You can back Harriet Harman to be next deputy Prime Minister at 7/1 with Paddy Power. While Ed Miliband might not have a deputy Prime Minister, I cannot see how he could choose anyone else if there is a Labour minority government, given that she is the elected deputy leader.
Given that Labour minority is currently trading at 2.6 or so on Betfair, this looks like a good bet to me.
Absolutely. Not worth Ed's bother to abolish the position either.
Bear in mind PP appear to have Damien McBride on their payroll - you could be betting against inside info.
Most of these celebrities writing for bookies are churning out any old guff. Money for old rope.
Liking the UKIP 4, as long as Thurrock is in there.
Those are horrible figures. SNP can bring the government down at will. LD block ineffective.
What would be worse, is if CON is 5 higher and LAB 5 lower, in which case you have the same situation, except Ed would not have a moral mandate to govern.
It all points in the medium term to being bad for the UK, bad for Labour and great for Scottish Independence.
This outcome has been clear for months though and it's not changing.
All that has changed is the seat projections catching up with the vote shares being polled which initially were sticky but now realise it's real and it's about to happen.
May 8th likely to be Scotland's 1919 moment.
You mean they'll f-off and create their own parliament? Oh, wait, they've already got one...
@lucymanning: Ed Miliband says IFS figure of Labour 90bn debt based on assumptions he doesnt accept. Again refused to be specific on when deficit cleared.
Why does the deficit have to be cleared? So long as it can be serviced, what's the problem?
It depends on your faith in the medium term prospects of the UK economy.
The Tories have little if any belief in the UK economy and view us as having a similar profile to Greece, therefore our debt is too large.
Others see us more similar to the profile of a developed first world economy such as Japan, so the debt is about one quarter of what might conceivably be run up.
It's people like you (and IA) who caused the had-to-be-enforced austerity we've all had to suffer. The lack of self-awareness is staggering.
The most economically literate way of debt reduction is to inflate it down over time. Period. Repaying debt from cuts makes no economic sense and is not credible UNLESS the economy is threatened by the debt level.
The only way anyone can see that as relevant to the UK is if they see it's economic strength as being that of Greece in the short and medium term. Obviously there are other issues long term for the UK but they do not impact on the necessity or otherwise of cut based debt reduction.
I have no problem with the UK having debt per se. However, a few points which shape my view of this: 1) Inflating it down requires that the deficit is below the amount at which the debt falls in real terms. 2) The deficit should be at a level which enables it to withstand shocks without ballooning out of control. 3) This implies (to me) that there should not be a structural deficit. As we've seen, this makes responding to a shock very painful. 4) Having a structural deficit, and moving to eliminate it, requires cuts. Period.
I don't have a huge disagreement with any of your points other than the last. A structural deficit can be eliminated through growing your tax base with no change to (or small increases in) spending. I.e. the SNP plan which seems to be best received by the IFS.
The Tax Free Allowance increase has to be the most economically illiterate act of any government in my lifetime. Not to mention the moral impact on so many more people getting representation without (income) taxation.
It was best received as being the most credibly costed (a good thing!). That doesn't mean it's the best course of action.
@lucymanning: Ed Miliband says IFS figure of Labour 90bn debt based on assumptions he doesnt accept. Again refused to be specific on when deficit cleared.
Why does the deficit have to be cleared? So long as it can be serviced, what's the problem?
It depends on your faith in the medium term prospects of the UK economy.
The Tories have little if any belief in the UK economy and view us as having a similar profile to Greece, therefore our debt is too large.
Others see us more similar to the profile of a developed first world economy such as Japan, so the debt is about one quarter of what might conceivably be run up.
The reality, I suspect, is somewhere in between.
In any event, the economic prospects of either country are not to be envied, although the collapse of the Japanese economy will be played over a much longer time period
So do I. I raised the hare in order to get a feel for how big an issue the deficit will be for the next government, by comparison with, say, levels of public services and/or racism vs child protection, illegal immigration or the excessive proportion of the elderly amongst the population.
I suspect both Labour and the Tories are pulling their punches on economic matters, mindful that there is a strong possibility of a "grand coalition" in which they will have to pull on the same end of the rope. Such an outcome will be hated on this board far more than by Joe and Joan Public, of course.
Tories contesting 90% seats, Labour 75% seats, LD/UKIP
For UKIP, I think the authorities to watch out for will be Thanet, Medway, Tendring, Castle Point, Great Yarmouth, Boston, Dudley, Newcastle under Lyme, Cannock Chase.
Can someone expand the EICIPM acronym for a newbie please?
Ed is crap is PM
Thanks all for the responses. You wouldn't believe how long I've been trying to work that out. I figured it must be something psephological, but obviously underestimed the humour of this forum!
On a different point, anyone care to give me their views on whether I've wasted my money by backing a Lab/SNP/LD coalition at 20-1?
Wasted.
They won't be in coalition.
Confidence & supply the only game in town then? I figured there might be a change of heart post election day. They could trot out the same lines as the Dave/Nick rose garden love in about working together in the national interest, stable government in a time of crisis, unity and shared purpose etc etc (ad nauseam). Ho hum.
I'm on the same bet. I guess it could revive when they all start talking but 20-1 is too short at any rate for this.
I assume you placed it before the Ed Mili speech ruling out formal arrangements like me :E ?
I'm afraid so. However, the odds didn't lengthen any after he said it, so I figured the bookies might not be taking the statement at face value - perhaps i'm extrapolating too much to justify my position!
Re the Lutfur Rahman shenanigans, it was accurately forecast 47 years ago
"Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly."
Interesting Cameron's (1.8m) least watched of Evan Davis leader intvws. Farage (2.5m), Clegg (2m+), Mili (1.9m) http://bit.ly/1ILSgX2
Interesting but not really surprising. Viewing Clegg is like akin to knitting next to the guillotine. Miliband viewers have the same mind-set as people paying to view the bearded lady at the fair. Farage has a loyal fanbase, and hordes of liberals gagging to be offended. Cameron is just a bit, well, meh.
Interesting Cameron's (1.8m) least watched of Evan Davis leader intvws. Farage (2.5m), Clegg (2m+), Mili (1.9m) http://bit.ly/1ILSgX2
Interesting but not really surprising. Viewing Clegg is like akin to knitting next to the guillotine. Miliband viewers have the same mind-set as people paying to view the bearded lady at the fair. Farage has a loyal fanbase, and hordes of liberals gagging to be offended. Cameron is just a bit, well, meh.
"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.
I don't think there's anything to choose between the parties in terms of niceness/nastiness.
Then why is it that only the Tories have a problem with the "nasty party" image, a problem they acknowledge themselves.
Re the Lutfur Rahman shenanigans, it was accurately forecast 47 years ago
"Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly."
Who would be Deputy PM in a Con-only government? I rather like Damian McBride's suggestion to look past the obvious leadership contenders. Gove @ 33/1 needs a new job but might prove too controversial. Pickles @ 50/1???
"The story of Lutfur Rahman is a democratic success story. The fact that it seems dodgy to the political and media classes is indicative of how long they've been insulated from anything resembling real democracy."
It's up there with Sion Simon's "Labour Will Increase Their Majority."
"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.
I don't think there's anything to choose between the parties in terms of niceness/nastiness.
Then why is it that only the Tories have a problem with the "nasty party" image, a problem they acknowledge themselves.
Can someone expand the EICIPM acronym for a newbie please?
Ed is crap is PM
Thanks all for the responses. You wouldn't believe how long I've been trying to work that out. I figured it must be something psephological, but obviously underestimed the humour of this forum!
On a different point, anyone care to give me their views on whether I've wasted my money by backing a Lab/SNP/LD coalition at 20-1?
Wasted.
They won't be in coalition.
Confidence & supply the only game in town then? I figured there might be a change of heart post election day. They could trot out the same lines as the Dave/Nick rose garden love in about working together in the national interest, stable government in a time of crisis, unity and shared purpose etc etc (ad nauseam). Ho hum.
I'm on the same bet. I guess it could revive when they all start talking but 20-1 is too short at any rate for this.
I assume you placed it before the Ed Mili speech ruling out formal arrangements like me :E ?
I'm afraid so. However, the odds didn't lengthen any after he said it, so I figured the bookies might not be taking the statement at face value - perhaps i'm extrapolating too much to justify my position!
i'm on this at 26-1. but looks exceedingly unlikely now.
You can back Harriet Harman to be next deputy Prime Minister at 7/1 with Paddy Power. While Ed Miliband might not have a deputy Prime Minister, I cannot see how he could choose anyone else if there is a Labour minority government, given that she is the elected deputy leader.
Given that Labour minority is currently trading at 2.6 or so on Betfair, this looks like a good bet to me.
Absolutely. Not worth Ed's bother to abolish the position either.
Bear in mind PP appear to have Damien McBride on their payroll - you could be betting against inside info.
The same PP which had Spot Ed's Balls contest this morning?
Who would be Deputy PM in a Con-only government? I rather like Damian McBride's suggestion to look past the obvious leadership contenders. Gove @ 33/1 needs a new job but might prove too controversial. Pickles @ 50/1???
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.
Its cos we don't want 5 more yrs of cuts thanks.
Said at the time the tories blew it at the budget. Should've also given something back & showed they understand and care about working class people.
So we want 5 years of lots more borrowing which will wreck the economy and we will leave it to our children/grandchildren to sort out.
Re the Lutfur Rahman shenanigans, it was accurately forecast 47 years ago
"Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly."
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me
Interesting Cameron's (1.8m) least watched of Evan Davis leader intvws. Farage (2.5m), Clegg (2m+), Mili (1.9m) http://bit.ly/1ILSgX2
Interesting but not really surprising. Viewing Clegg is like akin to knitting next to the guillotine. Miliband viewers have the same mind-set as people paying to view the bearded lady at the fair. Farage has a loyal fanbase, and hordes of liberals gagging to be offended. Cameron is just a bit, well, meh.
Can someone expand the EICIPM acronym for a newbie please?
Ed is crap is PM
Thanks all for the responses. You wouldn't believe how long I've been trying to work that out. I figured it must be something psephological, but obviously underestimed the humour of this forum!
On a different point, anyone care to give me their views on whether I've wasted my money by backing a Lab/SNP/LD coalition at 20-1?
Wasted.
They won't be in coalition.
Confidence & supply the only game in town then? I figured there might be a change of heart post election day. They could trot out the same lines as the Dave/Nick rose garden love in about working together in the national interest, stable government in a time of crisis, unity and shared purpose etc etc (ad nauseam). Ho hum.
I'm on the same bet. I guess it could revive when they all start talking but 20-1 is too short at any rate for this.
I assume you placed it before the Ed Mili speech ruling out formal arrangements like me :E ?
I'm afraid so. However, the odds didn't lengthen any after he said it, so I figured the bookies might not be taking the statement at face value - perhaps i'm extrapolating too much to justify my position!
i'm on this at 26-1. but looks exceedingly unlikely now.
Lab-SNP coalition has been shortening at the bookies. Either punters are doing basic maths correctly without listening to the leaders, or they don't believe the leaders.
Can someone expand the EICIPM acronym for a newbie please?
Ed is crap is PM
Thanks all for the responses. You wouldn't believe how long I've been trying to work that out. I figured it must be something psephological, but obviously underestimed the humour of this forum!
On a different point, anyone care to give me their views on whether I've wasted my money by backing a Lab/SNP/LD coalition at 20-1?
Wasted.
They won't be in coalition.
Confidence & supply the only game in town then? I figured there might be a change of heart post election day. They could trot out the same lines as the Dave/Nick rose garden love in about working together in the national interest, stable government in a time of crisis, unity and shared purpose etc etc (ad nauseam). Ho hum.
I'm on the same bet. I guess it could revive when they all start talking but 20-1 is too short at any rate for this.
I assume you placed it before the Ed Mili speech ruling out formal arrangements like me :E ?
I'm afraid so. However, the odds didn't lengthen any after he said it, so I figured the bookies might not be taking the statement at face value - perhaps i'm extrapolating too much to justify my position!
i'm on this at 26-1. but looks exceedingly unlikely now.
Lab-SNP coalition has been shortening at the bookies. Either punters are doing basic maths correctly without listening to the leaders, or they don't believe the leaders.
Or as we get closer there are more punters not that clued up who don't realise that it won't be a coalition. Their money will effect the market.
Who would be Deputy PM in a Con-only government? I rather like Damian McBride's suggestion to look past the obvious leadership contenders. Gove @ 33/1 needs a new job but might prove too controversial. Pickles @ 50/1???
I suspect he'd be the average Labour activist's pick as well.
I've no view on vote-swapping. I wouldn't do it myself and can't offer it because East Ham isn't a hyper-marginal (or indeed any other kind of marginal).
Yet I understand why people do it.
Two weeks today, I will vote Liberal Democrat and while my vote will be counted, it will not count. It will have no bearing whatsoever on the formation of the next House of Commons or the next Government of my country.
The ludicrous anachronism that is the current system of contrived geographical accident and tradition means that in certain places your vote is actively courted while in most it is ignored.
The concept that a Party's presence in the legislature should be an accurate reflection of the number of people voting for it seems so obvious I cannot understand why anyone is opposed to it. Now, there are those who claim proportionality is the route to instability and cite various countries where that has happened.
Granted but Britain isn't Israel - the British political tradition and culture would adapt as easily to PR as it would to the various technological, cultural and social changes which we have undergone in the past 200 years. There would be a recognisable centre-right bloc of parties and a recognisable centre-left bloc with some parties sitting outside the blocs.
The current system suits both Conservative and Labour parties who will gain more than 90% of the seats on barely 70% of the vote. It might even work well for the LDs this time but won't help UKIP. None of that makes it right - Nick Clegg was wrong to offer AV, an equally disproportional system which had and has never been LD policy. I understand why he did it but it was politically inept and a bad decision.
There are plenty of systems out there (some better than others) and whether you want the New Zealand system or the system used for the GLA or the German system with a threshold or something else is a topic for debate but the principal factor for me must be that in a democracy every vote must be counted and must count.
There is something pernicious about a system which, for the majority of electors, the only thing that changes - perhaps in their entire lifetime - is when they are offered a new "closed list of one" by the incumbent party in their constituency.
And there is something disturbing about a system wherein, since 2005, the majority of those who vote elect no-one...
Multi-member STV offers the best of all worlds; proportionality, a choice of candidates between parties, a choice of candidates within parties, a minor party threshold and a geographical link.
You can back Harriet Harman to be next deputy Prime Minister at 7/1 with Paddy Power. While Ed Miliband might not have a deputy Prime Minister, I cannot see how he could choose anyone else if there is a Labour minority government, given that she is the elected deputy leader.
Given that Labour minority is currently trading at 2.6 or so on Betfair, this looks like a good bet to me.
Absolutely. Not worth Ed's bother to abolish the position either.
Bear in mind PP appear to have Damien McBride on their payroll - you could be betting against inside info.
The same PP which had Spot Ed's Balls contest this morning?
Can someone expand the EICIPM acronym for a newbie please?
Ed is crap is PM
Thanks all for the responses. You wouldn't believe how long I've been trying to work that out. I figured it must be something psephological, but obviously underestimed the humour of this forum!
On a different point, anyone care to give me their views on whether I've wasted my money by backing a Lab/SNP/LD coalition at 20-1?
Wasted.
They won't be in coalition.
Confidence & supply the only game in town then? I figured there might be a change of heart post election day. They could trot out the same lines as the Dave/Nick rose garden love in about working together in the national interest, stable government in a time of crisis, unity and shared purpose etc etc (ad nauseam). Ho hum.
I'm on the same bet. I guess it could revive when they all start talking but 20-1 is too short at any rate for this.
I assume you placed it before the Ed Mili speech ruling out formal arrangements like me :E ?
I'm afraid so. However, the odds didn't lengthen any after he said it, so I figured the bookies might not be taking the statement at face value - perhaps i'm extrapolating too much to justify my position!
i'm on this at 26-1. but looks exceedingly unlikely now.
Lab-SNP coalition has been shortening at the bookies. Either punters are doing basic maths correctly without listening to the leaders, or they don't believe the leaders.
Or as we get closer there are more punters not that clued up who don't realise that it won't be a coalition. Their money will effect the market.
It wouldn't be a coalition, it would be a suicide pact
David Wooding @DavidWooding 9 mins9 minutes ago London, England
Trials of journalists Lucy Panton and Vince Soodin formally abandoned as "not in the public interest". Another blow for discredited CPS.
What an utter utter shambles....
CPS are a total joke over this...now what ever happened to whoever was in charge of this not-fit for purpose organization, when they decided to charge all these people?
I hope whoever it was doesn't get put in charge of anything important in the near future....
You can back Harriet Harman to be next deputy Prime Minister at 7/1 with Paddy Power. While Ed Miliband might not have a deputy Prime Minister, I cannot see how he could choose anyone else if there is a Labour minority government, given that she is the elected deputy leader.
Given that Labour minority is currently trading at 2.6 or so on Betfair, this looks like a good bet to me.
Absolutely. Not worth Ed's bother to abolish the position either.
Bear in mind PP appear to have Damien McBride on their payroll - you could be betting against inside info.
The same PP which had Spot Ed's Balls contest this morning?
Game changer on three year old tweets - I think not.
Certainly not on the basis of the First Minister's Questions I have just seen on the Parliament programme when Sturgeon totally and comprehensively destroyed Dugdale (Murphy's Deputy) on that issue - and indeed on the difference between "austerity" (the reduction in borrowing) and "public spending" over the next financial period.
Sorry, but like a lot of people, I don't watch FMQ's. Blame Salmond, and now Sturgeon, blaming Westminster for everything.
Where it will count is when the electorate in Edinburgh South (which according to the information I understand is correct, 65% voted No) realise that not only is your candidate a CyberNAT Troll and his views on the elderly (of which there are a lot) and "Quisling" No voters then their attitude to him may not be one that you want.
Perhaps he could return to Spain to get his business out of bankruptcy? He also doesn't seem to have any UK employment record or long term residency.
It's going to be interesting in seeing how many other SNP candidates are going to be put under the spotlight and come out as shiney as a diamond, or not.
However much DC tries to detoxify the party they are still stuck with the likes of Lynton Crosby, Rupert Murdoch, Grant Shapp etc. .
Grant Shapp nasty? Really?
And I suppose you do realise that Rupert Murdoch has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Conservative Party? He was, however, a very prominent and influential supporter of the Labour Party. So why do you not regard Labour as the 'nasty party', by your own twisted logic?
Or, to put it another way: you have worked backwards from your irrational prejudice to create myths to support it.
I am not an idiot, I know Murdoch has no official role in the Tory party but as I am sure you are well aware, he is is using every trick in his nasty little play book to try to undermine Miliband and push the Tories over the line on May 7th. The fact that for a short time he was a Blair fan changes very little.
Shapps/Michael Green epitomises everything I find distasteful about the Tories, fitting he should be the Chairman.
As I said I could vote for the Conservatives based on an objective analysis of their policies, I even quite like Cameron in some respects. I admire the way he has faced down the "right" on social issues. However I could not vote for them because I still see them as basically a nasty party. I am far from alone in that view and it is widely acknowledged that it is a problem for the them.
Even as one of the politer PB Tories you accuse me of having "irrational prejudice" and a "twisted logic", which frankly I find insulting and condescending.
"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.
I don't think there's anything to choose between the parties in terms of niceness/nastiness.
Actually SF- the UKIP posters on this site come across as far more reasonable than the shrill pbTory brigade. Farage actually comes across as much nicer than the likes of Osborne and Schapps. Reckless and Carswell both appear to be thoroughly decent, much to my amazement. Just an observation.
"He worked for 45 years, first as an analyst and stockbroker in the City, then as an investment banker based in Hong Kong; and finally, as an adviser to a major Swiss bank."
"He worked for 45 years, first as an analyst and stockbroker in the City, then as an investment banker based in Hong Kong; and finally, as an adviser to a major Swiss bank."
Holy shit.
Maybe his job was to advise the walls what colour to be, using a paintbrush
Rod - I disagree. You talk about votes in safe seats not counting but of course they do. And as this election will show no seat is truly safe. A very large number of safe Labour seats in Scotland look set to be blown away.
And as for the closed list of one, that applies even more in PR systems where the parties decide who is top of the list. A PR system encourages shady deals, as being no 1 on a party list is more important than pleasing the voters.
Another problem with PR is that often no-one has a clear mandate to govern and it all comes down to horse trading on who gets in. This also means that no-one has an idea what policies they are actually voting for.
Finally, I think PR is bad for government as it encourages a cosy consensus and makes it hard for outsider parties offering radical change to win. Just look at the aftermath of the Euros where the EPP and S&D have been working together to block the sceptics. In Greece, if there had not been the 50 seat bonus, I expect the centrist parties would have allied to block them.
"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.
Damian McBride, Peter Mandelson, lord of the dark arts and Alastair Campbell are nice then??
Anyone can come up with a bit of "what-about-ery" but the fact remains it is the Tories that have the real problem with the "nasty" image, not Labour, not UKIP, not the Lib Dems, not the SNP. If you don't think it loses them votes then I honestly think you are deluding yourself.
Intimidation at polling stations: Mawrey says police could be said to be like three wise monkeys at polling stations. They did nothing
This vindicates everything Councillor Peter Golds has been saying for years.
When he complained to the police about voter intimidation, he got the response "It's a cultural matter."
Which is why we should not let people from such a culture come and live here.
Rahman used to be a Labour party candidate. Only when he got expelled and started defeating Labour did they complain. And remember that Livingstone campaigned for him and even more recently wanted him readmitted into the Labour party.
Labour seems to have been receiving substantially more donations than the Conservatives during the short campaign. Do we have any sense of how large their warchests were before then?
"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.
You really do show an amazing lack of self awareness.
Of course the bookies get in wrong and that is the time to get on the right side but it means you must be able to do your own tissue price.The value is usually to be had on first show and ante-post in political betting.Good examples are Jim Murphy being offered 1st show at evens when he was a 1-10 chance and the 4-6 on the Tory candidate for Newark when I made him a 1-4 chance. I would suggest trends analysis produces the best predictors,John Curtice and Thrower and Rawlings are more right than wrong. My best bet ante-post was 11-8 on at least 150 LD lost deposits 2 years ago.I'm surprised PP haven't already paid out.I am on Labour minority last Summer at 7-1 which is now tradeable at 7-4. Mike is dead right.The bookies get in very wrong sometimes.Ask all of us who got on George Galloway at long odds.Good information must always be regarded too especially from trusted sources like PB-it's possible.The regional and local press still supply a vital role in that.
Somewhat surprising readers’ poll in Bedfordshire on Sunday for the Bedford constituency (Labour target and Lab-Con marginal): Richard Fuller (CON) 23.5% Patrick Hall (LAB) 27.87% Mahmud Henry Rogers (LIB) 2.73% Charlie Smith (UKIP) 13.11% Ben Foley (GREEN) 31.15% Faruk Choudhury (IND) 1.64%
Comments
Stephen Tall @stephentall
Interesting Cameron's (1.8m) least watched of Evan Davis leader intvws. Farage (2.5m), Clegg (2m+), Mili (1.9m) http://bit.ly/1ILSgX2
2014 forecast (NEV): Con 30%, Lab 33%, LD 14%, UKIP 16%
2014 result (NEV): Con 30%, Lab 31%, LD 11%, UKIP 18%
2015 forecast (NEV): Con 31%, Lab 32%, LD 13%("bit of a health warning on that"), UKIP 15%
2015 forcast (seats): Con -450, Lab -80, LD -50, UKIP +400
---------
Tories contesting 90% seats, Labour 75% seats, LD/UKIP <50%, Green 40%.
Current seat totals: Con 5,110, Lab 2,456, LD 1,098, other 787 (Green 79, UKIP 8)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05tcwlr/election-2015-psa-local-election-forecast
PoliticsHome @politicshome
IFS: Labour would borrow £90bn more than Tories by 2020 http://polho.me/1OJUuYI pic.twitter.com/nYEU6iMvna
I suspect both Labour and the Tories are pulling their punches on economic matters, mindful that there is a strong possibility of a "grand coalition" in which they will have to pull on the same end of the rope. Such an outcome will be hated on this board far more than by Joe and Joan Public, of course.
"Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-Blood-speech.html
Sunil'sGeorge's Day to all English PBers!Otherwise I would suggest that Powell had SFA to do with this case.
For every Brian Coleman there's a Mike Watson.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/588025567427043330
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me
The important question, @isam, is who *they* are.
POLRWAS - came as a shock...
Trials of journalists Lucy Panton and Vince Soodin formally abandoned as "not in the public interest". Another blow for discredited CPS.
What an utter utter shambles....
The bookies need to get that money back from their Scottish books somehow.
Do you think the lovely people of Tower Hamlets know who Lynton Crosby is? Do they go to work obsessing about Grant Shapps use of wikipedia?
Do the good people of Stockton South know the finer points of GDP, gini-co-efficients, current account deficits etc etc?
Do the inhabitants of Glasgow NE hang onto Christine Lagarde's every utterance?
Ordinary people care about their incomes, their housing costs, the taxes they pay and the effect they have on prices.
Whether their children's schools are good, the streets are clean, their kids are safe and their old folk have a decent pension and care.
I hope whoever it was doesn't get put in charge of anything important in the near future....
http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/news/317970-campaign-trail-2015-mademoiselle-ecosse-goes-to-westminster/
Coco the journalist.
Where it will count is when the electorate in Edinburgh South (which according to the information I understand is correct, 65% voted No) realise that not only is your candidate a CyberNAT Troll and his views on the elderly (of which there are a lot) and "Quisling" No voters then their attitude to him may not be one that you want.
Perhaps he could return to Spain to get his business out of bankruptcy? He also doesn't seem to have any UK employment record or long term residency.
It's going to be interesting in seeing how many other SNP candidates are going to be put under the spotlight and come out as shiney as a diamond, or not.
Shapps/Michael Green epitomises everything I find distasteful about the Tories, fitting he should be the Chairman.
As I said I could vote for the Conservatives based on an objective analysis of their policies, I even quite like Cameron in some respects. I admire the way he has faced down the "right" on social issues. However I could not vote for them because I still see them as basically a nasty party. I am far from alone in that view and it is widely acknowledged that it is a problem for the them.
Even as one of the politer PB Tories you accuse me of having "irrational prejudice" and a "twisted logic", which frankly I find insulting and condescending.
Uhhhhh
Holy shit.
And as for the closed list of one, that applies even more in PR systems where the parties decide who is top of the list. A PR system encourages shady deals, as being no 1 on a party list is more important than pleasing the voters.
Another problem with PR is that often no-one has a clear mandate to govern and it all comes down to horse trading on who gets in. This also means that no-one has an idea what policies they are actually voting for.
Finally, I think PR is bad for government as it encourages a cosy consensus and makes it hard for outsider parties offering radical change to win. Just look at the aftermath of the Euros where the EPP and S&D have been working together to block the sceptics. In Greece, if there had not been the 50 seat bonus, I expect the centrist parties would have allied to block them.
Rahman used to be a Labour party candidate. Only when he got expelled and started defeating Labour did they complain. And remember that Livingstone campaigned for him and even more recently wanted him readmitted into the Labour party.
2010: 27,894
I'll offer any reputable punter evens on it being over 25,000.
Any takers?
I would suggest trends analysis produces the best predictors,John Curtice and Thrower and Rawlings are more right than wrong.
My best bet ante-post was 11-8 on at least 150 LD lost deposits 2 years ago.I'm surprised PP haven't already paid out.I am on Labour minority last Summer at 7-1 which is now tradeable at 7-4.
Mike is dead right.The bookies get in very wrong sometimes.Ask all of us who got on George Galloway at long odds.Good information must always be regarded too especially from trusted sources like PB-it's possible.The regional and local press still supply a vital role in that.
Richard Fuller (CON) 23.5%
Patrick Hall (LAB) 27.87%
Mahmud Henry Rogers (LIB) 2.73%
Charlie Smith (UKIP) 13.11%
Ben Foley (GREEN) 31.15%
Faruk Choudhury (IND) 1.64%
http://www.bedfordshire-news.co.uk/Election-poll-s-lead-Bedford-Kempston/story-26364589-detail/story.html#ixzz3YAdhUU31