Does anyone else think the media has got its priorities wrong? The focus seems to be on Scotland, Wales and London. Yet we all know that the battles that really matter are going to be in the Midlands, Yorkshire and Lancashire.
I know that the results in Scotland will get a lot of coverage on election night, but in reality it won't make much difference to who gets into Downing Street. I just hope on election night the focus is where it matters.
Juncker is a politician, and gave politicians' answers. He clearly remains opposed to any major treaty change, which Cameron's proposed renegotiation would involve. He has not opened the door to anything.
That's one way of putting it but he has never said it before - maybe concerned that David Cameron may well continue as PM and knows that he will have to negotiate a settlement of some kind
Part of his platform for becoming President of the Commission was negotiating a deal for the UK, if I recall correctly. Anyway, as another poster said, it does not matter what his views are. The man has no support in the UK, and has no legitimacy to govern this country. It is like the complaint about the Conservatives in Scotland pre-1997, but multiplied many times.
I quite like Juncker. Like John Major only foreign.
At the moment I have 30 seats down as being Lab gains from Con:
Warwicks N, Hendon, Cardiff N, Sherwood, Broxtowe, Lancaster, Amber Valley, Waveney, Wolv' SW, Carlisle, Stroud, Weaver Vale, Lincoln, Plym' Sutton & Devonport, Dewsbury, Warrington S, Bedford, Brighton Kemptown, Brentford, Hove, Enfield N, Hastings, Corby (compared to 2010), Nuneaton, Bury N, Erewash, Chester, Wirral W, Cannock Chase, Ealing Central & Acton.
9 Lab gains from LD: Norwich S, Bradford E, Brent C, Man' Withington, Burnley, Redcar, Hornsey & Wood Green, Cardiff C, Bristol W.
If they end up on say 9 seats in Scotland (which is most likely at the moment IMO), that would be a loss of 32 seats and would put them on 265 overall, up 7 on 2010.
It's going to be fun watching the party leaders sucking up to Nigel Dodds and the DUP while secretly (or not so secretly) detesting the social conservatism of his party.
The DUP have sounded by far the most reasonable party about the SNP - not that they'd ever do a deal with them, but Robinson and Dodds thoughts echoed mine on some of the tactics used wrt them at this election.
The DUP's demands can be represented by a single number.
No question the polls have moved slightly towards Con - not just over the last 24 hours but over a longer period too.
If we look at Rob's excellent graphs:
- 15 day graph - the latest 15 day period ended yesterday and showed the first Con lead since 2012. Only a very small one of 0.09% but still it is the first Con lead.
- 7 day graph - here we have less data so it is less reliable - we are 4 days into the latest 7 day period - but after 4 days the Con lead is 0.7% - comfortably the highest since the graph started.
OK, these are very small leads and Con needs to significantly extend them - but they do suggest that the momentum (both in the last few days and over a longer period) is in the Con direction.
Unfortunately, I don't take into account the biases introduced by different methodologies. The ELBOW deals with this somewhat by breaking it up into non-YouGov, and YouGov, whereas the SPUD uses changes on the previous poll. Those may be more reliable indicators of what is going on, although if all are seeing a rise in CON, my graphs will show that.
Juncker is a politician, and gave politicians' answers. He clearly remains opposed to any major treaty change, which Cameron's proposed renegotiation would involve. He has not opened the door to anything.
That's one way of putting it but he has never said it before - maybe concerned that David Cameron may well continue as PM and knows that he will have to negotiate a settlement of some kind
Part of his platform for becoming President of the Commission was negotiating a deal for the UK, if I recall correctly. Anyway, as another poster said, it does not matter what his views are. The man has no support in the UK, and has no legitimacy to govern this country. It is like the complaint about the Conservatives in Scotland pre-1997, but multiplied many times.
Would agree with all of that but you still have to wonder why he said it now at this time in the GE campaign - being well covered on the BBC just now
'Remember Elizabeth Shepherd, the 'poster girl' for Red Ed's push for apprenticeships? Nor do Labour - seven months later, they still haven't got in touch with her '
Any news about Gavin ,senior in IT, who Ed met walking in the park?
At the moment I have 30 seats down as being Lab gains from Con:
Warwicks N, Hendon, Cardiff N, Sherwood, Broxtowe, Lancaster, Amber Valley, Waveney, Wolv' SW, Carlisle, Stroud, Weaver Vale, Lincoln, Plym' Sutton & Devonport, Dewsbury, Warrington S, Bedford, Brighton Kemptown, Brentford, Hove, Enfield N, Hastings, Corby (compared to 2010), Nuneaton, Bury N, Erewash, Chester, Wirral W, Cannock Chase, Ealing Central & Acton.
9 Lab gains from LD: Norwich S, Bradford E, Brent C, Man' Withington, Burnley, Redcar, Hornsey & Wood Green, Cardiff C, Bristol W.
If they end up on say 9 seats in Scotland (which is most likely at the moment IMO), that would be a loss of 32 seats and would put them on 265 overall, up 7 on 2010.
I think the formula has to be somewhat kind to the Scots because of the extra costs (such as they are) of living way oop north and also because we gained so much benefit from "their" oil. But it needs to be looked at and now would be a good time.
They do need a reality check. At the moment the inexorable journey to a one-party state seems like a breeze, but at some point there's going to be an almighty fight about something, since trying to run a democracy within a party rather than between parties is doomed, DOOMED I tell ya!
It's going to be fun watching the party leaders sucking up to Nigel Dodds and the DUP while secretly (or not so secretly) detesting the social conservatism of his party.
The DUP have sounded by far the most reasonable party about the SNP - not that they'd ever do a deal with them, but Robinson and Dodds thoughts echoed mine on some of the tactics used wrt them at this election.
The DUP's demands can be represented by a single number.
Dr. Sir Sunil Prasannan, I have seen it, though it's a while ago.
In Blackadder Goes Forth, the general's referred to as General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchitt during the trial.
How do to deal with someone who is simultaneously a professor, a general, and a peer of the realm?
Robert Maurice Lipson Winston, Baron Winston, FMedSci, FRSA, FRCP, FRCOG, FIBiol, FREng(Hon)
:
Still only holds two titles (well, you could be pedantic and be Professor Dr.). I think he goes by Professor Lord Winston. Alternatively, you could imagine Proffesor Robert Winston, Baron Winston.
I feel inadequate!
Sunil Prasannan, BSc (Hons), ARCS, PhD, DIC
I'm even more inadequate: Rob D, MPhys (Exon), PhD (Exon), FRAS, MInstP
As I said below -I simply dont believe the Construction figures -1.6% decline.
All anecdotal eveidence and business statements from suppliers says the opposite. The ONS changed the methodology a couple of years ago and have had a lot of trouble ever since getting these right.
The cynic might even suspect foul play
My brother works for a company that serves the construction industry - both private and public sector contracts. They have never been busier and are doing record turnover. If there is any weakness in the construction sector, they certainly aren't seeing it.
La trahison des artistes. See previous instances e.g. all those in this country who were less than fulsome in their support for Rushdie over the Satanic Verses.
UKIP and Greens on 20% with TNS = c.6 million votes. Likely to win only 2 or 3 seats. What a fantastic system FPTP is.
Quite so, it's discounting the votes of ill-informed supporters of minor parties, just as it's designed to.
Just look at what happened when a minor party finally got enough seats to have an influence - two-thirds of its "supporters" decided they didn't actually support them after all.
(NB tongue slightly in cheek, but not entirely...)
That is special pleading, if ever I've read it.
It's just a feature of the system that it discounts protest votes unless and until they get up a proper head of steam. Which is arguably desirable.
Is it desirable that every Scottish MP (bar one or two) will be a Nationalist, despite half the population voting for Unionists?
Very desirable, we will be glad to be rid of the carpetbaggers and get some MP's who actually care about Scotland.
The SNP's centre of gravity is shifting from Edinburgh to Westminster. I'll enjoy seeing your bumpkins dazzled and seduced by the bright lights.
UKIP and Greens on 20% with TNS = c.6 million votes. Likely to win only 2 or 3 seats. What a fantastic system FPTP is.
Quite so, it's discounting the votes of ill-informed supporters of minor parties, just as it's designed to.
Just look at what happened when a minor party finally got enough seats to have an influence - two-thirds of its "supporters" decided they didn't actually support them after all.
(NB tongue slightly in cheek, but not entirely...)
That is special pleading, if ever I've read it.
It's just a feature of the system that it discounts protest votes unless and until they get up a proper head of steam. Which is arguably desirable.
Is it desirable that every Scottish MP (bar one or two) will be a Nationalist, despite half the population voting for Unionists?
Very desirable, we will be glad to be rid of the carpetbaggers and get some MP's who actually care about Scotland.
The SNP's centre of gravity is shifting from Edinburgh to Westminster. I'll enjoy seeing your bumpkins dazzled and seduced by the bright lights.
Why do you think the SNP bans any peerages? It's an astute move, on more than one level.
What happens if Cameron is allowed to continue as PM but any legislation to call a referendum is defeated ?
Cameron probably resigns as he would make the referendum vote a confidence issue. He would have no confidence in some of his rowdier backbenchers to pass anything else after losing that vote!
Our latest funding round has just completed. Tidying up a few odds and sods as we come towards the end of this financial year, so only gave away £90K this time. Next round opening shortly with decision to be made in September.
Charities we funded this meeting are all great causes. As always, we focus on small, local organisations with excellent leadership and a clear strategic vision to help them implement transformational change. Always worth supporting if people feel so inclined...
* Enabled Works Ltd (www.enabledworks.co.uk) - set up as a not-for profit co-op following closure of Leeds/Pontefract Remploy facilities. @TSE one of the services they provide is pallet storage - might be useful for your shoe collection...
* London Reclaimed (www.londonreclaimed.co.uk) Youth employment, training and skills development in Peckham
* NEBT (www.nebt.co.uk) Providing opportunities for skilled young dancers to develop their careers
* Purple Patch Arts (www.purplepatcharts.org) Improving life chances for people in Yorkshire with learning disabilities
At the moment I have 30 seats down as being Lab gains from Con:
Warwicks N, Hendon, Cardiff N, Sherwood, Broxtowe, Lancaster, Amber Valley, Waveney, Wolv' SW, Carlisle, Stroud, Weaver Vale, Lincoln, Plym' Sutton & Devonport, Dewsbury, Warrington S, Bedford, Brighton Kemptown, Brentford, Hove, Enfield N, Hastings, Corby (compared to 2010), Nuneaton, Bury N, Erewash, Chester, Wirral W, Cannock Chase, Ealing Central & Acton.
9 Lab gains from LD: Norwich S, Bradford E, Brent C, Man' Withington, Burnley, Redcar, Hornsey & Wood Green, Cardiff C, Bristol W.
If they end up on say 9 seats in Scotland (which is most likely at the moment IMO), that would be a loss of 32 seats and would put them on 265 overall, up 7 on 2010.
How many seats do you have the coalition on ?
Con 279 and LD 34 so 313. Not my final forecast of course.
UKIP and Greens on 20% with TNS = c.6 million votes. Likely to win only 2 or 3 seats. What a fantastic system FPTP is.
Quite so, it's discounting the votes of ill-informed supporters of minor parties, just as it's designed to.
Just look at what happened when a minor party finally got enough seats to have an influence - two-thirds of its "supporters" decided they didn't actually support them after all.
(NB tongue slightly in cheek, but not entirely...)
That is special pleading, if ever I've read it.
It's just a feature of the system that it discounts protest votes unless and until they get up a proper head of steam. Which is arguably desirable.
Is it desirable that every Scottish MP (bar one or two) will be a Nationalist, despite half the population voting for Unionists?
Very desirable, we will be glad to be rid of the carpetbaggers and get some MP's who actually care about Scotland.
The SNP's centre of gravity is shifting from Edinburgh to Westminster. I'll enjoy seeing your bumpkins dazzled and seduced by the bright lights.
I'm sure they'll embrace everything that London has to offer them.
Those left behind in the northern regional branch office will soon feel a bit left out.
Our latest funding round has just completed. Tidying up a few odds and sods as we come towards the end of this financial year, so only gave away £90K this time. Next round opening shortly with decision to be made in September.
Charities we funded this meeting are all great causes. As always, we focus on small, local organisations with excellent leadership and a clear strategic vision to help them implement transformational change. Always worth supporting if people feel so inclined...
* Enabled Works Ltd (www.enabledworks.co.uk) - set up as a not-for profit co-op following closure of Leeds/Pontefract Remploy facilities. @TSE one of the services they provide is pallet storage - might be useful for your shoe collection...
* London Reclaimed (www.londonreclaimed.co.uk) Youth employment, training and skills development in Peckham
* NEBT (www.nebt.co.uk) Providing opportunities for skilled young dancers to develop their careers
* Purple Patch Arts (www.purplepatcharts.org) Improving life chances for people in Yorkshire with learning disabilities
UKIP and Greens on 20% with TNS = c.6 million votes. Likely to win only 2 or 3 seats. What a fantastic system FPTP is.
Quite so, it's discounting the votes of ill-informed supporters of minor parties, just as it's designed to.
Just look at what happened when a minor party finally got enough seats to have an influence - two-thirds of its "supporters" decided they didn't actually support them after all.
(NB tongue slightly in cheek, but not entirely...)
That is special pleading, if ever I've read it.
It's just a feature of the system that it discounts protest votes unless and until they get up a proper head of steam. Which is arguably desirable.
Is it desirable that every Scottish MP (bar one or two) will be a Nationalist, despite half the population voting for Unionists?
Very desirable, we will be glad to be rid of the carpetbaggers and get some MP's who actually care about Scotland.
The SNP's centre of gravity is shifting from Edinburgh to Westminster. I'll enjoy seeing your bumpkins dazzled and seduced by the bright lights.
I'm sure they'll embrace everything that London has to offer them.
Those left behind in the northern regional branch office will soon feel a bit left out.
What happens if Cameron is allowed to continue as PM but any legislation to call a referendum is defeated ?
Cameron probably resigns as he would make the referendum vote a confidence issue. He would have no confidence in some of his rowdier backbenchers to pass anything else after losing that vote!
Whatever happens, I cannot see the Tories + UKIP having enough MPs to pass a referendum bill.
UKIP and Greens on 20% with TNS = c.6 million votes. Likely to win only 2 or 3 seats. What a fantastic system FPTP is.
Quite so, it's discounting the votes of ill-informed supporters of minor parties, just as it's designed to.
Just look at what happened when a minor party finally got enough seats to have an influence - two-thirds of its "supporters" decided they didn't actually support them after all.
(NB tongue slightly in cheek, but not entirely...)
That is special pleading, if ever I've read it.
It's just a feature of the system that it discounts protest votes unless and until they get up a proper head of steam. Which is arguably desirable.
Is it desirable that every Scottish MP (bar one or two) will be a Nationalist, despite half the population voting for Unionists?
Very desirable, we will be glad to be rid of the carpetbaggers and get some MP's who actually care about Scotland.
The SNP's centre of gravity is shifting from Edinburgh to Westminster. I'll enjoy seeing your bumpkins dazzled and seduced by the bright lights.
LOL, they will be well able for the southern jessies for sure
The SNP's centre of gravity is shifting from Edinburgh to Westminster. I'll enjoy seeing your bumpkins dazzled and seduced by the bright lights.
New SNP MP's wake after 'enjoying' their train journey with a bottle of Bells, and find themselves within sight of Big Ben... //www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y15NnGZIBuM
59 wet shaves at Trumpers, a morning with Messrs Gieves & Hawkes, and our friends from the north will soon be getting into the swing of things.
In the tightest election ever, I don't see how support from the most popular politically minded non politician amongst a huge part of the electorate would fail to push whoever he supported over the line
I do see. Of his followers, only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction are relevant.
1: A large proportion who follow him will not be such big megafans. Celebrity followers (including media) etc probably make up a large proportion. 2: Even amongst fans, only a small proportion will be mindless drones who'll change his vote as he says 3: Even amongst those drone fans, the prior instruction from Brand was to not vote and its too late to register. If people just follow Brand blindly it would make literally zero difference. So they'd have to have registered despite Brand (and thus have a modicum of free will). 4: Even amongst drone fans who've bothered to register, his biggest appeal is to lefties. A large proportion of which would already be voting for Labour. 5: Even amongst those who change voting from a different party, unless there's hundreds or thousands of those per marginal it won't be decisive.
So you're saying to get over the line there'd have to be enough people per constituency who are registered to vote, willing to vote, weren't going to vote for Labour already but now do because of Brand alone. I don't think so.
I don't see why you bother trying to seem as though you think these things through, if its bad for Conservatives, you don't like it. You don't have to seem like its all based on logic, when the conclusion is always the same it obviously partisan
Fair enough, but you might as well just think "I disagree" and move on
I'm arguing with the logic that this alone would "push whoever he supported over the line", that is ludicrous and illogical hyperbole.
I don't think that its bad for Ed. Any celeb endorsement is likely doing more good than bad, which is why parties go for it. I just don't think it's an election-winning move. It'll be positive for Ed but only negligibly in the grand scheme of things if at all. It won't be "Brand wot won it".
If he resigns, the Leader of the Opposition is called to form a government, whether or not that government is likely to survive.
That is one view. Another view is that the person invited to form the new government is the person the resigning Prime Minister advises the sovereign to commission, and that if no advice is tendered, then it is a matter for the sovereign. Constitutional conventions are by their nature flexible. If an established Prime Minister cannot command a majority in the House of Commons, he may be commissioned to form a new administration including other parties (1931), or he may tender his resignation while another in his party does the same (1940). There is no set of rules that will govern what will occur if no party has an overall majority after the election. There are merely guidelines, which are by their nature adaptable to the circumstances.
I did say "After an indecisive election result". It is inconceivable that a PM without a majority who had been unable to put one together that survived its first vote would either
i) be granted a second dissolution (that prerogative has gone anyway), or ii) be granted an immediate second chance to put a majority together
which leaves the Leader of the Opposition to be called as PM.
Re advice: It is my understanding that the PM is not obliged to give any, and if given, the Sovereign is not obliged to take it.
What happens if Cameron is allowed to continue as PM but any legislation to call a referendum is defeated ?
Cameron probably resigns as he would make the referendum vote a confidence issue. He would have no confidence in some of his rowdier backbenchers to pass anything else after losing that vote!
Surely that's only true if the Conservatives have an absolute majority... And that isn't going to happen.
At the moment I have 30 seats down as being Lab gains from Con:
Warwicks N, Hendon, Cardiff N, Sherwood, Broxtowe, Lancaster, Amber Valley, Waveney, Wolv' SW, Carlisle, Stroud, Weaver Vale, Lincoln, Plym' Sutton & Devonport, Dewsbury, Warrington S, Bedford, Brighton Kemptown, Brentford, Hove, Enfield N, Hastings, Corby (compared to 2010), Nuneaton, Bury N, Erewash, Chester, Wirral W, Cannock Chase, Ealing Central & Acton.
9 Lab gains from LD: Norwich S, Bradford E, Brent C, Man' Withington, Burnley, Redcar, Hornsey & Wood Green, Cardiff C, Bristol W.
If they end up on say 9 seats in Scotland (which is most likely at the moment IMO), that would be a loss of 32 seats and would put them on 265 overall, up 7 on 2010.
What about Morecambe and Blackpool N - are you expecting the Conservatives to do well in grotty Lancashire seaside resorts ?
Otherwise a very reasonable prediction and one which will make a mess in parliament and a likely second election within a year.
If he resigns, the Leader of the Opposition is called to form a government, whether or not that government is likely to survive.
That is one view. Another view is that the person invited to form the new government is the person the resigning Prime Minister advises the sovereign to commission, and that if no advice is tendered, then it is a matter for the sovereign. Constitutional conventions are by their nature flexible. If an established Prime Minister cannot command a majority in the House of Commons, he may be commissioned to form a new administration including other parties (1931), or he may tender his resignation while another in his party does the same (1940). There is no set of rules that will govern what will occur if no party has an overall majority after the election. There are merely guidelines, which are by their nature adaptable to the circumstances.
I did say "After an indecisive election result". It is inconceivable that a PM without a majority who had been unable to put one together that survived its first vote would either
i) be granted a second dissolution (that prerogative has gone anyway), or ii) be granted an immediate second chance to put a majority together
which leaves the Leader of the Opposition to be called as PM.
Re advice: It is my understanding that the PM is not obliged to give any, and if given, the Sovereign is not obliged to take it.
Discount the *inconceivable* at your peril. 5 years ago, the world looked like this;
"As I’ve been arguing for days the Lib Dem spreads are a pretty good bet. The latest level from Sporting Index is 85-88 seats. The risk with spread betting is the down-side and it’s hard to see them getting fewer than 70 seats, and most likely a lot more than that."
This Miliband/Brand stuff isn't really aimed at any of us here, its for the Green/DNV waverers. It's like the Telegraph stuff Dave does aimed at the UKIP/Con switchers.
Yes, it's to get young people to actually show up at the polling stations. Quite a smart play, in theory.
At the moment I have 30 seats down as being Lab gains from Con:
Warwicks N, Hendon, Cardiff N, Sherwood, Broxtowe, Lancaster, Amber Valley, Waveney, Wolv' SW, Carlisle, Stroud, Weaver Vale, Lincoln, Plym' Sutton & Devonport, Dewsbury, Warrington S, Bedford, Brighton Kemptown, Brentford, Hove, Enfield N, Hastings, Corby (compared to 2010), Nuneaton, Bury N, Erewash, Chester, Wirral W, Cannock Chase, Ealing Central & Acton.
9 Lab gains from LD: Norwich S, Bradford E, Brent C, Man' Withington, Burnley, Redcar, Hornsey & Wood Green, Cardiff C, Bristol W.
If they end up on say 9 seats in Scotland (which is most likely at the moment IMO), that would be a loss of 32 seats and would put them on 265 overall, up 7 on 2010.
What about Morecambe and Blackpool N - are you expecting the Conservatives to do well in grotty Lancashire seaside resorts ?
Otherwise a very reasonable prediction and one which will make a mess in parliament and a likely second election within a year.
The Tories have been ahead in the Blackpool Ashcroft polls.
It's one of the things that makes a nonsense of the claim that it's the middle class that Miliband is struggling with, when the polls show him winning Wirral West and Bristol West at the same time as losing the likes of Blackpool and Thurrock.
Whose Matt Forde and whose Tommy Robinson? Never heard of 'em.
Whats going on in the markets? They've gone stark ravers. Lab majority out to 100 & tories in on 1.27. Is this just trading off last few good tory polls or more rumoured in pipeline?
o/t doesn't 100% follow that Con-Lab will produce largest party. Cons could lose 30 to Lab and still be largest after SLAB & LD wipeouts.
The market has gone indeed gone crackers. If you're backing Con most seats and Ed Miliband PM at today's prices you're doing it wrong. Trust me on this !
As I see it, Ed is still 4/6 next PM. The market is not looking at Con or Lab seats. Rather:
Is LAB + SNP +PC + SDLP + GRN > CON + [ possibly ] LD ?
If the above equation holds, Ed is PM.
I say possibly because I am not entirely sure the LD party will want to join another coalition at this time after being decimated.
If it joins with the Tories [ as Clegg wants ], the question arises why did they fight each other over so many seats !
Herding a bunch of mangy, squabbling cats would be easier than keeping that Coalition together. How long would it last before they fell out?
It does seem it would be quite the challenge. Granted, many people though Dave and Nick could not keep their tribes together, and those two at least personally get alone and it is still only two parties. While it's not as though SNP/PC/Green are going to be disagreeing on much, nor would Ed have to care that much about the PC/Green part, it's still a much more frantic and hostile coalition environment.
If he resigns, the Leader of the Opposition is called to form a government, whether or not that government is likely to survive.
That is one view. Another view is that the person invited to form the new government is the person the resigning Prime Minister advises the sovereign to commission, and that if no advice is tendered, then it is a matter for the sovereign. Constitutional conventions are by their nature flexible. If an established Prime Minister cannot command a majority in the House of Commons, he may be commissioned to form a new administration including other parties (1931), or he may tender his resignation while another in his party does the same (1940). There is no set of rules that will govern what will occur if no party has an overall majority after the election. There are merely guidelines, which are by their nature adaptable to the circumstances.
I did say "After an indecisive election result". It is inconceivable that a PM without a majority who had been unable to put one together that survived its first vote would either
i) be granted a second dissolution (that prerogative has gone anyway), or ii) be granted an immediate second chance to put a majority together
which leaves the Leader of the Opposition to be called as PM.
Re advice: It is my understanding that the PM is not obliged to give any, and if given, the Sovereign is not obliged to take it.
Discount the *inconceivable* at your peril. 5 years ago, the world looked like this;
"As I’ve been arguing for days the Lib Dem spreads are a pretty good bet. The latest level from Sporting Index is 85-88 seats. The risk with spread betting is the down-side and it’s hard to see them getting fewer than 70 seats, and most likely a lot more than that."
But Rod Crosby is talking about a situation after the election. So there would be no uncertainty involved unless some political parties behaved irrationally.
This Miliband/Brand stuff isn't really aimed at any of us here, its for the Green/DNV waverers. It's like the Telegraph stuff Dave does aimed at the UKIP/Con switchers.
Yes, it's to get young people to actually show up at the polling stations. Quite a smart play, in theory.
Regrettably, you may be right. As much as it will be mocked by many, would any of those doing the mocking dislike it enough to not vote for Ed if they were already planning to? Put that against the potential of reaching the hard to reach?
At the moment I have 30 seats down as being Lab gains from Con:
Warwicks N, Hendon, Cardiff N, Sherwood, Broxtowe, Lancaster, Amber Valley, Waveney, Wolv' SW, Carlisle, Stroud, Weaver Vale, Lincoln, Plym' Sutton & Devonport, Dewsbury, Warrington S, Bedford, Brighton Kemptown, Brentford, Hove, Enfield N, Hastings, Corby (compared to 2010), Nuneaton, Bury N, Erewash, Chester, Wirral W, Cannock Chase, Ealing Central & Acton.
9 Lab gains from LD: Norwich S, Bradford E, Brent C, Man' Withington, Burnley, Redcar, Hornsey & Wood Green, Cardiff C, Bristol W.
If they end up on say 9 seats in Scotland (which is most likely at the moment IMO), that would be a loss of 32 seats and would put them on 265 overall, up 7 on 2010.
What about Morecambe and Blackpool N - are you expecting the Conservatives to do well in grotty Lancashire seaside resorts ?
Otherwise a very reasonable prediction and one which will make a mess in parliament and a likely second election within a year.
This Miliband/Brand stuff isn't really aimed at any of us here, its for the Green/DNV waverers. It's like the Telegraph stuff Dave does aimed at the UKIP/Con switchers.
Yes, it's to get young people to actually show up at the polling stations. Quite a smart play, in theory.
Labour has enough clowns already, Brand isn't required.
If he resigns, the Leader of the Opposition is called to form a government, whether or not that government is likely to survive.
That is one view. Another view is that the person invited to form the new government is the person the resigning Prime Minister advises the sovereign to commission, and that if no advice is tendered, then it is a matter for the sovereign. Constitutional conventions are by their nature flexible. If an established Prime Minister cannot command a majority in the House of Commons, he may be commissioned to form a new administration including other parties (1931), or he may tender his resignation while another in his party does the same (1940). There is no set of rules that will govern what will occur if no party has an overall majority after the election. There are merely guidelines, which are by their nature adaptable to the circumstances.
I did say "After an indecisive election result". It is inconceivable that a PM without a majority who had been unable to put one together that survived its first vote would either
i) be granted a second dissolution (that prerogative has gone anyway), or ii) be granted an immediate second chance to put a majority together
which leaves the Leader of the Opposition to be called as PM.
Re advice: It is my understanding that the PM is not obliged to give any, and if given, the sovereign is not obliged to take it.
Its my understanding that the PM is expected to give advice on who can command the House and any such advice is unlikely to be ignored. Had Blair fallen over Iraq, IDS wouldn't have been called to form a government.
The sovereign isn't obliged to take advice but it'd take a tremendous amount to ignore it. The Queen will not let herself be in the position of actually making the decision herself, either the PM will offer advice or a civil servant or someone else in a position to do so will - it would never be the Queen herself.
Your second option is conceivable.
If in 2010 Labour had made a deal with the LDs but they demanded Brown's resignation as a price (with deputy Harriet acting leader pending a leadership election) then Brown could have resigned and recommended Harriet to form a government.
Its my understanding that the PM is expected to give advice on who can command the House and any such advice is unlikely to be ignored. Had Blair fallen over Iraq, IDS wouldn't have been called to form a government.
The sovereign isn't obliged to take advice but it'd take a tremendous amount to ignore it. The Queen will not let herself be in the position of actually making the decision herself, either the PM will offer advice or a civil servant or someone else in a position to do so will - it would never be the Queen herself.
Your second option is conceivable.
If in 2010 Labour had made a deal with the LDs but they demanded Brown's resignation as a price (with deputy Harriet acting leader pending a leadership election) then Brown could have resigned and recommended Harriet to form a government.
The Sovereign always asks for advice, but will not always follow it. I cannot think of a single occasion otherwise when the Sovereign did not take advice from the outgoing PM since 1894, when Victoria refused to take advice from Gladstone, but that was due to personal animosity. Bonar Law in 1923 would be closest, but having been asked to be excused a royal audience due to illness, he was asked to recommend someone who could advise the sovereign. He chose Lord Salisbury (who recommended Curzon for PM) but in the event King George V took the advice of Arthur Balfour to appoint Baldwin instead.
In practice, an outgoing PM will at least officially advise the sovereign of his successor - Thatcher to Major, Major to Blair, Blair to that idiot, and Brown to Cameron. This is simply because they are best placed to know who can command the support of the Commons - even when it is obvious.
Whose Matt Forde and whose Tommy Robinson? Never heard of 'em.
Whats going on in the markets? They've gone stark ravers. Lab majority out to 100 & tories in on 1.27. Is this just trading off last few good tory polls or more rumoured in pipeline?
o/t doesn't 100% follow that Con-Lab will produce largest party. Cons could lose 30 to Lab and still be largest after SLAB & LD wipeouts.
The market has gone indeed gone crackers. If you're backing Con most seats and Ed Miliband PM at today's prices you're doing it wrong. Trust me on this !
As I see it, Ed is still 4/6 next PM. The market is not looking at Con or Lab seats. Rather:
Is LAB + SNP +PC + SDLP + GRN > CON + [ possibly ] LD ?
If the above equation holds, Ed is PM.
I say possibly because I am not entirely sure the LD party will want to join another coalition at this time after being decimated.
If it joins with the Tories [ as Clegg wants ], the question arises why did they fight each other over so many seats !
Herding a bunch of mangy, squabbling cats would be easier than keeping that Coalition together. How long would it last before they fell out?
And the long term damage to Labour could be lethal in England.
Go for it, Ed.
I don't think there would be a formal coalition. I know you and others like you think Ed is stupid and all that. But let me tell you , from what I have seen, he is a smart operator and it would be very rare that any bill will be brought to the Commons which would be controversial.
Also, as Nicola has been giving hints, she would not anything to de-rail a Labour government unless it involved matters close to Scotland.
The reason is obvious. Part of her present strength in Scotland is because the SNP has persuaded the Scottish "Labour" supporters that she will keep the Tories out. So unless a red line legislation comes up, why would the SNP vote against a minority Labour government ?
Trident ? Simple. Don't take any decision for 2/3 years. The Tory / LD coalition managed to do so for 5 years !
Nicola is smart. She will talk about independence and FFA, but not too eager at the moment to actually want it !
At the moment I have 30 seats down as being Lab gains from Con:
Warwicks N, Hendon, Cardiff N, Sherwood, Broxtowe, Lancaster, Amber Valley, Waveney, Wolv' SW, Carlisle, Stroud, Weaver Vale, Lincoln, Plym' Sutton & Devonport, Dewsbury, Warrington S, Bedford, Brighton Kemptown, Brentford, Hove, Enfield N, Hastings, Corby (compared to 2010), Nuneaton, Bury N, Erewash, Chester, Wirral W, Cannock Chase, Ealing Central & Acton.
9 Lab gains from LD: Norwich S, Bradford E, Brent C, Man' Withington, Burnley, Redcar, Hornsey & Wood Green, Cardiff C, Bristol W.
If they end up on say 9 seats in Scotland (which is most likely at the moment IMO), that would be a loss of 32 seats and would put them on 265 overall, up 7 on 2010.
What about Morecambe and Blackpool N - are you expecting the Conservatives to do well in grotty Lancashire seaside resorts ?
Otherwise a very reasonable prediction and one which will make a mess in parliament and a likely second election within a year.
The latest Ashcroft poll from Blackpool North showed the Tories 5% ahead:
Is it not the case that 6 of the 5000 signatories for the Tories are Undertakers ? Apparently, the business of death is doing well under the Tories.
The possibility of a Labour government is frightening people to death.
Hardly logical Perdix. If that were the case, they would be putting up signs for Janos Toth - complete with a photo of him and the senior Labour MP in Staffordshire, a certain Dr Hunt...
That would set them up for life even if someone discovered the Philosopher's Stone.
At the moment I have 30 seats down as being Lab gains from Con:
Warwicks N, Hendon, Cardiff N, Sherwood, Broxtowe, Lancaster, Amber Valley, Waveney, Wolv' SW, Carlisle, Stroud, Weaver Vale, Lincoln, Plym' Sutton & Devonport, Dewsbury, Warrington S, Bedford, Brighton Kemptown, Brentford, Hove, Enfield N, Hastings, Corby (compared to 2010), Nuneaton, Bury N, Erewash, Chester, Wirral W, Cannock Chase, Ealing Central & Acton.
9 Lab gains from LD: Norwich S, Bradford E, Brent C, Man' Withington, Burnley, Redcar, Hornsey & Wood Green, Cardiff C, Bristol W.
If they end up on say 9 seats in Scotland (which is most likely at the moment IMO), that would be a loss of 32 seats and would put them on 265 overall, up 7 on 2010.
What about Morecambe and Blackpool N - are you expecting the Conservatives to do well in grotty Lancashire seaside resorts ?
Otherwise a very reasonable prediction and one which will make a mess in parliament and a likely second election within a year.
Yes central Morecambe is Labour,but the towns motto is "Beauty surrounds",and indeed all the surrounding areas are Conservative, Hest Bank,Bolton-le-sands, and out along parts of the Lune valley. Lennox Boyd held it for many years, Geraldine swept in on the tide of despair of the tories,and was swept out again at despair of Gordo. It will be close ,but I think the Cons will hold.
If he resigns, the Leader of the Opposition is called to form a government, whether or not that government is likely to survive.
That is one view. Another view is that the person invited to form the new government is the person the resigning Prime Minister advises the sovereign to commission, and that if no advice is tendered, then it is a matter for the sovereign. Constitutional conventions are by their nature flexible. If an established Prime Minister cannot command a majority in the House of Commons, he may be commissioned to form a new administration including other parties (1931), or he may tender his resignation while another in his party does the same (1940). There is no set of rules that will govern what will occur if no party has an overall majority after the election. There are merely guidelines, which are by their nature adaptable to the circumstances.
I did say "After an indecisive election result". It is inconceivable that a PM without a majority who had been unable to put one together that survived its first vote would either
i) be granted a second dissolution (that prerogative has gone anyway), or ii) be granted an immediate second chance to put a majority together
which leaves the Leader of the Opposition to be called as PM.
Re advice: It is my understanding that the PM is not obliged to give any, and if given, the sovereign is not obliged to take it.
Its my understanding that the PM is expected to give advice on who can command the House and any such advice is unlikely to be ignored. Had Blair fallen over Iraq, IDS wouldn't have been called to form a government.
The sovereign isn't obliged to take advice but it'd take a tremendous amount to ignore it. The Queen will not let herself be in the position of actually making the decision herself, either the PM will offer advice or a civil servant or someone else in a position to do so will - it would never be the Queen herself.
Your second option is conceivable.
If in 2010 Labour had made a deal with the LDs but they demanded Brown's resignation as a price (with deputy Harriet acting leader pending a leadership election) then Brown could have resigned and recommended Harriet to form a government.
"If in 2010 Labour had made a deal with the LDs but they demanded Brown's resignation as a price (with deputy Harriet acting leader pending a leadership election) then Brown could have resigned and recommended Harriet to form a government. "
I think this is pure bullshit. Clegg would never join a coalition with Labour. The Orange Bookers who were in the ascendency at that time also was with him. Luckily, they will be wiped out this time.
Surely the point of all this MiliBrand stuff is that the target audience have all been told not to register to vote by their hero....?
Welcome. And yes, it seems silly, given Brand's previous comments.
Thanks. I've been IPSOS MORI'd this afternoon so thought I'd find out more about the polls.... I'm amazed they ever get any full responses my interview lasted over half an hour!
Surely the point of all this MiliBrand stuff is that the target audience have all been told not to register to vote by their hero....?
Welcome. And yes, it seems silly, given Brand's previous comments.
Thanks. I've been IPSOS MORI'd this afternoon so thought I'd find out more about the polls.... I'm amazed they ever get any full responses my interview lasted over half an hour!
If you want to find out more about polls, you've come to the right place. We love 'em
At the moment I have 30 seats down as being Lab gains from Con:
Warwicks N, Hendon, Cardiff N, Sherwood, Broxtowe, Lancaster, Amber Valley, Waveney, Wolv' SW, Carlisle, Stroud, Weaver Vale, Lincoln, Plym' Sutton & Devonport, Dewsbury, Warrington S, Bedford, Brighton Kemptown, Brentford, Hove, Enfield N, Hastings, Corby (compared to 2010), Nuneaton, Bury N, Erewash, Chester, Wirral W, Cannock Chase, Ealing Central & Acton.
9 Lab gains from LD: Norwich S, Bradford E, Brent C, Man' Withington, Burnley, Redcar, Hornsey & Wood Green, Cardiff C, Bristol W.
If they end up on say 9 seats in Scotland (which is most likely at the moment IMO), that would be a loss of 32 seats and would put them on 265 overall, up 7 on 2010.
What about Morecambe and Blackpool N - are you expecting the Conservatives to do well in grotty Lancashire seaside resorts ?
Otherwise a very reasonable prediction and one which will make a mess in parliament and a likely second election within a year.
Ilford North ? The time has come.
Only the Tories can stop Labour gaining Ilford North?
What happens if Cameron is allowed to continue as PM but any legislation to call a referendum is defeated ?
Cameron probably resigns as he would make the referendum vote a confidence issue. He would have no confidence in some of his rowdier backbenchers to pass anything else after losing that vote!
Whatever happens, I cannot see the Tories + UKIP having enough MPs to pass a referendum bill.
Cameron's promise was that "If I am PM" there will be a referendum on EU membership.
He couldn't pass it under the current coalition and it will be the first red line in any post-election negotiations.
He'll resign if he can't get it through, or face a whole pile of defections to UKIP.
Is it not the case that 6 of the 5000 signatories for the Tories are Undertakers ? Apparently, the business of death is doing well under the Tories.
The possibility of a Labour government is frightening people to death.
Hardly logical Perdix. If that were the case, they would be putting up signs for Janos Toth - complete with a photo of him and the senior Labour MP in Staffordshire, a certain Dr Hunt...
That would set them up for life even if someone discovered the Philosopher's Stone.
I beg to differ. Not that it makes any difference in my constituency. My Con MP should get in comfortably... but I had been to the bank (today) and on the way back to my car I heard two women who had already voted Tory (by post) because they were "terrified" of an SNP/ Labour Govt..
Its only anecdotal, but it is the truth and is as I state it.
I did say "After an indecisive election result". It is inconceivable that a PM without a majority who had been unable to put one together that survived its first vote would either
i) be granted a second dissolution (that prerogative has gone anyway), or ii) be granted an immediate second chance to put a majority together
which leaves the Leader of the Opposition to be called as PM.
Re advice: It is my understanding that the PM is not obliged to give any, and if given, the sovereign is not obliged to take it.
Its my understanding that the PM is expected to give advice on who can command the House and any such advice is unlikely to be ignored. Had Blair fallen over Iraq, IDS wouldn't have been called to form a government.
The sovereign isn't obliged to take advice but it'd take a tremendous amount to ignore it. The Queen will not let herself be in the position of actually making the decision herself, either the PM will offer advice or a civil servant or someone else in a position to do so will - it would never be the Queen herself.
Your second option is conceivable.
If in 2010 Labour had made a deal with the LDs but they demanded Brown's resignation as a price (with deputy Harriet acting leader pending a leadership election) then Brown could have resigned and recommended Harriet to form a government.
Sorry, your're wrong.
Baldwin offered no advice in 1924, the time above all, according to your thesis, that advice was most needed.
Btw, Harman had no automatic right to become PM in 2010. The Labour Rules state the Cabinet in consultation with the NEC would choose someone. In any case such a constitutional nightmare wasn't contemplated. The scarcely-less whacky idea was that Brown would hold the ring until Parliament met, then go shortly (months) afterwards. If he'd lost that first vote, there was no way Labour would get a second chance under a different leader, and Cammo would have been called.
Whose Matt Forde and whose Tommy Robinson? Never heard of 'em.
o/t doesn't 100% follow that Con-Lab will produce largest party. Cons could lose 30 to Lab and still be largest after SLAB & LD wipeouts.
The market has gone indeed gone crackers. If you're backing Con most seats and Ed Miliband PM at today's prices you're doing it wrong. Trust me on this !
If it joins with the Tories [ as Clegg wants ], the question arises why did they fight each other over so many seats !
.
.
Nicola is smart. She will talk about independence and FFA, but not too eager at the moment to actually want it !
I've said many times that Ed is NOT stupid. He is deluded, in that lefty academic way (inasmuch as he really BELIEVES his socialist nonsense will work) - but he is definitely not stupid.
Indeed I rate him as a more cunning political operator than Cameron. By a distance.
That doesn't stop the Coalition you suggest being an absolute nightmare from Day 1. The SNP's raison d'etre is independence, they will be sowing discord and rancour in England any chance they get. And Salmond will be in Westminster stirring the pot. Chortling on TV. Getting the English riled.
The Nats also want to wipe out Scottish Labour FOREVER, they are the mortal enemy of Labour in the party's heartland, do you really see this hideous marriage running so smoothly? Right through the Holyrood elections?
Add in Green foolishness, PC petulance, SDLP weirdness, and all of them desperate to milk the English taxpayer?
It is the perfect recipe to make Labour unelectable in large parts of England, forever (they are already unelectable in southern England). Add in Labour's impending demise in Scotland and this "Coalition" could be the last Labour government any of us will witness.
Go for it, Ed.
Ed could be looking at it from another direction. England and Wales has 533 seats. Provided the world economic order is not turned upside down like 2008-2010, steady economic growth without any bravado will get 2.5% - 3% growth. Labour is not looking to eliminate the deficit, only to bring the "current spending" [ net of investment ] down to zero by 2020.
The IFS calculates, this would need, wait for it, "cuts" of £1 billion per year.
There is a large constituency who would like an end to Austerity. It is a powerful force !
Maybe, he has been reading some books on Harold Wilson's first term.
Who knows England could win the World Cup in 2018 ?
Whose Matt Forde and whose Tommy Robinson? Never heard of 'em.
o/t doesn't 100% follow that Con-Lab will produce largest party. Cons could lose 30 to Lab and still be largest after SLAB & LD wipeouts.
The market has gone indeed gone crackers. If you're backing Con most seats and Ed Miliband PM at today's prices you're doing it wrong. Trust me on this !
If it joins with the Tories [ as Clegg wants ], the question arises why did they fight each other over so many seats !
Herding a bunch of mangy, squabbling cats would be easier than keeping that Coalition together. How long would it last before they fell out?
And the long term damage to Labour could be lethal in England.
Go for it, Ed.
I don't think there would be a formal coalition. I know you and others like you think Ed is stupid and all that. But let me tell you , from what I have seen, he is a smart operator and it would be very rare that any bill will be brought to the Commons which would be controversial.
Also, as Nicola has been giving hints, she would not anything to de-rail a Labour government unless it involved matters close to Scotland.
Nicola is smart. She will talk about independence and FFA, but not too eager at the moment to actually want it !
I've said many times that Ed is NOT stupid. He is deluded, in that lefty academic way (inasmuch as he really BELIEVES his socialist nonsense will work) - but he is definitely not stupid.
Indeed I rate him as a more cunning political operator than Cameron. By a distance.
That doesn't stop the Coalition you suggest being an absolute nightmare from Day 1. The SNP's raison d'etre is independence, they will be sowing discord and rancour in England any chance they get. And Salmond will be in Westminster stirring the pot. Chortling on TV. Getting the English riled.
The Nats also want to wipe out Scottish Labour FOREVER, they are the mortal enemy of Labour in the party's heartland, do you really see this hideous marriage running so smoothly? Right through the Holyrood elections?
Add in Green foolishness, PC petulance, SDLP weirdness, and all of them desperate to milk the English taxpayer?
It is the perfect recipe to make Labour unelectable in large parts of England, forever (they are already unelectable in southern England). Add in Labour's impending demise in Scotland and this "Coalition" could be the last Labour government any of us will witness.
Go for it, Ed.
But he leads the Labour Party and they are not very bright
At the moment I have 30 seats down as being Lab gains from Con:
Warwicks N, Hendon, Cardiff N, Sherwood, Broxtowe, Lancaster, Amber Valley, Waveney, Wolv' SW, Carlisle, Stroud, Weaver Vale, Lincoln, Plym' Sutton & Devonport, Dewsbury, Warrington S, Bedford, Brighton Kemptown, Brentford, Hove, Enfield N, Hastings, Corby (compared to 2010), Nuneaton, Bury N, Erewash, Chester, Wirral W, Cannock Chase, Ealing Central & Acton.
9 Lab gains from LD: Norwich S, Bradford E, Brent C, Man' Withington, Burnley, Redcar, Hornsey & Wood Green, Cardiff C, Bristol W.
If they end up on say 9 seats in Scotland (which is most likely at the moment IMO), that would be a loss of 32 seats and would put them on 265 overall, up 7 on 2010.
What about Morecambe and Blackpool N - are you expecting the Conservatives to do well in grotty Lancashire seaside resorts ?
Otherwise a very reasonable prediction and one which will make a mess in parliament and a likely second election within a year.
The latest Ashcroft poll from Blackpool North showed the Tories 5% ahead:
Whose Matt Forde and whose Tommy Robinson? Never heard of 'em.
o/t doesn't 100% follow that Con-Lab will produce largest party. Cons could lose 30 to Lab and still be largest after SLAB & LD wipeouts.
The market has gone indeed gone crackers. If you're backing Con most seats and Ed Miliband PM at today's prices you're doing it wrong. Trust me on this !
If it joins with the Tories [ as Clegg wants ], the question arises why did they fight each other over so many seats !
Herding a bunch of mangy, squabbling cats would be easier than keeping that Coalition together. How long would it last before they fell out?
And the long term damage to Labour could be lethal in England.
Go for it, Ed.
I don't think there would be a formal coalition. I know you and others like you think Ed is stupid and all that. But let me tell you , from what I have seen, he is a smart operator and it would be very rare that any bill will be brought to the Commons which would be controversial.
Also, as Nicola has been giving hints, she would not anything to de-rail a Labour government unless it involved matters close to Scotland.
Nicola is smart. She will talk about independence and FFA, but not too eager at the moment to actually want it !
I've said many times that Ed is NOT stupid. He is deluded, in that lefty academic way (inasmuch as he really BELIEVES his socialist nonsense will work) - but he is definitely not stupid.
Indeed I rate him as a more cunning political operator than Cameron. By a distance.
That doesn't stop the Coalition you suggest being an absolute nightmare from Day 1. The SNP's raison d'etre is independence, they will be sowing discord and rancour in England any chance they get. And Salmond will be in Westminster stirring the pot. Chortling on TV. Getting the English riled.
The Nats also want to wipe out Scottish Labour FOREVER, they are the mortal enemy of Labour in the party's heartland, do you really see this hideous marriage running so smoothly? Right through the Holyrood elections?
Add in Green foolishness, PC petulance, SDLP weirdness, and all of them desperate to milk the English taxpayer?
It is the perfect recipe to make Labour unelectable in large parts of England, forever (they are already unelectable in southern England). Add in Labour's impending demise in Scotland and this "Coalition" could be the last Labour government any of us will witness.
Go for it, Ed.
The fish rots from the head down. Labour's Scottish malaise bodes well for an imminent terminal event.
Comments
Warwicks N, Hendon, Cardiff N, Sherwood, Broxtowe, Lancaster, Amber Valley, Waveney, Wolv' SW, Carlisle, Stroud, Weaver Vale, Lincoln, Plym' Sutton & Devonport, Dewsbury, Warrington S, Bedford, Brighton Kemptown, Brentford, Hove, Enfield N, Hastings, Corby (compared to 2010), Nuneaton, Bury N, Erewash, Chester, Wirral W, Cannock Chase, Ealing Central & Acton.
9 Lab gains from LD: Norwich S, Bradford E, Brent C, Man' Withington, Burnley, Redcar, Hornsey & Wood Green, Cardiff C, Bristol W.
If they end up on say 9 seats in Scotland (which is most likely at the moment IMO), that would be a loss of 32 seats and would put them on 265 overall, up 7 on 2010.
'Remember Elizabeth Shepherd, the 'poster girl' for Red Ed's push for apprenticeships? Nor do Labour - seven months later, they still haven't got in touch with her '
Any news about Gavin ,senior in IT, who Ed met walking in the park?
They do need a reality check. At the moment the inexorable journey to a one-party state seems like a breeze, but at some point there's going to be an almighty fight about something, since trying to run a democracy within a party rather than between parties is doomed, DOOMED I tell ya!
Tentacle Sixteen @latentexistence 18h18 hours ago
Letter to Telegraph from 5,000 small businesses in support of Tories is a fraudulent work of fiction. sturdyblog - https://sturdyblog.wordpress.com/2015/04/27/small-business-letter-to-the-telegraph-an-attempt-to-defraud-the-electorate/ …
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/530051168790413313
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32504766
He would have no confidence in some of his rowdier backbenchers to pass anything else after losing that vote!
Our latest funding round has just completed. Tidying up a few odds and sods as we come towards the end of this financial year, so only gave away £90K this time. Next round opening shortly with decision to be made in September.
Charities we funded this meeting are all great causes. As always, we focus on small, local organisations with excellent leadership and a clear strategic vision to help them implement transformational change. Always worth supporting if people feel so inclined...
* Enabled Works Ltd (www.enabledworks.co.uk) - set up as a not-for profit co-op following closure of Leeds/Pontefract Remploy facilities. @TSE one of the services they provide is pallet storage - might be useful for your shoe collection...
* London Reclaimed (www.londonreclaimed.co.uk) Youth employment, training and skills development in Peckham
* NEBT (www.nebt.co.uk) Providing opportunities for skilled young dancers to develop their careers
* Purple Patch Arts (www.purplepatcharts.org) Improving life chances for people in Yorkshire with learning disabilities
Majorca is Spanish
Those left behind in the northern regional branch office will soon feel a bit left out.
http://order-order.com/2015/04/28/1992-deja-vu-tories-behind-in-the-polls-labour-bookies-favourites
He can then walk away blaming infighting at a time of his choosing..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y15NnGZIBuM
It says everything about her campaign, however, that it was on the walls of Cannock's funeral parlour...
I don't think that its bad for Ed. Any celeb endorsement is likely doing more good than bad, which is why parties go for it. I just don't think it's an election-winning move. It'll be positive for Ed but only negligibly in the grand scheme of things if at all. It won't be "Brand wot won it".
i) be granted a second dissolution (that prerogative has gone anyway), or
ii) be granted an immediate second chance to put a majority together
which leaves the Leader of the Opposition to be called as PM.
Re advice: It is my understanding that the PM is not obliged to give any, and if given, the Sovereign is not obliged to take it.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/04/28/14/281927C300000578-3058934-image-a-30_1430228866506.jpg
Ed Ed, the BBQ's up to temperature now. Do you want a sausage or a burger?
Well hell yeah I'm tough enough to eat a burger, but only if I am standing behind my lectern while doing so.
Come on Ed, come and sit with us on the decking.
I would, but I don't think there is room for my lectern...
Otherwise a very reasonable prediction and one which will make a mess in parliament and a likely second election within a year.
"As I’ve been arguing for days the Lib Dem spreads are a pretty good bet. The latest level from Sporting Index is 85-88 seats. The risk with spread betting is the down-side and it’s hard to see them getting fewer than 70 seats, and most likely a lot more than that."
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2010/04/25/lib-dems-back-in-the-30s-in-the-daily-poll/
It's one of the things that makes a nonsense of the claim that it's the middle class that Miliband is struggling with, when the polls show him winning Wirral West and Bristol West at the same time as losing the likes of Blackpool and Thurrock.
The sovereign isn't obliged to take advice but it'd take a tremendous amount to ignore it. The Queen will not let herself be in the position of actually making the decision herself, either the PM will offer advice or a civil servant or someone else in a position to do so will - it would never be the Queen herself.
Your second option is conceivable.
If in 2010 Labour had made a deal with the LDs but they demanded Brown's resignation as a price (with deputy Harriet acting leader pending a leadership election) then Brown could have resigned and recommended Harriet to form a government.
In practice, an outgoing PM will at least officially advise the sovereign of his successor - Thatcher to Major, Major to Blair, Blair to that idiot, and Brown to Cameron. This is simply because they are best placed to know who can command the support of the Commons - even when it is obvious.
Also, as Nicola has been giving hints, she would not anything to de-rail a Labour government unless it involved matters close to Scotland.
The reason is obvious. Part of her present strength in Scotland is because the SNP has persuaded the Scottish "Labour" supporters that she will keep the Tories out. So unless a red line legislation comes up, why would the SNP vote against a minority Labour government ?
Trident ? Simple. Don't take any decision for 2/3 years. The Tory / LD coalition managed to do so for 5 years !
Nicola is smart. She will talk about independence and FFA, but not too eager at the moment to actually want it !
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/04/blackpool-north-cleveleys/
Morecambe is a similar seat to Blackpool North. The Tories were ahead in the local elections there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorca
That would set them up for life even if someone discovered the Philosopher's Stone.
It will be close ,but I think the Cons will hold.
I think this is pure bullshit. Clegg would never join a coalition with Labour. The Orange Bookers who were in the ascendency at that time also was with him. Luckily, they will be wiped out this time.
I'm amazed they ever get any full responses my interview lasted over half an hour!
He couldn't pass it under the current coalition and it will be the first red line in any post-election negotiations.
He'll resign if he can't get it through, or face a whole pile of defections to UKIP.
Its only anecdotal, but it is the truth and is as I state it.
Baldwin offered no advice in 1924, the time above all, according to your thesis, that advice was most needed.
Btw, Harman had no automatic right to become PM in 2010. The Labour Rules state the Cabinet in consultation with the NEC would choose someone. In any case such a constitutional nightmare wasn't contemplated. The scarcely-less whacky idea was that Brown would hold the ring until Parliament met, then go shortly (months) afterwards. If he'd lost that first vote, there was no way Labour would get a second chance under a different leader, and Cammo would have been called.
Surely they should be available soon for at least some constituencies?
The IFS calculates, this would need, wait for it, "cuts" of £1 billion per year.
There is a large constituency who would like an end to Austerity. It is a powerful force !
Maybe, he has been reading some books on Harold Wilson's first term.
Who knows England could win the World Cup in 2018 ?
Russell Brand?
Strewth.
Who next - Piers Morgan and then David Icke?