So we'd invoke a statute to revive a prerogative power. Basically a statutory power, because that second act is going to provide a basis for invoking the power. Again, entirely unnecessary. Work out what we understood the prerogative power to be (whether power was in the executive or the Crown, or both, in what combination) and do that.
The previous position was indeed very simple. Parliament expired five years after it first met. Any time before then, the Crown had a quite literally unfettered power to dissolve it. One of the dangers of a new statutory power would be if its exercise were declared amenable to judicial review.
Depends if you believe Lord Roskill. It is not obvious that the power to dissolve parliament would be amenable to any ground for judicial review, nor any (if that is different - depending on your understanding of JR law) calculus when that ground is invoked.
It needs to go. Rightwingers should drop their sentimental attachment to it, and start thinking about the best form of PR.
Socrates, late of this parish, favoured STV with three-member constituencies.
It's an interesting compromise as the three-member limit still favours large parties able to win broad support, but it does sweep away the majority of the perversities associated with FPTP. I think it fails the Liverpool test though, ie, does it make it worthwhile for the Tories to campaign in Liverpool?
It needs to go. Rightwingers should drop their sentimental attachment to it, and start thinking about the best form of PR.
Socrates, late of this parish, favoured STV with three-member constituencies.
It's an interesting compromise as the three-member limit still favours large parties able to win broad support, but it does sweep away the majority of the perversities associated with FPTP. I think it fails the Liverpool test though, ie, does it make it worthwhile for the Tories to campaign in Liverpool?
Or Scottish Labour in Glasgow?
Ha, yes! I would have said Glasgow before, but circumstances were different then.
SNP candidate openly hopes to "implode" the UK economy, to assist indy?
Doesn't say that at all - just what a lot of PBers say, that the UK economy is going down the U-bend. Just wait till it happens and then go for indy.
Unemployment rising in the SNP run Scotland - falling in England.
Looks like the SNP are trashing their own house first then moving south to the neighbours.
Given what's happening in the oil industry, which is mostly controlled in London insofar as it is controlled (e.g. extra taxes, reduction thereof delayed), that might not follow logically.
Ed's going to lose all bar one of his seats in Scotland and still become PM? Pull the other one.
It remains fascinating what will happen if the forecasts turn true and all parties (except the SNP) basically lose the election.
A Labour minority government relying on the SNP? Despite the party probably only making a net gain of only 15 or maybe 20 seats and finishing second to the Tories? Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part but how would this happen without Labour losing a quarter of their English support overnight?
But on the other hand how could Cameron carry on if his party lost say 30 seats? Would he be turfed out by his party before he even managed to test the will of the House in a vote?
If Nick Clegg's still around both Miliband and Cameron might prefer him to take the first taste of this witches brew...
' I suspect the LD’s will recover a lot of losses South of the border and make some gains nas well. Suspect it won’t make much difference to anyone N or the border.'
Why?
They have now lost their USP as the protest party with UKIP,Greens, SNP & Plaid filling that role.
Also doubtful that voters will have such short term memories.
"I think you mean a crisis for the Labour and Conservatives, Labour in particular."
I think people are confused. There's only one party who can LOSE this election unless you call the Lib Dems a party. If Labour get to the threshold of government it'll be a massive personal victory for Ed and I'm sure they'll keep him on for one more heave next time.
I think he's been a revelation. What's happened to all those Ed is crap threads? Embarrassed because Dave is crapper?
It needs to go. Rightwingers should drop their sentimental attachment to it, and start thinking about the best form of PR.
Socrates, late of this parish, favoured STV with three-member constituencies.
It's an interesting compromise as the three-member limit still favours large parties able to win broad support, but it does sweep away the majority of the perversities associated with FPTP. I think it fails the Liverpool test though, ie, does it make it worthwhile for the Tories to campaign in Liverpool?
Or Scottish Labour in Glasgow?
Ha, yes! I would have said Glasgow before, but circumstances were different then.
I still fear that Tory gains in Glasgow is a long term aspiration to be honest. And that is despite Ruth being a list MSP from there.
I think the Scottish top up system works quite well. It still gives an edge to those that win the constituencies (hence the SNP majority) but it tempers it quite significantly with the lists. Having 5m sized regions would incentivise both the Tories in the north west and Labour in the south east. That would be a good thing.
I've had a private bet that more than 200 MP's will lose their seats in this GE. The most ever, I believe.
You think Labour will end up with 340 seats ?!!!
How many people are in a position to "lose" their seat, having won before? Must be 50 people standing down? That leaves six hundred. A third of those is a bold prediction. Say 40 norther of the border, 20 other Libdem losses... still 140 to go!
Say 40 LDs, 35 Lab in Scotland, 40 Lab gains from Con in England. That's 115 - how many are standing down that haven't already been counted?
If the result of the election is Tories most seats (and an English majority), Lab second but EICIPM because of SNP ... who thinks that government would last a full five years.
Say what you want of the coalition, the Tories and LD's have worked together competently for a full five years. I simply can't see that happening next term if EICIPM - regardless of the fixed term act.
Exactly.
Ed will crawl to a plurality, but he will be the weakest PM with the worst mandate in modern British history, and dependant on the "goodwill" of a separatist party determined on forever destroying Labour in its heartland - and halfway to doing that. Sturgeon will have him by the cullions. She'll milk the English taxpaper.
And Ed cannot do a "formal" deal with a party that wants to kill Labour in its homeland, he would be signing SLAB's death warrant.
So he will edge along a cliffpath, and by the 2016 Holyrood elections he will fall over and we'll have a second GE.
The only happy people will be the Scots, sucking up the largesse, which, ironically, makes them less likely to vote want indy or desire a referendum, so even the Nats lose out in the end.
An election where EVERYONE loses. Wow.
Now you see why FPTP is bonkers? Sensible, grown-up politician, like in most of Europe, would have sorted out their coalition deals well in advance of the election, and voters would largely know what the options were.
Instead, these idiots cling to the FPTP random number generator, hoping it throws out a majority (for them), uncaring whether it might throw out dangerous rubbish instead...
You're a broken record aren't you.
Unfortunately even a broken clock is right twice a day, a broken record just keeps repeating the same tune though even once its been rejected. We have a sensible grown-up electoral system like in sensible nations like Canada, not messed up Europe.
SNP candidate openly hopes to "implode" the UK economy, to assist indy?
Doesn't say that at all - just what a lot of PBers say, that the UK economy is going down the U-bend. Just wait till it happens and then go for indy.
Unemployment rising in the SNP run Scotland - falling in England.
Looks like the SNP are trashing their own house first then moving south to the neighbours.
Given what's happening in the oil industry, which is mostly controlled in London insofar as it is controlled (e.g. extra taxes, reduction thereof delayed), that might not follow logically.
Unemployment IS rising in Scotland - on the SNP's watch.Has been since November.
"Unemployment in Scotland rose by 9,000 in the three months to February and now stands at 167,000, according to official statistics. It was the second rise in a row, following an increase of 6,000 in the previous set of figures.
Data from the Office for National Statistics also showed UK unemployment falling by 76,000 to 1.84 million."
Ed Brown has got an interesting post about the Labour stamp duty policy on the Newsnight blog. He says that the benefits will overwhelmingly go to people in the south of England, and that richer first-time buyers will gain more than poorer ones. It is on the Newsnight blog at 11.58am.
"I think you mean a crisis for the Labour and Conservatives, Labour in particular."
I think people are confused. There's only one party who can LOSE this election unless you call the Lib Dems a party. If Labour get to the threshold of government it'll be a massive personal victory for Ed and I'm sure they'll keep him on for one more heave next time.
I think he's been a revelation. What's happened to all those Ed is crap threads? Embarrassed because Dave is crapper?
Labour will be 40-50 seats short of 'threashold of government'.
The Sunil on Sunday's ELBOW (Electoral LeaderBoard Of the Week) for week-ending 26th April 2015 - a record bumper week with 17 separate polls total sample 20,360.
Lab 33.6 (-0.4) Con 33.1 (-0.5) UKIP 13.8 (+0.3) LD 8.2 (+0.1) Green 5.3 (+0.2)
Lab lead 0.6 (+0.1)
Two main parties each down somewhat, all three smaller parties up a touch. Greens have a mini-surge it seems. UKIP stabilising a touch under 14%. Lab lead maintained.
But wait! There's more! This week, just for a bit of fun, compiled data for YouGov only and Non-YouGov-only going back to August (see the version of the Labour lead chart with three lines plotted).
YouGov only this week:
Lab 34.4 (-0.3) Con 33.0 (-0.2) UKIP 13.2 (-0.3) LD 7.8 (-0.1) Green 5.7 (+0.5)
Lab lead 1.4 (-0.1)
Non-YouGov this week:
Con 33.1 (-0.9) Lab 32.6 (-0.6) UKIP 14.6 (+1.0) LD 8.7 (+0.5) Green 4.8 (-0.3)
I think it's just being deliberately misread in the way I suggested. Scraping the barrel, like the dolls and huns stuff.
Really?
So how do you explain the 'enemy camp' bit then?
He clearly didn't get Sturgeon's memo about love-bombing the English, or he misread it in a similar way to his own statement being misread and missed the "love" bit.
In the JC article Bennett doesn't back the cultural boycott explicitly & personally, though she backs the broader policy of an Israeli boycott.
The cultural boycott of Israel is one of the far left's more ludicrous and enduring boondoggles, so patently stupid, totalitarian and anti-free-speech that it does nothing but alienate those sensible lefties with green tendencies who might help shift the party into the mainstream.
As it is, we only have two options at the ballot box: bland or bonkers.
If the result of the election is Tories most seats (and an English majority), Lab second but EICIPM because of SNP ... who thinks that government would last a full five years.
Say what you want of the coalition, the Tories and LD's have worked together competently for a full five years. I simply can't see that happening next term if EICIPM - regardless of the fixed term act.
Exactly.
Ed will crawl to a plurality, but he will be the weakest PM with the worst mandate in modern British history, and dependant on the "goodwill" of a separatist party determined on forever destroying Labour in its heartland - and halfway to doing that. Sturgeon will have him by the cullions. She'll milk the English taxpaper.
And Ed cannot do a "formal" deal with a party that wants to kill Labour in its homeland, he would be signing SLAB's death warrant.
So he will edge along a cliffpath, and by the 2016 Holyrood elections he will fall over and we'll have a second GE.
The only happy people will be the Scots, sucking up the largesse, which, ironically, makes them less likely to vote want indy or desire a referendum, so even the Nats lose out in the end.
An election where EVERYONE loses. Wow.
Now you see why FPTP is bonkers? Sensible, grown-up politician, like in most of Europe, would have sorted out their coalition deals well in advance of the election, and voters would largely know what the options were.
Instead, these idiots cling to the FPTP random number generator, hoping it throws out a majority (for them), uncaring whether it might throw out dangerous rubbish instead...
You're a broken record aren't you.
Unfortunately even a broken clock is right twice a day, a broken record just keeps repeating the same tune though even once its been rejected. We have a sensible grown-up electoral system like in sensible nations like Canada, not messed up Europe.
The Canadian system, even more than ours, is like playing Russian Roulette. Dominant parties can disappear within a couple of elections. Who remembers the Progressive Conservatives, or Union National, or Social Credit?
I think it's just being deliberately misread in the way I suggested. Scraping the barrel, like the dolls and huns stuff.
Really?
So how do you explain the 'enemy camp' bit then?
Just metaphor - political debate. It would be pretty accurate, if rather strong, for the SNP given that will be the main stronghold of Labour and the Tories. Not an expression I would use if only because someone is bound to complain about it - but nobody else seems to have. I'd like to be sure (a) it was original and (b) what context it was - if it was an internal SNP document [edit: such as a statement for a potential parliamentary candidate to be elected by the EL Branch] then that would be different from an electoral communication.
I don't recall many complaints on PB about the metaphors being used concerning the Scottish question in recent weeks (though there have rightly been some comments on how exaggerated it is).
Depends if you believe Lord Roskill. It is not obvious that the power to dissolve parliament would be amenable to any ground for judicial review, nor any (if that is different - depending on your understanding of JR law) calculus when that ground is invoked.
True, but the one way ratchet might well start with the seemingly undeniable proposition that the discretion to dissolve had to be used to promote the policy and objects of the Act, and end up with implying an obligation on the decision maker to consult on alternative proposals before exercising the power...
As for the Conservatives' plans on the ECHR, the manifesto is short on detail. On the one hand, the Party promises (at p. 76) to support universal human rights, yet (at pp. 60 & 73) it devises exemptions for this country from the universality of human rights. There are the old canards of the promise to break the formal link between the British Courts and Strasbourg, when the only one on the table was proposed by the Conservatives in the last Parliament (see draft protocol no. 16 to the Convention), and to make the Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights in the UK, when it is already. Then there is the specious promise of a British Bill of Rights whose provisions are left unclear save that it will be easier to deport foreign criminals. It is incoherent nonsense.
Ed Brown has got an interesting post about the Labour stamp duty policy on the Newsnight blog. He says that the benefits will overwhelmingly go to people in the south of England, and that richer first-time buyers will gain more than poorer ones. It is on the Newsnight blog at 11.58am.
Mr. CD13, easily done. As with the S/Z issue [Z, apparently, is also correct in English, but S is not in American (for words like crystallises), so people assume Z = American and S = English].
Mind you, I was astounded, when writing a piece a few weeks ago that apparently marshmellow is spelt marshmallow.
Scotland is a side show to next PM - even the SW is to some degree mind. I'm not ruling Ed in, or out - just saying...
Pulpstar is absolutely correct. The Con - Lab numbers have become irrelevant. It is really Coalition and Anti Coalition. Any seats changes within the same camp means very little.
Scotland is a side show to next PM - even the SW is to some degree mind. I'm not ruling Ed in, or out - just saying...
Pulpstar is absolutely correct. The Con - Lab numbers have become irrelevant. It is really Coalition and Anti Coalition. Any seats changes within the same camp means very little.
Unless, Clegg loses !
I have laid off a touch of Ed today Surby though, 1.7 is a bit short I reckon. But yes this is forces of the right vs forces of the left.
Lib Dems to remain in the "right" camp unless they absolutely have to switch.
ELBOW shows that during w/e 26th April, UKIP and LDs big winners in the non-YG polls (Con ahead overall by 0.5%), Greens biggest movers in YouGov (Lab ahead overall by 1.4%).
ICM the gold standard would ,with TNS for Scotland produce 296 seats for the Cons a majority over Labour of 39. With another 10 days to go it looks to me as if o me it looks like the Tories will certainly have the greatest number of seats and may even get a late surge on the day that will give them an overall majority. Personally as a member of the ABC party (Anything But the Conservatives) the thought of an overall Tory majority frightens me to death.
ICM the gold standard would ,with TNS for Scotland produce 296 seats for the Cons a majority over Labour of 39. With another 10 days to go it looks to me as if o me it looks like the Tories will certainly have the greatest number of seats and may even get a late surge on the day that will give them an overall majority. Personally as a member of the ABC party (Anything But the Conservatives) the thought of an overall Tory majority frightens me to death.
I don't think you can take the most seats scenario, which I concur with, and develop it into a possible Con majority. The Tories aren't going to be able to win enough seats from LD and Lab to get anywhere near a majority IMO.
I think it's just being deliberately misread in the way I suggested. Scraping the barrel, like the dolls and huns stuff.
"Scraping the barrel"?? Is that what you'd say if a Tory document emerged talking, optimistically and eagerly, of the Scottish economy "imploding"??
Of course not. Stop being a halfwit. If this isn't a hoax, it's a horrible mis-step by an SNP candidate.
Actually, that is pretty much what the Tories do! Just look at any thread on indyref on PB.
I cna see that the document is actually fairly realistic in its analysis
- get home rule to start with - forget about indyref till the conditions are right (this is actually an important issue within the SNP and one wants to know where one's candidates stand on this) - the economy is going to tank (most of us think that) - that is then an opportunity to go for indyref
but he's obviously edited it down to fit the word count just too far and it does not read clearly or, on one interpretation, well. Certainly vaguely enough for the current crop of articles. And that, I will agree, is more than enpugh for the current media frenzy.
I've had a private bet that more than 200 MP's will lose their seats in this GE. The most ever, I believe.
You think Labour will end up with 340 seats ?!!!
How many people are in a position to "lose" their seat, having won before? Must be 50 people standing down? That leaves six hundred. A third of those is a bold prediction. Say 40 norther of the border, 20 other Libdem losses... still 140 to go!
Say 40 LDs, 35 Lab in Scotland, 40 Lab gains from Con in England. That's 115 - how many are standing down that haven't already been counted?
I think 15 LibDem MPs are retiring, so to lose another 40 means to lose all their seats. If you assume they keep 15 seats, then you've got about 25-30 MPs who lose. Are 35 Labour MPs standing again in Scotland? Seems high.
ICM the gold standard would ,with TNS for Scotland produce 296 seats for the Cons a majority over Labour of 39. With another 10 days to go it looks to me as if o me it looks like the Tories will certainly have the greatest number of seats and may even get a late surge on the day that will give them an overall majority. Personally as a member of the ABC party (Anything But the Conservatives) the thought of an overall Tory majority frightens me to death.
Although you may not now believe it, ELBOW data shows it was actually the YouGov polls wot gave the biggest lead to the Tories (1.3%), during week-ending 15th March.
I think we should start calculating what is the lowest possible number of seats for a party to have most seats.
If the SNP do a clean sweep in scotland, and Labour and the Tories get each 10 LD seats, and discounting UKIP, then the number is 272, just enough for an SNP supported government. If you take into account 5 UKIP seats, then its 269, again just scrapping with the SNP.
Essentially the more seats the LD keep and the more UKIP and the SNP gain the lower the bar for most seats and the more difficult a government coalition can be built.
I suspect a second election will come this year, even if Clegg loses his seat and paves way for a Red-Yellow-Yellow alliance.
ICM the gold standard would ,with TNS for Scotland produce 296 seats for the Cons a majority over Labour of 39. With another 10 days to go it looks to me as if o me it looks like the Tories will certainly have the greatest number of seats and may even get a late surge on the day that will give them an overall majority. Personally as a member of the ABC party (Anything But the Conservatives) the thought of an overall Tory majority frightens me to death.
How did you work that one out ? Based on those two polls, I get a 3.7% swing from Con to Lab in E&W.
If the result of the election is Tories most seats (and an English majority), Lab second but EICIPM because of SNP ... who thinks that government would last a full five years.
Say what you want of the coalition, the Tories and LD's have worked together competently for a full five years. I simply can't see that happening next term if EICIPM - regardless of the fixed term act.
Exactly.
Ed will crawl to a plurality, but he will be the weakest PM with the worst mandate in modern British history, and dependant on the "goodwill" of a separatist party determined on forever destroying Labour in its heartland - and halfway to doing that. Sturgeon will have him by the cullions. She'll milk the English taxpaper.
And Ed cannot do a "formal" deal with a party that wants to kill Labour in its homeland, he would be signing SLAB's death warrant.
So he will edge along a cliffpath, and by the 2016 Holyrood elections he will fall over and we'll have a second GE.
The only happy people will be the Scots, sucking up the largesse, which, ironically, makes them less likely to vote want indy or desire a referendum, so even the Nats lose out in the end.
An election where EVERYONE loses. Wow.
Now you see why FPTP is bonkers? Sensible, grown-up politician, like in most of Europe, would have sorted out their coalition deals well in advance of the election, and voters would largely know what the options were.
Instead, these idiots cling to the FPTP random number generator, hoping it throws out a majority (for them), uncaring whether it might throw out dangerous rubbish instead...
You're a broken record aren't you.
Unfortunately even a broken clock is right twice a day, a broken record just keeps repeating the same tune though even once its been rejected. We have a sensible grown-up electoral system like in sensible nations like Canada, not messed up Europe.
Canada may get rid of FPTP, once Harper goes. New Zealand, another Westminster Model country, has already abandoned it.
It needs to go. Rightwingers should drop their sentimental attachment to it, and start thinking about the best form of PR.
Socrates, late of this parish, favoured STV with three-member constituencies.
It's an interesting compromise as the three-member limit still favours large parties able to win broad support, but it does sweep away the majority of the perversities associated with FPTP. I think it fails the Liverpool test though, ie, does it make it worthwhile for the Tories to campaign in Liverpool?
Or Scottish Labour in Glasgow?
Ha, yes! I would have said Glasgow before, but circumstances were different then.
I still fear that Tory gains in Glasgow is a long term aspiration to be honest. And that is despite Ruth being a list MSP from there.
I think the Scottish top up system works quite well. It still gives an edge to those that win the constituencies (hence the SNP majority) but it tempers it quite significantly with the lists. Having 5m sized regions would incentivise both the Tories in the north west and Labour in the south east. That would be a good thing.
There are a few of glaring problems with the Scottish system. Firstly it's possible to game it, as being advocated by (I think) Dair on here. Secondly the list is a closed list, which means the electorate have little control over who is elected from it, particularly as it is so dependent on which candidates are elected in the constituencies.
One thing that small STV constituencies wouldn't do all that much is give the Tories electoral credit for high turnouts in their safe seats. Top-up lists covering large regional areas would do that, but does create other problems.
Mr. H, I'd be very surprised if the blues got an outright majority, so I don't think you need to worry too much on that account.
If the Conservatives got 296 seats and Labour 257, I think we might end up with a Con-Lib deal. The alternative could see Miliband into Downing Street, but also cause massive ructions and long-term woe for Labour.
Ed Brown has got an interesting post about the Labour stamp duty policy on the Newsnight blog. He says that the benefits will overwhelmingly go to people in the south of England, and that richer first-time buyers will gain more than poorer ones. It is on the Newsnight blog at 11.58am.
I think we should start calculating what is the lowest possible number of seats for a party to have most seats.
If the SNP do a clean sweep in scotland, and Labour and the Tories get each 10 LD seats, and discounting UKIP, then the number is 272, just enough for an SNP supported government. If you take into account 5 UKIP seats, then its 269, again just scrapping with the SNP.
Essentially the more seats the LD keep and the more UKIP and the SNP gain the lower the bar for most seats and the more difficult a government coalition can be built.
I suspect a second election will come this year, even if Clegg loses his seat and paves way for a Red-Yellow-Yellow alliance.
Although you may not now believe it, ELBOW data shows it was actually the YouGov polls wot gave the biggest lead to the Tories (1.3%), during week-ending 15th March.
If the result of the election is Tories most seats (and an English majority), Lab second but EICIPM because of SNP ... who thinks that government would last a full five years.
Say what you want of the coalition, the Tories and LD's have worked together competently for a full five years. I simply can't see that happening next term if EICIPM - regardless of the fixed term act.
Exactly.
Ed will crawl to a plurality, but he will be the weakest PM with the worst mandate in modern British history, and dependant on the "goodwill" of a separatist party determined on forever destroying Labour in its heartland - and halfway to doing that. Sturgeon will have him by the cullions. She'll milk the English taxpaper.
And Ed cannot do a "formal" deal with a party that wants to kill Labour in its homeland, he would be signing SLAB's death warrant.
So he will edge along a cliffpath, and by the 2016 Holyrood elections he will fall over and we'll have a second GE.
The only happy people will be the Scots, sucking up the largesse, which, ironically, makes them less likely to vote want indy or desire a referendum, so even the Nats lose out in the end.
An election where EVERYONE loses. Wow.
Now you see why FPTP is bonkers? Sensible, grown-up politician, like in most of Europe, would have sorted out their coalition deals well in advance of the election, and voters would largely know what the options were.
Instead, these idiots cling to the FPTP random number generator, hoping it throws out a majority (for them), uncaring whether it might throw out dangerous rubbish instead...
You're a broken record aren't you.
Unfortunately even a broken clock is right twice a day, a broken record just keeps repeating the same tune though even once its been rejected. We have a sensible grown-up electoral system like in sensible nations like Canada, not messed up Europe.
Canada may get rid of FPTP, once Harper goes. New Zealand, another Westminster Model country, has already abandoned it.
That still leaves the two largest "democracies", India and the US of A....
I think it's just being deliberately misread in the way I suggested. Scraping the barrel, like the dolls and huns stuff.
"Scraping the barrel"?? Is that what you'd say if a Tory document emerged talking, optimistically and eagerly, of the Scottish economy "imploding"??
Of course not. Stop being a halfwit. If this isn't a hoax, it's a horrible mis-step by an SNP candidate.
Actually, that is pretty much what the Tories do! Just look at any thread on indyref on PB.
I cna see that the document is actually fairly realistic in its analysis
- get home rule to start with - forget about indyref till the conditions are right (this is actually an important issue within the SNP and one wants to know where one's candidates stand on this) - the economy is going to tank (most of us think that) - that is then an opportunity to go for indyref
but he's obviously edited it down to fit the word count just too far and it does not read clearly or, on one interpretation, well. Certainly vaguely enough for the current crop of articles. And that, I will agree, is more than enpugh for the current media frenzy.
"it does not read clearly or, on one interpretation, well."
Yes, you could put it that way, or you could just admit that an SNP so hates the rest of us British ("the enemy camp") that he eagerly hopes for the UK economy to "implode", so the Scots can then go for full independence.
We can agree to differ - but i do think you are being unfair there: the 'enemy camp' is plainly Westminster (or the L and T parties ensconced therein) - not England or rUK. Quite a difference.
Cameron and Clegg could co-operate very closely, have their entire parliamentary parties camp in London and regularly defeat the Lab-SNP Not-Coalition.
Ed Miliband being propped up by the SNP is such a bad outcome for English Labour that I wouldn't be surprised if the likes of David Blunkett actually speak out against it on election night itself. (I know he isn't standing this time).
The outcome is only bad if it alienates English Labour voters or leads other voters to coalesce around a single opposition.
But I suspect you are right: when Ed delivers a result that sees Labour stand still or go slightly backwards there will be more than enough MPs and senior figures ready to say that Labour should stick to opposition and, by strong implication get a new leader. This is what happened in 2010.
A weak Tory government, dependent on the LDs and the DUP, is not a nightmare scenario from a Labour perspective.
Oh come off it, how on earth is a Centrist party with the odd extra pound spent in NI a nightmare scenario. Unless your nightmare is more employment, fewer inefficient public sector jobs, a growing economy and a higher tax take?
Oh wait, is it because it would mean that the country would see the benefits of reducing deficit spending, cutting debt and some personal responsibility, and you'd never get reelected again. Ever.
Although you may not now believe it, ELBOW data shows it was actually the YouGov polls wot gave the biggest lead to the Tories (1.3%), during week-ending 15th March.
Before their "adjustment"?
Precisely.
YouGov poll aggregate w/e Easter Sunday = 0.9% Con lead YG w/e 12th April = 0.7% LAB lead YG w/e 19th April = 1.5% Lab lead YG w/e 26th April = 1.4% Lab lead
I've had a private bet that more than 200 MP's will lose their seats in this GE. The most ever, I believe.
You think Labour will end up with 340 seats ?!!!
How many people are in a position to "lose" their seat, having won before? Must be 50 people standing down? That leaves six hundred. A third of those is a bold prediction. Say 40 norther of the border, 20 other Libdem losses... still 140 to go!
Say 40 LDs, 35 Lab in Scotland, 40 Lab gains from Con in England. That's 115 - how many are standing down that haven't already been counted?
I think 15 LibDem MPs are retiring, so to lose another 40 means to lose all their seats. If you assume they keep 15 seats, then you've got about 25-30 MPs who lose. Are 35 Labour MPs standing again in Scotland? Seems high.
I was coming at it from the other side. How many of the other 535 (650-115) MPs are resigning, apart from those who will lose their seats anyway, or to put it another way how many safe seats will change MP if not party?
It needs to go. Rightwingers should drop their sentimental attachment to it, and start thinking about the best form of PR.
Socrates, late of this parish, favoured STV with three-member constituencies.
It's an interesting compromise as the three-member limit still favours large parties able to win broad support, but it does sweep away the majority of the perversities associated with FPTP. I think it fails the Liverpool test though, ie, does it make it worthwhile for the Tories to campaign in Liverpool?
Or Scottish Labour in Glasgow?
Ha, yes! I would have said Glasgow before, but circumstances were different then.
I still fear that Tory gains in Glasgow is a long term aspiration to be honest. And that is despite Ruth being a list MSP from there.
I think the Scottish top up system works quite well. It still gives an edge to those that win the constituencies (hence the SNP majority) but it tempers it quite significantly with the lists. Having 5m sized regions would incentivise both the Tories in the north west and Labour in the south east. That would be a good thing.
There are a few of glaring problems with the Scottish system. Firstly it's possible to game it, as being advocated by (I think) Dair on here. Secondly the list is a closed list, which means the electorate have little control over who is elected from it, particularly as it is so dependent on which candidates are elected in the constituencies.
One thing that small STV constituencies wouldn't do all that much is give the Tories electoral credit for high turnouts in their safe seats. Top-up lists covering large regional areas would do that, but does create other problems.
On FPTP every constituency is a closed list!
And let's be honest, the vast majority of the electorate vote for the party, not the individual.
If this isn't a hoax, it's a horrible mis-step by an SNP candidate.
That is the other risk for Nicola. If a large number of her new MPs turn out to be bampots on the National stage
Kerevan is a joke, you could expect that kind of writing from an "expletive deleted".
I can easily dismantle his entire statement. What does he mean he can replace the Cockenzie power station with a community and visitor resource rather than more industrialization?
Will tourists generate more electrical power and how? With bicycles that store electricity? No industrialization? No solar plants? No wind power? What will workers do? He is the first socialist that is against factories.
Even the Green party can be more specific and less loonie.
Comments
CRY FREEDOM!!
Looks like the SNP are trashing their own house first then moving south to the neighbours.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11562365/Election-2015-Coalition-Builder-pick-your-own-government.html
A grand coalition may not be too far fetched
You're probably right - my incorrect assumption.
I should have used a proper English word like "cacks".
Nothing against Jim Murphy, of course.
' I suspect the LD’s will recover a lot of losses South of the border and make some gains nas well. Suspect it won’t make much difference to anyone N or the border.'
Why?
They have now lost their USP as the protest party with UKIP,Greens, SNP & Plaid filling that role.
Also doubtful that voters will have such short term memories.
"I think you mean a crisis for the Labour and Conservatives, Labour in particular."
I think people are confused. There's only one party who can LOSE this election unless you call the Lib Dems a party. If Labour get to the threshold of government it'll be a massive personal victory for Ed and I'm sure they'll keep him on for one more heave next time.
I think he's been a revelation. What's happened to all those Ed is crap threads? Embarrassed because Dave is crapper?
So how do you explain the 'enemy camp' bit then?
I think the Scottish top up system works quite well. It still gives an edge to those that win the constituencies (hence the SNP majority) but it tempers it quite significantly with the lists. Having 5m sized regions would incentivise both the Tories in the north west and Labour in the south east. That would be a good thing.
Unfortunately even a broken clock is right twice a day, a broken record just keeps repeating the same tune though even once its been rejected. We have a sensible grown-up electoral system like in sensible nations like Canada, not messed up Europe.
Meanwhile it is FALLING in rUk.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-32348656
"Unemployment in Scotland rose by 9,000 in the three months to February and now stands at 167,000, according to official statistics.
It was the second rise in a row, following an increase of 6,000 in the previous set of figures.
Data from the Office for National Statistics also showed UK unemployment falling by 76,000 to 1.84 million."
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/secret-dossier-lays-bare-snp-push-for-indyref-1-3755156
The Sunil on Sunday's ELBOW (Electoral LeaderBoard Of the Week) for week-ending 26th April 2015 - a record bumper week with 17 separate polls total sample 20,360.
Lab 33.6 (-0.4)
Con 33.1 (-0.5)
UKIP 13.8 (+0.3)
LD 8.2 (+0.1)
Green 5.3 (+0.2)
Lab lead 0.6 (+0.1)
Two main parties each down somewhat, all three smaller parties up a touch. Greens have a mini-surge it seems. UKIP stabilising a touch under 14%. Lab lead maintained.
But wait! There's more! This week, just for a bit of fun, compiled data for YouGov only and Non-YouGov-only going back to August (see the version of the Labour lead chart with three lines plotted).
YouGov only this week:
Lab 34.4 (-0.3)
Con 33.0 (-0.2)
UKIP 13.2 (-0.3)
LD 7.8 (-0.1)
Green 5.7 (+0.5)
Lab lead 1.4 (-0.1)
Non-YouGov this week:
Con 33.1 (-0.9)
Lab 32.6 (-0.6)
UKIP 14.6 (+1.0)
LD 8.7 (+0.5)
Green 4.8 (-0.3)
CON lead 0.5 (-0.3)
The cultural boycott of Israel is one of the far left's more ludicrous and enduring boondoggles, so patently stupid, totalitarian and anti-free-speech that it does nothing but alienate those sensible lefties with green tendencies who might help shift the party into the mainstream.
As it is, we only have two options at the ballot box: bland or bonkers.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/592419947663491072
I don't recall many complaints on PB about the metaphors being used concerning the Scottish question in recent weeks (though there have rightly been some comments on how exaggerated it is).
As for the Conservatives' plans on the ECHR, the manifesto is short on detail. On the one hand, the Party promises (at p. 76) to support universal human rights, yet (at pp. 60 & 73) it devises exemptions for this country from the universality of human rights. There are the old canards of the promise to break the formal link between the British Courts and Strasbourg, when the only one on the table was proposed by the Conservatives in the last Parliament (see draft protocol no. 16 to the Convention), and to make the Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights in the UK, when it is already. Then there is the specious promise of a British Bill of Rights whose provisions are left unclear save that it will be easier to deport foreign criminals. It is incoherent nonsense.
A cat on a bike. Take it or leave it.
Another one of Ed's brainwaves proves to be counter-productive populist nonsense? Shocking.
Now they're in favour of Mutually Assured Destruction?
Mind you, I was astounded, when writing a piece a few weeks ago that apparently marshmellow is spelt marshmallow.
Unless, Clegg loses !
But yes this is forces of the right vs forces of the left.
Lib Dems to remain in the "right" camp unless they absolutely have to switch.
Ten minutes after Scotland went independent they would be having Christina Kirchner on a state visit.
Then Nicola and Alex would be off to Moscow in search of finance.
Personally as a member of the ABC party (Anything But the Conservatives) the thought of an overall Tory majority frightens me to death.
Boris is campaigning outside my office in Enfield.
I cna see that the document is actually fairly realistic in its analysis
- get home rule to start with
- forget about indyref till the conditions are right (this is actually an important issue within the SNP and one wants to know where one's candidates stand on this)
- the economy is going to tank (most of us think that)
- that is then an opportunity to go for indyref
but he's obviously edited it down to fit the word count just too far and it does not read clearly or, on one interpretation, well. Certainly vaguely enough for the current crop of articles. And that, I will agree, is more than enpugh for the current media frenzy.
I can easily see the Tories hitting 305-310, and continuing the coalition we have.
Interesting question is what on earth happens if the Tories are on 280, Lab on 260, SNP 50, and LD 25...
If the SNP do a clean sweep in scotland, and Labour and the Tories get each 10 LD seats, and discounting UKIP, then the number is 272, just enough for an SNP supported government.
If you take into account 5 UKIP seats, then its 269, again just scrapping with the SNP.
Essentially the more seats the LD keep and the more UKIP and the SNP gain the lower the bar for most seats and the more difficult a government coalition can be built.
I suspect a second election will come this year, even if Clegg loses his seat and paves way for a Red-Yellow-Yellow alliance.
One thing that small STV constituencies wouldn't do all that much is give the Tories electoral credit for high turnouts in their safe seats. Top-up lists covering large regional areas would do that, but does create other problems.
If the Conservatives got 296 seats and Labour 257, I think we might end up with a Con-Lib deal. The alternative could see Miliband into Downing Street, but also cause massive ructions and long-term woe for Labour.
Of course, it would. How many houses outside London and the South of England needs £300k for first time buying.
Lots of marginal seats in London and surrounding London.
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/592702933885657089
Cameron and Clegg could co-operate very closely, have their entire parliamentary parties camp in London and regularly defeat the Lab-SNP Not-Coalition.
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/592703259711799296
Oh wait, is it because it would mean that the country would see the benefits of reducing deficit spending, cutting debt and some personal responsibility, and you'd never get reelected again. Ever.
YouGov poll aggregate w/e Easter Sunday = 0.9% Con lead
YG w/e 12th April = 0.7% LAB lead
YG w/e 19th April = 1.5% Lab lead
YG w/e 26th April = 1.4% Lab lead
If the Libs lose 10 - 15 seats in E&W to Labour, and Con loses 30 seats to Lab , then the Right can have only 310 - 315 seats.
Miliband wins.
And let's be honest, the vast majority of the electorate vote for the party, not the individual.
I can easily dismantle his entire statement.
What does he mean he can replace the Cockenzie power station with a community and visitor resource rather than more industrialization?
Will tourists generate more electrical power and how? With bicycles that store electricity?
No industrialization? No solar plants? No wind power? What will workers do?
He is the first socialist that is against factories.
Even the Green party can be more specific and less loonie.
Con 36 (+2) Lab 30 (nc) LD 9 (nc) UKIP 11 (-2) Greens 7 (+3)
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/588025567427043330
The trend is the Tory's friend.
Lord A and ICM = hand-held at the finish joint gold standards.
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2015/04/tns-bmrb-put-snp-support-even-higher/
On a related note, is it me, or has Ashcroft's polling become less bouncy of late?
No change since 2010?