These websites are a disgrace and should be outlawed (if they are not already illegal) and shut down immediately. They are circumventing democracy in this country. Also no surprise to see the BBC promoting voteswap which is basically an anti-conservative website.
It's definitely time to accelerate plans to scrap the license fee altogether.
These website are a logical consequence of FPTP which renders most people's votes meaningless. That is what is really circumventing democracy.
Replace FPTP with a proper voting system and the websites will disappear.
That's a great idea.
Why don't you start a campaign, and we can have a vote in Parliament and then perhaps a referendum on changing the electoral system.
Until then, you should abide by the people's decision to retain FPTP. Otherwise you are saying that, because you don't like the system they chose, you are going to do something different. Unbelievable arrogance.
Vote swappers appear to be overlooking the small matter of legality. My Postal Poll Card informs me that "It is an offence to vote using a ballot paper that was not sent for your use or interfere with another voters ballot paper"
•In the financial year ending 2015, public sector net borrowing excluding public sector banks (PSNB ex) was £87.3 billion; a decrease of £11.1 billion compared with the same period in the financial year ending 2014. •In March 2015, PSNB ex was £7.4 billion; a decrease of £0.4 billion compared with March 2014.
Has anyone seen the data tables for Yougov relating to the Tom Newton Dunn tweet from a couple of days ago about two million potential Anti-SNP switchers?
Mr. NorthWales, one suspects Letts will not necessarily be pro-Palmer.
Mr. Fire, bit sleepy, and English does have a slight male bias (though no-one complains if a ship gets called 'she'). I probably would've written 'or woman' if I'd had more caffeine at the time.
Winning's winning whether it's by an inch or a mile. If I run 100m in 12s, I lose to Usain Bolt. If I run 100m in 3 days, I also lose to Bolt. The margin of victory is not relevant.
The argument that the most popular candidate winning is undemocratic is baffling. You can't just add up the totals of non-Conservatives voters and pretend that's an anti-Tory alliance.
What if it's 9k Labour, 8k Con and 5k Lib Dem. The 13k Con/Lib Dems don't get their chaps (or ladies) in. But so what? That's democracy. Get most votes, you win.
PR is the 'all must have prizes' compromise of electoral systems, which also shifts power from the people to the parties.
Morris, the weakness of FPTP is seen at the margins and in the campaigns. For David Cameron to win 100 extra votes in Witney will not benefit him one iota in the general election as a whole, since his own seat is as safe as can be. However, if he can win an extra 100 votes for the Tory candidate in Cannock Chase that could make a very big difference to the result of the election.
Thus any pretence at the election representing a national conversation is lost, as the parties rush to concentrate their efforts on the tiny sliver of the electorate who will make the difference between defeat and victory.
If you have a sensible PR system (and I grant you that some PR systems are not sensible) then Cameron is provided with the incentive to campaign in Manchester, rural Oxfordshire and the small towns of the Midlands, as extra votes almost anywhere have the potential to win him extra seats.
That's why I'm in favour of PR over FPTP, as those sorts of incentives matter.
These websites are a disgrace and should be outlawed (if they are not already illegal) and shut down immediately. They are circumventing democracy in this country. Also no surprise to see the BBC promoting voteswap which is basically an anti-conservative website.
It's definitely time to accelerate plans to scrap the license fee altogether.
These website are a logical consequence of FPTP which renders most people's votes meaningless. That is what is really circumventing democracy.
Replace FPTP with a proper voting system and the websites will disappear.
That's a great idea.
Why don't you start a campaign, and we can have a vote in Parliament and then perhaps a referendum on changing the electoral system.
Until then, you should abide by the people's decision to retain FPTP. Otherwise you are saying that, because you don't like the system they chose, you are going to do something different. Unbelievable arrogance.
You shouldn't be surprised that the "people's decision" to retain FPTP with all its flaws leads to some "people's decision" to exploit or try to circumvent those flaws.
Weren't you paying attention? We had a referrendum where the country chose between "AV" and "FPTP (Except that one bit that PB user Charles doesn't like)", and I think it returned a clear message.
Quite. If you don't want a system that offers strong strategic incentives to lie when you vote, choose something other than FPTP.
These websites are a disgrace and should be outlawed (if they are not already illegal) and shut down immediately. They are circumventing democracy in this country. Also no surprise to see the BBC promoting voteswap which is basically an anti-conservative website.
It's definitely time to accelerate plans to scrap the license fee altogether.
These website are a logical consequence of FPTP which renders most people's votes meaningless. That is what is really circumventing democracy.
Replace FPTP with a proper voting system and the websites will disappear.
That's a great idea.
Why don't you start a campaign, and we can have a vote in Parliament and then perhaps a referendum on changing the electoral system.
Until then, you should abide by the people's decision to retain FPTP. Otherwise you are saying that, because you don't like the system they chose, you are going to do something different. Unbelievable arrogance.
People voted not to switch to AV, not to endorse FPTP. If (as is seems highly plausible) we get results like Con Most Votes, Lab Most Seats and UKIP getting 1 or 0 seats on double the votes of the LibDems, expect the likes of the Daily Mail to develop a sudden appetite for electoral reform.
I meant empty threats- the 10 ten days to save the pound, now 10 day to save us from Salmond. Pathetic really, back of a postage stamp stuff.
I concur.
What's really frustrating is that the Tories have a decent record to put before voters, and should be talking with enthusiasm and freedom about what a Tory Majority govt might bring in the next sunnier 5 years free of the shackles of coalition.
It's not as if desperation is all they've got.
I would have to disagree. The other stuff was not breaking through to people all (this is one reason we have negative campaigning of course, because it has a better chance of doing so). There's no guarantee the SNP heavy line will work, but the other stuff certainly wasn't.
Tangential to that, it seems the most effective 'positive' campaigning is to say optimistic, vague or even unachievable things, then kick up a fuss about opponents being 'negative' when they attack your policies - that is, any attack on your policy is labelled as negative campaigning, even if your policy was crap and needed to be pointed out. It's genius really.
Has anyone seen the data tables for Yougov relating to the Tom Newton Dunn tweet from a couple of days ago about two million potential Anti-SNP switchers?
A full-length novel often takes a year (I've spent perhaps two and a half on Kingdom Asunder). Why the hell should other people make money off of my hard work or be able to offer it for free? It's despicable and indefensible, and how Mr. Antifrank thinks it'll encourage writers is beyond me.
Writing would become the preserve of the idle rich.
Mr. Antifrank, it's easy to harm people through severely curtailing copyright. It's rather more difficult to grow the magic money trees needed to throw an income at everyone in the country.
The main beneficiaries of extended copyright are a few remarkably wealthy individuals. For most writers it will make absolutely no difference at all.
As some are discussing birth places and dates may I just confirm, that despite the almost messiah like status that some attribute to my ARSE, that I was not born in a stable a very, very long time ago.
2 weeks out, still nothing through the door from the Tories or the Greens in my safe Tory seat. I'm guessing I'll get 1 this week and 1 a day or so from the election itself from the Tories, no need to waste resources sooner than that.
These websites are a disgrace and should be outlawed (if they are not already illegal) and shut down immediately. They are circumventing democracy in this country. Also no surprise to see the BBC promoting voteswap which is basically an anti-conservative website.
It's definitely time to accelerate plans to scrap the license fee altogether.
These website are a logical consequence of FPTP which renders most people's votes meaningless. That is what is really circumventing democracy.
Replace FPTP with a proper voting system and the websites will disappear.
That's a great idea.
Why don't you start a campaign, and we can have a vote in Parliament and then perhaps a referendum on changing the electoral system.
Until then, you should abide by the people's decision to retain FPTP. Otherwise you are saying that, because you don't like the system they chose, you are going to do something different. Unbelievable arrogance.
Vote swappers appear to be overlooking the small matter of legality. My Postal Poll Card informs me that "It is an offence to vote using a ballot paper that was not sent for your use or interfere with another voters ballot paper"
Idiot post of week. You are using your ballot paper and not interfering with anyone else's.
This should be fun - David Cameron to launch the conservatives first 'England manifesto' tomorrow
Haha, desperate times for desperate measures. On the hoof campaigning- doubtless Osborne typed the thing up in a blind panic last night.
If Cameron loses, it'll be interesting what comes out in the wash of this ramshackle of a campaign. I bet that Cameron would not support an Osborne leadership bid, not in a million years.
I think Cameron, away from the malign grip of Osborne, will come out as a decent, thoughtful and non partisan character who will stand above politics. Osborne on the other hand will crawl under some moss infested stone where he belongs.
I don't think there's any bad blood between Cameron and Osborne.
It is effectively this table which has had me calling this election for a Labour plurality since Christmas. As Mike has repeatedly pointed out Labour got absolutely hammered in England in 2010 (well he didn't quite put it that way) being 11.4% behind on the popular vote. With the best will in the world it is difficult to see that lead being more than 5% this time, probably less.
That involves a swing to Labour of 3.2% giving Labour just over 40 gains. And that is as good as it gets. On current polling target 66 Harlow probably goes (it may go anyway given the stronger Labour performance in that region). Even with gains from the Lib Dems that has the Tories struggling to get into the 260s and only the disaster in Scotland stopping Labour from having an absolute majority.
Given the declared approach of the SNP that means Ed will indeed be PM. I am really struggling to see any other result.
Harlow looks safe for the Conservatives. 40 losses to Labour, a couple to UKIP, and a dozen gains from the Lib Dems put the Conservatives on c. 275.
But, small shifts in vote share could move this number up or down.
I suggested yesterday that 80 per cent of Scots would be offended by the Mail's kilted portrayal of Salmond on their front page today.
Some PBers I thought rather ungraciously, but not atypically, said couldn't care less about antagonising the Scots.
I note that the tartan edition of the paper carries the story on the front page but has dropped the kilt so to speak. I this means suspect even the Mail is concerned that it may go too far in teeing off the jocks!
I have spent a good deal of my life living and wroking in England. The English people impressed by Scot-bashing aint going to vote Labour anyway. The Scots will take the hint and vote SNP in ever greater numbers.
The only thing required to make this a total Tory rout is for Labour to stop acting so damn defensively and embrace the democratic choice of the electorate and challange the others to do the same.
Apparently the Tower Hamlets election judgement is this morning- hopefully we wont see an official endorsement/acceptance of third world 'democratic' practices!
These websites are a disgrace and should be outlawed (if they are not already illegal) and shut down immediately. They are circumventing democracy in this country. Also no surprise to see the BBC promoting voteswap which is basically an anti-conservative website.
It's definitely time to accelerate plans to scrap the license fee altogether.
These website are a logical consequence of FPTP which renders most people's votes meaningless. That is what is really circumventing democracy.
Replace FPTP with a proper voting system and the websites will disappear.
That's a great idea.
Why don't you start a campaign, and we can have a vote in Parliament and then perhaps a referendum on changing the electoral system.
Until then, you should abide by the people's decision to retain FPTP. Otherwise you are saying that, because you don't like the system they chose, you are going to do something different. Unbelievable arrogance.
Yet another post that makes just as much sense applied to tactical voting as it does vote swapping.
Tactical voting is different, because you are voting in your own constituency.
I find it a little depressing that someone has such a negative world view that they would vote to keep someone out rather than vote for their true preference, but they are entitled to do that if they want.
It's the subversion of the constituency principle that's the issue: the bloke in Bedford, for example, is diluting the unfettered right of the people of Twickenham to choose their own representative in Parliament.
Mike is not voting in Twickenham
(Repeated for those PBers with a temporary loss of faculties)
Owen Smith is the son of Dai Smith, the chair of the Welsh Arts Council. His website describes himself as "brought up in Pontypridd", and he was the producer of the main BBC Wales political programme 'Dragons Eye'.
Do you have to be literally born down the pot noodle mines before you can claim a 'connection' to Wales?
Yes, it's a ridiculous claim. Personally, I have absolutely no connection with Wales apart from the fact that I was born there (we moved before my second birthday).
Equally I was born and raised in England, but all my family are Welsh, so when it comes to Rugby I wear the Wales shirt with pride.
YBarddCwsc would probably have me chucked out the Millennium stadium for not being 'pure Welsh'.
My father was born in Wales, and my family lived there (and Liverpool) for hundreds of years. But I guess that wouldn't be good enough either
These websites are a disgrace and should be outlawed (if they are not already illegal) and shut down immediately. They are circumventing democracy in this country. Also no surprise to see the BBC promoting voteswap which is basically an anti-conservative website.
It's definitely time to accelerate plans to scrap the license fee altogether.
These website are a logical consequence of FPTP which renders most people's votes meaningless. That is what is really circumventing democracy.
Replace FPTP with a proper voting system and the websites will disappear.
That's a great idea.
Why don't you start a campaign, and we can have a vote in Parliament and then perhaps a referendum on changing the electoral system.
Until then, you should abide by the people's decision to retain FPTP. Otherwise you are saying that, because you don't like the system they chose, you are going to do something different. Unbelievable arrogance.
Yet another post that makes just as much sense applied to tactical voting as it does vote swapping.
Tactical voting is different, because you are voting in your own constituency.
I find it a little depressing that someone has such a negative world view that they would vote to keep someone out rather than vote for their true preference, but they are entitled to do that if they want.
It's the subversion of the constituency principle that's the issue: the bloke in Bedford, for example, is diluting the unfettered right of the people of Twickenham to choose their own representative in Parliament.
Mike is not voting in Twickenham
(Repeated for those PBers with a temporary loss of faculties)
Must be off, but at the moment I'm thinking 40+ gains from the Tories for Labour. Maybe 270 or so for the Tories total, 280 or so for Labour, maybe a bit more if the long assumed but lacking in evidence understatement of the Tories in the polls does not materialise on GE day.
Mr. Antifrank, two points: 1) The very wealthy writers [sticking with that theme] are very successful. Good for them. Why should I be able to read books for free just because I'm jealous of someone's success? Prosperity is something to be celebrated, not curtailed. 2) I deserve to get paid for the work I've done. I'm not charging huge amounts. Why you think the fruits of my labour should be noshed on by every greedy bugger unwilling to fork out a few pounds for the years of work I've put in is utterly beyond me.
These websites are a disgrace and should be outlawed (if they are not already illegal) and shut down immediately. They are circumventing democracy in this country. Also no surprise to see the BBC promoting voteswap which is basically an anti-conservative website.
It's definitely time to accelerate plans to scrap the license fee altogether.
These website are a logical consequence of FPTP which renders most people's votes meaningless. That is what is really circumventing democracy.
Replace FPTP with a proper voting system and the websites will disappear.
That's a great idea.
Why don't you start a campaign, and we can have a vote in Parliament and then perhaps a referendum on changing the electoral system.
Until then, you should abide by the people's decision to retain FPTP. Otherwise you are saying that, because you don't like the system they chose, you are going to do something different. Unbelievable arrogance.
You shouldn't be surprised that the "people's decision" to retain FPTP with all its flaws leads to some "people's decision" to exploit or try to circumvent those flaws.
I'm not surprised, I just think it's wrong.
Part of being a society is that you abide by the rules set by society. The people voted clearly (in a suboptimal forced choice) to retain FPTP. So those are rules. If you don't like them get them changed. Just don't subvert them.
These websites are a disgrace and should be outlawed (if they are not already illegal) and shut down immediately. They are circumventing democracy in this country. Also no surprise to see the BBC promoting voteswap which is basically an anti-conservative website.
It's definitely time to accelerate plans to scrap the license fee altogether.
These website are a logical consequence of FPTP which renders most people's votes meaningless. That is what is really circumventing democracy.
Replace FPTP with a proper voting system and the websites will disappear.
That's a great idea.
Why don't you start a campaign, and we can have a vote in Parliamence.
Yet another post that makes just as much sense applied to tactical voting as it does vote swapping.
Tactical voting is different, because you are voting in your own constitueTwickenham to choose their own representative in Parliament.
Mike is not voting in Twickenham
(Repeated for those PBers with a temporary loss of faculties)
Voting by proxy is a strictly defined thing I believe, that is not what Mike is doing. Someone else is voting there, and for their own reasons have decided to take Mike's wishes on who to vote for as their primary decider in how to vote, with Mike reciprocating. Leaves a sour taste in the mouth, but that is not voting by proxy.
I remain baffled at how someone in a constituency voting themselves, even if influenced by someone outside it, is diluting the rights of the other people in that constituency somehow. It's still the constituency person casting their vote as they choose. I think they are using the wrong way to decide how to vote, but it's still not the person outside the constituency doing the voting, no matter how many times people claim it is.
I hope this issue can be clarified in law. Either it should be prohibited, or we have to accept if people can do it, some will.
On copyright, extended copyright has been taken too far, the Disney approach as people have termed it, but there does need to be a reasonably significant time allotted for people to make money of their own works.
I suggested yesterday that 80 per cent of Scots would be offended by the Mail's kilted portrayal of Salmond on their front page today.
I have spent a good deal of my life living and wroking in England. The English people impressed by Scot-bashing aint going to vote Labour anyway. The Scots will take the hint and vote SNP in ever greater numbers.
Chuckle - perhaps you should have patented the attacks which the Nats have used to kill Slab - now the Cons are using them on ELab - to similar effect.
These websites are a disgrace and should be outlawed (if they are not already illegal) and shut down immediately. They are circumventing democracy in this country. Also no surprise to see the BBC promoting voteswap which is basically an anti-conservative website.
It's definitely time to accelerate plans to scrap the license fee altogether.
These website are a logical consequence of FPTP which renders most people's votes meaningless. That is what is really circumventing democracy.
Replace FPTP with a proper voting system and the websites will disappear.
That's a great idea.
Why don't you start a campaign, and we can have a vote in Parliament and then perhaps a referendum on changing the electoral system.
Until then, you should abide by the people's decision to retain FPTP. Otherwise you are saying that, because you don't like the system they chose, you are going to do something different. Unbelievable arrogance.
Vote swappers appear to be overlooking the small matter of legality. My Postal Poll Card informs me that "It is an offence to vote using a ballot paper that was not sent for your use or interfere with another voters ballot paper"
Idiot post of week. You are using your ballot paper and not interfering with anyone else's.
You've just decided to vote differently...
It was my understanding that OGH was planning to physically exchange his postal ballot, but I may of misunderstood the situation. I do not see how you can guarantee the vote swap otherwise. You could photograph the completed ballot, but how do you prove putting it in the envelope, or mailing it?
A full-length novel often takes a year (I've spent perhaps two and a half on Kingdom Asunder). Why the hell should other people make money off of my hard work or be able to offer it for free? It's despicable and indefensible, and how Mr. Antifrank thinks it'll encourage writers is beyond me.
Writing would become the preserve of the idle rich.
Mr. Antifrank, it's easy to harm people through severely curtailing copyright. It's rather more difficult to grow the magic money trees needed to throw an income at everyone in the country.
The main beneficiaries of extended copyright are a few remarkably wealthy individuals. For most writers it will make absolutely no difference at all.
I'm quite content for successful authors to become rich.
I would argue the contrary - in each constituency it is the majority of people whose votes are significant. It is only the minority of people whose vote don't result in a winning candidate who complain. It sort of comes out of the 'Everyone must have prizes' ideology of the left.
Perfect. Start with something mathematically incompetent (the winner in a constituency always gets a majority) and segue beautifully into something psychologically incoherent (smart tactical voting to maximimze vote efficiency somehow connects with some straw-man touchy-feely politicaly correct archetypal Lefty you've dreamed up)
These websites are a disgrace and should be outlawed (if they are not already illegal) and shut down immediately. They are circumventing democracy in this country. Also no surprise to see the BBC promoting voteswap which is basically an anti-conservative website.
It's definitely time to accelerate plans to scrap the license fee altogether.
These website are a logical consequence of FPTP which renders most people's votes meaningless. That is what is really circumventing democracy.
Replace FPTP with a proper voting system and the websites will disappear.
That's a great idea.
Why don't you start a campaign, and we can have a vote in Parliament and then perhaps a referendum on changing the electoral system.
Until then, you should abide by the people's decision to retain FPTP. Otherwise you are saying that, because you don't like the system they chose, you are going to do something different. Unbelievable arrogance.
Yet another post that makes just as much sense applied to tactical voting as it does vote swapping.
Tactical voting is different, because you are voting in your own constituency.
I find it a little depressing that someone has such a negative world view that they would vote to keep someone out rather than vote for their true preference, but they are entitled to do that if they want.
It's the subversion of the constituency principle that's the issue: the bloke in Bedford, for example, is diluting the unfettered right of the people of Twickenham to choose their own representative in Parliament.
Mike is not voting in Twickenham
(Repeated for those PBers with a temporary loss of faculties)
Not so.
A proxy vote is where in your own constituency a person on your instructions votes for the candidate of the voters choice.
Mike has personally voted in Bedford for the candidate of his choice.
Mr. Antifrank, two points: 1) The very wealthy writers [sticking with that theme] are very successful. Good for them. Why should I be able to read books for free just because I'm jealous of someone's success? Prosperity is something to be celebrated, not curtailed. 2) I deserve to get paid for the work I've done. I'm not charging huge amounts. Why you think the fruits of my labour should be noshed on by every greedy bugger unwilling to fork out a few pounds for the years of work I've put in is utterly beyond me.
I would not wish to take bread off the Dancer table. But no one is proposing that copyright should be abolished, merely that it should be more time limited.
"Happy Birthday To You" remains in copyright though it was written in the nineteenth century. Every time it is played in a film, the owners of the copyright, a corporation, get tens of thousands of pounds. (This is why "For He's A Jolly Good Fellow" is often used instead). This is absurd.
There is a balance to be struck. At present, it is far too weighted towards the owners of copyright.
"Vote swapping" is morally wrong as it goes against the spirit of the law while not being illegal. It would be interesting to find out how many of those complaining, have no trouble with tax avoidance?
Mr. Antifrank, two points: 1) The very wealthy writers [sticking with that theme] are very successful. Good for them. Why should I be able to read books for free just because I'm jealous of someone's success? Prosperity is something to be celebrated, not curtailed. 2) I deserve to get paid for the work I've done. I'm not charging huge amounts. Why you think the fruits of my labour should be noshed on by every greedy bugger unwilling to fork out a few pounds for the years of work I've put in is utterly beyond me.
A full-length novel often takes a year (I've spent perhaps two and a half on Kingdom Asunder). Why the hell should other people make money off of my hard work or be able to offer it for free? It's despicable and indefensible, and how Mr. Antifrank thinks it'll encourage writers is beyond me.
Writing would become the preserve of the idle rich.
Mr. Antifrank, it's easy to harm people through severely curtailing copyright. It's rather more difficult to grow the magic money trees needed to throw an income at everyone in the country.
The main beneficiaries of extended copyright are a few remarkably wealthy individuals. For most writers it will make absolutely no difference at all.
I'm quite content for successful authors to become rich.
So am I. The question is not whether successful authors should become rich, but for how long they and their successors should continue to seek rents for ancient work.
"Vote swapping" is morally wrong as it goes against the spirit of the law while not being illegal. It would be interesting to find out how many of those complaining, have no trouble with tax avoidance?
Good point. My take on that sort of thing is it is fine to disapprove, but not condemn, as condemnation contains the implication that someone is doing something that is not just morally dubious, but inherently wrong, and if it was, surely it would be illegal. If you think it should be condemned, it should be outlawed explicitly. And I would be fine with that, but won't condemn until it is actually so.
"The next thing the Conservatives should explain is what Ed Miliband is supposed to do with all these SNP people likely to be elected. He’s already said there won’t be a coalition, but that doesn’t seem to be enough. Cameron’s demand appears to be that whenever an SNP member speaks in the House of Commons, Labour not only ignores them, but plays a compilation of drum ‘n’ bass tracks, while Miliband shouts, “These next beats going out to all da English in da house,” to show they don’t recognise the SNP coup."
A very funny and interesting point. If the SNP do win 35+ seats, can someone explain what the Tories are expecting Labour to do them? Demand they don't vote for Labour legislation? Insist they are deported to a leper colony?
A full-length novel often takes a year (I've spent perhaps two and a half on Kingdom Asunder). Why the hell should other people make money off of my hard work or be able to offer it for free? It's despicable and indefensible, and how Mr. Antifrank thinks it'll encourage writers is beyond me.
Writing would become the preserve of the idle rich.
Mr. Antifrank, it's easy to harm people through severely curtailing copyright. It's rather more difficult to grow the magic money trees needed to throw an income at everyone in the country.
The main beneficiaries of extended copyright are a few remarkably wealthy individuals. For most writers it will make absolutely no difference at all.
I'm quite content for successful authors to become rich.
Under the Green's policy, the first four Harry Potter novels would no longer be subject to copyright for J K Rowling.
Imagine if in a few years I write a book that sells a huge number, and people discover my other books. Are you really saying that I shouldn't be making any money on my earlier works if they're more than 14 years old and they've been copied and re-released for free by other people?
That could equally work the other way around - in a few years time as your original books fall into the public domain they are picked up and read by a much larger audience - who then increase sales for your current books as they really like what they are reading and have 'discovered' you as a writer.
The two voters seem to be part of a growing trend. VoteSwap, which "helps Labour and Green supporters swap votes to keep out the Tories" in constituencies in England, says it has had more than 10,000 pledges to swap votes.
Swap My Vote, which has no political agenda and pairs voters "in order to minimise wasted votes", says it has had more than 1,000 people sign up to the site since it launched last week.
Just reading yesterday's thread, you mentioned that your ad revenue is falling.
I'll take a wild guess that April and May will see hosting bills somewhat higher than usual! Please bring the Donate button back between now and the election so that this new poster (and I hope a few others) can help you out!
I've been reading this site for about 7 years as the best source of rolling news and comment out there, it is that good so please keep it up and don't be shy about asking for donations if and when you need them!!
The two voters seem to be part of a growing trend. VoteSwap, which "helps Labour and Green supporters swap votes to keep out the Tories" in constituencies in England, says it has had more than 10,000 pledges to swap votes.
Swap My Vote, which has no political agenda and pairs voters "in order to minimise wasted votes", says it has had more than 1,000 people sign up to the site since it launched last week.
Mr. Roger, I do think some are quite taken with Sturgeon [south of the border, I mean]. However, a lot are less than thrilled at the prospect of Miliband as PM, reliant upon a party that has a vested interest in division and the ultimate objective of ending the UK.
Quentin Letts column in today's daily mail is worth a read if anyone is interested in Broxtowe and Anna Soubry v Nick (P)
"On doorsteps in Nottinghamshire, where I later visited Broxtowe, there was what you could call a woadish worry about Picts or their modern counterparts – the Scots Nats.
I was with Tory candidate Anna Soubry, a fiery old bird who in 2010 took this seat from a ghastly Labour droner called Palmer. He is standing again, even though he pocketed a vast pay-off from the Commons five years ago.
Nearly all the voters I met mentioned SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon. They were worried about her."
"The next thing the Conservatives should explain is what Ed Miliband is supposed to do with all these SNP people likely to be elected. He’s already said there won’t be a coalition, but that doesn’t seem to be enough. Cameron’s demand appears to be that whenever an SNP member speaks in the House of Commons, Labour not only ignores them, but plays a compilation of drum ‘n’ bass tracks, while Miliband shouts, “These next beats going out to all da English in da house,” to show they don’t recognise the SNP coup."
A very funny and interesting point. If the SNP do win 35+ seats, can someone explain what the Tories are expecting Labour to do them? Demand they don't vote for Labour legislation? Insist they are deported to a leper colony?
Of course they are not, they are playing politics with it. Labour cannot rule out working with the SNP, that is not viable and would be silly, but it's reasonable for the Tories to suggest that such an arrangement would be chaos. People don't have to believe them or mind if they do believe them, but there's nothing wrong in saying 'if x work with y, y will have too much influence'.
I like Steel's imagery though. He can get incredibly lazy sometimes, but he's got some talent.
Mr. Roger, I do think some are quite taken with Sturgeon [south of the border, I mean]. However, a lot are less than thrilled at the prospect of Miliband as PM, reliant upon a party that has a vested interest in division and the ultimate objective of ending the UK.
Quentin Letts column in today's daily mail is worth a read if anyone is interested in Broxtowe and Anna Soubry v Nick (P)
"On doorsteps in Nottinghamshire, where I later visited Broxtowe, there was what you could call a woadish worry about Picts or their modern counterparts – the Scots Nats.
I was with Tory candidate Anna Soubry, a fiery old bird who in 2010 took this seat from a ghastly Labour droner called Palmer. He is standing again, even though he pocketed a vast pay-off from the Commons five years ago.
Nearly all the voters I met mentioned SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon. They were worried about her."
FROM PADDY POWER..
Broxtowe Labour 1/3
In real life, Bookie trumps Hack.
I'm on Nick at 1-2, some others are on Soubry at 7-2.
A very timely reminder that this government has added at least £600 Billion to the national debt, more than any post WWII government and as far as I can tell missed virtually all of its economic targets set in 2010. So its a bit rich of George Osborne to start banging on about the SNP's plans potentially adding to his own massive debt burden:
No doubt the IFSA are about to blow a hole in all 3 "mainstream parties" economic plans. At least the SNP are being open and honest about their plans. I think once left leaning English voters realise that the SNP is the anti-austerity party, Cameron and Osborne's one trick campaign around demonising the SNP will come back and bite them in their privileged a**es.
The two voters seem to be part of a growing trend. VoteSwap, which "helps Labour and Green supporters swap votes to keep out the Tories" in constituencies in England, says it has had more than 10,000 pledges to swap votes.
Swap My Vote, which has no political agenda and pairs voters "in order to minimise wasted votes", says it has had more than 1,000 people sign up to the site since it launched last week.
Hmmm how to square "no political agenda" with ""helps Labour and Green supporters swap votes to keep out the Tories"
If it was the other way round they would be squealing like stuck pigs.
They could track and arrest everybody involved in swapping votes for perverting democracy. Influencing the way another votes in return for reward (offering to alter your own vote accordingly)
Grrr. Not enough Greens wanting to vote swap. Any Greens in Ealing Central & Acton ready to do a deal???
The proposition isn't exactly compelling from a Green standpoint. What do you think the Greens get out of it?
Most Greens would much prefer a Labour-led government to a Tory one. They can therefore register a vote for the Greens whilst helping achieve their other objective - win-win I guess.
Mr. Antifrank, it's my intention to write beyond 2026 [at which point I'd not have copyright over my earliest work, according to the Greens]. It's not valid to say you don't want to take bread off my table whilst supporting a measure which [if I keep writing] will achieve precisely that.
Cheers, Mr. Royale.
Mr. Lennon, David Weber's first two Honor Harrington books are free on Amazon in electronic format (as is Oath of Swords). But there's a vast yawning chasm between an author doing that to help others find and enjoy his work and having copyright stripped away by an ignorant anti-capitalist party determined on harming writers by idiotic policy.
I don't know if I'll go ahead with it, but I've planned to make an abridged version of Kingdom Asunder freely available (it's about the start of a civil war, the abridged version would include the whole storyline of one side). There's a vast difference between compulsion and doing something voluntarily, though.
"The next thing the Conservatives should explain is what Ed Miliband is supposed to do with all these SNP people likely to be elected. He’s already said there won’t be a coalition, but that doesn’t seem to be enough. Cameron’s demand appears to be that whenever an SNP member speaks in the House of Commons, Labour not only ignores them, but plays a compilation of drum ‘n’ bass tracks, while Miliband shouts, “These next beats going out to all da English in da house,” to show they don’t recognise the SNP coup."
A very funny and interesting point. If the SNP do win 35+ seats, can someone explain what the Tories are expecting Labour to do them? Demand they don't vote for Labour legislation? Insist they are deported to a leper colony?
Of course they are not, they are playing politics with it. Labour cannot rule out working with the SNP, that is not viable and would be silly, but it's reasonable for the Tories to suggest that such an arrangement would be chaos. People don't have to believe them or mind if they do believe them, but there's nothing wrong in saying 'if x work with y, y will have too much influence'.
I like Steel's imagery though. He can get incredibly lazy sometimes, but he's got some talent.
Fare thee well.
To be honest I didn't even realise Steel had a column in the Indy (stopped reading that paper when it pretty much started supporting the Iraqi insurgency).
But it begs the question, if we wake up on May 8th, and Lab + SNP votes give Labour a working majority, are the Tories going to demand Labour not move forward in case of 'constitutional crisis'?
"I suggested yesterday that 80 per cent of Scots would be offended by the Mail's kilted portrayal of Salmond on their front page today."
It's interesting that the Tories have shifted their attack from Nicola to Alex. Clearly their focus groups have told them that Nicola is popular with the left of centre everywhere so at best they're preaching to the converted.
Alex might give them a bit more mileage. No one's very keen on smug narcissistic politicians from whichever part of the UK they come. Boris may be an exception but I think he's really only liked by Tories
Mr. Roger, I do think some are quite taken with Sturgeon [south of the border, I mean]. However, a lot are less than thrilled at the prospect of Miliband as PM, reliant upon a party that has a vested interest in division and the ultimate objective of ending the UK.
Quentin Letts column in today's daily mail is worth a read if anyone is interested in Broxtowe and Anna Soubry v Nick (P)
"On doorsteps in Nottinghamshire, where I later visited Broxtowe, there was what you could call a woadish worry about Picts or their modern counterparts – the Scots Nats.
I was with Tory candidate Anna Soubry, a fiery old bird who in 2010 took this seat from a ghastly Labour droner called Palmer. He is standing again, even though he pocketed a vast pay-off from the Commons five years ago.
Nearly all the voters I met mentioned SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon. They were worried about her."
"The next thing the Conservatives should explain is what Ed Miliband is supposed to do with all these SNP people likely to be elected. He’s already said there won’t be a coalition, but that doesn’t seem to be enough. Cameron’s demand appears to be that whenever an SNP member speaks in the House of Commons, Labour not only ignores them, but plays a compilation of drum ‘n’ bass tracks, while Miliband shouts, “These next beats going out to all da English in da house,” to show they don’t recognise the SNP coup."
A very funny and interesting point. If the SNP do win 35+ seats, can someone explain what the Tories are expecting Labour to do them? Demand they don't vote for Labour legislation? Insist they are deported to a leper colony?
It's just deflection.
The SNP will be sat like Caesar giving a thumbs up or thumbs down to whichever Labour policies they like or don't. Without the SNP, Labour could well be powerless, unless the Tories come to their aid.
Every time they do that, the SNP will go back to Scotland and scream Red Tories/ Westminster control. Meanwhile, the Tories and UKIP will be procliaming that "Labour are selling out England/Wales" every time an SNP supported policy passes.
If Labour can't win pretty big (300 seats), then they might be better off losing because there is a much bigger price to pay down the line.
If the commentators and bettors are right, this election won't be decided in CON-LAB marginals; that's the last war. It'll be decided by the SNP taking dozens of seats from LAB. So why don't LAB send all their heavyweights north of the border to try to keep them? Doesn't that make sense? Or do they want a hung parliament?
"The next thing the Conservatives should explain is what Ed Miliband is supposed to do with all these SNP people likely to be elected. He’s already said there won’t be a coalition, but that doesn’t seem to be enough. Cameron’s demand appears to be that whenever an SNP member speaks in the House of Commons, Labour not only ignores them, but plays a compilation of drum ‘n’ bass tracks, while Miliband shouts, “These next beats going out to all da English in da house,” to show they don’t recognise the SNP coup."
A very funny and interesting point. If the SNP do win 35+ seats, can someone explain what the Tories are expecting Labour to do them? Demand they don't vote for Labour legislation? Insist they are deported to a leper colony?
It's just deflection.
The SNP will be sat like Caesar giving a thumbs up or thumbs down to whichever Labour policies they like or don't. Without the SNP, Labour could well be powerless, unless the Tories come to their aid.
Every time they do that, the SNP will go back to Scotland and scream Red Tories/ Westminster control. Meanwhile, the Tories and UKIP will be procliaming that "Labour are selling out England/Wales" every time an SNP supported policy passes.
If Labour can't win pretty big (300 seats), then they might be better off losing because there is a much bigger price to pay down the line.
You're forgetting the third option for the SNP - sit on their hands. Which they will do for some of the time.
Mr. Roger, I do think some are quite taken with Sturgeon [south of the border, I mean]. However, a lot are less than thrilled at the prospect of Miliband as PM, reliant upon a party that has a vested interest in division and the ultimate objective of ending the UK.
Quentin Letts column in today's daily mail is worth a read if anyone is interested in Broxtowe and Anna Soubry v Nick (P)
"On doorsteps in Nottinghamshire, where I later visited Broxtowe, there was what you could call a woadish worry about Picts or their modern counterparts – the Scots Nats.
I was with Tory candidate Anna Soubry, a fiery old bird who in 2010 took this seat from a ghastly Labour droner called Palmer. He is standing again, even though he pocketed a vast pay-off from the Commons five years ago.
Nearly all the voters I met mentioned SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon. They were worried about her."
FROM PADDY POWER..
Broxtowe Labour 1/3
In real life, Bookie trumps Hack.
Am on Soubry at 7/2 - FOR DA LOLZ.
Soubry will hang on. Palmer will be canvassing until 2020.
"On doorsteps in Nottinghamshire, where I later visited Broxtowe, there was what you could call a woadish worry about Picts or their modern counterparts – the Scots Nats.
I was with Tory candidate Anna Soubry, a fiery old bird who in 2010 took this seat from a ghastly Labour droner called Palmer. He is standing again, even though he pocketed a vast pay-off from the Commons five years ago."
What a nasty post. Tories like you and Quentin Letts are the reason Labour are in with a chance. No one likes shits.
If the commentators and bettors are right, this election won't be decided in CON-LAB marginals; that's the last war. It'll be decided by the SNP taking dozens of seats from LAB. So why don't LAB send all their heavyweights north of the border to try to keep them? Doesn't that make sense? Or do they want a hung parliament?
Labour have given up on Scotland, clearly. They appear to be building an advance firewall in England/Wales that will see them as largest party. It's going to be close, the firewall isn't fireproof.
From the election rear echelon - Labour were out canvassing in East Ham last evening - Stephen Timms and at least a dozen others in a canvassing "pack" including all three of my Ward Councillors and at least three or four other members of the ruling Labour Group on Newham Council.
The very definition of a fool's errand I would surmise - I also saw the TUSC candidate leafletting with a friend. The TUSC policies would give a number on here palpitations - suffice to say, they aren't exactly pro-business.
The other observation is I've not seen the billboard advertising so far we saw so much in previous elections. Along both the A13 and the A406 there are any number of sites (UKIP took one last year for the European elections) but not one has been taken by any of the parties at this time. I just wonder whether, with the FTA in place, owners of these sites have increased the rents to deter the parties.
As to what's going to happen with 14 days to go, put simply, no idea. There are, in my experience, fools, damn fools, people who bet odds on in novice chases and canvassers. Anything a canvasser tells you should be taken with a bucketful of salt - I've never seen one come on here and say how badly it's going for their side.
I've always thought next Thursday's QT would be significant - so many people have not yet "tuned in" to the election campaign (most of us have lives to lead) but by this time next week it will begin to look immediate.
These websites are a disgrace and should be outlawed (if they are not already illegal) and shut down immediately. They are circumventing democracy in this country. Also no surprise to see the BBC promoting voteswap which is basically an anti-conservative website.
It's definitely time to accelerate plans to scrap the license fee altogether.
These website are a logical consequence of FPTP which renders most people's votes meaningless. That is what is really circumventing democracy.
Replace FPTP with a proper voting system and the websites will disappear.
That's a great idea.
Why don't you start a campaign, and we can have a vote in Parliament and then perhaps a referendum on changing the electoral system.
Until then, you should abide by the people's decision to retain FPTP. Otherwise you are saying that, because you don't like the system they chose, you are going to do something different. Unbelievable arrogance.
Yet another post that makes just as much sense applied to tactical voting as it does vote swapping.
Tactical voting is different, because you are voting in your own constituency.
I find it a little depressing that someone has such a negative world view that they would vote to keep someone out rather than vote for their true preference, but they are entitled to do that if they want.
It's the subversion of the constituency principle that's the issue: the bloke in Bedford, for example, is diluting the unfettered right of the people of Twickenham to choose their own representative in Parliament.
Mike is not voting in Twickenham
(Repeated for those PBers with a temporary loss of faculties)
He is directing a vote in Twickenham. I look at intention, not process.
He things that his desire to have more LibDems in Parliament is more important than the rights of the people of Twickenham to chose their representative.
(For avoidance of doubt, FPTP is a shitty system. It is better than AV. Personally - as a non-expert - I would like a multiple-member open list constituency based STV system.
I suggested yesterday that 80 per cent of Scots would be offended by the Mail's kilted portrayal of Salmond on their front page today.
Some PBers I thought rather ungraciously, but not atypically, said couldn't care less about antagonising the Scots.
I note that the tartan edition of the paper carries the story on the front page but has dropped the kilt so to speak. I this means suspect even the Mail is concerned that it may go too far in teeing off the jocks!
I have spent a good deal of my life living and wroking in England. The English people impressed by Scot-bashing aint going to vote Labour anyway. The Scots will take the hint and vote SNP in ever greater numbers.
The only thing required to make this a total Tory rout is for Labour to stop acting so damn defensively and embrace the democratic choice of the electorate and challange the others to do the same.
I fail to see your outrage.
I thought you were referring some dastardly cartoon dreamed up by the evil fascist Daily Mail.
However it is a photo.
If Alex Salmond chooses to project himself as some kind of Angus-o-Goon as might be seen on a Scottish Fruitcake packet sold in Texas, then that is a matter for which he is responsible.
The only surprise is that he wasn't wearing woad to cash in on Mel Gibson chic.
The Daily Mail runs two different papers for two distinct audiences. Different pictures proved nothing.
I think it is quite important to distinguish between the SNP and their leadership of inveterate liars, who deserve outright contempt, the half of the Scottish population who seem to have been gulled by them, and the country itself.
Contempt for the SNP does not imply contempt for Scotland, and the two are not the same - as Nicola Sturgeon acknowledges every time she describes Scots who don't support her party as "Anti-Scottish".
PS cont...I wonder if anyone has considered the possibility that Nicola might be a positive for Ed's chances? She's by a distance the brightest and most colourful of the UK politicians and only the dullest haven't been impressed.
She certainly brightens up the left of centre ticket and I can see plenty of reasons why her association with Ed could help getting lefty voters off their backsides and down to the polls. Maybe it's time for him to stop being so timid
The weird thing about using this in a campaign is that it has so many possible strategies for English voters, but none of them are particularly obvious.
Like SNP? a) Vote Lab to make sure the left get in. b) Vote Con so Lab don't get too many and need SNP.
Dislike SNP? a) Vote Lab to give them their own majority. b) Vote Con and hope they get enough to block minority Lab, and also hope they don't cut a deal with SNP c) Vote LibDem, because they'll help with either non-SNP coalition so you don't have to guess. d) Vote UKIP because - Carswell seemed to think it would help. Stand up for England or something.
Dedicated Tories seem to be assuming Dislike and (b) is a no-brainer, which it probably is if you're a dedicated Tory, but in that case you were probably going to vote for the Tories anyhow.
What's baffling me is that the Tories seem to think they're better spending time sending voters down this rabbit hole of game theory than reminding the voters why they kicked Labour out five years ago.
Er! Forgive an ageing memory, but didn't Cameron not win the 2010 election, he had to get the, what some on this site call, yellow scum on side, to allow him to get the keys to number 10?
The good and great Sir John was the last Conservative Party member to actually to win a General Election.
A very timely reminder that this government has added at least £600 Billion to the national debt, more than any post WWII government and as far as I can tell missed virtually all of its economic targets set in 2010. So its a bit rich of George Osborne to start banging on about the SNP's plans potentially adding to his own massive debt burden:
No doubt the IFSA are about to blow a hole in all 3 "mainstream parties" economic plans. At least the SNP are being open and honest about their plans. I think once left leaning English voters realise that the SNP is the anti-austerity party, Cameron and Osborne's one trick campaign around demonising the SNP will come back and bite them in their privileged a**es.
And a further reminder of the terrible position that the Coalition found itself in when they took power due to the incompetence of the previous Labour administration. No doubt you would have been shouting 'Tory Cutz' at any serious attempt to get the deficit down.
"On doorsteps in Nottinghamshire, where I later visited Broxtowe, there was what you could call a woadish worry about Picts or their modern counterparts – the Scots Nats.
I was with Tory candidate Anna Soubry, a fiery old bird who in 2010 took this seat from a ghastly Labour droner called Palmer. He is standing again, even though he pocketed a vast pay-off from the Commons five years ago."
What a nasty post. Tories like you and Quentin Letts are the reason Labour are in with a chance. No one likes shits.
If the commentators and bettors are right, this election won't be decided in CON-LAB marginals; that's the last war. It'll be decided by the SNP taking dozens of seats from LAB. So why don't LAB send all their heavyweights north of the border to try to keep them? Doesn't that make sense? Or do they want a hung parliament?
Well, one reason must be that Mr Miliband is, or has usually been , less popular in Scotland than Mr Cameron, so seeing lots of him north of the border would be an excellent strategy - but for the SNP.
Messrs Balls and Darling would bring to mind the indyref and their collaboration with the Tories. Mr Murphy, well, he's a Blairite. No sign of a change in polling (so far, admittedly) from Mr Brown getting on his hind legs and speaking in a closed meeting which excluded at least some media; and he also recalls not only the induref collaboration but the failed Vow.
Not sure about other prominent Labourites from south of the border ... you may have a point there.
If the commentators and bettors are right, this election won't be decided in CON-LAB marginals; that's the last war. It'll be decided by the SNP taking dozens of seats from LAB. So why don't LAB send all their heavyweights north of the border to try to keep them? Doesn't that make sense? Or do they want a hung parliament?
The Chancellor has met his 2014/15 deficit reduction target, as public borrowing for March fell to its lowest level since 2004.
This should be what the whole damn election is about.
March borrowing lowest since 2004.
2004 - think about that for a moment. We borrowed more in March 2005, March 2006 and March 2007, when the economy was (apparently) doing well. And in all other months of those years as well we were similarly and dangerously profligate.
Labour sowed the seeds of a ruined economy well before "the bankers" supposedly did. The austerity and cuts are quite simply their fault.
But the current government is fixing it. A re-elected Labour party, especially if propped up by the SNP, would reverse this painful but necessary progress back to normality.
If as suggested downthread there are no more voters left to be persuaded by this fundamental argument, I despair.
The Chancellor has met his 2014/15 deficit reduction target, as public borrowing for March fell to its lowest level since 2004.
This should be what the whole damn election is about.
March borrowing lowest since 2004.
2004 - think about that for a moment. We borrowed more in March 2005, March 2006 and March 2007, when the economy was (apparently) doing well. And in all other months of those years as well we were similarly and dangerously profligate.
Labour sowed the seeds of a ruined economy well before "the bankers" supposedly did. The austerity and cuts are quite simply their fault.
But the current government is fixing it. A re-elected Labour party, especially if propped up by the SNP, would reverse this painful but necessary progress back to normality.
If as suggested downthread there are no more voters left to be persuaded by this fundamental argument, I despair.
Who has promised the most spending amongst the political parties apart from the Greens ?
It's funny, in some sort of way, that in constituencies where most people's votes are wasted (those where there are 3-way marginals and the winner may only get 30% or less - thus 70% of the votes don't elect the winner) is where we find the most campaigning for people's votes. Those votes are extremely valuable.
“Let them be your scapegoat for the ills of the modern age, the demonic ‘other’ scampering around your brain as you pour your wisdom onto the internet.”
If the commentators and bettors are right, this election won't be decided in CON-LAB marginals; that's the last war. It'll be decided by the SNP taking dozens of seats from LAB. So why don't LAB send all their heavyweights north of the border to try to keep them? Doesn't that make sense? Or do they want a hung parliament?
I'd love to see the 2 Eds, Cooper, Flint, Chukka etc being pursued down Queens St by a rickshaw blaring out the Star Wars music.
Of course 2 Lab 'heavyweights' are already up here battling: Murphy (evens to keep his seat) & Alexander (11/4 to keep his seat).
If the commentators and bettors are right, this election won't be decided in CON-LAB marginals; that's the last war. It'll be decided by the SNP taking dozens of seats from LAB. So why don't LAB send all their heavyweights north of the border to try to keep them? Doesn't that make sense? Or do they want a hung parliament?
These websites are a disgrace and should be outlawed (if they are not already illegal) and shut down immediately. They are circumventing democracy in this country. Also no surprise to see the BBC promoting voteswap which is basically an anti-conservative website.
It's definitely time to accelerate plans to scrap the license fee altogether.
These website are a logical consequence of FPTP which renders most people's votes meaningless. That is what is really circumventing democracy.
Replace FPTP with a proper voting system and the websites will disappear.
That's a great idea.
Why don't you start a campaign, and we can have a vote in Parliament and then perhaps a referendum on changing the electoral system.
Until then, you should abide by the people's decision to retain FPTP. Otherwise you are saying that, because you don't like the system they chose, you are going to do something different. Unbelievable arrogance.
Yet another post that makes just as much sense applied to tactical voting as it does vote swapping.
Tactical voting is different, because you are voting in your own constituency.
I find it a little depressing that someone has such a negative world view that they would vote to keep someone out rather than vote for their true preference, but they are entitled to do that if they want.
It's the subversion of the constituency principle that's the issue: the bloke in Bedford, for example, is diluting the unfettered right of the people of Twickenham to choose their own representative in Parliament.
Mike is not voting in Twickenham
(Repeated for those PBers with a temporary loss of faculties)
He is directing a vote in Twickenham. I look at intention, not process.
He things that his desire to have more LibDems in Parliament is more important than the rights of the people of Twickenham to chose their representative.
(For avoidance of doubt, FPTP is a shitty system. It is better than AV. Personally - as a non-expert - I would like a multiple-member open list constituency based STV system.
I'd have thought a new referendum on PR would have a fair chance of passing next time. It's now in the centre-right's political interest to back such a reform, in a way it wasn't in 2011 when it was a Guardianista love in.
Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) 23/04/2015 09:13 #Ukip eyes 22 seats as Nigel Farage welcomes 'spectacular' support from voters: shr.gs/q7FJKXR
"Mr Farage and his team expect David Cameron to change direction in the next few days and inject more energy into the Tory campaign over the last two weeks."
I always find these statements odd around elections, from all sides. Why would Cameron have decided to keep the energy out of his campaign until the final fortnight? Was there some reason he wanted to rope-a-dope Labour? Likewise for anytime anyone claims a party is 'keeping their powder dry' barely weeks before an election.
"The next thing the Conservatives should explain is what Ed Miliband is supposed to do with all these SNP people likely to be elected. He’s already said there won’t be a coalition, but that doesn’t seem to be enough. Cameron’s demand appears to be that whenever an SNP member speaks in the House of Commons, Labour not only ignores them, but plays a compilation of drum ‘n’ bass tracks, while Miliband shouts, “These next beats going out to all da English in da house,” to show they don’t recognise the SNP coup."
A very funny and interesting point. If the SNP do win 35+ seats, can someone explain what the Tories are expecting Labour to do them? Demand they don't vote for Labour legislation? Insist they are deported to a leper colony?
It's just deflection.
The SNP will be sat like Caesar giving a thumbs up or thumbs down to whichever Labour policies they like or don't. Without the SNP, Labour could well be powerless, unless the Tories come to their aid.
Every time they do that, the SNP will go back to Scotland and scream Red Tories/ Westminster control. Meanwhile, the Tories and UKIP will be procliaming that "Labour are selling out England/Wales" every time an SNP supported policy passes.
If Labour can't win pretty big (300 seats), then they might be better off losing because there is a much bigger price to pay down the line.
I reckon the SNP will play a twin-principal strategy.
Miliband wants something so he does a deal with Salmond. They agree terms & then Salmond sells "well Nicola's the boss, I need to talk to her" (and comes back asking for another concession).
If Miliband does a deal with Nicola, then she says "I think that's okay, but I need to be sure that Alex can deliver the parliamentary party"...and comes back asking for just a little bit more
Robert Peston @Peston 3m3 minutes ago .@TheIFS by 2018/19 Tories to cut unprotected depts by 17.9% compared with 1.8% cut for Lab (& 9% for LibDems by 2017/18)
Robert Peston @Peston 33s34 seconds ago .@TheIFS so loves SNP for not basing their fiscal plans on unspecified crackdown on tax avoidance, unlike Tory, Lab & especially LibDems
The Chancellor has met his 2014/15 deficit reduction target, as public borrowing for March fell to its lowest level since 2004.
This should be what the whole damn election is about.
March borrowing lowest since 2004.
2004 - think about that for a moment. We borrowed more in March 2005, March 2006 and March 2007, when the economy was (apparently) doing well. And in all other months of those years as well we were similarly and dangerously profligate.
Labour sowed the seeds of a ruined economy well before "the bankers" supposedly did. The austerity and cuts are quite simply their fault.
But the current government is fixing it. A re-elected Labour party, especially if propped up by the SNP, would reverse this painful but necessary progress back to normality.
If as suggested downthread there are no more voters left to be persuaded by this fundamental argument, I despair.
Who has promised the most spending amongst the political parties apart from the Greens ?
SNP have implied they will spend an extra £168bn wasn't it and they don't care if that comes from taxes or extra borrowing
Lab record is of reckless splurging, Tory record is of at least trying to rein that in. Look at public sector spending growth from any of several independent sources.
Contempt for the SNP does not imply contempt for Scotland, and the two are not the same - as Nicola Sturgeon acknowledges every time she describes Scots who don't support her party as "Anti-Scottish".
No doubt you'll have numerous links to 'every' time Sturgeon has said this.
Comments
•In March 2015, PSNB ex was £7.4 billion; a decrease of £0.4 billion compared with March 2014.
http://news.sky.com/story/1470645/osborne-meets-deficit-reduction-target
The Chancellor has met his 2014/15 deficit reduction target, as public borrowing for March fell to its lowest level since 2004.
Forced choice
Lab/SNP 38 Tory Led Govt 47
Lab/SNP massively unpopular with UKIP and clear Tory leads across England if they can nail this.
Thus any pretence at the election representing a national conversation is lost, as the parties rush to concentrate their efforts on the tiny sliver of the electorate who will make the difference between defeat and victory.
If you have a sensible PR system (and I grant you that some PR systems are not sensible) then Cameron is provided with the incentive to campaign in Manchester, rural Oxfordshire and the small towns of the Midlands, as extra votes almost anywhere have the potential to win him extra seats.
That's why I'm in favour of PR over FPTP, as those sorts of incentives matter.
Tangential to that, it seems the most effective 'positive' campaigning is to say optimistic, vague or even unachievable things, then kick up a fuss about opponents being 'negative' when they attack your policies - that is, any attack on your policy is labelled as negative campaigning, even if your policy was crap and needed to be pointed out. It's genius really.
As if .... I am in fact a very naughty boy ....
You've just decided to vote differently...
But, small shifts in vote share could move this number up or down.
I suggested yesterday that 80 per cent of Scots would be offended by the Mail's kilted portrayal of Salmond on their front page today.
Some PBers I thought rather ungraciously, but not atypically, said couldn't care less about antagonising the Scots.
I note that the tartan edition of the paper carries the story on the front page but has dropped the kilt so to speak. I this means suspect even the Mail is concerned that it may go too far in teeing off the jocks!
I have spent a good deal of my life living and wroking in England. The English people impressed by Scot-bashing aint going to vote Labour anyway. The Scots will take the hint and vote SNP in ever greater numbers.
The only thing required to make this a total Tory rout is for Labour to stop acting so damn defensively and embrace the democratic choice of the electorate and challange the others to do the same.
(Repeated for those PBers with a temporary loss of faculties)
1) The very wealthy writers [sticking with that theme] are very successful. Good for them. Why should I be able to read books for free just because I'm jealous of someone's success? Prosperity is something to be celebrated, not curtailed.
2) I deserve to get paid for the work I've done. I'm not charging huge amounts. Why you think the fruits of my labour should be noshed on by every greedy bugger unwilling to fork out a few pounds for the years of work I've put in is utterly beyond me.
Incidentally, if anyone wishes to support rather than kick a writer, do check out my highly rated books on Amazon: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Thaddeus-White/e/B008C6RU98/
Part of being a society is that you abide by the rules set by society. The people voted clearly (in a suboptimal forced choice) to retain FPTP. So those are rules. If you don't like them get them changed. Just don't subvert them.
I remain baffled at how someone in a constituency voting themselves, even if influenced by someone outside it, is diluting the rights of the other people in that constituency somehow. It's still the constituency person casting their vote as they choose. I think they are using the wrong way to decide how to vote, but it's still not the person outside the constituency doing the voting, no matter how many times people claim it is.
I hope this issue can be clarified in law. Either it should be prohibited, or we have to accept if people can do it, some will.
On copyright, extended copyright has been taken too far, the Disney approach as people have termed it, but there does need to be a reasonably significant time allotted for people to make money of their own works.
P.S. Love Scotland, Loathe Salmond.
A proxy vote is where in your own constituency a person on your instructions votes for the candidate of the voters choice.
Mike has personally voted in Bedford for the candidate of his choice.
"Happy Birthday To You" remains in copyright though it was written in the nineteenth century. Every time it is played in a film, the owners of the copyright, a corporation, get tens of thousands of pounds. (This is why "For He's A Jolly Good Fellow" is often used instead). This is absurd.
There is a balance to be struck. At present, it is far too weighted towards the owners of copyright.
Said BUSH it looked like a tree to me.
Unsurprising Kippers have the lowest IQ!!
It would be interesting to find out how many of those complaining, have no trouble with tax avoidance?
"The next thing the Conservatives should explain is what Ed Miliband is supposed to do with all these SNP people likely to be elected. He’s already said there won’t be a coalition, but that doesn’t seem to be enough. Cameron’s demand appears to be that whenever an SNP member speaks in the House of Commons, Labour not only ignores them, but plays a compilation of drum ‘n’ bass tracks, while Miliband shouts, “These next beats going out to all da English in da house,” to show they don’t recognise the SNP coup."
A very funny and interesting point. If the SNP do win 35+ seats, can someone explain what the Tories are expecting Labour to do them? Demand they don't vote for Labour legislation? Insist they are deported to a leper colony?
I woke up with gashes on my face.
All I can remember is snatches.
That hardly seems fair to me.
BBC Business@BBCBusiness·11 mins11 minutes ago
Government borrowing below forecast http://bbc.in/1Egco3Y
If it was the other way round they would be squealing like stuck pigs.
Hi Mike (and mods),
Just reading yesterday's thread, you mentioned that your ad revenue is falling.
I'll take a wild guess that April and May will see hosting bills somewhat higher than usual! Please bring the Donate button back between now and the election so that this new poster (and I hope a few others) can help you out!
I've been reading this site for about 7 years as the best source of rolling news and comment out there, it is that good so please keep it up and don't be shy about asking for donations if and when you need them!!
FROM PADDY POWER..
Broxtowe
Labour 1/3
In real life, Bookie trumps Hack.
I like Steel's imagery though. He can get incredibly lazy sometimes, but he's got some talent.
Fare thee well.
1-3 sounds about right.
http://www.fsmevents.com/ifs-23-april-2015/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/11556539/George-Osborne-Families-350-worse-off-under-Ed-Miliband-and-the-SNP.html
No doubt the IFSA are about to blow a hole in all 3 "mainstream parties" economic plans. At least the SNP are being open and honest about their plans. I think once left leaning English voters realise that the SNP is the anti-austerity party, Cameron and Osborne's one trick campaign around demonising the SNP will come back and bite them in their privileged a**es.
Cheers, Mr. Royale.
Mr. Lennon, David Weber's first two Honor Harrington books are free on Amazon in electronic format (as is Oath of Swords). But there's a vast yawning chasm between an author doing that to help others find and enjoy his work and having copyright stripped away by an ignorant anti-capitalist party determined on harming writers by idiotic policy.
I don't know if I'll go ahead with it, but I've planned to make an abridged version of Kingdom Asunder freely available (it's about the start of a civil war, the abridged version would include the whole storyline of one side). There's a vast difference between compulsion and doing something voluntarily, though.
Anyway, I need to go get some writing done.
But it begs the question, if we wake up on May 8th, and Lab + SNP votes give Labour a working majority, are the Tories going to demand Labour not move forward in case of 'constitutional crisis'?
'Campaign trail 2015: Mademoiselle Ecosse goes to Westminster'
http://tinyurl.com/olbsc68
"I suggested yesterday that 80 per cent of Scots would be offended by the Mail's kilted portrayal of Salmond on their front page today."
It's interesting that the Tories have shifted their attack from Nicola to Alex. Clearly their focus groups have told them that Nicola is popular with the left of centre everywhere so at best they're preaching to the converted.
Alex might give them a bit more mileage. No one's very keen on smug narcissistic politicians from whichever part of the UK they come. Boris may be an exception but I think he's really only liked by Tories
The SNP will be sat like Caesar giving a thumbs up or thumbs down to whichever Labour policies they like or don't. Without the SNP, Labour could well be powerless, unless the Tories come to their aid.
Every time they do that, the SNP will go back to Scotland and scream Red Tories/ Westminster control. Meanwhile, the Tories and UKIP will be procliaming that "Labour are selling out England/Wales" every time an SNP supported policy passes.
If Labour can't win pretty big (300 seats), then they might be better off losing because there is a much bigger price to pay down the line.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3051451/Boris-cried-Dave-s-woad-recovery-QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-Johnson-join-Cameron-campaign.html
"On doorsteps in Nottinghamshire, where I later visited Broxtowe, there was what you could call a woadish worry about Picts or their modern counterparts – the Scots Nats.
I was with Tory candidate Anna Soubry, a fiery old bird who in 2010 took this seat from a ghastly Labour droner called Palmer. He is standing again, even though he pocketed a vast pay-off from the Commons five years ago."
What a nasty post. Tories like you and Quentin Letts are the reason Labour are in with a chance. No one likes shits.
From the election rear echelon - Labour were out canvassing in East Ham last evening - Stephen Timms and at least a dozen others in a canvassing "pack" including all three of my Ward Councillors and at least three or four other members of the ruling Labour Group on Newham Council.
The very definition of a fool's errand I would surmise - I also saw the TUSC candidate leafletting with a friend. The TUSC policies would give a number on here palpitations - suffice to say, they aren't exactly pro-business.
The other observation is I've not seen the billboard advertising so far we saw so much in previous elections. Along both the A13 and the A406 there are any number of sites (UKIP took one last year for the European elections) but not one has been taken by any of the parties at this time. I just wonder whether, with the FTA in place, owners of these sites have increased the rents to deter the parties.
As to what's going to happen with 14 days to go, put simply, no idea. There are, in my experience, fools, damn fools, people who bet odds on in novice chases and canvassers. Anything a canvasser tells you should be taken with a bucketful of salt - I've never seen one come on here and say how badly it's going for their side.
I've always thought next Thursday's QT would be significant - so many people have not yet "tuned in" to the election campaign (most of us have lives to lead) but by this time next week it will begin to look immediate.
He things that his desire to have more LibDems in Parliament is more important than the rights of the people of Twickenham to chose their representative.
(For avoidance of doubt, FPTP is a shitty system. It is better than AV. Personally - as a non-expert - I would like a multiple-member open list constituency based STV system.
23/04/2015 09:13
#Ukip eyes 22 seats as Nigel Farage welcomes 'spectacular' support from voters: shr.gs/q7FJKXR
I thought you were referring some dastardly cartoon dreamed up by the evil fascist Daily Mail.
However it is a photo.
If Alex Salmond chooses to project himself as some kind of Angus-o-Goon as might be seen on a Scottish Fruitcake packet sold in Texas, then that is a matter for which he is responsible.
The only surprise is that he wasn't wearing woad to cash in on Mel Gibson chic.
The Daily Mail runs two different papers for two distinct audiences. Different pictures proved nothing.
I think it is quite important to distinguish between the SNP and their leadership of inveterate liars, who deserve outright contempt, the half of the Scottish population who seem to have been gulled by them, and the country itself.
Contempt for the SNP does not imply contempt for Scotland, and the two are not the same - as Nicola Sturgeon acknowledges every time she describes Scots who don't support her party as "Anti-Scottish".
The good and great Sir John was the last Conservative Party member to actually to win a General Election.
Messrs Balls and Darling would bring to mind the indyref and their collaboration with the Tories. Mr Murphy, well, he's a Blairite. No sign of a change in polling (so far, admittedly) from Mr Brown getting on his hind legs and speaking in a closed meeting which excluded at least some media; and he also recalls not only the induref collaboration but the failed Vow.
Not sure about other prominent Labourites from south of the border ... you may have a point there.
March borrowing lowest since 2004.
2004 - think about that for a moment. We borrowed more in March 2005, March 2006 and March 2007, when the economy was (apparently) doing well. And in all other months of those years as well we were similarly and dangerously profligate.
Labour sowed the seeds of a ruined economy well before "the bankers" supposedly did. The austerity and cuts are quite simply their fault.
But the current government is fixing it. A re-elected Labour party, especially if propped up by the SNP, would reverse this painful but necessary progress back to normality.
If as suggested downthread there are no more voters left to be persuaded by this fundamental argument, I despair.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/the-scots-are-the-worst-bastards-cameron-tells-xenophobes-2015042397647
“Let them be your scapegoat for the ills of the modern age, the demonic ‘other’ scampering around your brain as you pour your wisdom onto the internet.”
Of course 2 Lab 'heavyweights' are already up here battling: Murphy (evens to keep his seat) & Alexander (11/4 to keep his seat).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H3dFh6GA-A
Labour/LD both explained £12bn of tax rises
IFS
I always find these statements odd around elections, from all sides. Why would Cameron have decided to keep the energy out of his campaign until the final fortnight? Was there some reason he wanted to rope-a-dope Labour? Likewise for anytime anyone claims a party is 'keeping their powder dry' barely weeks before an election.
Miliband wants something so he does a deal with Salmond. They agree terms & then Salmond sells "well Nicola's the boss, I need to talk to her" (and comes back asking for another concession).
If Miliband does a deal with Nicola, then she says "I think that's okay, but I need to be sure that Alex can deliver the parliamentary party"...and comes back asking for just a little bit more
Rinse and repeat...
.@TheIFS by 2018/19 Tories to cut unprotected depts by 17.9% compared with 1.8% cut for Lab (& 9% for LibDems by 2017/18)
Looks like there isn't much between the SNP and Lab borrowing figures - a coalition shouldn't be too much of a stretch.
Which cabinet post will Salmond pick ? Education or Defence ?
.@TheIFS so loves SNP for not basing their fiscal plans on unspecified crackdown on tax avoidance, unlike Tory, Lab & especially LibDems
Lab record is of reckless splurging, Tory record is of at least trying to rein that in. Look at public sector spending growth from any of several independent sources.
Balls back in no.11? terrifying