIP does not develop the same antipathy that the Front National suffers from in France.
1. UKIP and FN are different fish. 2. I believe in France the other parties push their supporters towards the not-FN candidate, if the election moves to a 2nd round.
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.
UKIP won the 2014 EU Parliament election. They got more votes in a national election than either the Conservative or Labour parties. The LDs have never done that.
Re: approval numbers. I don't think the negative numbers are relevant. Only the positive numbers are associated with voting behaviour.
YouGov's Feb 2015 'would consider voting for' question put LDs/Greens/UKIP in a similar bracket ~25% of the public. Lab/Con were ~40%.
I think the negative figures matter a great deal in a FPTP election. Few seats are won with less than 30% of the vote, and even that only wins in 3 way marginals.
I think that UKIP will get 20% of votes in a dozen or so seats and win fewer than the fingers on one hand.
I also think the negative voting will have a similar effect on the LDs. Too many people want to punish us, and it only when we see what minority government looks like that we will see attitudes to coalition change.
There have been five instances since of a candidate winning with less than 30% of the vote, of which three were in Scotland and one in Northern Ireland (Norwich South, 2010 is the other).
I think that less than 30% only wins in 4 way marginals.
Sell UKIP in Grimsby. Labour to win, they have an excellent local candidate. Skewered Ayling over Farage attending only 1 of 42 fishing committees in the EU parliament. Ayling may get the fishwife vote.
Yesterday I flew to Beijing and just before I got on the plane there was great excitement about some moves to the Tories in the betting markets. To save me a long scroll, has anything turned up to explain that?
In other news, I actually saw some blue sky in Beijing today and was able to sit outside and have a beer. That is not a usual thing, believe me. This is not a nice place.
One thing we can say with more certainty in terms of the electoral system we have is that the SNP's likely performance in Scotland demonstrates that the notion of the 'safe seat for life' with FPTP has a rather larger element of myth to it than reality. As I consistently argue, there is no such thing as a safe seat if you have a popular message, popular messenger and a sympathetic political environment. Indeed I wonder if the problem is less the electoral system we have and more the politicians/political parties!
Bumper 16-poll ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week), week-ending 19th April (sample 19,596)
Lab 34.1 (-0.3) Con 33.6 (+0.5) UKIP 13.5 (-0.2) LD 8.1 (-0.1) Green 5.2 (+0.3)
Lab lead 0.5 (-0.7)
* Tories cut last week's Lab lead by more than half * UKIP slow decline continues after a brief pause last week * LDs down slightly but first time above 8.0% for two consecutive weeks since August * Greens above 5% for first time in three weeks
Mr. Observer, when I was in Beijing (around summer 2001) there was scarcely a cloud to be seen, and it was 40C. Bloody unpleasant, to be honest. I'm not fond of heat.
Mr. Observer, when I was in Beijing (around summer 2001) there was scarcely a cloud to be seen, and it was 40C. Bloody unpleasant, to be honest. I'm not fond of heat.
Beijing heat is horrible. Last time I was here in the summer it hit 40 degrees just about every day and the sky was thick was smog. The humidity was just horrific and the traffic was not moving as there was some kind of summit going on. Sitting in an non-air-conditioned car in a traffic jam during the height of a summer heavy with pollution is hell.
Mr. Observer, aye, the air quality is sub-British (as was Shanghai). To be honest, I was more perturbed by the number of limbless beggars in the underpasses used to traverse the wide roads around the capital [all of whom had magically vanished, it seems, when the Olympics took place].
On the other hand, the Great Wall was definitely worth seeing.
The Pollsters Regional Swing Averages (subsample based)
The South – all Con to Lab 11.7: Ipsos Mori (six poll average) 7.5: ICM (last six) 6.6 Ashcroft (last six – excl SW) 6.5 Yougov (last 10) 5.5 Populus (last 6 -excl SW) 5.4 Comres (last 6)
Bumper 16-poll ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week), week-ending 19th April (sample 19,596)
Lab 34.1 (-0.3) Con 33.6 (+0.5) UKIP 13.5 (-0.2) LD 8.1 (-0.1) Green 5.2 (+0.3)
Lab lead 0.5 (-0.7)
* Tories cut last week's Lab lead by more than half * UKIP slow decline continues after a brief pause last week * LDs down slightly but first time above 8.0% for two consecutive weeks since August * Greens above 5% for first time in three weeks
Looks like Lab's lead through Easter week has largely unraveled.
Next week (this week?) will be critical to see whether Con can press on and get back into the lead...
WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.
WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.
Sky isn't part of the civil service, so purdah doesn't apply. The rules of balanced coverage apply, and I'm sure they will allow other parties to appeal for votes too. I'm not clear what you think the problem is here.
Poster watch. I'm in the Lake District and the overwhelming posters are the golden diamond "Winning Here". One or two blue ones in Bowness. No reds yet
The Pollsters Regional Swing Averages (subsample based)
The South – all Con to Lab 11.7: Ipsos Mori (six poll average) 7.5: ICM (last six) 6.6 Ashcroft (last six – excl SW) 6.5 Yougov (last 10) 5.5 Populus (last 6 -excl SW) 5.4 Comres (last 6)
North 4.0 Populus 3.6 Yougov 2.8 Ipsos Mori 2.8 Comres 2.3 Ashcroft 1.5 ICM
Scotland – Lab to Con 13.2 Ipsos 13.2 Comres 10.7 Ashcroft 10.0 ICM 8.1 Opinium 7.5 Populus 7.5 Yougov
The Scotland Lab to Con swing is misleading although arithmetically correct.
Con has stayed basically unchanged in Scotland whereas the Lab vote has switched 25-35% to the SNP. If you then compare Con with Lab share you get a big Lab swing to Con but it doesn't mean any Labs are voting Con!
Bumper 16-poll ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week), week-ending 19th April (sample 19,596)
Lab 34.1 (-0.3) Con 33.6 (+0.5) UKIP 13.5 (-0.2) LD 8.1 (-0.1) Green 5.2 (+0.3)
Lab lead 0.5 (-0.7)
* Tories cut last week's Lab lead by more than half * UKIP slow decline continues after a brief pause last week * LDs down slightly but first time above 8.0% for two consecutive weeks since August * Greens above 5% for first time in three weeks
Looks like Lab's lead through Easter week has largely unraveled.
Next week (this week?) will be critical to see whether Con can press on and get back into the lead...
If Lloyds shares are likely to yield more than 2% pa over the next 5 years then, presumably, the govt is worse off as a result of selling them. And even more so if the share price also rises.
Turning an asset into cash is not usually a good idea in a low interest environment.
Well some historical debt may be being paid at higher rate (witness war loan which was 3.5% before being paid out) - but the problem is that the Government HAS to sell the shares as they are bound by EU rules.
Plus once sold the shares are then taxed.
Well the dividends certainly are and also any capital gains (unless you are sensible enough to shelter them in an ISA - but these days that is probably regarded as being dodgy tax avoidance)
Still leaves the problem with RBS - formerly a large bank attached to a small country.
WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.
WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.
Leaving aside your quaint misinterpretation of "purdah", why should Murnaghan have stopped her? The TV stations have to give broad balance, not challenge every statement made by a candidate. Besides, it's an opinion.
Mr Blair is being paid to advise the Colombian government on how it spends £2 billion earned from mining deals.
The contract, obtained by The Telegraph, reveals that the Colombian government does not pay any fees for his services. Instead, the fees owed to Tony Blair Associates (TBA), Mr Blair’s consultancy firm, are paid for by an oil-rich Gulf state where Mr Blair has developed close links.
The deal raises questions over Mr Blair’s role as a Middle East peace envoy and whether he has used that position to befriend wealthy rulers in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), who are now funding his private consultancy work in Colombia, among other countries.
Not sure the Conservatives will be that overjoyed with the news that they have come top in one survey: the Polifiller.com cliché counter.
Polifiller.com have gone through the major parties manifestos to check for the presence of buzzwords ( as submitted to us by political correspondents, editors and opinion formers). Here’s the league table so far: Conservatives 200 clichés Labour 58 clichés UKIP 51 clichés Greens 49 clichés Plaid Cymru 48 clichés Liberal Democrats 44 clichés SNP yet to publish According to Profiler the Conservative manifesto features ‘long term economic plan’ while there was a return for the ‘Big Society’. ‘Balance the books’ and ‘those at the top’ feature prominently in the Labour manifesto. ‘Real change’, ‘the people’, ‘foreign criminals’ and ‘metropolitan elite’ appear frequently in the UKIP manifesto. The Greens’ clichés of choice are ‘long term plan’, ‘Westminster bubble’, ‘bottom up’ and ‘vested interests’. Plaid Cymru favour ‘the people’, ‘our people’ and ‘stand on their own two feet’. The Liberal Democrats include ‘package of measures’, ‘those who need it’, ‘there is more to do’, and ‘a return to boom and bust’.
This is the important stuff the UK politicians ignore.
Is Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil), close to Europe via its growth in Libya, the greatest threat to global stability? Or is China's rise more to be feared than Vladimir Putin's involvement in the Ukraine crisis?
The World Economic Forum annually produces its list of the threats the world faces and at the top of this year's list was state conflict. So what are the threats to global stability that should really worry us, according to specialists in conflict studies?
The following is a list of what current and former academics at the Department of War Studies at King's College London believe to be the areas of most concern:
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.
UKIP won the 2014 EU Parliament election. They got more votes in a national election than either the Conservative or Labour parties. The LDs have never done that.
Re: approval numbers. I don't think the negative numbers are relevant. Only the positive numbers are associated with voting behaviour.
YouGov's Feb 2015 'would consider voting for' question put LDs/Greens/UKIP in a similar bracket ~25% of the public. Lab/Con were ~40%.
I think the negative figures matter a great deal in a FPTP election. Few seats are won with less than 30% of the vote, and even that only wins in 3 way marginals.
I think that UKIP will get 20% of votes in a dozen or so seats and win fewer than the fingers on one hand.
I also think the negative voting will have a similar effect on the LDs. Too many people want to punish us, and it only when we see what minority government looks like that we will see attitudes to coalition change.
That can only work where there is a clear two horse race.
I can't think of any seats that are clearly UKIP vs not-UKIP.
Your 'not-UKIP' candidate will then also push not-Con/Lab/LD voters _to_ UKIP.
So long as UKIP does not develop the same antipathy that the Front National suffers from in France.
1. UKIP and FN are different fish. 2. I believe in France the other parties push their supporters towards the not-FN candidate, if the election moves to a 2nd round.
Saw a clip of Cameron on Marr [replayed on Sunday Politics].
Cameron talked about using the Lloyds' shares money to pay down debt. Leaving aside that it's paying off debt, that's just wrong. Unless he thinks he's going to get £90bn plus and run an actual surplus due to the sale. It's making a tiny dent in the deficit.
Not a Cameron-only problem, but the media ought to be pointing out when politicians talk tosh.
Pay off debt means there is none left. Pay down debt means that you are reducing it by the amount paid back (???) The standard way of giving the debt figures is net of the (hopefully) temporary bank bail outs. I do not think the £160bn deficit inherited from Labour included the bank bail outs. So Cameron is being both correct and sensible in the use of language.
The Conservatives have hammered home two crucial messages over the last five years - economic credibility and the strength of David Cameron's leadership, the FT's Janan Ganesh thinks. But suddenly they've abandoned that and starting making big generous promises and that may scare more people than it wins over, he thinks. Nick Watt agrees it's "dangerous territory" to throw some giveaways in so late, because as Tory strategist Lynton Crosby is meant to be keen on saying, "you can't fatten a pig on market day."
Yes, the WTF reaction among some Tory voters is very evident, though they are far too polite to put it like that. I've not actually met anyone who cited the sudden £8bn "discovered" for the NHS approvingly - people simply don't believe it, and think it casts doubt on the overall strategy.
One aspect of a post-May7th government not much mentioned is the role of the House of Lords. At present the composition is Con 224, Lab 215, LD 103, Cross 179, Bishops 26, Other 36. This means that the Coalition has almost a working majority. If we have a minority Lab government ( with or without tacit SNP support) it would be massively outvoted in the Lords. The Salisbury Convention argues that the Lords will not oppose on 2nd or 3rd reading any bill which was included in the governing party's manifesto. But would this still apply? It could mean that no legislation opposed by the Conservatives and the Lib Dems would be passed.
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.
UKIP won the 2014 EU Parliament election. They got more votes in a national election than either the Conservative or Labour parties. The LDs have never done that.
Re: approval numbers. I don't think the negative numbers are relevant. Only the positive numbers are associated with voting behaviour.
YouGov's Feb 2015 'would consider voting for' question put LDs/Greens/UKIP in a similar bracket ~25% of the public. Lab/Con were ~40%.
I think the negative figures matter a great deal in a FPTP election. Few seats are won with less than 30% of the vote, and even that only wins in 3 way marginals.
I think that UKIP will get 20% of votes in a dozen or so seats and win fewer than the fingers on one hand.
I also think the negative voting will have a similar effect on the LDs. Too many people want to punish us, and it only when we see what minority government looks like that we will see attitudes to coalition change.
That can only work where there is a clear two horse race.
I can't think of any seats that are clearly UKIP vs not-UKIP.
Your 'not-UKIP' candidate will then also push not-Con/Lab/LD voters _to_ UKIP.
So long as UKIP does not develop the same antipathy that the Front National suffers from in France.
1. UKIP and FN are different fish. 2. I believe in France the other parties push their supporters towards the not-FN candidate, if the election moves to a 2nd round.
Actually they are quite similar.
Actually they are not. As anyone who knows the history of each party would know.
Yesterday I flew to Beijing and just before I got on the plane there was great excitement about some moves to the Tories in the betting markets. To save me a long scroll, has anything turned up to explain that?
In other news, I actually saw some blue sky in Beijing today and was able to sit outside and have a beer. That is not a usual thing, believe me. This is not a nice place.
I think it is more and more people piling on the SNP seats rather any innate improvement in the Tory prospects as a whole.
Hi all. For once I agree with TSE that a grand coalition will be the only viable alternative to chaos after the election results are all added up. Though it will be a disaster for the Tories and labour as the populace see them both as all the same party, as UKIP have been saying all along.
It will be an even bigger disaster for the British people, to be ruled by a Miliband Cameron duo. The very thought of it sends shivers all up and down my spine. But then I smile as I can imagine them both tearing each others hair out at the cabinet table. Will £1 coin be tossed in the air for PM?
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015
You've also made the constituencies larger 5 rather than 3 which is what I would expect, to make them manageable in size.
The displacement of peoples through the war torn countries of Africa and Asia into northern Africa is a global problem. The vast numbers flooding into Italy, threatening the social cohesion of Italy (and other countries) is a problem for Europe. How will Europe cope if Italy turns fascist? it has form. The news of these great tragedies with hundreds drowning barely flickers on RaiUno telenews. There again, the Somme was only reported on page 3 of the Manchester Guardian, and then only given a paragraph.
In 1939 the UK mobilised over 50% of it's GDP to deal with a global problem. Germany invading Poland didn't directly affect us, but Churchill and others knew that Nazism represented an existential threat to Europe.
Where are the Churchills now in Europe or the USA? The conflicts in Africa and Asia are displaying huge swathes of populations that will impact across Europe, rupturing social networks, creating fear and hatred. The thousands dying off the seas off Italy are not going to deter them.
After displacing Gaddaffi we left a failed state with close proximity to Europe. We all know about Iraq and what is happening there. These conflicts, and the others infecting through Africa have profound consequences for us in Europe.
Tigan and Abdullah want to go home. They want to go back to a country which is safe and secure and capable of building prosperity.
The 0.7% GDP for oversees AID and 2% for defence discussions are nonsense. Instead of putting our head in the sands, as Chamberlain, hoping for things to die down, they just get worse. The West needs to mobilise it's immense resources and use the levers of soft and hard power to bring stability into these hotspots- building infrastructure, training healthcare staff and bureaucrats on one side, and yes, using military intervention on the other. And to pull out, only when the job is done.
Mr. Tyson, whilst I agree we [speaking broadly] should assist Italy, World War Two this is not.
The constitutional position is that the PM is the PM until he or she resigns, which can happen at any time. An outgoing PM may recommend a successor but is under no duty to do so and the Queen is under no duty to act on that advice. Ultimately, the appointment of a PM remains a royal prerogative. The case is sometimes asserted about Macmillan manipulating Home into position against Butler and recommending the peer to HM but the point is that this was far from his only manipulation in the case: he, and his allies, had already squared the Conservative Party to that outcome before going to the Palace.
There is no requirement for any politician to petition the Queen to form a government. If the sitting one wins, he or she just carries on as before. If not, a resignation ensues and the Queen will then call - at her discretion, though after taking appropriate soundings - someone else to form a government. Indeed, in the most recent instance, Cameron had not finished negotiations with the Lib Dems when he was commissioned to form a government. He would almost certainly have preferred to wait until the next day to be asked but didn't have the chance as Brown resigned, prompting his summons.
If we end up with a situation where Cameron (and implicitly, any other Tory) cannot form a government then HM is in the easy position of calling Miliband. She has no reason to delay.
Meanwhile - any thoughts on why BOTH Miliband and Cameron have appealed to supporters of other parties directly?
I think you miss the point that in the 1930s Churchill was in the wilderness and considered a dangerous trouble maker by the main parties. I have no real idea who the modern day Churchill is and he or she could come from any number of leading European states, not just the UK. But the chances are they will not be one of the current leaders of those countries because, just as in the 1930s those leaders are too much a part of the problem and their history of inaction makes them incapable of taking whatever radical action might be necessary.
I am all for spending on foreign aid and defence as you suggest, but the Middle East needs to sort itself out. The history of Western intervention there is lamentable. Even the best intentions such as Libya wind up with good deeds being punished.
The root of social conflict is economic failure, and the economic history of Islamic countries is one of failure. The successful ones such as post Ottoman Turkey are due to secularisation. Until the peoples of the Middle East seperate mosque and state they will have economic failure and none of the liberties that we enjoy.
I have no problems taking in refugees provided they adopt our ways rather than trying to bring with them the attitudes that caused their own states to fail. Huegenots, Jews and Ugandan Asians all did this, but Somali and Arab jihadis - no thanks!
WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.
Because the FTPA means they can.
Happens in lots of countries.
Repeat after me. Fixed-Term Parliaments Act.
What I am trying to say is that this is not the time to put our hands in the sand and expect it to go away. Europe is encountering the biggest exodus since the world war with profound implications for us all, underpinned by this undercurrent of fascist Islam publicised through these conflicts infecting our own populations.
Lampedusa is not just Italy's problem; Lampedusa represents only a small part of the global shockwaves caused by these spreading conflicts . And Europe needs another Churchill that can persuade it's people that intervention is necessary on a massive scale.
Can you honestly predict where this upheaval is leading too? Let's hope it doesn't move into a major global conflict, but do we know? 0.7% and 2% spends for aid and defence are probably OK for peacetime. But could we consider the current circumstances peacetime?
Admittedly there's a Holyrood dimension to the power politics here too.
Ed Miliband = Robert Baratheon
Nicola Sturgeon = Tywin Lannister.
What price John Woodcock, Frank Field, Kate Hoey and Simon Danczuk to get stuck on trains if the numbers are tight for Dave though
The one issue we can do something about is the humanitarian disaster in the Mediterranean. Ultimately, people are going to keep on trying this dangerous crossing while they get rewarded if they succeed. We should do what Australia has done, and set up a processing centre somewher else. That stopped the boats and saved thousands of lives.
Daily and Sunday Politics
Posted at 11.18
The Conservatives have hammered home two crucial messages over the last five years - economic credibility and the strength of David Cameron's leadership, the FT's Janan Ganesh thinks. But suddenly they've abandoned that and starting making big generous promises and that may scare more people than it wins over, he thinks. Nick Watt agrees it's "dangerous territory" to throw some giveaways in so late, because as Tory strategist Lynton Crosby is meant to be keen on saying, "you can't fatten a pig on market day."
Re: approval numbers.
I don't think the negative numbers are relevant. Only the positive numbers are associated with voting behaviour.
YouGov's Feb 2015 'would consider voting for' question put LDs/Greens/UKIP in a similar bracket ~25% of the public. Lab/Con were ~40%.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/42tha4tjwo/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-270215.pdf
Much seems to have been made of the fact that the SNP wouldn't want to be seen to bring in the Tories before 2016. However in the run up to 2016 the SNP and Labour in Scotland will be locked in an almost existential battle ... the notion of stable and friendly government in Westminster between these parties during bitter battles for Holyrood seems implausible.
Furthermore after 2016 if the SNP get a second majority then the question becomes what best favours a Yes in a second referendum. Again a stable Labour+SNP government in Westminster doesn't achieve this aim. After a 2016 Holyrood referendum any reasonable excuse to 'scot-free' (pardon the pun) get rid of Labour and usher in the Tories helps the SNP cause. Perhaps a by-election or a manufactured controversial vote. This brings in the Tories and the SNP say Westminster doesn't work for Scotland, we need independence.
What reason does the SNP have to seriously work with Labour during the 2016 campaign or even more after the 2016 election?
The Italian and Maltese navies need to return the refugees to Libya rather than land them in the EU, so word gets round that the route does not work.
Recently I have heard some alarming stories from my Greek friends that some of their coastguard vessels swamp rather than rescue migrant boats when no one else is watching.
Cameron talked about using the Lloyds' shares money to pay down debt. Leaving aside that it's paying off debt, that's just wrong. Unless he thinks he's going to get £90bn plus and run an actual surplus due to the sale. It's making a tiny dent in the deficit.
Not a Cameron-only problem, but the media ought to be pointing out when politicians talk tosh.
Ed Miliband = Robert Baratheon
Nicola Sturgeon = Cersei Lannister
Alex Salmond = Tywin Lannister
Salmond will be the real power behind the throne following the wedding of Ed and Nicola.
I think that UKIP will get 20% of votes in a dozen or so seats and win fewer than the fingers on one hand.
I also think the negative voting will have a similar effect on the LDs. Too many people want to punish us, and it only when we see what minority government looks like that we will see attitudes to coalition change.
During the rest of the year debt will increase again due to the deficit.
If Lloyds shares are likely to yield more than 2% pa over the next 5 years then, presumably, the govt is worse off as a result of selling them. And even more so if the share price also rises.
Turning an asset into cash is not usually a good idea in a low interest environment.
Also, Salmond can't be Tywin. Tywin isn't bloody irritating.
[On that note, Charles Dance plays a king or emperor in The Witcher 3].
Your 'not-UKIP' candidate will then also push not-Party_X voters _to_ UKIP.
The net debt was 2.245tn in 2010, it's 1.78tn now.
When he says the debt has fallen, he's actually right.
Labour seem to have forgotten that they nationalised the bank debt and made the taxpayer liable.
I'm amazed this oversight goes unmentioned.
Victoria Ayling (UKIP Grimsby PPC) losing it on air on Sunday Politics Yorks and Lincs. Dreadful.
Labour Candidate good, but looks like still at Uni.
If it ceases to be the case those shares are likely to prove to be worth considerably less than they are right now. In other words both can go the same way for the same reasons, like a related contingency. Governments should not be in the banking business except in extremis. They should sell.
2. I believe in France the other parties push their supporters towards the not-FN candidate, if the election moves to a 2nd round.
Sell UKIP in Grimsby. Labour to win, they have an excellent local candidate. Skewered Ayling over Farage attending only 1 of 42 fishing committees in the EU parliament. Ayling may get the fishwife vote.
In other news, I actually saw some blue sky in Beijing today and was able to sit outside and have a beer. That is not a usual thing, believe me. This is not a nice place.
Bumper 16-poll ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week), week-ending 19th April (sample 19,596)
Lab 34.1 (-0.3)
Con 33.6 (+0.5)
UKIP 13.5 (-0.2)
LD 8.1 (-0.1)
Green 5.2 (+0.3)
Lab lead 0.5 (-0.7)
* Tories cut last week's Lab lead by more than half
* UKIP slow decline continues after a brief pause last week
* LDs down slightly but first time above 8.0% for two consecutive weeks since August
* Greens above 5% for first time in three weeks
On the other hand, the Great Wall was definitely worth seeing.
At least if you were in a car with no "aircon", you would have been producing less pollution to add to the problem?
The South – all Con to Lab
11.7: Ipsos Mori (six poll average)
7.5: ICM (last six)
6.6 Ashcroft (last six – excl SW)
6.5 Yougov (last 10)
5.5 Populus (last 6 -excl SW)
5.4 Comres (last 6)
Midlands (incl Wales)
6.8 Yougov
4.8 ICM (excl Wales)
4.5 ICM
4.0 Populus (excl Wales)
3.1 Ashcroft (excl wales)
3.0 ICM (Wales only)
2.9 Ipsos Mori
1.7 Comres
1.0 Opinium (Wales Only)
North
4.0 Populus
3.6 Yougov
2.8 Ipsos Mori
2.8 Comres
2.3 Ashcroft
1.5 ICM
Scotland – Lab to Con
13.2 Ipsos
13.2 Comres
10.7 Ashcroft
10.0 ICM
8.1 Opinium
7.5 Populus
7.5 Yougov
Next week (this week?) will be critical to see whether Con can press on and get back into the lead...
Con has stayed basically unchanged in Scotland whereas the Lab vote has switched 25-35% to the SNP. If you then compare Con with Lab share you get a big Lab swing to Con but it doesn't mean any Labs are voting Con!
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/589748381813239808
Still leaves the problem with RBS - formerly a large bank attached to a small country.
The contract, obtained by The Telegraph, reveals that the Colombian government does not pay any fees for his services. Instead, the fees owed to Tony Blair Associates (TBA), Mr Blair’s consultancy firm, are paid for by an oil-rich Gulf state where Mr Blair has developed close links.
The deal raises questions over Mr Blair’s role as a Middle East peace envoy and whether he has used that position to befriend wealthy rulers in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), who are now funding his private consultancy work in Colombia, among other countries.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/11547808/Revealed-how-Tony-Blair-makes-his-millions.html
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/589749837446434816
Not sure the Conservatives will be that overjoyed with the news that they have come top in one survey: the Polifiller.com cliché counter.
Polifiller.com have gone through the major parties manifestos to check for the presence of buzzwords ( as submitted to us by political correspondents, editors and opinion formers).
Here’s the league table so far:
Conservatives 200 clichés
Labour 58 clichés
UKIP 51 clichés
Greens 49 clichés
Plaid Cymru 48 clichés
Liberal Democrats 44 clichés
SNP yet to publish
According to Profiler the Conservative manifesto features ‘long term economic plan’ while there was a return for the ‘Big Society’.
‘Balance the books’ and ‘those at the top’ feature prominently in the Labour manifesto.
‘Real change’, ‘the people’, ‘foreign criminals’ and ‘metropolitan elite’ appear frequently in the UKIP manifesto.
The Greens’ clichés of choice are ‘long term plan’, ‘Westminster bubble’, ‘bottom up’ and ‘vested interests’.
Plaid Cymru favour ‘the people’, ‘our people’ and ‘stand on their own two feet’.
The Liberal Democrats include ‘package of measures’, ‘those who need it’, ‘there is more to do’, and ‘a return to boom and bust’.
Is Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil), close to Europe via its growth in Libya, the greatest threat to global stability? Or is China's rise more to be feared than Vladimir Putin's involvement in the Ukraine crisis?
The World Economic Forum annually produces its list of the threats the world faces and at the top of this year's list was state conflict. So what are the threats to global stability that should really worry us, according to specialists in conflict studies?
The following is a list of what current and former academics at the Department of War Studies at King's College London believe to be the areas of most concern:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/big-question-kcl/11544853/What-is-the-biggest-threat-facing-the-world-today.html
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/589750515367546881
Pay down debt means that you are reducing it by the amount paid back (???) The standard way of giving the debt figures is net of the (hopefully) temporary bank bail outs. I do not think the £160bn deficit inherited from Labour included the bank bail outs.
So Cameron is being both correct and sensible in the use of language.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/589751018029768705
It will be an even bigger disaster for the British people, to be ruled by a Miliband Cameron duo. The very thought of it sends shivers all up and down my spine. But then I smile as I can imagine them both tearing each others hair out at the cabinet table. Will £1 coin be tossed in the air for PM?