the Lib Dems might be largely irrelevant in the next government.
To small to help the tories not needed to help an SNP backed Labour
Probably actually aids their long term electoral prospects.
Possibly. Being able to pick and choose, or pick neither, puts a lot of pressure on a party that will be licking its wounds and needing to figure out how to regroup, but if they can essentially just sit things out? Very nice.
Isn't there a risk, surely, that the LD's fade into irrelevance by 2020?
Of course. My suspicion is the LDs would be happy with a Lab-SNP government, in the hope that they can recover support as those two lose some popularity as a natural consequence of being in government, while simultaneously tacking left and repudiating Clegg and his ilk to reassure people they are proper lefties again. It could work, but as you say maybe it'll just mean they don't recover and also don't have influence - but what else leads to the possibility of a recovery?
There is an article by Iain Macwhirter in the Sunday Herald arguing that it is more likely we will see a Labour-LD coalition (Mr M gets to be PM, the LDs keep their ministerial cars and start detoxing away from the Tories) while the SNP quietly support on a case by case basis without any agreement but are still seen to intervene in key issues. [Edit: my summary.] There is some sense in this as it maximises the benefits and reduces the downsides for each party.
I could see that. I regard a LD-Lab coalition as more likely than a second LD-Con one for many of the reasons given, although I still think the party would wish to avoid one altogether. They're coalition shy at the moment, despite their campaign to the contrary, i suspect.
As ever a fair bit down thread about tactical voting in Scotland, which is a sad reflection on the 3 so called mainstream parties. One of the main problems with tactical voting is that the Unionist parties are giving out very mixed messages as you can see from my post from yesterday:
" 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 !!
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."
the LDs keep their ministerial cars and start detoxing away from the Tories
That's not how it works. The LDs are toxic because they said one thing and did another.
If they go into a Labour government and immediately say everything we did for 5 years was bad, that will not 'detox' them
In the eyes of the Red Liberals it might, if they got rid of the ruling clique and pretended it was all down to them. My feeling is that some people need a pretext to justify to themselves to consider voting for the LDs again. Getting rid of Clegg might have been enough for a few tactically minded voters.
Assuming Cameron leads the largest party and Miliband has no formal or even public informal arrangements with the SNP how would Labour get any chance at forming a government until every Tory lead option is seen to be unworkable?
Being in government helps you control much of the political weather. If you're in number 10, you are in charge.
A weakened Tories could decide their best tactical option would be to install an even weaker Miliband, and let the fun begin with the SNP...
Assuming Cameron leads the largest party and Miliband has no formal or even public informal arrangements with the SNP how would Labour get any chance at forming a government until every Tory lead option is seen to be unworkable?
Being in government helps you control much of the political weather. If you're in number 10, you are in charge.
A weakened Tories could decide their best tactical option would be to install an even weaker Miliband, and let the fun begin with the SNP...
Abolish bedroom tax Raise taxes on rich Cap energy prices Unfreeze public sector wages Call election on a ticket of 'don't take us back to the bad old days'
One of the assumption the PBTories have made of Miliband [ apart from murdering his brother ] is that he is too stupid. Nabavi and SeanT being exceptions.
Miliband can play quite a few cards with small ticket items [ you forgot the reduction in University fees ] and put into touch [ set up a commission ] controversial things like Mansion Tax.
He declares "Austerity is coming to an end". Let's see how many votes he loses.
The SNP will not vote against any of those. He might even have the Lib Dems supporting him to regain some credibility.
As ever a fair bit down thread about tactical voting in Scotland, which is a sad reflection on the 3 so called mainstream parties. One of the main problems with tactical voting is that the Unionist parties are giving out very mixed messages
Yes. They need to do it, but they are not in a position to officially endorse it at the top of the parties yet. They and their voters are not ready to accept that, and the suddenness of noticing the SNP rise didn't give enough time to figure something out even if they had been so inclined.
Furthermore the Tories want some tactical voting for their guy, but they actually still need Labour to lose plenty of seats to have a chance to win - they would prefer the tactical voting start after this GE.
the Lib Dems might be largely irrelevant in the next government.
To small to help the tories not needed to help an SNP backed Labour
Probably actually aids their long term electoral prospects.
Possibly. Being able to pick and choose, or pick neither, puts a lot of pressure on a party that will be licking its wounds and needing to figure out how to regroup, but if they can essentially just sit things out? Very nice.
Very nice? To be in politics to be an irrelevance? The Liberals were an irrelevance. The point of them merging with another irrelevance - the SDP - was to become meaningful. Now that they never need actually worry about 'preparing for government' is hailed as 'very nice'?? The LDs have failed totally. They had a good opportunity, probably never to be repeated, to become a part of government to see that what they represent has some influence. What did they do? 'I'll tell you wot' they did they rubbished the govt they were a part of, they rubbished the decisions they were a part of. And they wonder why they are disparaging into the wilderness of irrelevance.
the Lib Dems might be largely irrelevant in the next government.
To small to help the tories not needed to help an SNP backed Labour
Probably actually aids their long term electoral prospects.
Possibly. Being able to pick and choose, or pick neither, puts a lot of pressure on a party that will be licking its wounds and needing to figure out how to regroup, but if they can essentially just sit things out? Very nice.
Isn't there a risk, surely, that the LD's fade into irrelevance by 2020?
Of course. My suspicion is the LDs would be happy with a Lab-SNP government, in the hope that they can recover support as those two lose some popularity as a natural consequence of being in government, while simultaneously tacking left and repudiating Clegg and his ilk to reassure people they are proper lefties again. It could work, but as you say maybe it'll just mean they don't recover and also don't have influence - but what else leads to the possibility of a recovery?
There is an article by Iain Macwhirter in the Sunday Herald arguing that it is more likely we will see a Labour-LD coalition (Mr M gets to be PM, the LDs keep their ministerial cars and start detoxing away from the Tories) while the SNP quietly support on a case by case basis without any agreement but are still seen to intervene in key issues. [Edit: my summary.] There is some sense in this as it maximises the benefits and reduces the downsides for each party.
I could see that. I regard a LD-Lab coalition as more likely than a second LD-Con one for many of the reasons given, although I still think the party would wish to avoid one altogether. They're coalition shy at the moment, despite their campaign to the contrary, i suspect.
The other advantage of that is it defuses the SNp=wreckers=unfit for government argument from the Tories, unless one wants to follow the underlying argument that the SNP should be completely banned from Westminster just because, which would destroy the Union instantly: which is also relevant to Mr Macwhirter's analysis.
Assuming Cameron leads the largest party and Miliband has no formal or even public informal arrangements with the SNP how would Labour get any chance at forming a government until every Tory lead option is seen to be unworkable?
Being in government helps you control much of the political weather. If you're in number 10, you are in charge.
A weakened Tories could decide their best tactical option would be to install an even weaker Miliband, and let the fun begin with the SNP...
Assuming Cameron leads the largest party and Miliband has no formal or even public informal arrangements with the SNP how would Labour get any chance at forming a government until every Tory lead option is seen to be unworkable?
Being in government helps you control much of the political weather. If you're in number 10, you are in charge.
A weakened Tories could decide their best tactical option would be to install an even weaker Miliband, and let the fun begin with the SNP...
Abolish bedroom tax Raise taxes on rich Cap energy prices Unfreeze public sector wages Call election on a ticket of 'don't take us back to the bad old days'
One of the assumption the PBTories have made of Miliband [ apart from murdering his brother ] is that he is too stupid. Nabavi and SeanT being exceptions.
Miliband can play quite a few cards with small ticket items [ you forgot the reduction in University fees ] and put into touch [ set up a commission ] controversial things like Mansion Tax.
He declares "Austerity is coming to an end". Let's see how many votes he loses.
The SNP will not vote against any of those. He might even have the Lib Dems supporting him to regain some credibility.
the Lib Dems might be largely irrelevant in the next government.
To small to help the tories not needed to help an SNP backed Labour
Probably actually aids their long term electoral prospects.
Possibly. Being able to pick and choose, or pick neither, puts a lot of pressure on a party that will be licking its wounds and needing to figure out how to regroup, but if they can essentially just sit things out? Very nice.
Very nice? To be in politics to be an irrelevance? The Liberals were an irrelevance. The point of them merging with another irrelevance - the SDP - was to become meaningful. Now that they never need actually worry about 'preparing for government' is hailed as 'very nice'?? The LDs have failed totally. They had a good opportunity, probably never to be repeated, to become a part of government to see that what they represent has some influence. What did they do? 'I'll tell you wot' they did they rubbished the govt they were a part of, they rubbished the decisions they were a part of. And they wonder why they are disparaging into the wilderness of irrelevance.
Not 'never' but for this next parliament, they need time to rebuild. I don't know why some people think the LDs not wanting to be involved in a government next time which will not benefit them means they are happy to 'always' be an irrelevance. Very short term minded of such people.
Assuming Cameron leads the largest party and Miliband has no formal or even public informal arrangements with the SNP how would Labour get any chance at forming a government until every Tory lead option is seen to be unworkable?
Being in government helps you control much of the political weather. If you're in number 10, you are in charge.
A weakened Tories could decide their best tactical option would be to install an even weaker Miliband, and let the fun begin with the SNP...
Assuming Cameron leads the largest party and Miliband has no formal or even public informal arrangements with the SNP how would Labour get any chance at forming a government until every Tory lead option is seen to be unworkable?
Being in government helps you control much of the political weather. If you're in number 10, you are in charge.
A weakened Tories could decide their best tactical option would be to install an even weaker Miliband, and let the fun begin with the SNP...
Abolish bedroom tax Raise taxes on rich Cap energy prices Unfreeze public sector wages Call election on a ticket of 'don't take us back to the bad old days'
One of the assumption the PBTories have made of Miliband [ apart from murdering his brother ] is that he is too stupid. Nabavi and SeanT being exceptions.
Miliband can play quite a few cards with small ticket items [ you forgot the reduction in University fees ] and put into touch [ set up a commission ] controversial things like Mansion Tax.
He declares "Austerity is coming to an end". Let's see how many votes he loses.
The SNP will not vote against any of those. He might even have the Lib Dems supporting him to regain some credibility.
How can he call an election on the fixed term act
Lose a confidence vote. I'd be easy, just have a few backbenchers fail to turn up, or do it during Holyrood campaign
Assuming Cameron leads the largest party and Miliband has no formal or even public informal arrangements with the SNP how would Labour get any chance at forming a government until every Tory lead option is seen to be unworkable?
Being in government helps you control much of the political weather. If you're in number 10, you are in charge.
A weakened Tories could decide their best tactical option would be to install an even weaker Miliband, and let the fun begin with the SNP...
Assuming Cameron leads the largest party and Miliband has no formal or even public informal arrangements with the SNP how would Labour get any chance at forming a government until every Tory lead option is seen to be unworkable?
Being in government helps you control much of the political weather. If you're in number 10, you are in charge.
A weakened Tories could decide their best tactical option would be to install an even weaker Miliband, and let the fun begin with the SNP...
Abolish bedroom tax Raise taxes on rich Cap energy prices Unfreeze public sector wages Call election on a ticket of 'don't take us back to the bad old days'
One of the assumption the PBTories have made of Miliband [ apart from murdering his brother ] is that he is too stupid. Nabavi and SeanT being exceptions.
Miliband can play quite a few cards with small ticket items [ you forgot the reduction in University fees ] and put into touch [ set up a commission ] controversial things like Mansion Tax.
He declares "Austerity is coming to an end". Let's see how many votes he loses.
The SNP will not vote against any of those. He might even have the Lib Dems supporting him to regain some credibility.
How can he call an election on the fixed term act
Why should he ? But if others gang up and move a vote of no-confidence he will happily run on his record and prove those changes are possible without the roof caving in.
Just as a re-cap I think we are looking at something like:
Tory 285 Anti-Tory 320 Non-aligned 40
EICIPM. The DUP plus the Lib Dems might just get Cameron over the line but the majority would be paper thin. An anti-Tory majority seems far more credible.
Cameron's line would only need to be strong enough for long enough to get EV4EL etc through parliament.
Then you can write off the SNP, Plaid, NI etc etc.
The DUP will never, ever support a diminishing of their MPs roles. They will not support EVEL. Nevargh, Nevargh, NEVARGH!
"Birmingham Northfield local election results with comparison to 2010 (general election day):
Conservative 37.2% (+ 0.5%) Labour 30.7% (- 4.8%) Lib Dem 3.3% (-12.9%) Green 3.8% (+ 1.5%) UKIP 23.6% (Only 1 candidate) UKIP hoovered up the sizeable BNP vote and the collapsed Liberal democrat vote, and clearly took votes from Labour here too. The Conservatives gained the marginal Kings Norton ward from Labour, and held Northfield which was lost at the last 2 elections. (C3 L1 this time, L7,C5 total). The Conservative lead with this good performance is now higher than in Edgbaston."
Just as a re-cap I think we are looking at something like:
Tory 285 Anti-Tory 320 Non-aligned 40
EICIPM. The DUP plus the Lib Dems might just get Cameron over the line but the majority would be paper thin. An anti-Tory majority seems far more credible.
Cameron's line would only need to be strong enough for long enough to get EV4EL etc through parliament.
Then you can write off the SNP, Plaid, NI etc etc.
The DUP will never, ever support a diminishing of their MPs roles. They will not support EVEL. Nevargh, Nevargh, NEVARGH!
I read the DUP manifesto on Friday. There is a high degree of overlap with the Conservatives, and I don't think they'd have an issue with EVFEL.
Mr. F, the policymakers [a word too polite, I'd say] are damned fools who ought to be slapped around the head and neck with an enormo-haddock.
There I was, tranquil in the wilderness where no pollster ventures, when election fever began to steal upon me and before you could say ARSE I found myself yearning for tales of the famed enormo-haddock. My fate was sealed.
So how are the Lib Dem activists reacting to the polls? Denial is not a strong enough word. Apparently this lady thinks that Ashcrofts polls are tainted because he is a political opponent. Something no one on here has written in recent memory.
the Lib Dems might be largely irrelevant in the next government.
To small to help the tories not needed to help an SNP backed Labour
Probably actually aids their long term electoral prospects.
Possibly. Being able to pick and choose, or pick neither, puts a lot of pressure on a party that will be licking its wounds and needing to figure out how to regroup, but if they can essentially just sit things out? Very nice.
Very nice? To be in politics to be an irrelevance? The Liberals were an irrelevance. The point of them merging with another irrelevance - the SDP - was to become meaningful. Now that they never need actually worry about 'preparing for government' is hailed as 'very nice'?? The LDs have failed totally. They had a good opportunity, probably never to be repeated, to become a part of government to see that what they represent has some influence. What did they do? 'I'll tell you wot' they did they rubbished the govt they were a part of, they rubbished the decisions they were a part of. And they wonder why they are disparaging into the wilderness of irrelevance.
You are viewing things as always through partisan coloured spectacles . The Lib Dems did not rubbish the decisions they were part of . That was the practice of a group of Conservative backbenchers a couple of whom even b*ggered off to another party but of course in your eyes these were heroes .
I don't understand why everyone assumes that to call an early election a government deliberately loses a no-confidence vote.
A simple two-thirds majority will get an early election called immediately - no 14 days, no no-confidence nonsense. If the government calls for an early election on a three line whip, the opposition (if it can't form its own government) would essentially be obliged to all three line whip in favour of an election.
Unless the opposition can form their own government (in which case vote for no confidence and try and take over), the opposition can not ever honourably say no we don't want a vote we'd rather you continue to run the government.
Government plus opposition always exceeds well over two thirds, so an election is started.
I see the southwest and Labour was mentioned below. The latest edition of Rail magazine says that Ed Balls has backed the tunnel diversion for the Dawlish rail problem, rather than the more popular Okehampton line reopening.
This is the option I favour as well, although the much higher costs mean that neither is the best option (as Balls identifies, the Okehampton line does nothing for the population centres in South Devon).
He also questions the phasing of such improvements with the HS2 phases (although he ignores the electrification schemes).
Just thought I'd mention this, as I haven't seen it publicised much and may swing some voters in either direction.
I don't understand why everyone assumes that to call an early election a government deliberately loses a no-confidence vote.
A simple two-thirds majority will get an early election called immediately - no 14 days, no no-confidence nonsense. If the government calls for an early election on a three line whip, the opposition (if it can't form its own government) would essentially be obliged to all three line whip in favour of an election.
Unless the opposition can form their own government (in which case vote for no confidence and try and take over), the opposition can not ever honourably say no we don't want a vote we'd rather you continue to run the government.
Government plus opposition always exceeds well over two thirds, so an election is started.
Tend to agree. A government that wants an election could say they would resign if they don't get it, and put the cowardly Opposition into government, which promptly collapses (on a VoC), triggering an election...
One of the assumption the PBTories have made of Miliband [ apart from murdering his brother ] is that he is too stupid. Nabavi and SeanT being exceptions.
Miliband can play quite a few cards with small ticket items [ you forgot the reduction in University fees ] and put into touch [ set up a commission ] controversial things like Mansion Tax.
He declares "Austerity is coming to an end". Let's see how many votes he loses.
The SNP will not vote against any of those. He might even have the Lib Dems supporting him to regain some credibility.
Under the FTPA the SNP can happily vote against Labour's Queen's Speech if Labour do not consult with them and offer sweeties. They can spin this trivially enough and the ball is 100% in Labour's court to make concessions to the SNP.
In realpolitik it is more likely the SNP will let the Queen's Speech pass, however. This will place Miliband in even more of a bind, being effectively powerless to pass any legislation without the support of either the Tories or the SNP.
Just as a re-cap I think we are looking at something like:
Tory 285 Anti-Tory 320 Non-aligned 40
EICIPM. The DUP plus the Lib Dems might just get Cameron over the line but the majority would be paper thin. An anti-Tory majority seems far more credible.
Cameron's line would only need to be strong enough for long enough to get EV4EL etc through parliament.
Then you can write off the SNP, Plaid, NI etc etc.
The DUP will never, ever support a diminishing of their MPs roles. They will not support EVEL. Nevargh, Nevargh, NEVARGH!
I read the DUP manifesto on Friday. There is a high degree of overlap with the Conservatives, and I don't think they'd have an issue with EVFEL.
They will have a fundamental ideological opposition to EVEL. Their MPs are EQUAL to any other MP because NI is an intrinsic and inseparable part of the UK. Any law which diminishes this ideological dogma will be unsupportable by the DUP.
My postal vote is sitting on the dining room table. I've been putting off the Conservative/UKIP decision for weeks now but today is the day.
Reading PB recently has felt like fifty canvassers knocking on my front door every night.
I was in the same position as you, GeoffM, a few weeks ago. I reached a point where I decided it was simply too bloody dangerous to do anything other than vote Conservative.
It's a balancing act of relativities: Ed Miliband is a clear and present danger to the well-being and interests of this country. I actually have had sleepless nights over this election. The man puts the fear of God into me.
And I think the Tory manifesto isn't too bad, actually. It's the best I think we Con-UKIP floaters could have hoped for. And it might be enacted, if Cameron wins.
I don't understand why everyone assumes that to call an early election a government deliberately loses a no-confidence vote.
A simple two-thirds majority will get an early election called immediately - no 14 days, no no-confidence nonsense. If the government calls for an early election on a three line whip, the opposition (if it can't form its own government) would essentially be obliged to all three line whip in favour of an election.
Unless the opposition can form their own government (in which case vote for no confidence and try and take over), the opposition can not ever honourably say no we don't want a vote we'd rather you continue to run the government.
Government plus opposition always exceeds well over two thirds, so an election is started.
Tend to agree. A government that wants an election could say they would resign if they don't get it, and put the cowardly Opposition into government, which promptly collapses (on a VoC), triggering an election...
Any opposition with an ounce of sense would go into government under those circumstances and at least try and get a Queens Speech through . The subsequent GE would then be fought with their leader as PM and other senior party members as Ministers and the former PM would be just that .
Just as a re-cap I think we are looking at something like:
Tory 285 Anti-Tory 320 Non-aligned 40
EICIPM. The DUP plus the Lib Dems might just get Cameron over the line but the majority would be paper thin. An anti-Tory majority seems far more credible.
Cameron's line would only need to be strong enough for long enough to get EV4EL etc through parliament.
Then you can write off the SNP, Plaid, NI etc etc.
The DUP will never, ever support a diminishing of their MPs roles. They will not support EVEL. Nevargh, Nevargh, NEVARGH!
I read the DUP manifesto on Friday. There is a high degree of overlap with the Conservatives, and I don't think they'd have an issue with EVFEL.
They will have a fundamental ideological opposition to EVEL. Their MPs are EQUAL to any other MP because NI is an intrinsic and inseparable part of the UK. Any law which diminishes this ideological dogma will be unsupportable by the DUP.
I don't think that's the case. They will have no objection to Health, Education and English income tax being set in England by English MPs.
They will want an overall UK voice on the Barnett formula, foreign policy, immigration and defence.
Re labours rent control policy does anyone think it will become a reality. Rents will be freely negotiated at the beginning of the tenancy between landlord and tenant with some reference to the previous rent and then any rent rise for the max three years will be restricted to inflation. Apparently it will not come in until 2017 and will be policed by the local authority.
Any landlord who neglects the property maintenance will lose tax relief this to be policed by HMRC.
It is so obvious that landlords will calculate their initial rents at a much higher level to allow for this restriction and then at the end of three years will raise rents again. As there is no possibility of there being anything but large rental demand the landlords will have no problem in attracting tenants paying the higher rent. Furthermore it is probable that a lot of tenancies will be allowed to lapse before the regulation comes into force to enable the landlord to negotiate a completely new tenancy contract to protect their interest
The idea that local authorities will have the time and staffing to maintain a new landlord register and that HMRC will be able to investigate landlords re their tax relief is ridiculous.
Another sound bite policy from Ed Miliband who has no knowledge of markets and more worryingly no interest in understanding them
If it has no real effect, then maybe Ed Miliband is a smarter politician than you give him credit for.
Miliband is the smartest politician on offer. He promises no major reforms. He prmises a range of minor tinkerings which fit I with a popular theme that the rich can pay more and make everything fairer. Neither the tories nor the libdems offer such a simple and popular meme.
Miliband's policies seem to be all quite insignificant and therefor, for the smart politician, easily achievable. Small change to the amount of housing benefit you might receive if you have a spare room. Insignificant and achievable in 1 year. Tinker with casual employment contracts. Insignificant and achievable. Tinker with private rents. Insignificant and achievable. Reduce tuition fees a bit. Ditto. Increase nurse numbers by 0.3%. Ditto. Knock a few quid off your energy bills. Ditto. Rich a bit worse off. Ditto.
After 1 year in office he'll be riding high having achieved everything he promised without changing very much at all. Smart. Very smart when one considers that one year in, the coalition were embarking on a 'courageous' reform agenda that was always going to end in electoral tears, regardless of the economy.
Ed may be crap, he may be weak, or weird. Call him what you like. But he's smarter than the average.
I don't understand why everyone assumes that to call an early election a government deliberately loses a no-confidence vote.
A simple two-thirds majority will get an early election called immediately - no 14 days, no no-confidence nonsense. If the government calls for an early election on a three line whip, the opposition (if it can't form its own government) would essentially be obliged to all three line whip in favour of an election.
Unless the opposition can form their own government (in which case vote for no confidence and try and take over), the opposition can not ever honourably say no we don't want a vote we'd rather you continue to run the government.
Government plus opposition always exceeds well over two thirds, so an election is started.
Tend to agree. A government that wants an election could say they would resign if they don't get it, and put the cowardly Opposition into government, which promptly collapses (on a VoC), triggering an election...
A lost vote of confidence does NOT trigger an election under FTPA.
My postal vote is sitting on the dining room table. I've been putting off the Conservative/UKIP decision for weeks now but today is the day.
Reading PB recently has felt like fifty canvassers knocking on my front door every night.
I was in the same position as you, GeoffM, a few weeks ago. I reached a point where I decided it was simply too bloody dangerous to do anything other than vote Conservative.
It's a balancing act of relativities: Ed Miliband is a clear and present danger to the well-being and interests of this country. I actually have had sleepless nights over this election. The man puts the fear of God into me.
And I think the Tory manifesto isn't too bad, actually. It's the best I think we Con-UKIP floaters could have hoped for. And it might be enacted, if Cameron wins.
Which constituency are you in?
LOL , a chicken gone home to roost tries to justify to himself not going out into the bad bad world outside .
I don't understand why everyone assumes that to call an early election a government deliberately loses a no-confidence vote.
A simple two-thirds majority will get an early election called immediately - no 14 days, no no-confidence nonsense. If the government calls for an early election on a three line whip, the opposition (if it can't form its own government) would essentially be obliged to all three line whip in favour of an election.
Unless the opposition can form their own government (in which case vote for no confidence and try and take over), the opposition can not ever honourably say no we don't want a vote we'd rather you continue to run the government.
Government plus opposition always exceeds well over two thirds, so an election is started.
Tend to agree. A government that wants an election could say they would resign if they don't get it, and put the cowardly Opposition into government, which promptly collapses (on a VoC), triggering an election...
Any opposition with an ounce of sense would go into government under those circumstances and at least try and get a Queens Speech through . The subsequent GE would then be fought with their leader as PM and other senior party members as Ministers and the former PM would be just that .
But they would be damaged and look foolish, for bottling out of a voluntary election.
I don't understand why everyone assumes that to call an early election a government deliberately loses a no-confidence vote.
A simple two-thirds majority will get an early election called immediately - no 14 days, no no-confidence nonsense. If the government calls for an early election on a three line whip, the opposition (if it can't form its own government) would essentially be obliged to all three line whip in favour of an election.
Unless the opposition can form their own government (in which case vote for no confidence and try and take over), the opposition can not ever honourably say no we don't want a vote we'd rather you continue to run the government.
Government plus opposition always exceeds well over two thirds, so an election is started.
Tend to agree. A government that wants an election could say they would resign if they don't get it, and put the cowardly Opposition into government, which promptly collapses (on a VoC), triggering an election...
Exactly. Hypothetically if the FTPA had existed during the run up to the Election That Never Was with Brown still leaking that he wanted an election and Cameron calling for an election, there is no way that a two-thirds majority wouldn't have been reached if Brown had put the motion forwards.
Yes its slightly more complex than simply speaking to Her Majesty and requesting an election, but its not insurmountable.
They had a good opportunity, probably never to be repeated, to become a part of government to see that what they represent has some influence. What did they do? 'I'll tell you wot' they did they rubbished the govt they were a part of, they rubbished the decisions they were a part of. And they wonder why they are disparaging into the wilderness of irrelevance.
You are viewing things as always through partisan coloured spectacles . The Lib Dems did not rubbish the decisions they were part of . That was the practice of a group of Conservative backbenchers a couple of whom even b*ggered off to another party but of course in your eyes these were heroes .
Well said, Mr Senior. The Lib Dems in the Coalition Government loyally supported policies which were in the coalition agreement.
They strongly opposed Tory measures which were not in the agreement - even then, some got through the net, more´s the pity.
Some Conservative MPs did their best to bring the Government to an end. Some even loped off to UKIP, as Mr Senior observes.
The difficulty for the Conservative Party under Mr Cameron is that it is trying to be a "broad tent". Those days have gone. It has to become a niche party, like all the others. And they start working to find partners whom it can work with in coalition. Small chance of that when they go out their way to offend everybody.
I don't understand why everyone assumes that to call an early election a government deliberately loses a no-confidence vote.
A simple two-thirds majority will get an early election called immediately - no 14 days, no no-confidence nonsense. If the government calls for an early election on a three line whip, the opposition (if it can't form its own government) would essentially be obliged to all three line whip in favour of an election.
Unless the opposition can form their own government (in which case vote for no confidence and try and take over), the opposition can not ever honourably say no we don't want a vote we'd rather you continue to run the government.
Government plus opposition always exceeds well over two thirds, so an election is started.
Tend to agree. A government that wants an election could say they would resign if they don't get it, and put the cowardly Opposition into government, which promptly collapses (on a VoC), triggering an election...
Any opposition with an ounce of sense would go into government under those circumstances and at least try and get a Queens Speech through . The subsequent GE would then be fought with their leader as PM and other senior party members as Ministers and the former PM would be just that .
But they would be damaged and look foolish, for bottling out of a voluntary election.
No they would look statesmanlike for attempting to run the country wheras the previous bunch are only interested in fighting a new election . This is not a partisan point , it applies to whichever parties are in which position .
Just as a re-cap I think we are looking at something like:
Tory 285 Anti-Tory 320 Non-aligned 40
EICIPM. The DUP plus the Lib Dems might just get Cameron over the line but the majority would be paper thin. An anti-Tory majority seems far more credible.
Cameron's line would only need to be strong enough for long enough to get EV4EL etc through parliament.
Then you can write off the SNP, Plaid, NI etc etc.
The DUP will never, ever support a diminishing of their MPs roles. They will not support EVEL. Nevargh, Nevargh, NEVARGH!
I read the DUP manifesto on Friday. There is a high degree of overlap with the Conservatives, and I don't think they'd have an issue with EVFEL.
They will have a fundamental ideological opposition to EVEL. Their MPs are EQUAL to any other MP because NI is an intrinsic and inseparable part of the UK. Any law which diminishes this ideological dogma will be unsupportable by the DUP.
I don't think that's the case. They will have no objection to Health, Education and English income tax being set in England by English MPs.
They will want an overall UK voice on the Barnett formula, foreign policy, immigration and defence.
That fundamentally misunderstands the mindset of Unionists in Northern Ireland. Being happy for English MPs to decide certain matters is absolutely different to being legally barred from deciding such matters. It would also mean supporting the move of further powers to Scotland which again, the NI Unionists have a fundamental opposition to.
I don't understand why everyone assumes that to call an early election a government deliberately loses a no-confidence vote.
A simple two-thirds majority will get an early election called immediately - no 14 days, no no-confidence nonsense. If the government calls for an early election on a three line whip, the opposition (if it can't form its own government) would essentially be obliged to all three line whip in favour of an election.
Unless the opposition can form their own government (in which case vote for no confidence and try and take over), the opposition can not ever honourably say no we don't want a vote we'd rather you continue to run the government.
Government plus opposition always exceeds well over two thirds, so an election is started.
Tend to agree. A government that wants an election could say they would resign if they don't get it, and put the cowardly Opposition into government, which promptly collapses (on a VoC), triggering an election...
Any opposition with an ounce of sense would go into government under those circumstances and at least try and get a Queens Speech through . The subsequent GE would then be fought with their leader as PM and other senior party members as Ministers and the former PM would be just that .
But they would be damaged and look foolish, for bottling out of a voluntary election.
No they would look statesmanlike for attempting to run the country wheras the previous bunch are only interested in fighting a new election . This is not a partisan point , it applies to whichever parties are in which position .
The government has no need to resign and force them in if the opposition turns down the opportunity to go to the country. Any opposition that rejects an election would be a total laughing stock and every week the opposition leader would be humiliated in PMQs with a line along the lines of "why are you afraid to face the electorate"? The opposition would be humiliated if they rejected an election.
Another leaflet for the wrong constituency today, this time for the Greens.
The boundary line between Edinburgh North & Leith and Edinburgh East runs down the centre of Easter Road, you have SNP posters facing each other from the tenement windows exhorting people to vote for the respective candidates - if you didn't know the constituency layout you would assume people were either very confused or that there was a schism in the party.
I don't understand why everyone assumes that to call an early election a government deliberately loses a no-confidence vote.
A simple two-thirds majority will get an early election called immediately - no 14 days, no no-confidence nonsense. If the government calls for an early election on a three line whip, the opposition (if it can't form its own government) would essentially be obliged to all three line whip in favour of an election.
Unless the opposition can form their own government (in which case vote for no confidence and try and take over), the opposition can not ever honourably say no we don't want a vote we'd rather you continue to run the government.
Government plus opposition always exceeds well over two thirds, so an election is started.
Tend to agree. A government that wants an election could say they would resign if they don't get it, and put the cowardly Opposition into government, which promptly collapses (on a VoC), triggering an election...
Any opposition with an ounce of sense would go into government under those circumstances and at least try and get a Queens Speech through . The subsequent GE would then be fought with their leader as PM and other senior party members as Ministers and the former PM would be just that .
But they would be damaged and look foolish, for bottling out of a voluntary election.
No they would look statesmanlike for attempting to run the country wheras the previous bunch are only interested in fighting a new election . This is not a partisan point , it applies to whichever parties are in which position .
I think the overwhelming view at that stage would be the Government (formerly Opposition) were both cowards and demonstrable failures.
Miliband is the smartest politician on offer. He promises no major reforms. He prmises a range of minor tinkerings which fit I with a popular theme that the rich can pay more and make everything fairer. Neither the tories nor the libdems offer such a simple and popular meme.
Miliband's policies seem to be all quite insignificant and therefor, for the smart politician, easily achievable. Small change to the amount of housing benefit you might receive if you have a spare room. Insignificant and achievable in 1 year. Tinker with casual employment contracts. Insignificant and achievable. Tinker with private rents. Insignificant and achievable. Reduce tuition fees a bit. Ditto. Increase nurse numbers by 0.3%. Ditto. Knock a few quid off your energy bills. Ditto. Rich a bit worse off. Ditto.
After 1 year in office he'll be riding high having achieved everything he promised without changing very much at all. Smart. Very smart when one considers that one year in, the coalition were embarking on a 'courageous' reform agenda that was always going to end in electoral tears, regardless of the economy.
Ed may be crap, he may be weak, or weird. Call him what you like. But he's smarter than the average.
"After 1 year in office he'll be riding high having achieved everything he promised without changing very much at all. "
After a year in office Miliband will be heading down to Hollande's level of dissatisfaction.
I don't understand why everyone assumes that to call an early election a government deliberately loses a no-confidence vote.
A simple two-thirds majority will get an early election called immediately - no 14 days, no no-confidence nonsense. If the government calls for an early election on a three line whip, the opposition (if it can't form its own government) would essentially be obliged to all three line whip in favour of an election.
Unless the opposition can form their own government (in which case vote for no confidence and try and take over), the opposition can not ever honourably say no we don't want a vote we'd rather you continue to run the government.
Government plus opposition always exceeds well over two thirds, so an election is started.
Tend to agree. A government that wants an election could say they would resign if they don't get it, and put the cowardly Opposition into government, which promptly collapses (on a VoC), triggering an election...
Any opposition with an ounce of sense would go into government under those circumstances and at least try and get a Queens Speech through . The subsequent GE would then be fought with their leader as PM and other senior party members as Ministers and the former PM would be just that .
But they would be damaged and look foolish, for bottling out of a voluntary election.
No they would look statesmanlike for attempting to run the country wheras the previous bunch are only interested in fighting a new election . This is not a partisan point , it applies to whichever parties are in which position .
The government has no need to resign and force them in if the opposition turns down the opportunity to go to the country. Any opposition that rejects an election would be a total laughing stock and every week the opposition leader would be humiliated in PMQs with a line along the lines of "why are you afraid to face the electorate"? The opposition would be humiliated if they rejected an election.
The scenario put forward was that the government had resigned and the choice for the opposition was to acquiesce and agree to an early election or attempt to form a government themselves and pass a Queens Speech . Your description of PMQs is clearly then not possible .
The shy Kipper theory has 2 problems. First that Libdems are just as shy & phone pollsters put them higher not lower. Second, nearly half of the UKIP voters didnt vote in 2010. The historical evidence is that most voters who dont vote in one Election dont vote in the next either. Theres a strong case for thinking that the polls are overestimating UKIP support.
I don't understand why everyone assumes that to call an early election a government deliberately loses a no-confidence vote.
A simple two-thirds majority will get an early election called immediately - no 14 days, no no-confidence nonsense. If the government calls for an early election on a three line whip, the opposition (if it can't form its own government) would essentially be obliged to all three line whip in favour of an election.
Unless the opposition can form their own government (in which case vote for no confidence and try and take over), the opposition can not ever honourably say no we don't want a vote we'd rather you continue to run the government.
Government plus opposition always exceeds well over two thirds, so an election is started.
Tend to agree. A government that wants an election could say they would resign if they don't get it, and put the cowardly Opposition into government, which promptly collapses (on a VoC), triggering an election...
A lost vote of confidence does NOT trigger an election under FTPA.
Eh? It would in this case (after 14 days) since the alternative would have already resigned.
A weakened Tories could decide their best tactical option would be to install an even weaker Miliband, and let the fun begin with the SNP...
I've been trying (not that hard) not to drool over the prospect of a Pyrrhic victory for Ed to be followed by the inevitable horrible bloodletting (Unite, SNP, reality etc.) and having to deal with an agenda of general ghastliness. It could be awful for him.
The shy Kipper theory has 2 problems. First that Libdems are just as shy & phone pollsters put them higher not lower. Second, nearly half of the UKIP voters didnt vote in 2010. The historical evidence is that most voters who dont vote in one Election dont vote in the next either. Theres a strong case for thinking that the polls are overestimating UKIP support.
I think this is complicated by the most prominent phone pollster allocating 50% of don't knows to their 2010 party. It seems to me unlikely to be accurate this time, at least as regards the Lib Dems.
Just as a re-cap I think we are looking at something like:
Tory 285 Anti-Tory 320 Non-aligned 40
EICIPM. The DUP plus the Lib Dems might just get Cameron over the line but the majority would be paper thin. An anti-Tory majority seems far more credible.
Cameron's line would only need to be strong enough for long enough to get EV4EL etc through parliament.
Then you can write off the SNP, Plaid, NI etc etc.
The DUP will never, ever support a diminishing of their MPs roles. They will not support EVEL. Nevargh, Nevargh, NEVARGH!
I read the DUP manifesto on Friday. There is a high degree of overlap with the Conservatives, and I don't think they'd have an issue with EVFEL.
They will have a fundamental ideological opposition to EVEL. Their MPs are EQUAL to any other MP because NI is an intrinsic and inseparable part of the UK. Any law which diminishes this ideological dogma will be unsupportable by the DUP.
I don't think that's the case. They will have no objection to Health, Education and English income tax being set in England by English MPs.
They will want an overall UK voice on the Barnett formula, foreign policy, immigration and defence.
That fundamentally misunderstands the mindset of Unionists in Northern Ireland. Being happy for English MPs to decide certain matters is absolutely different to being legally barred from deciding such matters. It would also mean supporting the move of further powers to Scotland which again, the NI Unionists have a fundamental opposition to.
You asserting that it's not true doesn't mean it to be so.
My postal vote is sitting on the dining room table. I've been putting off the Conservative/UKIP decision for weeks now but today is the day.
Reading PB recently has felt like fifty canvassers knocking on my front door every night.
I was in the same position as you, GeoffM, a few weeks ago. I reached a point where I decided it was simply too bloody dangerous to do anything other than vote Conservative.
It's a balancing act of relativities: Ed Miliband is a clear and present danger to the well-being and interests of this country. I actually have had sleepless nights over this election. The man puts the fear of God into me.
And I think the Tory manifesto isn't too bad, actually. It's the best I think we Con-UKIP floaters could have hoped for. And it might be enacted, if Cameron wins.
Which constituency are you in?
LOL , a chicken gone home to roost tries to justify to himself not going out into the bad bad world outside .
In the absence of a response from @thescreamingeagles about our ICM bet, just want to make it clear for the record that it will be settled as per dead heat rules
My postal vote is sitting on the dining room table. I've been putting off the Conservative/UKIP decision for weeks now but today is the day.
Reading PB recently has felt like fifty canvassers knocking on my front door every night.
I was in the same position as you, GeoffM, a few weeks ago. I reached a point where I decided it was simply too bloody dangerous to do anything other than vote Conservative.
It's a balancing act of relativities: Ed Miliband is a clear and present danger to the well-being and interests of this country. I actually have had sleepless nights over this election. The man puts the fear of God into me.
And I think the Tory manifesto isn't too bad, actually. It's the best I think we Con-UKIP floaters could have hoped for. And it might be enacted, if Cameron wins.
Which constituency are you in?
LOL , a chicken gone home to roost tries to justify to himself not going out into the bad bad world outside .
Piss off.
LOL . Like going home to live with mummy and daddy and apologising for all the names you called them when you left first time .
A rather odd article by Janet Daley, her line seems to be that anyone who votes for the SNP cannot then expect their democratically chosen party to participate in the UK Government. At the end of the day the DT was so keen to stress how Better Together we would be as part of the UK. For the MSM to now try and dis-enfranchise us Scots is in my eyes an affront to democracy. At the end of the day Labour will likely have 5 times the number of seats as the SNP.
the Lib Dems might be largely irrelevant in the next government.
To small to help the tories not needed to help an SNP backed Labour
Probably actually aids their long term electoral prospects.
Possibly. Being able to pick and choose, or pick neither, puts a lot of pressure on a party that will be licking its wounds and needing to figure out how to regroup, but if they can essentially just sit things out? Very nice.
Very nice? To be in politics to be an irrelevance? The Liberals were an irrelevance. The point of them merging with another irrelevance - the SDP - was to become meaningful. Now that they never need actually worry about 'preparing for government' is hailed as 'very nice'?? The LDs have failed totally. They had a good opportunity, probably never to be repeated, to become a part of government to see that what they represent has some influence. What did they do? 'I'll tell you wot' they did they rubbished the govt they were a part of, they rubbished the decisions they were a part of. And they wonder why they are disparaging into the wilderness of irrelevance.
You are viewing things as always through partisan coloured spectacles . The Lib Dems did not rubbish the decisions they were part of . That was the practice of a group of Conservative backbenchers a couple of whom even b*ggered off to another party but of course in your eyes these were heroes .
Don't be silly. I've regularly criticised the loony tory back bench rump for being thick. Where are the LDs going? Nowhere. How can they expect to go anywhere by regularly criticising their own govt from within? Its not being partisan to say that - its pointing out a home truth to them. Just like I point it out to thick tory backbenchers. However, typical of Clegg was that despite the AV referendum being delivered, he reneged on boundary reform, blaming the failure of Lords reform - which in itself was a dogs breakfast. The tories delivered on the committee to recommend changes which was all the agreement said.
Just as a re-cap I think we are looking at something like:
Tory 285 Anti-Tory 320 Non-aligned 40
EICIPM. The DUP plus the Lib Dems might just get Cameron over the line but the majority would be paper thin. An anti-Tory majority seems far more credible.
Cameron's line would only need to be strong enough for long enough to get EV4EL etc through parliament.
Then you can write off the SNP, Plaid, NI etc etc.
The DUP will never, ever support a diminishing of their MPs roles. They will not support EVEL. Nevargh, Nevargh, NEVARGH!
I read the DUP manifesto on Friday. There is a high degree of overlap with the Conservatives, and I don't think they'd have an issue with EVFEL.
They will have a fundamental ideological opposition to EVEL. Their MPs are EQUAL to any other MP because NI is an intrinsic and inseparable part of the UK. Any law which diminishes this ideological dogma will be unsupportable by the DUP.
I don't think that's the case. They will have no objection to Health, Education and English income tax being set in England by English MPs.
They will want an overall UK voice on the Barnett formula, foreign policy, immigration and defence.
"They will have no objection to Health, Education and English income tax being set in England by English MPs. "
Have you thought this through ? So, if you increase health spending, the tax on England goes up and NI gets a rebate ? How will this work ?
Miliband is the smartest politician on offer. He promises no major reforms. He prmises a range of minor tinkerings which fit I with a popular theme that the rich can pay more and make everything fairer. Neither the tories nor the libdems offer such a simple and popular meme.
Miliband's policies seem to be all quite insignificant and therefor, for the smart politician, easily achievable. Small change to the amount of housing benefit you might receive if you have a spare room. Insignificant and achievable in 1 year. Tinker with casual employment contracts. Insignificant and achievable. Tinker with private rents. Insignificant and achievable. Reduce tuition fees a bit. Ditto. Increase nurse numbers by 0.3%. Ditto. Knock a few quid off your energy bills. Ditto. Rich a bit worse off. Ditto.
After 1 year in office he'll be riding high having achieved everything he promised without changing very much at all. Smart. Very smart when one considers that one year in, the coalition were embarking on a 'courageous' reform agenda that was always going to end in electoral tears, regardless of the economy.
Ed may be crap, he may be weak, or weird. Call him what you like. But he's smarter than the average.
"After 1 year in office he'll be riding high having achieved everything he promised without changing very much at all. "
After a year in office Miliband will be heading down to Hollande's level of dissatisfaction.
Osborne has put into the budget substantial reductions in departmental public spending, which Labour have signed up for in order to balance the books by end of parliament. There are two words describe such a situation. Grim, and Grim.
The more you are reliant on the state for assistance, the greater the impact. These kind of reductions wont be nice fluffy labour efficiencies as they call them.
The next parliament is going to be so grim. Labour will not be able to protect its special interests. This isnt 1997, three figure majorities with largesse around the corner.
In the absence of a response from @thescreamingeagles about our ICM bet, just want to make it clear for the record that it will be settled as per dead heat rules
Cheers
Unfortunately have lost 10 times the amount won on Griffiths in the Everton vs United game! Grrr
Miliband is the smartest politician on offer. He promises no major reforms. He prmises a range of minor tinkerings which fit I with a popular theme that the rich can pay more and make everything fairer. Neither the tories nor the libdems offer such a simple and popular meme.
Miliband's policies seem to be all quite insignificant and therefor, for the smart politician, easily achievable. Small change to the amount of housing benefit you might receive if you have a spare room. Insignificant and achievable in 1 year. Tinker with casual employment contracts. Insignificant and achievable. Tinker with private rents. Insignificant and achievable. Reduce tuition fees a bit. Ditto. Increase nurse numbers by 0.3%. Ditto. Knock a few quid off your energy bills. Ditto. Rich a bit worse off. Ditto.
After 1 year in office he'll be riding high having achieved everything he promised without changing very much at all. Smart. Very smart when one considers that one year in, the coalition were embarking on a 'courageous' reform agenda that was always going to end in electoral tears, regardless of the economy.
Ed may be crap, he may be weak, or weird. Call him what you like. But he's smarter than the average.
"After 1 year in office he'll be riding high having achieved everything he promised without changing very much at all. "
After a year in office Miliband will be heading down to Hollande's level of dissatisfaction.
Osborne has put into the budget substantial reductions in departmental public spending, which Labour have signed up for in order to balance the books by end of parliament. There are two words describe such a situation. Grim, and Grim.
The more you are reliant on the state for assistance, the greater the impact. These kind of reductions wont be nice fluffy labour efficiencies as they call them.
The next parliament is going to be so grim. Labour will not be able to protect its special interests. This isnt 1997, three figure majorities with largesse around the corner.
Labour can also show the figures . Look what the Tories left us !
"Birmingham Northfield local election results with comparison to 2010 (general election day):
Conservative 37.2% (+ 0.5%) Labour 30.7% (- 4.8%) Lib Dem 3.3% (-12.9%) Green 3.8% (+ 1.5%) UKIP 23.6% (Only 1 candidate) UKIP hoovered up the sizeable BNP vote and the collapsed Liberal democrat vote, and clearly took votes from Labour here too. The Conservatives gained the marginal Kings Norton ward from Labour, and held Northfield which was lost at the last 2 elections. (C3 L1 this time, L7,C5 total). The Conservative lead with this good performance is now higher than in Edgbaston."
I think it could be a recount.
I wouldn't read too much into that. Birmingham often has a big mismatch between local and national elections because of how comically incompetent the Council always is.
A rather odd article by Janet Daley, her line seems to be that anyone who votes for the SNP cannot then expect their democratically chosen party to participate in the UK Government. At the end of the day the DT was so keen to stress how Better Together we would be as part of the UK. For the MSM to now try and dis-enfranchise us Scots is in my eyes an affront to democracy. At the end of the day Labour will likely have 5 times the number of seats as the SNP.
A rather odd article by Janet Daley, her line seems to be that anyone who votes for the SNP cannot then expect their democratically chosen party to participate in the UK Government. At the end of the day the DT was so keen to stress how Better Together we would be as part of the UK. For the MSM to now try and dis-enfranchise us Scots is in my eyes an affront to democracy. At the end of the day Labour will likely have 5 times the number of seats as the SNP.
A weakened Tories could decide their best tactical option would be to install an even weaker Miliband, and let the fun begin with the SNP...
I've been trying (not that hard) not to drool over the prospect of a Pyrrhic victory for Ed to be followed by the inevitable horrible bloodletting (Unite, SNP, reality etc.) and having to deal with an agenda of general ghastliness. It could be awful for him.
Don't we hear the same old thing ? He will take it.
Regarding downthread comments regarding the UKIP campaign,it's hard to see what more they can do. Farage performed well in the debates, got more viewers than the other leaders on the dreadful Evan, and launched a pretty respectable manifesto without any gaffes. The fact the BBC has basically refused to give them any bulletin coverage is out of their control: they are instead quite rightly focussing on the ground war in their 10 targets. Unlike the Tories, they are using local media which people still respect - a full front page ad in a Thurrock paper on St George's Day, for example, advertising their pledge to make it a bank holiday. I forecast 3 seats - Clacton, Reckless holding on and one other - South Thanet, Thurrock, or Great Grimsby. Not a stonking number but quite an achievent after 2010.
"Birmingham Northfield local election results with comparison to 2010 (general election day):
Conservative 37.2% (+ 0.5%) Labour 30.7% (- 4.8%) Lib Dem 3.3% (-12.9%) Green 3.8% (+ 1.5%) UKIP 23.6% (Only 1 candidate) UKIP hoovered up the sizeable BNP vote and the collapsed Liberal democrat vote, and clearly took votes from Labour here too. The Conservatives gained the marginal Kings Norton ward from Labour, and held Northfield which was lost at the last 2 elections. (C3 L1 this time, L7,C5 total). The Conservative lead with this good performance is now higher than in Edgbaston."
I think it could be a recount.
I wouldn't read too much into that. Birmingham often has a big mismatch between local and national elections because of how comically incompetent the Council always is.
The Conservative candidate has strong local roots and has been campaigning hard. The Labour incumbent has built a reputation of being more interested in foreign policy. It is also one of the Tories 20 target seats to take from Labour, ahead of Birmingham Edgbaston.
Just as a re-cap I think we are looking at something like:
Tory 285 Anti-Tory 320 Non-aligned 40
EICIPM. The DUP plus the Lib Dems might just get Cameron over the line but the majority would be paper thin. An anti-Tory majority seems far more credible.
Cameron's line would only need to be strong enough for long enough to get EV4EL etc through parliament.
Then you can write off the SNP, Plaid, NI etc etc.
The DUP will never, ever support a diminishing of their MPs roles. They will not support EVEL. Nevargh, Nevargh, NEVARGH!
I read the DUP manifesto on Friday. There is a high degree of overlap with the Conservatives, and I don't think they'd have an issue with EVFEL.
They will have a fundamental ideological opposition to EVEL. Their MPs are EQUAL to any other MP because NI is an intrinsic and inseparable part of the UK. Any law which diminishes this ideological dogma will be unsupportable by the DUP.
I don't think that's the case. They will have no objection to Health, Education and English income tax being set in England by English MPs.
They will want an overall UK voice on the Barnett formula, foreign policy, immigration and defence.
"They will have no objection to Health, Education and English income tax being set in England by English MPs. "
Have you thought this through ? So, if you increase health spending, the tax on England goes up and NI gets a rebate ? How will this work ?
No doubt the DUP will want a good deal on funding for Northern Ireland. I don't see this as incompatible with the Tories plans for EVFEL.
Re labours rent control policy does anyone think it will become a reality. Rents will be freely negotiated at the beginning of the tenancy between landlord and tenant with some reference to the previous rent and then any rent rise for the max three years will be restricted to inflation. Apparently it will not come in until 2017 and will be policed by the local authority.
Any landlord who neglects the property maintenance will lose tax relief this to be policed by HMRC.
It is so obvious that landlords will calculate their initial rents at a much higher level to allow for this restriction and then at the end of three years will raise rents again. As there is no possibility of there being anything but large rental demand the landlords will have no problem in attracting tenants paying the higher rent. Furthermore it is probable that a lot of tenancies will be allowed to lapse before the regulation comes into force to enable the landlord to negotiate a completely new tenancy contract to protect their interest
The idea that local authorities will have the time and staffing to maintain a new landlord register and that HMRC will be able to investigate landlords re their tax relief is ridiculous.
Another sound bite policy from Ed Miliband who has no knowledge of markets and more worryingly no interest in understanding them
If it has no real effect, then maybe Ed Miliband is a smarter politician than you give him credit for.
Miliband is the smartest politician on offer. He promises no major reforms. He prmises a range of minor tinkerings which fit I with a popular theme that the rich can pay more and make everything fairer. Neither the tories nor the libdems offer such a simple and popular meme.
Miliband's policies seem to be all quite insignificant and therefor, for the smart politician, easily achievable. Small change to the amount of housing benefit you might receive if you have a spare room. Insignificant and achievable in 1 year. Tinker with casual employment contracts. Insignificant and achievable. Tinker with private rents. Insignificant and achievable. Reduce tuition fees a bit. Ditto. Increase nurse numbers by 0.3%. Ditto. Knock a few quid off your energy bills. Ditto. Rich a bit worse off. Ditto.
After 1 year in office he'll be riding high having achieved everything he promised without changing very much at all. Smart. Very smart when one considers that one year in, the coalition were embarking on a 'courageous' reform agenda that was always going to end in electoral tears, regardless of the economy.
Ed may be crap, he may be weak, or weird. Call him what you like. But he's smarter than the average.
I suspect his popularity after 1 year in office will be somewhere between that of Osama Bin Laden and Jimmy Saville.
Botanically speaking wrote: "Ed may be crap, he may be weak, or weird. Call him what you like. But he's smarter than the average. "
Ed took over a party with 46 MSPs and 40 MPs in Scotland. By 2016, there will be almost nothing left, a tiny number of MPs and list MSPs. He will have presided over the complete destruction of Labour in Scotland.
If that is “smarter than average", perhaps Labour would benefit from someone stupider than average in charge?
the Lib Dems might be largely irrelevant in the next government.
To small to help the tories not needed to help an SNP backed Labour
Probably actually aids their long term electoral prospects.
Possibly. Being able to pick and choose, or pick neither, puts a lot of pressure on a party that will be licking its wounds and needing to figure out how to regroup, but if they can essentially just sit things out? Very nice.
Very nice? To be in politics to be an irrelevance? The Liberals were an irrelevance. The point of them merging with another irrelevance - the SDP - was to become meaningful. Now that they never need actually worry about 'preparing for government' is hailed as 'very nice'?? The LDs have failed totally. They had a good opportunity, probably never to be repeated, to become a part of government to see that what they represent has some influence. What did they do? 'I'll tell you wot' they did they rubbished the govt they were a part of, they rubbished the decisions they were a part of. And they wonder why they are disparaging into the wilderness of irrelevance.
You are viewing things as always through partisan coloured spectacles . The Lib Dems did not rubbish the decisions they were part of . That was the practice of a group of Conservative backbenchers a couple of whom even b*ggered off to another party but of course in your eyes these were heroes .
Don't be silly. I've regularly criticised the loony tory back bench rump for being thick. Where are the LDs going? Nowhere. How can they expect to go anywhere by regularly criticising their own govt from within? Its not being partisan to say that - its pointing out a home truth to them. Just like I point it out to thick tory backbenchers. However, typical of Clegg was that despite the AV referendum being delivered, he reneged on boundary reform, blaming the failure of Lords reform - which in itself was a dogs breakfast. The tories delivered on the committee to recommend changes which was all the agreement said.
Surbiton views things through totally different coloured spectacles than you and has a completely different view of the Lib Dems performance in government . You cannot both be right and much more likely both of you are wrong .
It is so obvious that landlords will calculate their initial rents at a much higher level to allow for this restriction and then at the end of three years will raise rents again. As there is no possibility of there being anything but large rental demand the landlords will have no problem in attracting tenants paying the higher rent. Furthermore it is probable that a lot of tenancies will be allowed to lapse before the regulation comes into force to enable the landlord to negotiate a completely new tenancy contract to protect their interest
The idea that local authorities will have the time and staffing to maintain a new landlord register and that HMRC will be able to investigate landlords re their tax relief is ridiculous.
Another sound bite policy from Ed Miliband who has no knowledge of markets and more worryingly no interest in understanding them
If it has no real effect, then maybe Ed Miliband is a smarter politician than you give him credit for.
Miliband is the smartest politician on offer. He promises no major reforms. He prmises a range of minor tinkerings which fit I with a popular theme that the rich can pay more and make everything fairer. Neither the tories nor the libdems offer such a simple and popular meme.
Miliband's policies seem to be all quite insignificant and therefor, for the smart politician, easily achievable. Small change to the amount of housing benefit you might receive if you have a spare room. Insignificant and achievable in 1 year. Tinker with casual employment contracts. Insignificant and achievable. Tinker with private rents. Insignificant and achievable. Reduce tuition fees a bit. Ditto. Increase nurse numbers by 0.3%. Ditto. Knock a few quid off your energy bills. Ditto. Rich a bit worse off. Ditto.
After 1 year in office he'll be riding high having achieved everything he promised without changing very much at all. Smart. Very smart when one considers that one year in, the coalition were embarking on a 'courageous' reform agenda that was always going to end in electoral tears, regardless of the economy.
Ed may be crap, he may be weak, or weird. Call him what you like. But he's smarter than the average.
I suspect his popularity after 1 year in office will be somewhere between that of Osama Bin Laden and Jimmy Saville.
Lol. Agreed. Those who did vote for him will be very shy of admitting that they ever did within months. He will get into power by default, not through popular acclaim.
Who else thinks it could be interesting if Sinn Fein, having looked at the numbers, realise they have enough to mess up a deal, and decide to just turn up to cause disarray ? (taking the oath while holding their hands out and visibly crossing their fingers..)
Just as a re-cap I think we are looking at something like:
Tory 285 Anti-Tory 320 Non-aligned 40
EICIPM. The DUP plus the Lib Dems might just get Cameron over the line but the majority would be paper thin. An anti-Tory majority seems far more credible.
Cameron's line would only need to be strong enough for long enough to get EV4EL etc through parliament.
Then you can write off the SNP, Plaid, NI etc etc.
The DUP will never, ever support a diminishing of their MPs roles. They will not support EVEL. Nevargh, Nevargh, NEVARGH!
I read the DUP manifesto on Friday. There is a high degree of overlap with the Conservatives, and I don't think they'd have an issue with EVFEL.
They will have a fundamental ideological opposition to EVEL. Their MPs are EQUAL to any other MP because NI is an intrinsic and inseparable part of the UK. Any law which diminishes this ideological dogma will be unsupportable by the DUP.
I don't think that's the case. They will have no objection to Health, Education and English income tax being set in England by English MPs.
They will want an overall UK voice on the Barnett formula, foreign policy, immigration and defence.
"They will have no objection to Health, Education and English income tax being set in England by English MPs. "
Have you thought this through ? So, if you increase health spending, the tax on England goes up and NI gets a rebate ? How will this work ?
No doubt the DUP will want a good deal on funding for Northern Ireland. I don't see this as incompatible with the Tories plans for EVFEL.
If the Barnett formula for funding the devolved nations is revised then there is no need to object to EVFEL.
My postal vote is sitting on the dining room table. I've been putting off the Conservative/UKIP decision for weeks now but today is the day.
Reading PB recently has felt like fifty canvassers knocking on my front door every night.
If you like UKIP, vote UKIP - the Tories are not going to be a position to form a government regardless.
I could do with a canvasser at my door to be honest - I figured I might vote for whoever put the most effort in to win my vote, but I'll be at work from now until the election so if I haven't received a knock already I'm not sure I'll be around to receive one. Then I'll really be uncertain who to vote for.
Who else thinks it could be interesting if Sinn Fein, having looked at the numbers, realise they have enough to mess up a deal, and decide to just turn up to cause disarray ? (taking the oath while holding their hands out and visibly crossing their fingers..)
Or turn up, just to confirm 'Oh, we won't be taking any oath, as per usual. See you all in five years'.
Who else thinks it could be interesting if Sinn Fein, having looked at the numbers, realise they have enough to mess up a deal, and decide to just turn up to cause disarray ? (taking the oath while holding their hands out and visibly crossing their fingers..)
They'll be content just to watch the UK fall apart from the sidelines...
My postal vote is sitting on the dining room table. I've been putting off the Conservative/UKIP decision for weeks now but today is the day.
Reading PB recently has felt like fifty canvassers knocking on my front door every night.
I was in the same position as you, GeoffM, a few weeks ago. I reached a point where I decided it was simply too bloody dangerous to do anything other than vote Conservative.
It's a balancing act of relativities: Ed Miliband is a clear and present danger to the well-being and interests of this country. I actually have had sleepless nights over this election. The man puts the fear of God into me.
And I think the Tory manifesto isn't too bad, actually. It's the best I think we Con-UKIP floaters could have hoped for. And it might be enacted, if Cameron wins.
Which constituency are you in?
You have written exactly what the Er'el is whispering in my right ear. I miss the libertarian slant of the earlier UKIP. A true Don't Tread On Me small government party would get my enthusiastic vote. But UKIP backtracked and decided to take the easy route by counting our spare bedrooms again. Everything about them which I supported - things like less gun control, fewer extra privileges for vocal special interest groups - was "clarified" away when the BBC whined like a jet engine at full revs.
I'm still debating but less so as the afternoon goes on.
My vote is in Gosport; my house there is a legacy of my time based at the Royal Naval Hospital Haslar. In theory a safe-ish Conservative seat but I've always been surprised that it's not on the UKIP radar considering the local demographics and the military tradition.
I've not been having your sleepless nights because I've been able to move what was left of my UK money elsewhere easily enough. Living overseas in a more efficient tax environment has many advantages. The UK house I will sell or board up if these rent controls come in.
I have only two real political desires - for governments to leave people alone and the utter destruction of the LibDems. It's looking like in my lifetime I'm going to have to settle for the second one only.
My postal vote is sitting on the dining room table. I've been putting off the Conservative/UKIP decision for weeks now but today is the day.
Reading PB recently has felt like fifty canvassers knocking on my front door every night.
I was in the same position as you, GeoffM, a few weeks ago. I reached a point where I decided it was simply too bloody dangerous to do anything other than vote Conservative.
It's a balancing act of relativities: Ed Miliband is a clear and present danger to the well-being and interests of this country. I actually have had sleepless nights over this election. The man puts the fear of God into me.
And I think the Tory manifesto isn't too bad, actually. It's the best I think we Con-UKIP floaters could have hoped for. And it might be enacted, if Cameron wins.
Which constituency are you in?
I have only two real political desires - for governments to leave people alone and the utter destruction of the LibDems. It's looking like in my lifetime I'm going to have to settle for the second one only.
You may end up disappointed on both I'm afraid. The LDs in earlier incarnations have been more reduced than they are about to be in even the worst of projections, and if the places that vote them in this time did so, when would they ever not vote them in again? So they can surely only improve from hereon out.
My postal vote is sitting on the dining room table. I've been putting off the Conservative/UKIP decision for weeks now but today is the day.
Reading PB recently has felt like fifty canvassers knocking on my front door every night.
Geoff, if you can't decide between the parties then look at your local UKIP and Tory candidates and decide on that basis. I have no idea where you live so this is not to push you in one way or another. You might find your local UKIP candidate is an absolute loon who wants to bring back the death penalty for having the wrong colour eyes or you might find your local Tory candidate is a fanatical pro European federalist who wants us to have no elections except those for a European Parliament. If either is the case - or shades of grey therein - then it will probably help you to make your decision.
Remember you are voting for a local representative not a party.
My postal vote is sitting on the dining room table. I've been putting off the Conservative/UKIP decision for weeks now but today is the day.
Reading PB recently has felt like fifty canvassers knocking on my front door every night.
SNP - you know it makes sense.
I have expressed my willingness to do that in the past on threads here - on several occasions - and said that the SNP should stand outside of Scotland.
As a South England voter I;m keen to rid myself of the cash subsidy flowing north. Every other party is offering baubles for my vote. Paying for my spare room or not. Charging me for warm pasties. For me voting SNP is financially a great idea as losing Scotland gets me a vast tax cut.
Comments
" 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;
https://medium.com/@chrisdeerin/why-i-will-vote-labour-b058b17e042f
These guys need to get their act together, Chris seems to think that David Cameron is on-side with him voting for SLAB !!
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."
Must be off all.
Miliband can play quite a few cards with small ticket items [ you forgot the reduction in University fees ] and put into touch [ set up a commission ] controversial things like Mansion Tax.
He declares "Austerity is coming to an end". Let's see how many votes he loses.
The SNP will not vote against any of those. He might even have the Lib Dems supporting him to regain some credibility.
Furthermore the Tories want some tactical voting for their guy, but they actually still need Labour to lose plenty of seats to have a chance to win - they would prefer the tactical voting start after this GE.
The LDs have failed totally.
They had a good opportunity, probably never to be repeated, to become a part of government to see that what they represent has some influence. What did they do? 'I'll tell you wot' they did they rubbished the govt they were a part of, they rubbished the decisions they were a part of. And they wonder why they are disparaging into the wilderness of irrelevance.
"Birmingham Northfield local election results with comparison to 2010 (general election day):
Conservative 37.2% (+ 0.5%)
Labour 30.7% (- 4.8%)
Lib Dem 3.3% (-12.9%)
Green 3.8% (+ 1.5%)
UKIP 23.6% (Only 1 candidate)
UKIP hoovered up the sizeable BNP vote and the collapsed Liberal democrat vote, and clearly took votes from Labour here too. The Conservatives gained the marginal Kings Norton ward from Labour, and held Northfield which was lost at the last 2 elections. (C3 L1 this time, L7,C5 total).
The Conservative lead with this good performance is now higher than in Edgbaston."
I think it could be a recount.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/so-how-worried-should-we-be-about-the-ashcroft-poll-on-bristol-west-45622.html
Lib Dems whining here?
A simple two-thirds majority will get an early election called immediately - no 14 days, no no-confidence nonsense. If the government calls for an early election on a three line whip, the opposition (if it can't form its own government) would essentially be obliged to all three line whip in favour of an election.
Unless the opposition can form their own government (in which case vote for no confidence and try and take over), the opposition can not ever honourably say no we don't want a vote we'd rather you continue to run the government.
Government plus opposition always exceeds well over two thirds, so an election is started.
I see the southwest and Labour was mentioned below. The latest edition of Rail magazine says that Ed Balls has backed the tunnel diversion for the Dawlish rail problem, rather than the more popular Okehampton line reopening.
This is the option I favour as well, although the much higher costs mean that neither is the best option (as Balls identifies, the Okehampton line does nothing for the population centres in South Devon).
He also questions the phasing of such improvements with the HS2 phases (although he ignores the electrification schemes).
Just thought I'd mention this, as I haven't seen it publicised much and may swing some voters in either direction.
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Labour-s-8203-Ed-Balls-says-Osborne-backs/story-26238922-detail/story.html
I've been putting off the Conservative/UKIP decision for weeks now but today is the day.
Reading PB recently has felt like fifty canvassers knocking on my front door every night.
In realpolitik it is more likely the SNP will let the Queen's Speech pass, however. This will place Miliband in even more of a bind, being effectively powerless to pass any legislation without the support of either the Tories or the SNP.
It's a balancing act of relativities: Ed Miliband is a clear and present danger to the well-being and interests of this country. I actually have had sleepless nights over this election. The man puts the fear of God into me.
And I think the Tory manifesto isn't too bad, actually. It's the best I think we Con-UKIP floaters could have hoped for. And it might be enacted, if Cameron wins.
Which constituency are you in?
They will want an overall UK voice on the Barnett formula, foreign policy, immigration and defence.
Miliband's policies seem to be all quite insignificant and therefor, for the smart politician, easily achievable. Small change to the amount of housing benefit you might receive if you have a spare room. Insignificant and achievable in 1 year. Tinker with casual employment contracts. Insignificant and achievable. Tinker with private rents. Insignificant and achievable. Reduce tuition fees a bit. Ditto. Increase nurse numbers by 0.3%. Ditto. Knock a few quid off your energy bills. Ditto. Rich a bit worse off. Ditto.
After 1 year in office he'll be riding high having achieved everything he promised without changing very much at all. Smart. Very smart when one considers that one year in, the coalition were embarking on a 'courageous' reform agenda that was always going to end in electoral tears, regardless of the economy.
Ed may be crap, he may be weak, or weird. Call him what you like. But he's smarter than the average.
Yes its slightly more complex than simply speaking to Her Majesty and requesting an election, but its not insurmountable.
They strongly opposed Tory measures which were not in the agreement - even then, some got through the net, more´s the pity.
Some Conservative MPs did their best to bring the Government to an end. Some even loped off to UKIP, as Mr Senior observes.
The difficulty for the Conservative Party under Mr Cameron is that it is trying to be a "broad tent". Those days have gone. It has to become a niche party, like all the others. And they start working to find partners whom it can work with in coalition. Small chance of that when they go out their way to offend everybody.
'Well said, Mr Senior. The Lib Dems in the Coalition Government loyally supported policies which were in the coalition agreement. '
The Boundaries reform is a stand out example.
"After 1 year in office he'll be riding high having achieved everything he promised without changing very much at all. "
After a year in office Miliband will be heading down to Hollande's level of dissatisfaction.
Worth a look.
twitter.com/petercoles44/status/592303014255394817/photo/1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11561626/A-Labour-SNP-pact-would-be-an-outrage-to-democracy.html
Where are the LDs going? Nowhere. How can they expect to go anywhere by regularly criticising their own govt from within? Its not being partisan to say that - its pointing out a home truth to them. Just like I point it out to thick tory backbenchers.
However, typical of Clegg was that despite the AV referendum being delivered, he reneged on boundary reform, blaming the failure of Lords reform - which in itself was a dogs breakfast. The tories delivered on the committee to recommend changes which was all the agreement said.
Have you thought this through ? So, if you increase health spending, the tax on England goes up and NI gets a rebate ? How will this work ?
The more you are reliant on the state for assistance, the greater the impact. These kind of reductions wont be nice fluffy labour efficiencies as they call them.
The next parliament is going to be so grim. Labour will not be able to protect its special interests. This isnt 1997, three figure majorities with largesse around the corner.
Unfortunately have lost 10 times the amount won on Griffiths in the Everton vs United game! Grrr
Edit 6 times the amount.. Getting better!
Edit he has made it 2-0 now... 3/3 tipped on here and I'm almost certain to have a big losing day...
I think it could be close.
They know the only way they could win a second Indyvote is with a Tory PM in no 10
Ed took over a party with 46 MSPs and 40 MPs in Scotland. By 2016, there will be almost nothing left, a tiny number of MPs and list MSPs. He will have presided over the complete destruction of Labour in Scotland.
If that is “smarter than average", perhaps Labour would benefit from someone stupider than average in charge?
Right, Sunday lunch beckons. Good afternoon.
I could do with a canvasser at my door to be honest - I figured I might vote for whoever put the most effort in to win my vote, but I'll be at work from now until the election so if I haven't received a knock already I'm not sure I'll be around to receive one. Then I'll really be uncertain who to vote for.
I'm still debating but less so as the afternoon goes on.
My vote is in Gosport; my house there is a legacy of my time based at the Royal Naval Hospital Haslar. In theory a safe-ish Conservative seat but I've always been surprised that it's not on the UKIP radar considering the local demographics and the military tradition.
I've not been having your sleepless nights because I've been able to move what was left of my UK money elsewhere easily enough. Living overseas in a more efficient tax environment has many advantages. The UK house I will sell or board up if these rent controls come in.
I have only two real political desires - for governments to leave people alone and the utter destruction of the LibDems. It's looking like in my lifetime I'm going to have to settle for the second one only.
Remember you are voting for a local representative not a party.
Griffiths hat trick
Should've been a street party but it's a drop in the ocean! Bah
As a South England voter I;m keen to rid myself of the cash subsidy flowing north. Every other party is offering baubles for my vote. Paying for my spare room or not. Charging me for warm pasties. For me voting SNP is financially a great idea as losing Scotland gets me a vast tax cut.
Many of them sponsor sporting and other events as well as benefiting charities - do we really want to tax them out of the UK.