"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.
All Quentin's words not mine luvvie darling.
You are also a pile of old shit yourself for even repeating it, you scumbag.
He pocketed a "vast pay-off" because he lost just like any MP who had lost did. Just like 170 odd Tories did in 1997. Tories are better at losing more seats than Labour anyway.
On a positive note, the old bird needs an infusion of strength, it seems. None other than a Bullingdonian oaf. Only 14 more days, honey, then you can also pocket a vast pay-off.
Meanwhile, the Tories and UKIP will be procliaming that "Labour are selling out England/Wales" every time an SNP supported policy passes.
And they'll be making a powerful point. If the SNP represent Scotland when they support the British government, who will the LAB MPs represent? Scotland can't play with nobody in the other team.
The English question is looming. And sadly, it may be CON and UKIP that make the running with it, because LAB remain incapable.
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 LAB leadership decide to see further than the ends of their noses, they will address it. Not wonk-style, but in a visionary way. Of the three main long-established British parties, it's long been the Tories who are seen as "very English", "most English", etc. No-one calls the Church of England the LibDems at prayer or conceives of Labour-supporting big landowners. Very English = posh = Tory: that's most people's way of viewing things.
LAB could change that.
But first they'll have to drop their American advisers and all the cobblers about Cool Britannia and joined-up government and such cr4p. So let's not hold our breaths. Most of them don't know William Blake from Morris dancing from pearly kings and queens from Eccles cakes.
It's too clever-clever to say LAB should rather lose the election than govern with the SNP holding the balance.
Short-term, they should take the battle to the SNP, right now.
Short to medium-term, they should play the English card in a visionary way. Read some Blake or something.
Long term, we're all fuc7ed anyway. The world economy can't float on funny money forever.
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.
Balls back in no.11? terrifying
The SNP are also saving £400m per year from that ghastly thing. I wish they could persuade my party to do just that ! Sadly, I feel , my party will join the Tories to build the 4 subs which this coalition kicked into touch.
In the end, the compromise will be 3 subs. The Libs will also support it. The people too !
Robert Peston @Peston 3m3 minutes ago .@TheIFS says Lab has provided more detail than Tories on how to meet fiscal target, but criticises Lab fiscal plans as too vague
I sympathise with your predicament but I wouldn't worry too much. If the Greens ever formed a government, we'd have more basic worries.
And at my age, my single tome about a future world (An Ever Rolling Stream) isn't going to be affected whatever those pesky Greens do to Amazon. And your excellent books can sell secure in the knowledge that the Greens' manifesto is just snow on a hot summer's day.
And being old, I can rest content that a Milliband administration will look after me because of Labour's old gits' manifesto.
Robert Peston @Peston 3m3 minutes ago .@TheIFS says Lab has provided more detail than Tories on how to meet fiscal target, but criticises Lab fiscal plans as too vague
son of Labour peer puts positive spin on matters.... I am surprised, not.
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.
But the "rules" of FPTP include the strong incentive to misrepresent your vote! As an aside, we don't know why people voted to retain it. Could be "we'll keep it for the time being until we're offered something better (than AV)"
Vote-swapping and tactical voting are functionally equivalent.
Tactical Voter: "I exhort you to vote tactically to kick out the Tories." Perfectly legal, and a feature (bug from the Tories' perspective) of the system.
Vote-swapper: "OK, I will (vote tactically) if you will."
It seems a ludicrous proposition that to exhort someone to vote in a certain way is (of course) legal, but to agree to do so is not.
It's no different than a man agreeing with his wife, for example, "I'll vote Green, if you do."
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
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.
All I'm doing is flagging how the Coalition has missed all of its economic targets set in 2010. Indeed the big promise to balance the books is now being extended until 2020. Personally if I'd been running the country in 2010, I agree that targeted spending cuts were necessary, however I would also have invested heavily in infrastructure etc to help prime economic growth.
I do enjoy much of the hysterical nonsense around economic plans on this site, the simple fact is that none of the 3 "mainstream parties" have shown any competence over the last 40 years in running a properly balanced economy. I guess we just need to try and work out which party is going to be the least incompetent !!
Sometimes people have to step back from the hysteria and hyperbole of the election campaign and consider the practical politics. In 2010, Cameron castigated Nick Clegg and the LDs throughout the campaign but on the Friday afternoon he was making a "full and open offer" of talks about forming a Government.
Neither Ed Miliband nor Nocola Sturgeon are fools despite what some on here might think - Sturgeon has seen what happened to Nick Clegg as the "junior partner" and she won't want to go there. In exchange for the DevoMax which is pretty much a given anyway as both Cameron and Miliband signed up to it, Sturgeon isn't going to want to be seen to be the power behind the throne because she knows that the SNP may one day have to deal with a hostile and vengeful Conservative majority Government so there will be a huge softening of the line after May 7th.
I can understand for domestic consumption she cannot be seen to support the Conservatives - it would be political suicide though I still think it the best solution oddly enough.
Her problem, as NIck Clegg's was, is akin to the spider trying to climb out of the bowl. The closer to the top you get, the harder it gets until gravity wins. The SNP has built a formidable power base and if they get 40-50 MPs it will be a personal and political triumph but that's when it will get harder as expectations will need to be managed and a broad Coalition held together.
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.
But the "rules" of FPTP include the strong incentive to misrepresent your vote! As an aside, we don't know why people voted to retain it. Could be "we'll keep it for the time being until we're offered something better (than AV)"
Vote-swapping and tactical voting are functionally equivalent.
Tactical Voter: "I exhort you to vote tactically to kick out the Tories." Perfectly legal, and a feature (bug from the Tories' perspective) of the system.
Vote-swapper: "OK, I will (vote tactically) if you will."
It seems a ludicrous proposition that to exhort someone to vote in a certain way is (of course) legal, but to agree to do so is not.
It's no different than a man agreeing with his wife, for example, "I'll vote Green, if you do."
Robert Peston @Peston 3m3 minutes ago .@TheIFS says Lab has provided more detail than Tories on how to meet fiscal target, but criticises Lab fiscal plans as too vague
The banking system all but collapsed under Labour while the last five years have been relatively smooth sailing.
So I'm not sure that anyone really cares what the IFS, IMF, OECD, B and Q, MFI, IRA, LOLZ, ROFL say.
Mr. CD13, I'd like not to worry, but given the EU stupidity over VAT on electronic goods, Miliband's predilection for getting the state involved everywhere and Cameron not understanding the first thing about the internet I'm not relaxed about the situation.
Apologies if this has already been covered ad nauseam but..wrt to vote swapping surely we are supposed to be voting for the best person, in our opinion, to represent the constituency in which we live. If we exchange votes clearly this isn't happening and local democracy is perverted. Whether it is illegal or not it is showing scant regard for the other constituents, the vast majority of whom are less politically aware than the swappees. If for example the Libs win Twickenham by 1 vote is the person the actual constituents voted for representing the seat? Maybe not.
It is particularly disappointing to see Lib Dems taking part in this kind of thing when they shout so loudly about how well their MP's represent their seats on local matters and rely so much on the goodwill of residents in areas they represent.
Sadly perhaps its not the greatest surprise to see the vast majority of this seems to be occurring within the left leaning section of the electorate. Imagine the shrieks of shrill dismay were the Tories likely to benefit from this. As ever with the left it seems to be ok for them to behave as they wish because they are firstly not the Tories and secondly as usual they are here to save us from ourselves.
Have to go now but am pretty certain overall IFS conclusion will be Tories massive black hole compared to LAB.
Will see if i am right later (10pm)
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford 11m11 minutes ago #Labour will spend less on NHS than #Conservatives over next Parliament, IFS says. 'A very tight settlement'
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.
"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?
On the cross party committees- you have to stick the Jocks on the naughty chairs. In the House they have to wear a tartan stripe. In the bars, no Jock bars. And certainly banning any kind of coupling with a Parliamentary Jock. Ethnic cleansing of Jocks. Gets my vote.
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.
"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?
On the cross party committees- you have to stick the Jocks on the naughty chairs. In the House they have to wear a tartan stripe. In the bars, no Jock bars. And certainly banning any kind of coupling with a Parliamentary Jock. Ethnic cleansing of Jocks. Gets my vote.
Didn't Cameron go on a Jolly to South Africa in 1989? I'm sure he picked up a few tips from the government on how to introduce this sort of thing .
Have to go now but am pretty certain overall IFS conclusion will be Tories massive black hole compared to LAB.
Will see if i am right later (10pm)
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford 11m11 minutes ago #Labour will spend less on NHS than #Conservatives over next Parliament, IFS says. 'A very tight settlement'
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?
On the cross party committees- you have to stick the Jocks on the naughty chairs. In the House they have to wear a tartan stripe. In the bars, no Jock bars. And certainly banning any kind of coupling with a Parliamentary Jock. Ethnic cleansing of Jocks. Gets my vote.
Didn't Cameron go on a Jolly to South Africa in 1989? I'm sure he picked up a few tips from the government on how to introduce this sort of thing .
@AllyPally Fits nicely with Osborne's "Hang Mandela" charming Young Tory traditions too and their Bullingdon antics. How many Jocks made it into that club? White supremacy over Jocks. The Jocks do not deserve a voice because they are ginger headed, pasty plebs with a strange accent.
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.
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.
And that's the core of why negative campaigning does not work in multi-party systems.
Unless you can control how successful negativity translates into votes, it is a useless excercise. That basically means an Either Or option. Anything else means that outcomes you don't want can occur just as often or more often.
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.
Very well said. This is the first GE in my adult life where I've lived in a marginal constituency (Kingston & Surbiton), having previosly lived in very safe Labour or Conservative seats. The volume of election flyers, people knocking and party leader visits here has been an order of magnitude higher than where I lived previously. I really don't see why my vote should matter more than someone in the safe seats.
As for vote-swapping "violating" the constituency principle, the reality is that in a General Election most people are voting for which party they want to run the country. 75% of people don't know who their MP is, and I suspect a large chunk the other 25% only know because their MP happens to be a prominent Government or Opposition politician.
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?
Maybe a compromised can be reached where writers using their real name hold copyright for 50 years and those using pseudonyms get to hold rights for, let's say, 6 months?
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.
It is still £126 billion MORE than the conservatives are planning to spend - which means that the country will have to find an additional £3 billion a year interest - you can do a lot with £3 billion you aren't paying on interest. (And the figures are virtually identical until the last year - and a lot can happen in 4 years.)
Robert Peston @Peston 3m3 minutes ago .@TheIFS says Lab has provided more detail than Tories on how to meet fiscal target, but criticises Lab fiscal plans as too vague
The banking system all but collapsed under Labour while the last five years have been relatively smooth sailing.
So I'm not sure that anyone really cares what the IFS, IMF, OECD, B and Q, MFI, IRA, LOLZ, ROFL say.
Strange then that Tory PBers fawn over every positive thing the IMF etc say about Tory policy. Tory PB era schizophrenic - YouGov has a 1% Tory lead for a day after days of Labour leads and it's heralded as a turning point, reverts to a Labour lead the next day and You Gov is rubbish.
Same with independent economic views - IFS says something positive about Osborne and they are falling over themselves to praise them, they point out that Labour has provided more information than the Tories on how their fiscal targets are met and suddenly nobody really cares what they say. Comical really.
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.
And that's the core of why negative campaigning does not work in multi-party systems.
Unless you can control how successful negativity translates into votes, it is a useless excercise. That basically means an Either Or option. Anything else means that outcomes you don't want can occur just as often or more often.
There's something in that but I don't think really agree. The vast majority of the seats the Tories need to win are against Labour, and a good negative campaign against Ed Miliband would work fine. The problem is that they're negatively campaigning against somebody in a different country, whose party isn't on the ballot paper.
Apologies if this has already been covered ad nauseam but..wrt to vote swapping surely we are supposed to be voting for the best person, in our opinion, to represent the constituency in which we live. If we exchange votes clearly this isn't happening and local democracy is perverted. Whether it is illegal or not it is showing scant regard for the other constituents, the vast majority of whom are less politically aware than the swappees. If for example the Libs win Twickenham by 1 vote is the person the actual constituents voted for representing the seat? Maybe not.
It is particularly disappointing to see Lib Dems taking part in this kind of thing when they shout so loudly about how well their MP's represent their seats on local matters and rely so much on the goodwill of residents in areas they represent.
Sadly perhaps its not the greatest surprise to see the vast majority of this seems to be occurring within the left leaning section of the electorate. Imagine the shrieks of shrill dismay were the Tories likely to benefit from this. As ever with the left it seems to be ok for them to behave as they wish because they are firstly not the Tories and secondly as usual they are here to save us from ourselves.
Conservatives benefit from swapping their votes in their first home where they live say 48 weeks in a safe Tory seat and use it in their 2nd holiday home in say a marginal Cornish seat but as an outraged rightie you no doubt see nothing wrong with that .
My example with Con,Lab,LD obviously applied to any combination of these - I don't particularly care about trying to make a case for an "anti-Tory alliance". I don't object to the candidate who gets the plurarity of votes getting credit, but the votes of the majority who did not vote for them should also be taken into account. A system that ignroes the majority of the votes can hardly be called democratic here.
Your Usain Bolt example isn't really relevant here: we're counting share of popular support as our metric, not a measure of continuous timing. Plus, Usain isn't also trying to qualify for a "super race" of winners of the other events. If that were the case, though, would you only let the 100m winner in?
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.
Poor Murphy will soon be put back in the box and not just on the box.
The position is perfectly simple. The SNP is planning 1/2 per cent real increases in Departmental spending instead of real terms reductions from Labour, Liberal and Tory.
Sky's "confusion" is due to the definition by IFS of austerity as being ANY plan to reduce public borrowing. Most people and most economists would see austerity as being about public spending cuts which the SNP propose to bring to an end from next fianical year.
There are a number of candidates ( Alban, King Charles, King Edward, Beckett) but are there any obscure ones that might fit the bill better? In particular, any female ones?
Mr. P, Morley tends to have pretty big St. George's events, often the weekend after.
I left work [temporary, I was at university] on St George's Day in Morley. It was a fantastic sunny day, and there was a strange delight in strolling past a long queue of cars going nowhere fast.
There are a number of candidates ( Alban, King Charles, King Edward, Beckett) but are there any obscure ones that might fit the bill better? In particular, any female ones?
Sadly perhaps its not the greatest surprise to see the vast majority of this seems to be occurring within the left leaning section of the electorate.
Source
Hi bigjohn. VoteSwap website advising green and labour voters to swao votes to keep out the Tories for a start.
I do however agree that the practice is repellent whoever does it.
It's voters trying to avoid their votes being wasted under FPTP. (See TSE for more info)
Whether ones vote is wasted or not is down to geography. Tough. It doesn't give you carte blanche to affect the vote somewhere you don't live. Like it or not MP's are elected to represent constituencies by the people who live there. What gives any one individual the right to alter that?
So we have an economy with record employment, zero inflation, the lowest March borrowing figure since March 2004, the annual borriwng figure coming in well below predictions, record tax receipts etc etc and yet apparently we need to vote Labour to "improve" things.
Does anyone actually believe if Labour/SNP get in then these figures will be "improved" after 5 years.
Apologies if this has already been covered ad nauseam but..wrt to vote swapping surely we are supposed to be voting for the best person, in our opinion, to represent the constituency in which we live. If we exchange votes clearly this isn't happening and local democracy is perverted. Whether it is illegal or not it is showing scant regard for the other constituents, the vast majority of whom are less politically aware than the swappees. If for example the Libs win Twickenham by 1 vote is the person the actual constituents voted for representing the seat? Maybe not.
It is particularly disappointing to see Lib Dems taking part in this kind of thing when they shout so loudly about how well their MP's represent their seats on local matters and rely so much on the goodwill of residents in areas they represent.
Sadly perhaps its not the greatest surprise to see the vast majority of this seems to be occurring within the left leaning section of the electorate. Imagine the shrieks of shrill dismay were the Tories likely to benefit from this. As ever with the left it seems to be ok for them to behave as they wish because they are firstly not the Tories and secondly as usual they are here to save us from ourselves.
Conservatives benefit from swapping their votes in their first home where they live say 48 weeks in a safe Tory seat and use it in their 2nd holiday home in say a marginal Cornish seat but as an outraged rightie you no doubt see nothing wrong with that .
It's news to me that second-home owners are all Conservative voters, yet alone that they all live in safe Conservative seats. You should tell that to all the Labour luvvies (and the Lib Dem ones, if there are any remaining).
Apologies if this has already been covered ad nauseam but..wrt to vote swapping surely we are supposed to be voting for the best person, in our opinion, to represent the constituency in which we live. If we exchange votes clearly this isn't happening and local democracy is perverted. Whether it is illegal or not it is showing scant regard for the other constituents, the vast majority of whom are less politically aware than the swappees. If for example the Libs win Twickenham by 1 vote is the person the actual constituents voted for representing the seat? Maybe not.
It is particularly disappointing to see Lib Dems taking part in this kind of thing when they shout so loudly about how well their MP's represent their seats on local matters and rely so much on the goodwill of residents in areas they represent.
Sadly perhaps its not the greatest surprise to see the vast majority of this seems to be occurring within the left leaning section of the electorate. Imagine the shrieks of shrill dismay were the Tories likely to benefit from this. As ever with the left it seems to be ok for them to behave as they wish because they are firstly not the Tories and secondly as usual they are here to save us from ourselves.
Conservatives benefit from swapping their votes in their first home where they live say 48 weeks in a safe Tory seat and use it in their 2nd holiday home in say a marginal Cornish seat but as an outraged rightie you no doubt see nothing wrong with that .
It's probably no worse than someone who lives overseas for most of the year, swanning over to the UK to vote, and then legging it back to mainland Europe. Plenty of those around.
Sadly perhaps its not the greatest surprise to see the vast majority of this seems to be occurring within the left leaning section of the electorate.
Source
Hi bigjohn. VoteSwap website advising green and labour voters to swao votes to keep out the Tories for a start.
I do however agree that the practice is repellent whoever does it.
It's voters trying to avoid their votes being wasted under FPTP. (See TSE for more info)
Whether ones vote is wasted or not is down to geography. Tough. It doesn't give you carte blanche to affect the vote somewhere you don't live. Like it or not MP's are elected to represent constituencies by the people who live there. What gives any one individual the right to alter that?
See my previous post . You are presumably happy for 2nd home owners to use their votes in Cornwall and usurp the votes of the locals who live there all the year round .
Apologies if this has already been covered ad nauseam but..wrt to vote swapping surely we are supposed to be voting for the best person, in our opinion, to represent the constituency in which we live. If we exchange votes clearly this isn't happening and local democracy is perverted. Whether it is illegal or not it is showing scant regard for the other constituents, the vast majority of whom are less politically aware than the swappees. If for example the Libs win Twickenham by 1 vote is the person the actual constituents voted for representing the seat? Maybe not.
It is particularly disappointing to see Lib Dems taking part in this kind of thing when they shout so loudly about how well their MP's represent their seats on local matters and rely so much on the goodwill of residents in areas they represent.
Sadly perhaps its not the greatest surprise to see the vast majority of this seems to be occurring within the left leaning section of the electorate. Imagine the shrieks of shrill dismay were the Tories likely to benefit from this. As ever with the left it seems to be ok for them to behave as they wish because they are firstly not the Tories and secondly as usual they are here to save us from ourselves.
Yes, there are sound arguments, including moral ones, against tactical voting.
i) People should vote honestly. The act of voting should be demonstrative of which candidate a voter finds worthy of his/her support. By voting tactically you are lying and the election is not a true reflection of voters' preferences, which seems to negate the whole purpose of the election.
ii) Perhaps more importantly, if some people vote tactically when others don't, the liars are taking unfair advantage of others' honesty or ignorance.
iii) It can be demonstrated that the more people misrepresent their preferences, the greater the possibility the outcome will be worse, for all, than if everyone had voted honestly!
The inescapable conclusion is that, to avoid these pernicious outcomes, one must abandon the system which, above all, offers the highest incentives to lie. That system is known as FPTP...
Apologies if this has already been covered ad nauseam but..wrt to vote swapping surely we are supposed to be voting for the best person, in our opinion, to represent the constituency in which we live. If we exchange votes clearly this isn't happening and local democracy is perverted. Whether it is illegal or not it is showing scant regard for the other constituents, the vast majority of whom are less politically aware than the swappees. If for example the Libs win Twickenham by 1 vote is the person the actual constituents voted for representing the seat? Maybe not.
It is particularly disappointing to see Lib Dems taking part in this kind of thing when they shout so loudly about how well their MP's represent their seats on local matters and rely so much on the goodwill of residents in areas they represent.
Sadly perhaps its not the greatest surprise to see the vast majority of this seems to be occurring within the left leaning section of the electorate. Imagine the shrieks of shrill dismay were the Tories likely to benefit from this. As ever with the left it seems to be ok for them to behave as they wish because they are firstly not the Tories and secondly as usual they are here to save us from ourselves.
Conservatives benefit from swapping their votes in their first home where they live say 48 weeks in a safe Tory seat and use it in their 2nd holiday home in say a marginal Cornish seat but as an outraged rightie you no doubt see nothing wrong with that .
The practice is wrong wherever it occurs... At least in the case of these voters they DO have a home in the area they are voting and they DO pay council tax. Try again....
"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.
I live in a North-West marginal and by all objective criteria would be expected to be a Tory voter. As a social liberal I quite like Cameron and many of his policies but I will not be voting for them simply for the reason you mention - the unpleasant people that the party attracts.
However much DC tries to detoxify the party they are still stuck with the likes of Lynton Crosby, Rupert Murdoch, Grant Shapp etc. I am sometimes tempted to go blue for economic reasons but half an hour on here serves to remind me why I never could. A number of Tory posters just come across as nasty, heartless individuals, more so than the UKIP posters actually.
So we have an economy with record employment, zero inflation, the lowest March borrowing figure since March 2004, the annual borriwng figure coming in well below predictions, record tax receipts etc etc and yet apparently we need to vote Labour to "improve" things.
Does anyone actually believe if Labour/SNP get in then these figures will be "improved" after 5 years.
No.
It's unfathomable how much support the likes of Labour, PC, Green, UKIP, and the SNP have. There are only two parties that actually seem serious about the economy, the Tories and the Lib Dems, and the Lib Dems waver at times. We appear to be about to throw away all of the hard work for a coalition of absolute numpties who have been in denial for the last five years and spout the most ludicrous tripe. I can only conclude the the majority of the British public still does not understand the mess that this country was left in by the Labour Party.
Apologies if this has already been covered ad nauseam but..wrt to vote swapping surely we are supposed to be voting for the best person, in our opinion, to represent the constituency in which we live. If we exchange votes clearly this isn't happening and local democracy is perverted. Whether it is illegal or not it is showing scant regard for the other constituents, the vast majority of whom are less politically aware than the swappees. If for example the Libs win Twickenham by 1 vote is the person the actual constituents voted for representing the seat? Maybe not.
It is particularly disappointing to see Lib Dems taking part in this kind of thing when they shout so loudly about how well their MP's represent their seats on local matters and rely so much on the goodwill of residents in areas they represent.
Sadly perhaps its not the greatest surprise to see the vast majority of this seems to be occurring within the left leaning section of the electorate. Imagine the shrieks of shrill dismay were the Tories likely to benefit from this. As ever with the left it seems to be ok for them to behave as they wish because they are firstly not the Tories and secondly as usual they are here to save us from ourselves.
Conservatives benefit from swapping their votes in their first home where they live say 48 weeks in a safe Tory seat and use it in their 2nd holiday home in say a marginal Cornish seat but as an outraged rightie you no doubt see nothing wrong with that .
The practice is wrong wherever it occurs... At least in the case of these voters they DO have a home in the area they are voting and they DO pay council tax. Try again....
Paying council tax may well entitle you to a vote in council elections but why a general election . Try again with your rightie justification .
There are a number of candidates ( Alban, King Charles, King Edward, Beckett) but are there any obscure ones that might fit the bill better? In particular, any female ones?
Should surely be St Edmund, King and Martyr. There seems to be an East Anglian campaign for this that hits the headlines every few years. His "day" is the 20th of November.
Should probably also put in a good word for Cuthbert and Bede, given my nom-de-plume. Ought to be an Anglo-Saxon, anyway. St Hild of Whitby might make a good female candidate.
Apologies if this has already been covered ad nauseam but..wrt to vote swapping surely we are supposed to be voting for the best person, in our opinion, to represent the constituency in which we live. If we exchange votes clearly this isn't happening and local democracy is perverted. Whether it is illegal or not it is showing scant regard for the other constituents, the vast majority of whom are less politically aware than the swappees. If for example the Libs win Twickenham by 1 vote is the person the actual constituents voted for representing the seat? Maybe not.
It is particularly disappointing to see Lib Dems taking part in this kind of thing when they shout so loudly about how well their MP's represent their seats on local matters and rely so much on the goodwill of residents in areas they represent.
Sadly perhaps its not the greatest surprise to see the vast majority of this seems to be occurring within the left leaning section of the electorate. Imagine the shrieks of shrill dismay were the Tories likely to benefit from this. As ever with the left it seems to be ok for them to behave as they wish because they are firstly not the Tories and secondly as usual they are here to save us from ourselves.
Yes, there are sound arguments, including moral ones, against tactical voting.
i) People should vote honestly. The act of voting should be demonstrative of which candidate a voter finds worthy of his/her support. By voting tactically you are lying and the election is not a true reflection of voters' preferences, which seems to negate the whole purpose of the election.
ii) Perhaps more importantly, if some people vote tactically when others don't, the liars are taking unfair advantage of others' honesty or ignorance.
iii) It can be demonstrated that the more people misrepresent their preferences, the greater the possibility the outcome will be worse, for all, than if everyone had voted honestly!
The inescapable conclusion is that, to avoid these pernicious outcomes, one must abandon the system which, above all, offers the highest incentives to lie. That system is known as FPTP...
I don't mind tactical voting, everybody should have the right to cast their vote how they wish within their own constituency. My objection is to people voting by proxy somewhere they don't live.
If vote swapping is wrong, then so surely are political parties. They're little more than a vote swapping system on grand scale. With an extra layer of badness since they serve in effect to take away choice from the electorate by forbidding their members to stand against one another.
@tnewtondunn: "An Ed Miliband-SNP govt would mean higher interest rates. That means higher mortgage costs." Osborne opens new front on SNP attack #GE2015
"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.
I live in a North-West marginal and by all objective criteria would be expected to be a Tory voter. As a social liberal I quite like Cameron and many of his policies but I will not be voting for them simply for the reason you mention - the unpleasant people that the party attracts.
However much DC tries to detoxify the party they are still stuck with the likes of Lynton Crosby, Rupert Murdoch, Grant Shapp etc. I am sometimes tempted to go blue for economic reasons but half an hour on here serves to remind me why I never could. A number of Tory posters just come across as nasty, heartless individuals, more so than the UKIP posters actually.
Sometimes you need nasty people. Nice people are too scared to do what has to be done for the good of the country as they are too afraid to offend anyone.
So we have an economy with record employment, zero inflation, the lowest March borrowing figure since March 2004, the annual borriwng figure coming in well below predictions, record tax receipts etc etc and yet apparently we need to vote Labour to "improve" things.
Does anyone actually believe if Labour/SNP get in then these figures will be "improved" after 5 years.
It depends how you define improve.
If wealth creators, SMEs and business in general is suffering, this could be viewed as an improvement by certain left-leaning types, since these people are in their eyes "fatcats" "the rich" and "bankers" who deserve all that's coming to them, and bear sole responsibility for the deficit, food banks and the fact that it's raining probably.
Apologies if this has already been covered ad nauseam but..wrt to vote swapping surely we are supposed to be voting for the best person, in our opinion, to represent the constituency in which we live. If we exchange votes clearly this isn't happening and local democracy is perverted. Whether it is illegal or not it is showing scant regard for the other constituents, the vast majority of whom are less politically aware than the swappees. If for example the Libs win Twickenham by 1 vote is the person the actual constituents voted for representing the seat? Maybe not.
It is particularly disappointing to see Lib Dems taking part in this kind of thing when they shout so loudly about how well their MP's represent their seats on local matters and rely so much on the goodwill of residents in areas they represent.
Sadly perhaps its not the greatest surprise to see the vast majority of this seems to be occurring within the left leaning section of the electorate. Imagine the shrieks of shrill dismay were the Tories likely to benefit from this. As ever with the left it seems to be ok for them to behave as they wish because they are firstly not the Tories and secondly as usual they are here to save us from ourselves.
Conservatives benefit from swapping their votes in their first home where they live say 48 weeks in a safe Tory seat and use it in their 2nd holiday home in say a marginal Cornish seat but as an outraged rightie you no doubt see nothing wrong with that .
It's news to me that second-home owners are all Conservative voters, yet alone that they all live in safe Conservative seats. You should tell that to all the Labour luvvies (and the Lib Dem ones, if there are any remaining).
The people who own the cottage we are renting this summer live in Sheffield, place called Dore...think that's Hallam, right?! :-)
Comments
The English question is looming. And sadly, it may be CON and UKIP that make the running with it, because LAB remain incapable. If the LAB leadership decide to see further than the ends of their noses, they will address it. Not wonk-style, but in a visionary way. Of the three main long-established British parties, it's long been the Tories who are seen as "very English", "most English", etc. No-one calls the Church of England the LibDems at prayer or conceives of Labour-supporting big landowners. Very English = posh = Tory: that's most people's way of viewing things.
LAB could change that.
But first they'll have to drop their American advisers and all the cobblers about Cool Britannia and joined-up government and such cr4p. So let's not hold our breaths. Most of them don't know William Blake from Morris dancing from pearly kings and queens from Eccles cakes.
It's too clever-clever to say LAB should rather lose the election than govern with the SNP holding the balance.
Short-term, they should take the battle to the SNP, right now.
Short to medium-term, they should play the English card in a visionary way. Read some Blake or something.
Long term, we're all fuc7ed anyway. The world economy can't float on funny money forever.
In the end, the compromise will be 3 subs. The Libs will also support it. The people too !
What a waste !
.@TheIFS says Lab has provided more detail than Tories on how to meet fiscal target, but criticises Lab fiscal plans as too vague
I sympathise with your predicament but I wouldn't worry too much. If the Greens ever formed a government, we'd have more basic worries.
And at my age, my single tome about a future world (An Ever Rolling Stream) isn't going to be affected whatever those pesky Greens do to Amazon. And your excellent books can sell secure in the knowledge that the Greens' manifesto is just snow on a hot summer's day.
And being old, I can rest content that a Milliband administration will look after me because of Labour's old gits' manifesto.
Unless, of course, it's just another Ed gimmick.
Vote-swapping and tactical voting are functionally equivalent.
Tactical Voter: "I exhort you to vote tactically to kick out the Tories." Perfectly legal, and a feature (bug from the Tories' perspective) of the system.
Vote-swapper: "OK, I will (vote tactically) if you will."
It seems a ludicrous proposition that to exhort someone to vote in a certain way is (of course) legal, but to agree to do so is not.
It's no different than a man agreeing with his wife, for example, "I'll vote Green, if you do."
I do enjoy much of the hysterical nonsense around economic plans on this site, the simple fact is that none of the 3 "mainstream parties" have shown any competence over the last 40 years in running a properly balanced economy. I guess we just need to try and work out which party is going to be the least incompetent !!
Neither Ed Miliband nor Nocola Sturgeon are fools despite what some on here might think - Sturgeon has seen what happened to Nick Clegg as the "junior partner" and she won't want to go there. In exchange for the DevoMax which is pretty much a given anyway as both Cameron and Miliband signed up to it, Sturgeon isn't going to want to be seen to be the power behind the throne because she knows that the SNP may one day have to deal with a hostile and vengeful Conservative majority Government so there will be a huge softening of the line after May 7th.
I can understand for domestic consumption she cannot be seen to support the Conservatives - it would be political suicide though I still think it the best solution oddly enough.
Her problem, as NIck Clegg's was, is akin to the spider trying to climb out of the bowl. The closer to the top you get, the harder it gets until gravity wins. The SNP has built a formidable power base and if they get 40-50 MPs it will be a personal and political triumph but that's when it will get harder as expectations will need to be managed and a broad Coalition held together.
Will see if i am right later (10pm)
So I'm not sure that anyone really cares what the IFS, IMF, OECD, B and Q, MFI, IRA, LOLZ, ROFL say.
It is particularly disappointing to see Lib Dems taking part in this kind of thing when they shout so loudly about how well their MP's represent their seats on local matters and rely so much on the goodwill of residents in areas they represent.
Sadly perhaps its not the greatest surprise to see the vast majority of this seems to be occurring within the left leaning section of the electorate. Imagine the shrieks of shrill dismay were the Tories likely to benefit from this. As ever with the left it seems to be ok for them to behave as they wish because they are firstly not the Tories and secondly as usual they are here to save us from ourselves.
#Labour will spend less on NHS than #Conservatives over next Parliament, IFS says. 'A very tight settlement'
Two weeks to save the NHS - from Labour.
Obviously, in the absence of opinion polls, Jock bashing is moving our spread betters.
I do however agree that the practice is repellent whoever does it.
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?
On the cross party committees- you have to stick the Jocks on the naughty chairs. In the House they have to wear a tartan stripe. In the bars, no Jock bars. And certainly banning any kind of coupling with a Parliamentary Jock. Ethnic cleansing of Jocks. Gets my vote.
Didn't Cameron go on a Jolly to South Africa in 1989? I'm sure he picked up a few tips from the government on how to introduce this sort of thing
@AllyPally
Fits nicely with Osborne's "Hang Mandela" charming Young Tory traditions too and their Bullingdon antics. How many Jocks made it into that club?
White supremacy over Jocks. The Jocks do not deserve a voice because they are ginger headed, pasty plebs with a strange accent.
@rosschawkins: SNP spending LESS in real terms than Labour or the Lib Dems in 2020 in these IFS figs http://t.co/zclFGFxsfg
http://t.co/s1vK1ps3fc http://t.co/63BEodKN8e
Unless you can control how successful negativity translates into votes, it is a useless excercise. That basically means an Either Or option. Anything else means that outcomes you don't want can occur just as often or more often.
As for vote-swapping "violating" the constituency principle, the reality is that in a General Election most people are voting for which party they want to run the country. 75% of people don't know who their MP is, and I suspect a large chunk the other 25% only know because their MP happens to be a prominent Government or Opposition politician.
Lab: 271
Tory: 269
Lib: 29
SNP: 55
UKIP: 4
Amazingly tight.
Liking the UKIP 4, as long as Thurrock is in there.
Yellow Peril surge tonight
Tories up tommorow.
Great supplementaries for Sturgeon too
You're the party of make the whites angry to win an election in Oldham, scene of race riots.
But keep on hiking up Mount Pomposity.
Has he cleared that line with Balls?
Same with independent economic views - IFS says something positive about Osborne and they are falling over themselves to praise them, they point out that Labour has provided more information than the Tories on how their fiscal targets are met and suddenly nobody really cares what they say. Comical really.
@MichaelLCrick: Rahman agents "guilty of corrupt practices" on postal votes
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2861394/original.jpg
Fair enough re: the caffeine deprivation!
My example with Con,Lab,LD obviously applied to any combination of these - I don't particularly care about trying to make a case for an "anti-Tory alliance". I don't object to the candidate who gets the plurarity of votes getting credit, but the votes of the majority who did not vote for them should also be taken into account. A system that ignroes the majority of the votes can hardly be called democratic here.
Your Usain Bolt example isn't really relevant here: we're counting share of popular support as our metric, not a measure of continuous timing. Plus, Usain isn't also trying to qualify for a "super race" of winners of the other events. If that were the case, though, would you only let the 100m winner in?
Poor Murphy will soon be put back in the box and not just on the box.
The position is perfectly simple. The SNP is planning 1/2 per cent real increases in Departmental spending instead of real terms reductions from Labour, Liberal and Tory.
Sky's "confusion" is due to the definition by IFS of austerity as being ANY plan to reduce public borrowing. Most people and most economists would see austerity as being about public spending cuts which the SNP propose to bring to an end from next fianical year.
There are a number of candidates ( Alban, King Charles, King Edward, Beckett) but are there any obscure ones that might fit the bill better? In particular, any female ones?
Mr. P, Morley tends to have pretty big St. George's events, often the weekend after.
I left work [temporary, I was at university] on St George's Day in Morley. It was a fantastic sunny day, and there was a strange delight in strolling past a long queue of cars going nowhere fast.
Does anyone actually believe if Labour/SNP get in then these figures will be "improved" after 5 years.
(this explains the similar proportion of Red and Blue going to that category. Red --> Typical behaviout; Blue --> Pushing up daisies)
i) People should vote honestly. The act of voting should be demonstrative of which candidate a voter finds worthy of his/her support. By voting tactically you are lying and the election is not a true reflection of voters' preferences, which seems to negate the whole purpose of the election.
ii) Perhaps more importantly, if some people vote tactically when others don't, the liars are taking unfair advantage of others' honesty or ignorance.
iii) It can be demonstrated that the more people misrepresent their preferences, the greater the possibility the outcome will be worse, for all, than if everyone had voted honestly!
The inescapable conclusion is that, to avoid these pernicious outcomes, one must abandon the system which, above all, offers the highest incentives to lie. That system is known as FPTP...
However much DC tries to detoxify the party they are still stuck with the likes of Lynton Crosby, Rupert Murdoch, Grant Shapp etc. I am sometimes tempted to go blue for economic reasons but half an hour on here serves to remind me why I never could. A number of Tory posters just come across as nasty, heartless individuals, more so than the UKIP posters actually.
It's unfathomable how much support the likes of Labour, PC, Green, UKIP, and the SNP have. There are only two parties that actually seem serious about the economy, the Tories and the Lib Dems, and the Lib Dems waver at times. We appear to be about to throw away all of the hard work for a coalition of absolute numpties who have been in denial for the last five years and spout the most ludicrous tripe. I can only conclude the the majority of the British public still does not understand the mess that this country was left in by the Labour Party.
Yay.
Either way, the 8/1 looks good.
Intimidation at polling stations: Mawrey says police could be said to be like three wise monkeys at polling stations. They did nothing
Should probably also put in a good word for Cuthbert and Bede, given my nom-de-plume. Ought to be an Anglo-Saxon, anyway. St Hild of Whitby might make a good female candidate.
I'm annoyed I didn't also put money on no seats at the time, which I think was 20/1 then.
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 2m2 minutes ago
Mawrey: election of all Tower Hamlets First councillors achieved by corrupt practices
If wealth creators, SMEs and business in general is suffering, this could be viewed as an improvement by certain left-leaning types, since these people are in their eyes "fatcats" "the rich" and "bankers" who deserve all that's coming to them, and bear sole responsibility for the deficit, food banks and the fact that it's raining probably.
Nose/face/spite...