One suspects that is the combined benefit of a good system, and being a very small place where hard to avoid direct scrutiny by central government, for example there are only 25 hospitals in Singapore, one suspects the Health Minister might visit each of them personally every year.
Mr. Rentool, Mr. G tipped Patel as next leader at 50/1.
It's her or Justine Greening.
Mr G? I've been banging on about nothing else for 5 years!
Priti Patel won`t be PM of this country.
The same was said about Fatcha.
Fatcha said it about Fatcha
That doesn't count, that's expected
"While one does not seek the office, one has pledged oneself to the service of one's country, and if one's friends were to persuade one that was the best way one could serve, one might have to accept the responsibility whatever one's own private wishes might be." etc
Yes Minister. All we need now is a British Sausage event. Grexit could be a horrible game-changer. And having the EU force the UK to take more migrant workers/ refugees from Africa is not exactly the worst thing that could happen to UKIP.
It's difficult not to be angry with the Lib Dems. So many talented and articulate MP's (I just heard Jo Swinson) and such a rubbishy leadership. I wonder whether their best chance isn't for someone like Farron to rock the boat and say what every remaining Lib Dem must be thinking. Time for Clegg and Co to join the Tories.
Huhne's misadventures have had as profound an impact for the LD's as Strauss Kahn for the French socialists. They just don't seem to have anyone with the stature or chuzpah to be leader.
I was surprised to discover when researching my local Lib Dem candidate for Stirling that Willie Rennie is one of my regional list MSPs. Fair to say as I'm a political geek and was unaware of this, it makes me wonder what % of the voting population could name their list MSPs. Further, if very few people know of their existence - what do these guys actually do all day?
Only 20% can name their Westminster (FPTP) MPs, so it's not that surprising.
Reasons:-
A view that all politicians are useless irritants who are not worth taking a blind bit of notice of. An electoral system under which only 47% of voters managed to elect anybody. Bit of both?
By the way, the Nepal earthquake will brush the GE campaign off the air waves for the next few days, especially as many westerners have died in the Everest avalanche.
Deficit denier? Is that like negative denier, meaning not wearing tights at all?
People like Gordon Brown who don't believe if deficits, them having been abolished along with boom and bust, we don't have deficits any more, we are just 1.4 trillion pounds in a negative profit situation.
So Cam reckons the first BME PM will be a Tory. ...
It would be true to form.
First Jewish leader (and PM) First unmarried leader (and PM). First female leader (and PM). Oldest leader this century (and PM). Youngest leader this century (and youngest PM this century) First openly homosexual leader (Scottish rather than UK level)
I see no reason why the first non-white leader shouldn't be a Tory either.
Mr. Rentool, Mr. G tipped Patel as next leader at 50/1.
It's her or Justine Greening.
Mr G? I've been banging on about nothing else for 5 years!
Priti Patel won`t be PM of this country.
She will first have to win the Tory leadership, it will be impossible when she will be facing Boris, May, Hammond and who knows who else.
It wont happen this time around for sure, she doesn't have enough experience, but with a bit of tempering as Chief Secretary to the Treasury and a car crash from the current leader over the EU referendum, and anything is possible
I was surprised to discover when researching my local Lib Dem candidate for Stirling that Willie Rennie is one of my regional list MSPs. Fair to say as I'm a political geek and was unaware of this, it makes me wonder what % of the voting population could name their list MSPs. Further, if very few people know of their existence - what do these guys actually do all day?
Not surprising at all. I couldn't tell you who my H&I list MSPs are either and I am a political anorak as well.
Villagate is one of those silly election stories that come and go but I think it does highlight something which I'm increasingly aware of, which is that as the election campaign goes on, David Cameron seem's to be increasingly fading away into irrelevance...
It's hard to put your finger on but it's like the tide is slowly going out on him or maybe submerging him...
The Tories need a game-changer, and seem not to have researched an effective one, so we get a different one every few days. It's stop Miliband, no it's selling Housing Association stock, no it's IHT, no it's Scotland, no it's the economy. I genuinely have no real idea what the Conservative priorities are. That means we can't really attack the priorities, but it creates a nebulous overall effect which fails to change anything.
Of regional interest: Populus have sent candidates in the E Mids a summary of the trends calculated from monthly polling totals (sanples 8K-10K). The Tory lead over Labour is down since October from 9 to 4 (37-33), while UKIP is 5 points up (at 20%). LibDems and Greens steady. Presumably they're doing the same service in each region. The Tory E Mids lead in 2010 was 11.4%, so a 4% lead is a 3.7% swing, which is (as per usual for the E Mids) very close to the national average.
This are going to get worse in Nepal: Siobhan Heanue @siobhanheanue · 17m 17 minutes ago Second big quake predicted sometime over next 2 hrs. Whole city trying to stay in the open. A cold night ahead #kathmanduearthquake
The media will forget about the GE until Tuesday at the earliest.
It's difficult not to be angry with the Lib Dems. So many talented and articulate MP's (I just heard Jo Swinson) and such a rubbishy leadership. I wonder whether their best chance isn't for someone like Farron to rock the boat and say what every remaining Lib Dem must be thinking. Time for Clegg and Co to join the Tories.
Huhne's misadventures have had as profound an impact for the LD's as Strauss Kahn for the French socialists. They just don't seem to have anyone with the stature or chuzpah to be leader.
There wouldn't have been a five year coalition under Huhne that is for sure, the Tories despise him. He would have to check the seat of his cabinet chair for drawing pins every time before he sat down. The LDs might not have imploded, but that would be by virtue of them not having been in government, and not having been in one of those coalitions they have spent the last 100 years telling us are the right way to run a government.
The real problem wasn't leadership though, it was having to pick and stick to a position once they were in government, they couldn't get away with their all-things-to-all-men approach, being Conservative-lite in the South West, and Labour-lite in the Midlands and North.
One suspects that is the combined benefit of a good system, and being a very small place where hard to avoid direct scrutiny by central government, for example there are only 25 hospitals in Singapore, one suspects the Health Minister might visit each of them personally every year.
Singapore stands out as low cost.
Their welfare model is interesting too. They expect people to exhaust family networks before approaching the state for money.
If their healthcare accounts are exhausted, family members again are expected to chip in before taxpayer money is used.
Mr Bartholomew advocates taking bits of each system rather than adopting one. Singapore's individual healthcare accounts, _and_ compulsory medical insurance (so that family members accounts aren't tapped).
Just had a leaflet in from Stephen Kerr, the Tory candidate for Stirling making a very direct plea for tactical votes to stop the SNP. Unfortunately other Stirling Tories are already indicating they will be voting tactically for SLAB;
These guys need to get their act together, Chris seems to think that David Cameron is on-side with him voting for SLAB !!
Update:
As I hadn't heard anything from the LibDem candidate I thought I do a bit of research. It turns out according to Elizabeth Wilson:
"Supporters of all parties are switching to back Lib Dem Elisabeth Wilson this time - the only candidate able to deliver more powers for Scotland and protect local services."
We've seen Labour on the slide all over Scotland whereas the Conservative vote seems to have held up. I'd suggest with it slipping back in the SNP-Lab battlegrounds, surely Stirling is the last place you'd vote Labour "tactically"
The worry for the Scottish Conservatives must surely be that their vote has not increased. The LDs support has vanished, but it all seems to have gone to the SNP/Greens rather than the Conservatives.
This is very true.
For sure the Tory vote in Scotland has been persistent as a cockroach in a nuclear winter. Finally, they have the complete and utter collapse of not one but two opposition parties.
Clegg lost 5 seats last time and probably will lose 35 - 40 seats this time.
I am not sure what the Liberals see in him. A man who looks like a Tory, behaves like a Tory, he is a Tory !
Although he has failed to stage a recovery and led them into it and so will bear much of the blame, the party did agree to entering into coalition with the Tories, which is the ultimate cause of most of those lost seats. They cannot blame all their problems on his leadership, though that will probably be the plan.
As I've said before, I very much hope he retains his seat. How the party decides to move on from his leadership and this mass culling of their MPs (to go along with the cull of MEPs and cllrs) will be much more interesting if he is still among them.
By the way, the Nepal earthquake will brush the GE campaign off the air waves for the next few days, especially as many westerners have died in the Everest avalanche.
I'd be all for more of the foreign aid budget being put towards fast disaster relief. (*) A scheme where basics (shelters, generators, water kit, rescue teams, comms gear, C&C) can be got onto site anywhere within the world within 48-hours from the UK, and larger kit (e.g. diggers, temporary bridge kits, runway repair kits) within 96 hours.
I know we have some of this capability, but having a hard-and-fast 48-hour scheme would be brilliant. Even if it meant air dropping. The US military have some interesting capabilities in this regard.
It is a way the foreign aid budget can make a real difference.
(*) Local geopolitics aside; this can only work if the teams are allowed in.
Just had a leaflet in from Stephen Kerr, the Tory candidate for Stirling making a very direct plea for tactical votes to stop the SNP. Unfortunately other Stirling Tories are already indicating they will be voting tactically for SLAB;
These guys need to get their act together, Chris seems to think that David Cameron is on-side with him voting for SLAB !!
Update:
As I hadn't heard anything from the LibDem candidate I thought I do a bit of research. It turns out according to Elizabeth Wilson:
"Supporters of all parties are switching to back Lib Dem Elisabeth Wilson this time - the only candidate able to deliver more powers for Scotland and protect local services."
We've seen Labour on the slide all over Scotland whereas the Conservative vote seems to have held up. I'd suggest with it slipping back in the SNP-Lab battlegrounds, surely Stirling is the last place you'd vote Labour "tactically"
The worry for the Scottish Conservatives must surely be that their vote has not increased. The LDs support has vanished, but it all seems to have gone to the SNP/Greens rather than the Conservatives.
Disappointing for them, to be sure. I think they're playing for the next election - hoping SLAB and SLD stay mired in chaos, whereas they are stable and consistent, and can become the natural opposition to the SNP when the SNP fervour eventually flags, however long that takes. As long as the Tories have been doing poorly in Scotland, I imagine they are pretty patient by now.
What is going to change at the next election?
The Labour vote has shrunk from 45% to 20% NOW. The Liberal vote has shrunk from 20% to 4% NOW.
If they can't get these newly shed voters now, why would this be different in 2020. This is the time and place where you scoop up the new votes - when your opponent's votes evaporate. The Tories are simply not getting any benefit and that won't change for the better in 2020.
By the way, the Nepal earthquake will brush the GE campaign off the air waves for the next few days, especially as many westerners have died in the Everest avalanche.
I'd be all for more of the foreign aid budget being put towards fast disaster relief. (*) A scheme where basics (shelters, generators, water kit, rescue teams, comms gear, C&C) can be got onto site anywhere within the world within 48-hours from the UK, and larger kit (e.g. diggers, temporary bridge kits, runway repair kits) within 96 hours.
I know we have some of this capability, but having a hard-and-fast 48-hour scheme would be brilliant. Even if it meant air dropping. The US military have some interesting capabilities in this regard.
It is a way the foreign aid budget can make a real difference.
(*) Local geopolitics aside; this can only work if the teams are allowed in.
LDs 11-20 seat band still widely available at 4/1. This has to be value, given the 23-25 spread, and the Ashcroft polling.
Yes, with how strongly the Tories are performing in the South West, I'm finding it very hard to see how the Lib Dems could get above 20 seats.
That's easy: they to 20 seats by losing:
6 to Labour 10 to the SNP and 19 to the Conservatives
Why so few to Labour? Because once you get past the obvious 5 in the betting odds, you get to Bradford East, where David Ward is probably a 50/50 shot to get re-elected and Hornsey and Wood Green, where there is a very substantial Conservative vote to squeeze. (In the rich, very Conservative voting, Highgate end of the constituency, the LibDems are going hard on "Would you rather a Con-LD coalition, or a Lab-SNP one?" And I think it's working - admittedly based solely on the Conservative voters I know.)
It's also possible that you only get 9 losses to the SNP. Jo Swinson has a chance if she can get tactical votes for her. The border seats look incredibly close. And I think Viscount Thurso - alone of Scottish Liberal Democrats - will get a meaningful personal vote.
That doesn't mean the 4-1 isn't good value. It's outstanding value and I've maxed out the amount that I'm allowed to bet on it with a bunch of bookmakers. But it is perfectly possible to see how the LibDems get 20 seats.
Just had a leaflet in from Stephen Kerr, the Tory candidate for Stirling making a very direct plea for tactical votes to stop the SNP. Unfortunately other Stirling Tories are already indicating they will be voting tactically for SLAB;
These guys need to get their act together, Chris seems to think that David Cameron is on-side with him voting for SLAB !!
Update:
As I hadn't heard anything from the LibDem candidate I thought I do a bit of research. It turns out according to Elizabeth Wilson:
"Supporters of all parties are switching to back Lib Dem Elisabeth Wilson this time - the only candidate able to deliver more powers for Scotland and protect local services."
We've seen Labour on the slide all over Scotland whereas the Conservative vote seems to have held up. I'd suggest with it slipping back in the SNP-Lab battlegrounds, surely Stirling is the last place you'd vote Labour "tactically"
I expect UKIP to eat into Tory vote but only marginally. The Kippers in my estimation wont vote tactically for Labour or the Lib Dems, since both are pro EU. Tories voting tactically for pro EU parties, I just don't see it. That is the equivalent of cutting your nose off to spite your face.
So Cam reckons the first BME PM will be a Tory. ...
It would be true to form.
First Jewish leader (and PM) First unmarried leader (and PM). First female leader (and PM). Oldest leader this century (and PM). Youngest leader this century (and youngest PM this century) First openly homosexual leader (Scottish rather than UK level)
I see no reason why the first non-white leader shouldn't be a Tory either.
They also had the first Catholic (officially), first to be born outside the UK, first to spend most of his career in business and local government.
Why would they need to? A government now only falls on an explicit VoNC due to the FTPA. It may choose to resign on losing a Queen's Speech or Budget but there's no obligation to.
That is one interpretation of the 2011 Act, seemingly the dominant one, but it is far from convincing. All the 2011 Act provides is the circumstances in which Parliament may be dissolved before the expiration of the five year term. Clearly, a government can choose to stay in office for a fortnight after the passage a motion of no confidence within the meaning of section 2(4) of the Act, and then take its case to the country. The only thing to stop it doing so would be if it chose to resign or if the Crown sacked it unilaterally. The preferable interpretation of the 2011 Act must therefore be that it does not alter the consequences of what have historically been regarded as votes of no confidence, but only changes the manner in which Parliament can be dissolved.
Why would they need to? A government now only falls on an explicit VoNC due to the FTPA. It may choose to resign on losing a Queen's Speech or Budget but there's no obligation to.
That is one interpretation of the 2011 Act, seemingly the dominant one, but it is far from convincing. All the 2011 Act provides is the circumstances in which Parliament may be dissolved before the expiration of the five year term. Clearly, a government can choose to stay in office for a fortnight after the passage a motion of no confidence within the meaning of section 2(4) of the Act, and then take its case to the country. The only thing to stop it doing so would be if it chose to resign or if the Crown sacked it unilaterally. The preferable interpretation of the 2011 Act must therefore be that it does not alter the consequences of what have historically been regarded as votes of no confidence, but only changes the manner in which Parliament can be dissolved.
That is very much my reading too. I think the FTPA is far less revolutionary than people think.
No, David. You did not have a brain fade. You are just an imposter. Even a man in a coma knows which football team he supports.
Unless he really doesn't care about football. I am utterly uninterested in football myself, but I have at one time or another "supported" a team, just because it's easier than telling people you don't support a team and then putting up with the incredulous questioning from your football-mad colleagues. I usually tell people I support the Seagulls, not because I do, but because it is within a sensible distance of where I was born, and is so unremarkable and lacking in achievement that no one has any fascinating facts or anecdotes they can regale me with about Brighton and prolong my boredom
"Huhne's misadventures have had as profound an impact for the LD's as Strauss Kahn for the French socialists. They just don't seem to have anyone with the stature or chuzpah to be leader."
I think you're right about Huhne but I don't think they particularly lack leaders. I just think they are all paying for the vanity of Clegg and a few camp followers.
My guess is that for all those who study British Government the name 'Clegg' will join Dalton's budget leaks Dugdale at Crichel Down and Ramsay Macdonald as historical footnotes with a nasty whiff but where no one can remember why.
Just had a leaflet in from Stephen Kerr, the Tory candidate for Stirling making a very direct plea for tactical votes to stop the SNP. Unfortunately other Stirling Tories are already indicating they will be voting tactically for SLAB;
These guys need to get their act together, Chris seems to think that David Cameron is on-side with him voting for SLAB !!
Update:
As I hadn't heg to Elizabeth Wilson:
"Supporters of all parties are switching to back Lib Dem Elisabeth Wilson this time - the only candidate able to deliver more powers for Scotland and protect local services."
We've seen Labs.
Disappointing for them, to be sure. I think they're playing for the next election - hoping SLAB and SLD stay mired in chaos, whereas they are stable and consistent, and can become the natural opposition to the SNP when the SNP fervour eventually flags, however long that takes. As long as the Tories have been doing poorly in Scotland, I imagine they are pretty patient by now.
What is going to change at the next election?
The Labour vote has shrunk from 45% to 20% NOW. The Liberal vote has shrunk from 20% to 4% NOW.
If they can't get these newly shed voters now, why would this be different in 2020. This is the time and place where you scoop up the new votes - when your opponent's votes evaporate. The Tories are simply not getting any benefit and that won't change for the better in 2020.
I'm not saying it would, it was just a guess of what they might be thinking. Not everyone speaks in absolutes all the time, not least because they then look very silly when things don't work out that way.
What might change is some of the gloss might be taken off the Westminster SNP contingent by then (if we haven't already had another IndyRef, which I would expect Yes to win), and in the intervening time the Scottish Tories may have had the chance to show themselves as a more unified force to face them down than the other two. Now, maybe the SNP can actually consolidate their gains in 2020, but perhaps you will try not to sneer at the possibility that there might be a decrease in their vote share; that could go straight back to the LDs or Lab where it came from, or to staying at home, but perhaps having floated across from one party to another once, the Scottish Tories could soak up some of that support. There was no opportunity for that this time in the midst of an rush of support toward SNP.
It would require a lot of skill and even more luck, and I just don't think it likely the Tory brand can position itself in the manner it would need to get those additional votes, but I don't rule anything out.
By the way, the Nepal earthquake will brush the GE campaign off the air waves for the next few days, especially as many westerners have died in the Everest avalanche.
I'd be all for more of the foreign aid budget being put towards fast disaster relief. (*) A scheme where basics (shelters, generators, water kit, rescue teams, comms gear, C&C) can be got onto site anywhere within the world within 48-hours from the UK, and larger kit (e.g. diggers, temporary bridge kits, runway repair kits) within 96 hours.
I know we have some of this capability, but having a hard-and-fast 48-hour scheme would be brilliant. Even if it meant air dropping. The US military have some interesting capabilities in this regard.
It is a way the foreign aid budget can make a real difference.
(*) Local geopolitics aside; this can only work if the teams are allowed in.
Concrete Canvas is an interesting one. They cannot be reused, but from memory the vast majority of emergency tents are not reused either. I haven't been following them recently to see if there have been successful mass real-life applications.
(If it's the one I'm thinking of, then it was founded by two students).
Unless he really doesn't care about football. I am utterly uninterested in football myself, but I have at one time or another "supported" a team, just because it's easier than telling people you don't support a team and then putting up with the incredulous questioning from your football-mad colleagues.
I find it easier just to straight out say to people that I'm uninterested. Then they just drop the subject and I don't have to pretend to know anything about it.
The big selling factor with the Conservatives is their economic management. How the hell is that possible?
Since 2008 the service sector is up 8%, sure. But manufacturing is still down 5% and production overall by 10%. If you don't work in the service sector there has been no recovery. You are still deep in recession.
The coalition had one choice in 2010. Debt fuelled consumption had bankrupted us and the economy had to be rebalanced toward production of wealth. They had just one choice but they didn't take it. The coalition have borrowed half a trillion simply to kick the can down the road. Now there are no choices.
As an aside, I've just come back from Canada, where I spent a week with a French speaking Montreal resident.
In 1993, the Bloc Quebecois absolutely dominated Quebec, winning 60+ of the 75 MPs (and, of course, achieving a very narrow referendum loss). Over the following 20 years, pro-union tactical voting has proliferated in the province, to the extent that they now have only only a handful. Is there a lesson for the SNP there?
No, David. You did not have a brain fade. You are just an imposter. Even a man in a coma knows which football team he supports.
Unless he really doesn't care about football. I am utterly uninterested in football myself, but I have at one time or another "supported" a team, just because it's easier than telling people you don't support a team and then putting up with the incredulous questioning from your football-mad colleagues. I usually tell people I support the Seagulls, not because I do, but because it is within a sensible distance of where I was born, and is so unremarkable and lacking in achievement that no one has any fascinating facts or anecdotes they can regale me with about Brighton and prolong my boredom
Do you think Cameron would have lost a single vote if he did not come up with this concoction that he was a Villa fan ?
Why would they need to? A government now only falls on an explicit VoNC due to the FTPA. It may choose to resign on losing a Queen's Speech or Budget but there's no obligation to.
That is one interpretation of the 2011 Act, seemingly the dominant one, but it is far from convincing. All the 2011 Act provides is the circumstances in which Parliament may be dissolved before the expiration of the five year term. Clearly, a government can choose to stay in office for a fortnight after the passage a motion of no confidence within the meaning of section 2(4) of the Act, and then take its case to the country. The only thing to stop it doing so would be if it chose to resign or if the Crown sacked it unilaterally. The preferable interpretation of the 2011 Act must therefore be that it does not alter the consequences of what have historically been regarded as votes of no confidence, but only changes the manner in which Parliament can be dissolved.
Except, surely, they also open the door to being replaced without election?
That is very much my reading too. I think the FTPA is far less revolutionary than people think.
The alternative reading could only mean that a government could continue in office having failed to secure supply to the Crown. That requirement has always been thought fundamental to the Westminster system; so much so that it caused the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975. Had Parliament intended to abrogate it in the 2011 Act, we may reasonably assume that it would have used express words.
Just had a leaflet in from Stephen Kerr, the Tory candidate for Stirling making a very direct plea for tactical votes to stop the SNP. Unfortunately other Stirling Tories are already indicating they will be voting tactically for SLAB;
These guys need to get their act together, Chris seems to think that David Cameron is on-side with him voting for SLAB !!
Update:
As I hadn't heard anything from the LibDem candidate I thought I do a bit of research. It turns out according to Elizabeth Wilson:
"Supporters of all parties are switching to back Lib Dem Elisabeth Wilson this time - the only candidate able to deliver more powers for Scotland and protect local services."
We've seen Labour on the slide all over Scotland whereas the Conservative vote seems to have held up. I'd suggest with it slipping back in the SNP-Lab battlegrounds, surely Stirling is the last place you'd vote Labour "tactically"
The worry for the Scottish Conservatives must surely be that their vote has not increased. The LDs support has vanished, but it all seems to have gone to the SNP/Greens rather than the Conservatives.
Disappointing for them, to be sure. I think they're playing for the next election - hoping SLAB and SLD stay mired in chaos, whereas they are stable and consistent, and can become the natural opposition to the SNP when the SNP fervour eventually flags, however long that takes. As long as the Tories have been doing poorly in Scotland, I imagine they are pretty patient by now.
What is going to change at the next election?
The Labour vote has shrunk from 45% to 20% NOW. The Liberal vote has shrunk from 20% to 4% NOW.
If they can't get these newly shed voters now, why would this be different in 2020. This is the time and place where you scoop up the new votes - when your opponent's votes evaporate. The Tories are simply not getting any benefit and that won't change for the better in 2020.
Dair, I think that politics always tend to balance out over the medium term. If the SNP succeed now as the polls suggest they will, there will be a natural balancing away from them in the future. Who gets those defectors will depend on how the SNP are seen at that time. If they are seen as a centrist party, it will be a toss up. If they are seen as significantly more leftist, then a right of centre party will get most of the defectors.
Oldest leader this century (and PM). Youngest leader this century (and youngest PM this century) First openly homosexual leader (Scottish rather than UK level)
David, are you counting Mr Cameron twice, or do you mean "last century" or "since 1900"?
The big selling factor with the Conservatives is their economic management. How the hell is that possible?
Since 2008 the service sector is up 8%, sure. But manufacturing is still down 5% and production overall by 10%. If you don't work in the service sector there has been no recovery. You are still deep in recession.
The coalition had one choice in 2010. Debt fuelled consumption had bankrupted us and the economy had to be rebalanced toward production of wealth. They had just one choice but they didn't take it. The coalition have borrowed half a trillion simply to kick the can down the road. Now there are no choices.
Manufacturing is never going to go up while with have the idiotic Climate Change Act which makes is impossibly expensive to run heavy industry in this country, so we run it in other countries instead which
a) moves jobs overseas b) moves heavy industry to locations with less stringent safety and environmental controls c) causes additional fuel to be burned to move products and/or materials from the UK to that location and back again
and as a consequence means we are paying more money to increase overall pollution substantially, whilst losing jobs and all that entails. Another genius bit of well thought out legislation from Labour.
Just consider the fuckwittery that results in us having a shortage of cement in this country, with our rolling chalk hills, and causes us to have to import it from China and India, on the other side of the world, where the same or more CO2 is emitted in the production as when it was made in the UK.
Oldest leader this century (and PM). Youngest leader this century (and youngest PM this century) First openly homosexual leader (Scottish rather than UK level)
David, are you counting Mr Cameron twice, or do you mean "last century" or "since 1900"?
There's form for such terminology of course - the long 19th century, anyone?
Why would they need to? A government now only falls on an explicit VoNC due to the FTPA. It may choose to resign on losing a Queen's Speech or Budget but there's no obligation to.
That is one interpretation of the 2011 Act, seemingly the dominant one, but it is far from convincing. All the 2011 Act provides is the circumstances in which Parliament may be dissolved before the expiration of the five year term. Clearly, a government can choose to stay in office for a fortnight after the passage a motion of no confidence within the meaning of section 2(4) of the Act, and then take its case to the country. The only thing to stop it doing so would be if it chose to resign or if the Crown sacked it unilaterally. The preferable interpretation of the 2011 Act must therefore be that it does not alter the consequences of what have historically been regarded as votes of no confidence, but only changes the manner in which Parliament can be dissolved.
Except, surely, they also open the door to being replaced without election?
But that was the case before. Of the queen believed that someone else could command the support of parliament, following a vote of no confidence, she was welcome to call them.
Except, surely, they also open the door to being replaced without election?
The 2011 Act does not alter Her Majesty's prerogative to commission and determine ministries. Subject to the Lascelles principles, Her Majesty will act on the advice of Her ministers. Unless therefore the incumbent government chooses to resign after the statutory motion of no confidence has passed, it will have the power to appoint a new polling day and dissolve Parliament under section 2(7) within fourteen days, unless Her Majesty of her own motion determines the ministry and commissions another. That is most unlikely to occur.
As an aside, I've just come back from Canada, where I spent a week with a French speaking Montreal resident.
In 1993, the Bloc Quebecois absolutely dominated Quebec, winning 60+ of the 75 MPs (and, of course, achieving a very narrow referendum loss). Over the following 20 years, pro-union tactical voting has proliferated in the province, to the extent that they now have only only a handful. Is there a lesson for the SNP there?
It is not impossible. The SNP despite its left leaning politics today is a one issue party. Surely, Tartan Tories do not support dropping Trident or 50% HRT. But they support the SNP because they want independence.
If independence is not an issue in the next few years because of persistent low oil prices [ not just fracking but renewables growth is gathering pace plus Iran ], some of that coherence is bound to weaken. Ironically, the Tories in Scotland could gain as a result.
I'm not saying it would, it was just a guess of what they might be thinking. Not everyone speaks in absolutes all the time, not least because they then look very silly when things don't work out that way.
What might change is some of the gloss might be taken off the Westminster SNP contingent by then (if we haven't already had another IndyRef, which I would expect Yes to win), and in the intervening time the Scottish Tories may have had the chance to show themselves as a more unified force to face them down than the other two. Now, maybe the SNP can actually consolidate their gains in 2020, but perhaps you will try not to sneer at the possibility that there might be a decrease in their vote share; that could go straight back to the LDs or Lab where it came from, or to staying at home, but perhaps having floated across from one party to another once, the Scottish Tories could soak up some of that support. There was no opportunity for that this time in the midst of an rush of support toward SNP.
It would require a lot of skill and even more luck, and I just don't think it likely the Tory brand can position itself in the manner it would need to get those additional votes, but I don't rule anything out.
Yes, I see your thinking on this. But I just think it is beyond optimistic to believe that it can happen.
Going by the polling, there's been something like one million votes shed by Labour and the Lib Dems. That's one million votes of which the Tories have been able to get, well NONE. That's very indicative of their position and their likely future prospects.
Villagate is one of those silly election stories that come and go but I think it does highlight something which I'm increasingly aware of, which is that as the election campaign goes on, David Cameron seem's to be increasingly fading away into irrelevance...
It's hard to put your finger on but it's like the tide is slowly going out on him or maybe submerging him...
The Tories need a game-changer, and seem not to have researched an effective one, so we get a different one every few days. It's stop Miliband, no it's selling Housing Association stock, no it's IHT, no it's Scotland, no it's the economy. I genuinely have no real idea what the Conservative priorities are. That means we can't really attack the priorities, but it creates a nebulous overall effect which fails to change anything.
Of regional interest: Populus have sent candidates in the E Mids a summary of the trends calculated from monthly polling totals (sanples 8K-10K). The Tory lead over Labour is down since October from 9 to 4 (37-33), while UKIP is 5 points up (at 20%). LibDems and Greens steady. Presumably they're doing the same service in each region. The Tory E Mids lead in 2010 was 11.4%, so a 4% lead is a 3.7% swing, which is (as per usual for the E Mids) very close to the national average.
On a uniform 4% swing,6 Lib-Lab gains in the East Midlands and a tie.
(Amber Valley,Broxtowe,Erewash,Lincoln,Northampton North,Sherwood and tie in Loughborough)
Except, surely, they also open the door to being replaced without election?
The 2011 Act does not alter Her Majesty's prerogative to commission and determine ministries. Subject to the Lascelles principles, Her Majesty will act on the advice of her ministers. Unless therefore the incumbent government chooses to resign after the statutory motion of no confidence has passed, it will have the power to appoint a new polling day and dissolve Parliament under section 2(7) unless Her Majesty of her own motion determines the ministry and commissions another. That is most unlikely to occur.
You are wrong. FTPA 2011 itself states what happens in the event of the fall of a government.
As an aside, I've just come back from Canada, where I spent a week with a French speaking Montreal resident.
In 1993, the Bloc Quebecois absolutely dominated Quebec, winning 60+ of the 75 MPs (and, of course, achieving a very narrow referendum loss). Over the following 20 years, pro-union tactical voting has proliferated in the province, to the extent that they now have only only a handful. Is there a lesson for the SNP there?
Were the Liberals in Canada considered toxic by the vast majority of the population?
Because that's the case for the Tories, Red Tories and Liberals in Scotland today. All three parties are significantly tarnished in the public mind.
As an aside, I've just come back from Canada, where I spent a week with a French speaking Montreal resident.
In 1993, the Bloc Quebecois absolutely dominated Quebec, winning 60+ of the 75 MPs (and, of course, achieving a very narrow referendum loss). Over the following 20 years, pro-union tactical voting has proliferated in the province, to the extent that they now have only only a handful. Is there a lesson for the SNP there?
Were the Liberals in Canada considered toxic by the vast majority of the population?
Because that's the case for the Tories, Red Tories and Liberals in Scotland today. All three parties are significantly tarnished in the public mind.
No, David. You did not have a brain fade. You are just an imposter. Even a man in a coma knows which football team he supports.
Unless he really doesn't care about football. I am utterly uninterested in football myself, but I have at one time or another "supported" a team, just because it's easier than telling people you don't support a team and then putting up with the incredulous questioning from your football-mad colleagues. I usually tell people I support the Seagulls, not because I do, but because it is within a sensible distance of where I was born, and is so unremarkable and lacking in achievement that no one has any fascinating facts or anecdotes they can regale me with about Brighton and prolong my boredom
Do you think Cameron would have lost a single vote if he did not come up with this concoction that he was a Villa fan ?
I don't think it will cost him a single vote either way, its just a sign of the over-managed media bullshit world we live in where some panel or focus group told his PR people that he should appear to support a team to help him look more a "Man of the People" or some such stupidity.
Its more of Cameron's obsession with not looking like a toff, rather than just accepting that he is one, and mostly people wont care. If people didn't life toffs Boris wouldn't be so popular, they just don't like toffs pretending not to be toffs, which is exactly what he is doing!
Dair, I think that politics always tend to balance out over the medium term. If the SNP succeed now as the polls suggest they will, there will be a natural balancing away from them in the future. Who gets those defectors will depend on how the SNP are seen at that time. If they are seen as a centrist party, it will be a toss up. If they are seen as significantly more leftist, then a right of centre party will get most of the defectors.
And how many of those natural right (or even left who often see the SNP as too right wing, even today) will still vote SNP every single time until Independence?
That's the blockage. A pro-independence or even federalist Centre-Right party might work. But that's not on the table and is not going to be on the table for the foreseeable future. The Conservatives are turtling into hard Unionism, even the formerly Federalist Liberals are turtling into hard Unionism.
Politically I should only ever vote either Tory or Liberal. In my misguided youth I was a member of the Tory party. But I never will vote for either while Scotland is in the Union.
More people are searching online for UKIP in the run-up to the election than any of the three main parties. In the fight for search clicks, the party is dwarfing others online, driving more than four times the amount of traffic to websites than any of the other parties.
This why I think that the polls are mostly wrong and David Herdson is headless in this.
The article doesn't say how many of these searches were of the form "Tactical voting to stop UKIP" or "How to stop UKIP" or "Hilarious memes making fun of UKIP".
This makes it hard to use the aggregate search numbers as a proxy for public opinion.
No, but it means that UKIP has caught the interest of tens of thousands more internet users than the nearest next party.
A lot of UKIP searches are of the "that can't be true nobody is that stupid, I'd better check" variety. I mean some of their supporters believe they are going to get more than 30 seats, that is laugh out loud territory.
I wonder who's going to laugh the loudest on May 8th after the votes are all in.
Many of those who laughed loudest in September, having called the Nats bluster for what it was?
Villagate is one of those silly election stories that come and go but I think it does highlight something which I'm increasingly aware of, which is that as the election campaign goes on, David Cameron seem's to be increasingly fading away into irrelevance...
It's hard to put your finger on but it's like the tide is slowly going out on him or maybe submerging him...
The Tories need a game-changer, and seem not to have researched an effective one, so we get a different one every few days. It's stop Miliband, no it's selling Housing Association stock, no it's IHT, no it's Scotland, no it's the economy. I genuinely have no real idea what the Conservative priorities are. That means we can't really attack the priorities, but it creates a nebulous overall effect which fails to change anything.
Of regional interest: Populus have sent candidates in the E Mids a summary of the trends calculated from monthly polling totals (sanples 8K-10K). The Tory lead over Labour is down since October from 9 to 4 (37-33), while UKIP is 5 points up (at 20%). LibDems and Greens steady. Presumably they're doing the same service in each region. The Tory E Mids lead in 2010 was 11.4%, so a 4% lead is a 3.7% swing, which is (as per usual for the E Mids) very close to the national average.
The finest bit of potandkettlery I have ever seen in print.
Why would they need to? A government now only falls on an explicit VoNC due to the FTPA. It may choose to resign on losing a Queen's Speech or Budget but there's no obligation to.
That is one interpretation of the 2011 Act, seemingly the dominant one, but it is far from convincing. All the 2011 Act provides is the circumstances in which Parliament may be dissolved before the expiration of the five year term. Clearly, a government can choose to stay in office for a fortnight after the passage a motion of no confidence within the meaning of section 2(4) of the Act, and then take its case to the country. The only thing to stop it doing so would be if it chose to resign or if the Crown sacked it unilaterally. The preferable interpretation of the 2011 Act must therefore be that it does not alter the consequences of what have historically been regarded as votes of no confidence, but only changes the manner in which Parliament can be dissolved.
Just checked the legislation and you're right. There's no actual obligation to resign although if an alternative government were clearly available and the only thing preventing it being Confidenced by parliament was the fact it wasn't in office, HM would be within her rights to dismiss the sitting one and put the new one to the test (in much the same way as if a government under the pre-FTPA rules didn't resign after an election it had lost). I don't think a government automatically has the right to sit tight for two weeks and wait for a dissolution - though I'd accept that it would be possible to read the Act that way.
The way the media have seized on David Cameron's 'gaffe' is truly pathetic. They are all travelling round the country (all expenses paid) and all they are interested in is this dumbed down rubbish. If the public are as uninterested in this election campaign as alleged, then they have to take their share of the blame. David Cameron looks shattered, he should have taken the weekend off, given Gallipoli and the marathon tomorrow. I see Alastair Campbell is dishing the dirt. What is it with these people, politics would be better off if these repulsive creatures got out of politics and stayed out.
The finest bit of potandkettlery I have ever seen in print.
It's great, isn't it?
This was Labour NHS week. That was the priority; all they were going to talk about.
Apart from a foreign policy speech of course. The only one Ed has given in 5 years. On a topic he has raised a total of none times at PMQs.
And he was tough ennus (sic) to accuse David Cameron of having blood on his hands. Until he saw the press reaction and chickened out, cos he isn't tough enough to stand up to any form of criticism, whether from Dianne Abbot or the Sun.
That's what a panicking failing disciplined coordinated campaign looks like...
LDs 11-20 seat band still widely available at 4/1. This has to be value, given the 23-25 spread, and the Ashcroft polling.
Yes, with how strongly the Tories are performing in the South West, I'm finding it very hard to see how the Lib Dems could get above 20 seats.
That's easy: they to 20 seats by losing:
6 to Labour 10 to the SNP and 19 to the Conservatives
Why so few to Labour? Because once you get past the obvious 5 in the betting odds, you get to Bradford East, where David Ward is probably a 50/50 shot to get re-elected and Hornsey and Wood Green, where there is a very substantial Conservative vote to squeeze. (In the rich, very Conservative voting, Highgate end of the constituency, the LibDems are going hard on "Would you rather a Con-LD coalition, or a Lab-SNP one?" And I think it's working - admittedly based solely on the Conservative voters I know.)
It's also possible that you only get 9 losses to the SNP. Jo Swinson has a chance if she can get tactical votes for her. The border seats look incredibly close. And I think Viscount Thurso - alone of Scottish Liberal Democrats - will get a meaningful personal vote.
That doesn't mean the 4-1 isn't good value. It's outstanding value and I've maxed out the amount that I'm allowed to bet on it with a bunch of bookmakers. But it is perfectly possible to see how the LibDems get 20 seats.
Even on a bad night for Labour generally, I expect them to run rampant in the Lib-Lab marginals, I think they'll take a lot more than 6. I kind of see where you're coming from with Bradford East, since Bradford does have a history of erratic election results, but an Ashcroft poll last year gave Labour a lead of more than 20% even on the "thinking about your constituency" question.
Tbh, I'm starting to think that the Lib Dems limiting their losses to the Tories to just 19 might be a tad optimistic, if the reports from the SW are anywhere near accurate.
Dair, I think that politics always tend to balance out over the medium term. If the SNP succeed now as the polls suggest they will, there will be a natural balancing away from them in the future. Who gets those defectors will depend on how the SNP are seen at that time. If they are seen as a centrist party, it will be a toss up. If they are seen as significantly more leftist, then a right of centre party will get most of the defectors.
And how many of those natural right (or even left who often see the SNP as too right wing, even today) will still vote SNP every single time until Independence?
That's the blockage. A pro-independence or even federalist Centre-Right party might work. But that's not on the table and is not going to be on the table for the foreseeable future. The Conservatives are turtling into hard Unionism, even the formerly Federalist Liberals are turtling into hard Unionism.
Politically I should only ever vote either Tory or Liberal. In my misguided youth I was a member of the Tory party. But I never will vote for either while Scotland is in the Union.
As a neo-Darwinist, I think parties will co-evolve to the environment. Something will rise as a viable alternative to the SNP. Single party politics do not survive long in independent minded, democratic populations without a strong external force. The drive for independence might be that external force, but if that fails to deliver independence in the medium-term, its potency will diminish.
Just checked the legislation and you're right. There's no actual obligation to resign although if an alternative government were clearly available and the only thing preventing it being Confidenced by parliament was the fact it wasn't in office, HM would be within her rights to dismiss the sitting one and put the new one to the test (in much the same way as if a government under the pre-FTPA rules didn't resign after an election it had lost). I don't think a government automatically has the right to sit tight for two weeks and wait for a dissolution - though I'd accept that it would be possible to read the Act that way.
The only plausible scenario in which the Crown would unilaterally determine the incumbent ministry would if a government which had lost an election and a vote of no confidence immediately after that election attempted to seek a second election. Imagine if Baldwin in January 1924 had not resigned but had sought an election. The impropriety of what the Prime Minister was attempting would have to as plain as a pikestaff. HM is too canny to get involved in genuinely contentious political issues.
Except, surely, they also open the door to being replaced without election?
The 2011 Act does not alter Her Majesty's prerogative to commission and determine ministries. Subject to the Lascelles principles, Her Majesty will act on the advice of her ministers. Unless therefore the incumbent government chooses to resign after the statutory motion of no confidence has passed, it will have the power to appoint a new polling day and dissolve Parliament under section 2(7) within fourteen days, unless Her Majesty of her own motion determines the ministry and commissions another. That is most unlikely to occur.
[and for rcs100]
The opinions I've seen seem to contradict this.
The implication of the statute is that in the event of NoConf there are 14 days for someone (including the existing gov, perhaps reconfigured) to get a vote of Conf.
If that someone is the Opposition the incumbent PM is expected to resign and give them their chance without an election.
While we're on the subject of a Lib Dem meltdown, this from a focus group in Taunton Deane should really be chilling for them. They've been betting the farm on the results from Ashcroft's "thinking about your local area" questions being accurate, but on the basis of this, a lot of people on 7th May WON'T be going into the polling booths thinking about their local area (as opposed to the national picture and who they want to form the govt):
However,discussion of the local vs the national picture revealed thatthere was considerable confusion about what they would be voting for on May 7th.
Many were unclear about the relationship between their local candidates, the parties (and leaders), and the national outcome;
“What I don’t understand is whether I want to vote to put the local candidate in or vote nationally. Does that make a difference? If I vote Conservative here does that mean they get in nationally? What difference does it make to me?”
“I had a conversation with my mum about what it meant to vote for the local person. She said she didn’t know because she’d always voted Conservative. But we didn’t know what it meant to vote for the local person and does it mean that they get more power if Conservatives are in power. I said I’d Google it and I didn’t. So I still don’t know the impact of voting for the local candidate!”
“I think, nationally, I’m more likely to feel the effects of David Cameron getting in or not getting in, than I am to feel the effects of what happens locally. In terms of things like childcare costs and things like that. That would make a massive difference to my daily life."
The implication of the statute is that in the event of NoConf there are 14 days for someone (including the existing gov, perhaps reconfigured) to get a vote of Conf.
If that someone is the Opposition the incumbent PM is expected to resign and give them their chance without an election.
That is be one view of the Act's political implications on existing constitutional convention. It is not, however, a necessary implication of the words of the statute and it is therefore not the law. Constitutional conventions are ultimately what people make of them in practice. That practice will be made by the government of the day (since they it be advising HM), and the government of the day will have every interest in giving the Act's political implications a narrower interpretation than that for which the academics contend.
Why would they need to? A government now only falls on an explicit VoNC due to the FTPA. It may choose to resign on losing a Queen's Speech or Budget but there's no obligation to.
That is one interpretation of the 2011 Act, seemingly the dominant one, but it is far from convincing. All the 2011 Act provides is the circumstances in which Parliament may be dissolved before the expiration of the five year term. Clearly, a government can choose to stay in office for a fortnight after the passage a motion of no confidence within the meaning of section 2(4) of the Act, and then take its case to the country. The only thing to stop it doing so would be if it chose to resign or if the Crown sacked it unilaterally. The preferable interpretation of the 2011 Act must therefore be that it does not alter the consequences of what have historically been regarded as votes of no confidence, but only changes the manner in which Parliament can be dissolved.
Just checked the legislation and you're right. There's no actual obligation to resign although if an alternative government were clearly available and the only thing preventing it being Confidenced by parliament was the fact it wasn't in office, HM would be within her rights to dismiss the sitting one and put the new one to the test (in much the same way as if a government under the pre-FTPA rules didn't resign after an election it had lost). I don't think a government automatically has the right to sit tight for two weeks and wait for a dissolution - though I'd accept that it would be possible to read the Act that way.
In fact some commentators suggest the only way to prevent a viable Opposition from taking office would be for the sitting PM to invoke the prerogative of prorogation of Parliament.
But that is a nuclear option which I just can't see happening.
Dair, I think that politics always tend to balance out over the medium term. If the SNP succeed now as the polls suggest they will, there will be a natural balancing away from them in the future. Who gets those defectors will depend on how the SNP are seen at that time. If they are seen as a centrist party, it will be a toss up. If they are seen as significantly more leftist, then a right of centre party will get most of the defectors.
And how many of those natural right (or even left who often see the SNP as too right wing, even today) will still vote SNP every single time until Independence?
That's the blockage. A pro-independence or even federalist Centre-Right party might work. But that's not on the table and is not going to be on the table for the foreseeable future. The Conservatives are turtling into hard Unionism, even the formerly Federalist Liberals are turtling into hard Unionism.
Politically I should only ever vote either Tory or Liberal. In my misguided youth I was a member of the Tory party. But I never will vote for either while Scotland is in the Union.
As a neo-Darwinist, I think parties will co-evolve to the environment. Something will rise as a viable alternative to the SNP. Single party politics do not survive long in independent minded, democratic populations without a strong external force. The drive for independence might be that external force, but if that fails to deliver independence in the medium-term, its potency will diminish.
In the long term that may well be true, the SNP power will diminish. However, it is not guaranteed to do so and Dominant Party Systems are more common that most people in the UK might imagine.
The question is whether the Union has enough time to wait for this. I hope it does not. The SNP will not wait 15 years like the Quebecois did. They will be lining the next Referendum up for 2018/9 when purely on demographics, Yes will win Ceteris Parabus. With all the damage that Westminster is piling on to the Union, a 2018 Yes seems pretty nailed on currently.
Dair, I think that politics always tend to balance out over the medium term. If the SNP succeed now as the polls suggest they will, there will be a natural balancing away from them in the future. Who gets those defectors will depend on how the SNP are seen at that time. If they are seen as a centrist party, it will be a toss up. If they are seen as significantly more leftist, then a right of centre party will get most of the defectors.
And how many of those natural right (or even left who often see the SNP as too right wing, even today) will still vote SNP every single time until Independence?
That's the blockage. A pro-independence or even federalist Centre-Right party might work. But that's not on the table and is not going to be on the table for the foreseeable future. The Conservatives are turtling into hard Unionism, even the formerly Federalist Liberals are turtling into hard Unionism.
Politically I should only ever vote either Tory or Liberal. In my misguided youth I was a member of the Tory party. But I never will vote for either while Scotland is in the Union.
As a neo-Darwinist, I think parties will co-evolve to the environment. Something will rise as a viable alternative to the SNP. Single party politics do not survive long in independent minded, democratic populations without a strong external force. The drive for independence might be that external force, but if that fails to deliver independence in the medium-term, its potency will diminish.
In the long term that may well be true, the SNP power will diminish. However, it is not guaranteed to do so and Dominant Party Systems are more common that most people in the UK might imagine.
The question is whether the Union has enough time to wait for this. I hope it does not. The SNP will not wait 15 years like the Quebecois did. They will be lining the next Referendum up for 2018/9 when purely on demographics, Yes will win Ceteris Parabus. With all the damage that Westminster is piling on to the Union, a 2018 Yes seems pretty nailed on currently.
I am entirely neutral on the issue of independence. Like any marriage, it only works if both parties want in. Of course, the sooner independence is achieved, the sooner the political rebalancing in Scotland occurs, even if the political centre is significantly different from the RUK political centre.
LDs 11-20 seat band still widely available at 4/1. This has to be value, given the 23-25 spread, and the Ashcroft polling.
Yes, with how strongly the Tories are performing in the South West, I'm finding it very hard to see how the Lib Dems could get above 20 seats.
That's easy: they to 20 seats by losing:
6 to Labour 10 to the SNP and 19 to the Conservatives
Why so few to Labour? Because once you get past the obvious 5 in the betting odds, you get to Bradford East, where David Ward is probably a 50/50 shot to get re-elected and Hornsey and Wood Green, where there is a very substantial Conservative vote to squeeze. (In the rich, very Conservative voting, Highgate end of the constituency, the LibDems are going hard on "Would you rather a Con-LD coalition, or a Lab-SNP one?" And I think it's working - admittedly based solely on the Conservative voters I know.)
It's also possible that you only get 9 losses to the SNP. Jo Swinson has a chance if she can get tactical votes for her. The border seats look incredibly close. And I think Viscount Thurso - alone of Scottish Liberal Democrats - will get a meaningful personal vote.
That doesn't mean the 4-1 isn't good value. It's outstanding value and I've maxed out the amount that I'm allowed to bet on it with a bunch of bookmakers. But it is perfectly possible to see how the LibDems get 20 seats.
Interesting your observation on Jo Swinson. The sheer virulence of the nationalist campaign against her is astonishing. This is what some particularly malignant individual tweeted about this likeable and hard working young mother in reaction to a piece written by Isabel Hardman about the constituency.
"Jo Swinson is, without any doubt, one of the most reprehensible characters I've laid eyes upon"
No wonder Clegg will have no truck with these extremists..
While we're on the subject of a Lib Dem meltdown, this from a focus group in Taunton Deane should really be chilling for them. They've been betting the farm on the results from Ashcroft's "thinking about your local area" questions being accurate, but on the basis of this, a lot of people on 7th May WON'T be going into the polling booths thinking about their local area (as opposed to the national picture and who they want to form the govt):
However,discussion of the local vs the national picture revealed thatthere was considerable confusion about what they would be voting for on May 7th.
Many were unclear about the relationship between their local candidates, the parties (and leaders), and the national outcome;
“What I don’t understand is whether I want to vote to put the local candidate in or vote nationally. Does that make a difference? If I vote Conservative here does that mean they get in nationally? What difference does it make to me?”
“I had a conversation with my mum about what it meant to vote for the local person. She said she didn’t know because she’d always voted Conservative. But we didn’t know what it meant to vote for the local person and does it mean that they get more power if Conservatives are in power. I said I’d Google it and I didn’t. So I still don’t know the impact of voting for the local candidate!”
“I think, nationally, I’m more likely to feel the effects of David Cameron getting in or not getting in, than I am to feel the effects of what happens locally. In terms of things like childcare costs and things like that. That would make a massive difference to my daily life."
What it boils down to is that 90%+ of people have no knowledge of any details whatsoever re politics. Most don't even know how the voting system works.
People vote entirely on general impression and gut feel.
Nothing that any of the parties says makes any difference whatsoever. All the talk on here about who is having a good campaign, who is having a bad campaign - forget the lot of it - it's meaningless.
In my view one of, if not the most, important thing remaining in this campaign is whether seat forecasts get put up on all the main national TV news programmes the night before the GE. UKIP will be praying they aren't. Because if they are and everyone sees UKIP forecast to only get 2 or 3 seats then it will cost them substantial votes - because everyone will realise they have no chance - which people don't realise when they see opinion polls with them on approx 13%.
LDs 11-20 seat band still widely available at 4/1. This has to be value, given the 23-25 spread, and the Ashcroft polling.
Yes, with how strongly the Tories are performing in the South West, I'm finding it very hard to see how the Lib Dems could get above 20 seats.
That's easy: they to 20 seats by losing:
6 to Labour 10 to the SNP and 19 to the Conservatives
Why so few to Labour? Because once you get past the obvious 5 in the betting odds, you get to Bradford East, where David Ward is probably a 50/50 shot to get re-elected and Hornsey and Wood Green, where there is a very substantial Conservative vote to squeeze. (In the rich, very Conservative voting, Highgate end of the constituency, the LibDems are going hard on "Would you rather a Con-LD coalition, or a Lab-SNP one?" And I think it's working - admittedly based solely on the Conservative voters I know.)
It's also possible that you only get 9 losses to the SNP. Jo Swinson has a chance if she can get tactical votes for her. The border seats look incredibly close. And I think Viscount Thurso - alone of Scottish Liberal Democrats - will get a meaningful personal vote.
That doesn't mean the 4-1 isn't good value. It's outstanding value and I've maxed out the amount that I'm allowed to bet on it with a bunch of bookmakers. But it is perfectly possible to see how the LibDems get 20 seats.
Even on a bad night for Labour generally, I expect them to run rampant in the Lib-Lab marginals, I think they'll take a lot more than 6. I kind of see where you're coming from with Bradford East, since Bradford does have a history of erratic election results, but an Ashcroft poll last year gave Labour a lead of more than 20% even on the "thinking about your constituency" question.
Tbh, I'm starting to think that the Lib Dems limiting their losses to the Tories to just 19 might be a tad optimistic, if the reports from the SW are anywhere near accurate.
I think the reports of LD collapse in the SW are overdone. In the main they are based on a single Comres poll which was an average across the region. But the variation across constituencies is significant. The LD vote has collapsed in Bristol but Ashcroft shows LDs hanging on (just) in Cornwall N, St Ives, Thornbury (easily), Torbay.
LDs 11-20 seat band still widely available at 4/1. This has to be value, given the 23-25 spread, and the Ashcroft polling.
Yes, with how strongly the Tories are performing in the South West, I'm finding it very hard to see how the Lib Dems could get above 20 seats.
That's easy: they to 20 seats by losing:
6 to Labour 10 to the SNP and 19 to the Conservatives
Why so few to Labour? Because once you get past the obvious 5 in the betting odds, you get to Bradford East, where David Ward is probably a 50/50 shot to get re-elected and Hornsey and Wood Green, where there is a very substantial Conservative vote to squeeze. (In the rich, very Conservative voting, Highgate end of the constituency, the LibDems are going hard on "Would you rather a Con-LD coalition, or a Lab-SNP one?" And I think it's working - admittedly based solely on the Conservative voters I know.)
It's also possible that you only get 9 losses to the SNP. Jo Swinson has a chance if she can get tactical votes for her. The border seats look incredibly close. And I think Viscount Thurso - alone of Scottish Liberal Democrats - will get a meaningful personal vote.
That doesn't mean the 4-1 isn't good value. It's outstanding value and I've maxed out the amount that I'm allowed to bet on it with a bunch of bookmakers. But it is perfectly possible to see how the LibDems get 20 seats.
Even on a bad night for Labour generally, I expect them to run rampant in the Lib-Lab marginals, I think they'll take a lot more than 6. I kind of see where you're coming from with Bradford East, since Bradford does have a history of erratic election results, but an Ashcroft poll last year gave Labour a lead of more than 20% even on the "thinking about your constituency" question.
Tbh, I'm starting to think that the Lib Dems limiting their losses to the Tories to just 19 might be a tad optimistic, if the reports from the SW are anywhere near accurate.
Believe me, Lib Dem < 20 seats. They are like a dockside hooker !
The reason the campaigns don't seem to be focused can surely be put down to the near 6 week campaign. Far too long and everyone is bored and fed up. Should be 4 weeks max.
A Tory leaflet through my door this afternoon. Contrasts Cameron with "a coalition of chaos" under Labour and then shows a photo of Ed M, Clegg, Surgeon and, er, Nigel Farage. Surely shome mistake?
While we're on the subject of a Lib Dem meltdown, this from a focus group in Taunton Deane should really be chilling for them. They've been betting the farm on the results from Ashcroft's "thinking about your local area" questions being accurate, but on the basis of this, a lot of people on 7th May WON'T be going into the polling booths thinking about their local area (as opposed to the national picture and who they want to form the govt):
However,discussion of the local vs the national picture revealed thatthere was considerable confusion about what they would be voting for on May 7th.
Many were unclear about the relationship between their local candidates, the parties (and leaders), and the national outcome;
“What I don’t understand is whether I want to vote to put the local candidate in or vote nationally. Does that make a difference? If I vote Conservative here does that mean they get in nationally? What difference does it make to me?”
“I had a conversation with my mum about what it meant to vote for the local person. She said she didn’t know because she’d always voted Conservative. But we didn’t know what it meant to vote for the local person and does it mean that they get more power if Conservatives are in power. I said I’d Google it and I didn’t. So I still don’t know the impact of voting for the local candidate!”
“I think, nationally, I’m more likely to feel the effects of David Cameron getting in or not getting in, than I am to feel the effects of what happens locally. In terms of things like childcare costs and things like that. That would make a massive difference to my daily life."
People vote entirely on general impression and gut feel.
Nothing that any of the parties says makes any difference whatsoever. All the talk on here about who is having a good campaign, who is having a bad campaign - forget the lot of it - it's meaningless.
Pretty much. I can conceive of some really good or bad event or narrative affecting the committed anorak vote in some way, but the wider public, their minds are set long ago because the gut feel is set long ago, even if they feel uncertain about which way they will vote.
At the top of Buchanan Street, 2000 people quit their shopping to listen to Nicola Sturgeon launch her Women's Manifesto on the steps of the Concert Hall. Meanwhile in George Square half a mile away, Tommy Sheridan and a lot of the hard left are putting on a #hopeoverfear rally for another 3000 or so urging them all to back the SNP in the election.
Meanwhile Jim Murphy's in Neilston with two activists.
The implication of the statute is that in the event of NoConf there are 14 days for someone (including the existing gov, perhaps reconfigured) to get a vote of Conf.
If that someone is the Opposition the incumbent PM is expected to resign and give them their chance without an election.
That is be one view of the Act's political implications on existing constitutional convention. It is not, however, a necessary implication of the words of the statute and it is therefore not the law. Constitutional conventions are ultimately what people make of them in practice. That practice will be made by the government of the day (since they it be advising HM), and the government of the day will have every interest in giving the Act's political implications a narrower interpretation than that for which the academics contend.
The Cabinet Manual seems to indicate what people have already made of them:-
'2.19 Under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, if a government is defeated on a motion that ‘this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government’, there is then a 14-day period during which an alternative government can be formed from the House of Commons as presently constituted, or the incumbent government can seek to regain the confidence of the House. If no government can secure the confidence of the House of Commons during that period, through the approval of a motion that ‘this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government’, a general election will take place. Other decisions of the House of Commons which have previously been regarded as expressing ‘no confidence’ in the government no longer enable or require the Prime Minister to hold a general election. The Prime Minister is expected to resign where it is clear that he or she does not have the confidence of the House of Commons and that an alternative government does have the confidence.'
So sitting tight for an election and not giving a viable Opposition the chance does not seem to be an option. The CabMan goes on to say that the principles that apply are the same that apply after an indecisive election result.
'2.12 Where an election does not result in an overall majority for a single party, the incumbent government remains in office unless and until the Prime Minister tenders his or her resignation and the Government’s resignation to the Sovereign. An incumbent government is entitled to wait until the new Parliament has met to see if it can command the confidence of the House of Commons, but is expected to resign if it becomes clear that it is unlikely to be able to command that confidence and there is a clear alternative.'
Interesting your observation on Jo Swinson. The sheer virulence of the nationalist campaign against her is astonishing. This is what some particularly malignant individual tweeted about this likeable and hard working young mother in reaction to a piece written by Isabel Hardman about the constituency.
"Jo Swinson is, without any doubt, one of the most reprehensible characters I've laid eyes upon"
No wonder Clegg will have no truck with these extremists..
Spin "a politician" as a "hard working young mother" to get sympathy as much as you like but Swinson is finished and the people of East Dun are saying "good riddance" as the absent and utterly useless MP gets given her jotters by an electoral thoroughly disgusted at how an avowed "anti-Tory" got in bed with them the second a ministerial car was offered. No amount of nonsense from Isabel Hardman will confuse voters about the reality - Swinson shows up in East Dun once every 5 years begging for votes and the rest of the time she is posted missing.
Next council elections will see the hated Liberals completely wiped out in East Dun and an SNP majority council. All around Scotland people are benefitting from switching from corrupt, self-interested Labour and Liberal councils to people-focused SNP councils. It's a core reason for the continued popularity of the SNP.
Nobody is voting for David Ward because he's a lib dem. In fact, I reckon his biggest selling point in Bradford East is that he was suspended from the lib dems due to his comments on Israel. I suspect a large portion of his literature doesn't even mention his party.
Even on a bad night for Labour generally, I expect them to run rampant in the Lib-Lab marginals, I think they'll take a lot more than 6. I kind of see where you're coming from with Bradford East, since Bradford does have a history of erratic election results, but an Ashcroft poll last year gave Labour a lead of more than 20% even on the "thinking about your constituency" question.
Tbh, I'm starting to think that the Lib Dems limiting their losses to the Tories to just 19 might be a tad optimistic, if the reports from the SW are anywhere near accurate.
I think the reports of LD collapse in the SW are overdone. In the main they are based on a single Comres poll which was an average across the region. But the variation across constituencies is significant. The LD vote has collapsed in Bristol but Ashcroft shows LDs hanging on (just) in Cornwall N, St Ives, Thornbury (easily), Torbay.
You just ignoring the Ashcroft poll of Bristol West? Liberals down in third on a pitiful 16%. It is every bit as bad as the SW Regional poll indicated.
A Tory leaflet through my door this afternoon. Contrasts Cameron with "a coalition of chaos" under Labour and then shows a photo of Ed M, Clegg, Surgeon and, er, Nigel Farage. Surely shome mistake?
Why do you say that? Is is not consistent with a Vote-Nige-Get-Ed theme?
This is what some particularly malignant individual tweeted about this likeable and hard working young mother in reaction to a piece written by Isabel Hardman about the constituency.
"Jo Swinson is, without any doubt, one of the most reprehensible characters I've laid eyes upon"
No wonder Clegg will have no truck with these extremists..
Are you saying that Cameron can stay in No.10 and , after 2 weeks, ask the Queen to call a second election without giving Miliband a chance to succeed in a motion of no confidence ?
More people are searching online for UKIP in the run-up to the election than any of the three main parties. In the fight for search clicks, the party is dwarfing others online, driving more than four times the amount of traffic to websites than any of the other parties.
This why I think that the polls are mostly wrong and David Herdson is headless in this.
The article doesn't say how many of these searches were of the form "Tactical voting to stop UKIP" or "How to stop UKIP" or "Hilarious memes making fun of UKIP".
This makes it hard to use the aggregate search numbers as a proxy for public opinion.
The autocomplete suggestions Google offers me are: "UKIP manifesto, UKIP news, UKIP the first 100 days"
Try "is UKIP", "are UKIP", "UKIP is", "UKIP are", "does UKIP hate", "why are UKIP", or a few more imaginative efforts than just "UKIP" and you might see some of the other searches that people are making.
A Tory leaflet through my door this afternoon. Contrasts Cameron with "a coalition of chaos" under Labour and then shows a photo of Ed M, Clegg, Surgeon and, er, Nigel Farage. Surely shome mistake?
Why do you say that? Is is not consistent with a Vote-Nige-Get-Ed theme?
The implication is that some kind of coalition involving Farage and Labour, SNP, LibDem.
Interesting your observation on Jo Swinson. The sheer virulence of the nationalist campaign against her is astonishing. This is what some particularly malignant individual tweeted about this likeable and hard working young mother in reaction to a piece written by Isabel Hardman about the constituency.
"Jo Swinson is, without any doubt, one of the most reprehensible characters I've laid eyes upon"
No wonder Clegg will have no truck with these extremists..
Spin "a politician" as a "hard working young mother" to get sympathy as much as you like but Swinson is finished and the people of East Dun are saying "good riddance" as the absent and utterly useless MP gets given her jotters by an electoral thoroughly disgusted at how an avowed "anti-Tory" got in bed with them the second a ministerial car was offered. No amount of nonsense from Isabel Hardman will confuse voters about the reality - Swinson shows up in East Dun once every 5 years begging for votes and the rest of the time she is posted missing.
Next council elections will see the hated Liberals completely wiped out in East Dun and an SNP majority council. All around Scotland people are benefitting from switching from corrupt, self-interested Labour and Liberal councils to people-focused SNP councils. It's a core reason for the continued popularity of the SNP.
Next stop, the SNP will cure cancer just by wishing it. I don't doubt the effectiveness of the SNP, otherwise they would not be so popular, but the level of acclaim and the vicious or smugly dismissive reactions to anyone that dare question them which is far too common to ignore, while at the same time peddling very negative tactic while whinging about being the victim all the time, is so ridiculous I cannot stand it. I think I'll call it a day until I can open up and let the SNP into my heart like Jesus, given the typical reactions out there.
Comments
Reasons:-
A view that all politicians are useless irritants who are not worth taking a blind bit of notice of.
An electoral system under which only 47% of voters managed to elect anybody.
Bit of both?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/25/us-quake-nepal-collapse-idUSKBN0NG07B20150425
That means 7 days of GE campaigning left at best.
First Jewish leader (and PM)
First unmarried leader (and PM).
First female leader (and PM).
Oldest leader this century (and PM).
Youngest leader this century (and youngest PM this century)
First openly homosexual leader (Scottish rather than UK level)
I see no reason why the first non-white leader shouldn't be a Tory either.
Of regional interest: Populus have sent candidates in the E Mids a summary of the trends calculated from monthly polling totals (sanples 8K-10K). The Tory lead over Labour is down since October from 9 to 4 (37-33), while UKIP is 5 points up (at 20%). LibDems and Greens steady. Presumably they're doing the same service in each region. The Tory E Mids lead in 2010 was 11.4%, so a 4% lead is a 3.7% swing, which is (as per usual for the E Mids) very close to the national average.
Siobhan Heanue @siobhanheanue · 17m 17 minutes ago
Second big quake predicted sometime over next 2 hrs. Whole city trying to stay in the open. A cold night ahead #kathmanduearthquake
The media will forget about the GE until Tuesday at the earliest.
The real problem wasn't leadership though, it was having to pick and stick to a position once they were in government, they couldn't get away with their all-things-to-all-men approach, being Conservative-lite in the South West, and Labour-lite in the Midlands and North.
I am not sure what the Liberals see in him. A man who looks like a Tory, behaves like a Tory, he is a Tory !
Next question : where is the park ranger ?
Their welfare model is interesting too. They expect people to exhaust family networks before approaching the state for money.
If their healthcare accounts are exhausted, family members again are expected to chip in before taxpayer money is used.
Mr Bartholomew advocates taking bits of each system rather than adopting one. Singapore's individual healthcare accounts, _and_ compulsory medical insurance (so that family members accounts aren't tapped).
The first question asked whether I have a postal vote. I don't so I just clicked on the No option and it took me to the voting intention questions.
For sure the Tory vote in Scotland has been persistent as a cockroach in a nuclear winter. Finally, they have the complete and utter collapse of not one but two opposition parties.
And they've scooped up none of these votes.
As I've said before, I very much hope he retains his seat. How the party decides to move on from his leadership and this mass culling of their MPs (to go along with the cull of MEPs and cllrs) will be much more interesting if he is still among them.
I know we have some of this capability, but having a hard-and-fast 48-hour scheme would be brilliant. Even if it meant air dropping. The US military have some interesting capabilities in this regard.
It is a way the foreign aid budget can make a real difference.
(*) Local geopolitics aside; this can only work if the teams are allowed in.
No, David. You did not have a brain fade. You are just an imposter. Even a man in a coma knows which football team he supports.
Even Linekar gets on the act. And I thought he was a Tory !
The Labour vote has shrunk from 45% to 20% NOW.
The Liberal vote has shrunk from 20% to 4% NOW.
If they can't get these newly shed voters now, why would this be different in 2020. This is the time and place where you scoop up the new votes - when your opponent's votes evaporate. The Tories are simply not getting any benefit and that won't change for the better in 2020.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLrGUXk-h0M
6 to Labour
10 to the SNP
and
19 to the Conservatives
Why so few to Labour? Because once you get past the obvious 5 in the betting odds, you get to Bradford East, where David Ward is probably a 50/50 shot to get re-elected and Hornsey and Wood Green, where there is a very substantial Conservative vote to squeeze. (In the rich, very Conservative voting, Highgate end of the constituency, the LibDems are going hard on "Would you rather a Con-LD coalition, or a Lab-SNP one?" And I think it's working - admittedly based solely on the Conservative voters I know.)
It's also possible that you only get 9 losses to the SNP. Jo Swinson has a chance if she can get tactical votes for her. The border seats look incredibly close. And I think Viscount Thurso - alone of Scottish Liberal Democrats - will get a meaningful personal vote.
That doesn't mean the 4-1 isn't good value. It's outstanding value and I've maxed out the amount that I'm allowed to bet on it with a bunch of bookmakers. But it is perfectly possible to see how the LibDems get 20 seats.
"Huhne's misadventures have had as profound an impact for the LD's as Strauss Kahn for the French socialists. They just don't seem to have anyone with the stature or chuzpah to be leader."
I think you're right about Huhne but I don't think they particularly lack leaders. I just think they are all paying for the vanity of Clegg and a few camp followers.
My guess is that for all those who study British Government the name 'Clegg' will join Dalton's budget leaks Dugdale at Crichel Down and Ramsay Macdonald as historical footnotes with a nasty whiff but where no one can remember why.
(If it's the one I'm thinking of, then it was founded by two students).
Since 2008 the service sector is up 8%, sure. But manufacturing is still down 5% and production overall by 10%. If you don't work in the service sector there has been no recovery. You are still deep in recession.
The coalition had one choice in 2010. Debt fuelled consumption had bankrupted us and the economy had to be rebalanced toward production of wealth. They had just one choice but they didn't take it. The coalition have borrowed half a trillion simply to kick the can down the road. Now there are no choices.
Vote Miliband for a quick merciful death or Cameron for a lingering one. There's a good post about our debt bomb called Osborne's Little Swelling at: http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/2015/04/osbornes-little-swelling.html
In 1993, the Bloc Quebecois absolutely dominated Quebec, winning 60+ of the 75 MPs (and, of course, achieving a very narrow referendum loss). Over the following 20 years, pro-union tactical voting has proliferated in the province, to the extent that they now have only only a handful. Is there a lesson for the SNP there?
a) moves jobs overseas
b) moves heavy industry to locations with less stringent safety and environmental controls
c) causes additional fuel to be burned to move products and/or materials from the UK to that location and back again
and as a consequence means we are paying more money to increase overall pollution substantially, whilst losing jobs and all that entails. Another genius bit of well thought out legislation from Labour.
Just consider the fuckwittery that results in us having a shortage of cement in this country, with our rolling chalk hills, and causes us to have to import it from China and India, on the other side of the world, where the same or more CO2 is emitted in the production as when it was made in the UK.
If independence is not an issue in the next few years because of persistent low oil prices [ not just fracking but renewables growth is gathering pace plus Iran ], some of that coherence is bound to weaken. Ironically, the Tories in Scotland could gain as a result.
Going by the polling, there's been something like one million votes shed by Labour and the Lib Dems. That's one million votes of which the Tories have been able to get, well NONE. That's very indicative of their position and their likely future prospects.
(Amber Valley,Broxtowe,Erewash,Lincoln,Northampton North,Sherwood and tie in Loughborough)
Because that's the case for the Tories, Red Tories and Liberals in Scotland today. All three parties are significantly tarnished in the public mind.
Times change.
Its more of Cameron's obsession with not looking like a toff, rather than just accepting that he is one, and mostly people wont care. If people didn't life toffs Boris wouldn't be so popular, they just don't like toffs pretending not to be toffs, which is exactly what he is doing!
That's the blockage. A pro-independence or even federalist Centre-Right party might work. But that's not on the table and is not going to be on the table for the foreseeable future. The Conservatives are turtling into hard Unionism, even the formerly Federalist Liberals are turtling into hard Unionism.
Politically I should only ever vote either Tory or Liberal. In my misguided youth I was a member of the Tory party. But I never will vote for either while Scotland is in the Union.
What are the Labour priorities, please?
David Cameron looks shattered, he should have taken the weekend off, given Gallipoli and the marathon tomorrow.
I see Alastair Campbell is dishing the dirt. What is it with these people, politics would be better off if these repulsive creatures got out of politics and stayed out.
This was Labour NHS week. That was the priority; all they were going to talk about.
Apart from a foreign policy speech of course. The only one Ed has given in 5 years. On a topic he has raised a total of none times at PMQs.
And he was tough ennus (sic) to accuse David Cameron of having blood on his hands. Until he saw the press reaction and chickened out, cos he isn't tough enough to stand up to any form of criticism, whether from Dianne Abbot or the Sun.
That's what a panicking failing disciplined coordinated campaign looks like...
Tbh, I'm starting to think that the Lib Dems limiting their losses to the Tories to just 19 might be a tad optimistic, if the reports from the SW are anywhere near accurate.
The opinions I've seen seem to contradict this.
The implication of the statute is that in the event of NoConf there are 14 days for someone (including the existing gov, perhaps reconfigured) to get a vote of Conf.
If that someone is the Opposition the incumbent PM is expected to resign and give them their chance without an election.
But that is a nuclear option which I just can't see happening.
The question is whether the Union has enough time to wait for this. I hope it does not. The SNP will not wait 15 years like the Quebecois did. They will be lining the next Referendum up for 2018/9 when purely on demographics, Yes will win Ceteris Parabus. With all the damage that Westminster is piling on to the Union, a 2018 Yes seems pretty nailed on currently.
"Jo Swinson is, without any doubt, one of the most reprehensible characters I've laid eyes upon"
No wonder Clegg will have no truck with these extremists..
Been told the "old model" - Tories do well in the South/Countryside, LAB north/cities and LD's here and there no longer applies.
What it boils down to is that 90%+ of people have no knowledge of any details whatsoever re politics. Most don't even know how the voting system works.
People vote entirely on general impression and gut feel.
Nothing that any of the parties says makes any difference whatsoever. All the talk on here about who is having a good campaign, who is having a bad campaign - forget the lot of it - it's meaningless.
In my view one of, if not the most, important thing remaining in this campaign is whether seat forecasts get put up on all the main national TV news programmes the night before the GE. UKIP will be praying they aren't. Because if they are and everyone sees UKIP forecast to only get 2 or 3 seats then it will cost them substantial votes - because everyone will realise they have no chance - which people don't realise when they see opinion polls with them on approx 13%.
Nothing that any of the parties says makes any difference whatsoever. All the talk on here about who is having a good campaign, who is having a bad campaign - forget the lot of it - it's meaningless.
Pretty much. I can conceive of some really good or bad event or narrative affecting the committed anorak vote in some way, but the wider public, their minds are set long ago because the gut feel is set long ago, even if they feel uncertain about which way they will vote.
At the top of Buchanan Street, 2000 people quit their shopping to listen to Nicola Sturgeon launch her Women's Manifesto on the steps of the Concert Hall. Meanwhile in George Square half a mile away, Tommy Sheridan and a lot of the hard left are putting on a #hopeoverfear rally for another 3000 or so urging them all to back the SNP in the election.
Meanwhile Jim Murphy's in Neilston with two activists.
'2.19 Under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, if a government is defeated on a motion that ‘this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government’, there is then a 14-day period during which an alternative government can be formed from the House of Commons as presently constituted, or the incumbent government can seek to regain the confidence of the House. If no government can secure the confidence of the House of Commons during that period, through the approval of a motion that ‘this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government’, a general election will take place. Other decisions of the House of Commons which have previously been regarded as expressing ‘no confidence’ in the government no longer enable or require the Prime Minister to hold a general election. The Prime Minister is expected to resign where it is clear that he or she does not have the confidence of the House of Commons and that an alternative government does have the confidence.'
So sitting tight for an election and not giving a viable Opposition the chance does not seem to be an option. The CabMan goes on to say that the principles that apply are the same that apply after an indecisive election result.
'2.12 Where an election does not result in an overall majority for a single party, the incumbent government remains in office unless and until the Prime Minister tenders his or her resignation and the Government’s resignation to the Sovereign. An incumbent government is entitled to wait until the new Parliament has met to see if it can command the confidence of the House of Commons, but is expected to resign if it becomes clear that it is unlikely to be able to command that confidence and there is a clear alternative.'
Next council elections will see the hated Liberals completely wiped out in East Dun and an SNP majority council. All around Scotland people are benefitting from switching from corrupt, self-interested Labour and Liberal councils to people-focused SNP councils. It's a core reason for the continued popularity of the SNP.
For that reason, I think Ashcroft is wrong.
Is is not consistent with a Vote-Nige-Get-Ed theme?
Wicked stuff..
Are you saying that Cameron can stay in No.10 and , after 2 weeks, ask the Queen to call a second election without giving Miliband a chance to succeed in a motion of no confidence ?
That would bring the Queen into politics !