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.
Anybody who has worked in academia will have met many an "Ed". They most certainly aren't stupid, but there is a good reason why they are hidden away in academia (and enjoy it there too), rather than top of business or making crucial decision on a daily basis,
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.
Phrased a little strongly, but I think in essence what you say is right.
He said something like "I've been fighting all my life against Tories" recently, and that's part of his make-up. He has this huge inheritance of a socialist ideal. It's not really his thinking, but he's happy to go along with it, and unexpectedly finds himself front and centre. I suspect that he's entirely unconvinced about most of Labour policy, and that he's just happy to ride the wave. In saying that I'm not suggesting he's disingenuous, but merely that he takes a long time to decide. If I'm right then he's not the man to lead anything.
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.
Harold Wilson, who might be expected to know something of the subject, being elected 4 times, and resigning twice, has written:-
"Contrary to widespread belief, there is no duty on the Prime Minister, still less any inherent right, to recommend the man to be sent for..." [The Governance of Britain, 1976]
Still, he did recommend the Queen send for Callaghan in 1976.
No doubt about it, the trend is with the Tories. Whether it's enough for Cameron to remain PM is questionable but time will tell as ever...
The Labour campaign has been mediocre in my opinion (yes, the Tory campaign has been equally poor but they are the governing party and the onus is always on the opposition). Labour first checkmated themselves with this anti-austerity push trying to out-do the Tories - what madness! Some of their policy announcements have been welcome but there is very little joined-up thinking. They have had 5 years to come up with a compelling and coherent social democratic alternative and they have failed at that.
The tragedy is that this country and especially the most vulnerable in our society can do some much better without the current Tory/Tory Lite Government - the opportunity was there but it seems like Labour will fail to take it.
I am not being defeatist, just pragmatic. I really hope (and hope is now operative word) that Labour can form a strong Government after the GE. If Ed falls 20 seats short of the Tories he should not try to form a Government - let the Tories and their allies govern. Meanwhile Labour can spend the time to truly articulate a more attractive, passionate and inspiring social democratic alternative in the pursuit of winning the next GE.
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.
Harold Wilson, who might be expected to know something of the subject, being elected 4 times, and resigning twice, has written:-
"Contrary to widespread belief, there is no duty on the Prime Minister, still less any inherent right, to recommend the man to be sent for..." [The Governance of Britain, 1976]
Still, he did recommend the Queen send for Callaghan in 1976.
Cameron 'your majesty, I humbly suggest you send for Wayne Rooney. No matter how shite he is he appears to have the confidence of England at the very least'
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.
1924 wasn't under Her Majesty and was pre-war. It was under George V who was willing to threaten to create new Lords unless the Lords relented into passage of the Parliament Act just 13 years earlier. The monarchy has become much more detached and impartial in the past century. Her Majesty would not let herself be in a position to make a choice unilaterally.
As for my scenario, I never said that Harman had an automatic right. I said that if the Lib Dems had negotiated a deal but insisted as part of that they were willing to work with Harman as acting leader until a permanent leader was selected. In those circumstances I'm sure the Cabinet (and NEC) could find a way to unanimously accept Harman as acting leader, in the same way the Tories managed to find a way to get Howard to take over without a vote.
I've just been asked by YouGov which I would prefer to see: Ed interviewed by Russell Brand or Dave interviewed by Russell Brand. The only other option was "Don't Know". I would have voted for "Neither".
JOKE ALERT Nick Clegg wants to be "the heart" in a coalition with the conservatives or "the brain" in a coalition with labour. In fact, Labour and the Conservatives are much of the same, like two cheeks of the same bossom - with the LibDems squarely in the middle.
I doubt the LibDems will get 24 seats- my mones is on them getting less than 20. The problem is that the average voter just can't see what they stand for besides getting in bed with the most promising bidder.
I've looked at the internals of the polls for the past month and the one polling company that strikes me as the most convincing is YouGov. I suspect that their prediction may be the most accurate although you never know whether the people that report that they will vote will actually do so - that remains the big unknown.
Comments
Will enough Keighley kippers break for Dave ?
58 Tory seats in Scotland would be a brown trouser day mind
He said something like "I've been fighting all my life against Tories" recently, and that's part of his make-up. He has this huge inheritance of a socialist ideal. It's not really his thinking, but he's happy to go along with it, and unexpectedly finds himself front and centre. I suspect that he's entirely unconvinced about most of Labour policy, and that he's just happy to ride the wave. In saying that I'm not suggesting he's disingenuous, but merely that he takes a long time to decide. If I'm right then he's not the man to lead anything.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11542031/Tactical-voting-in-the-2015-general-election-how-to-stop-Ed-Miliband-winning.html
The Telegraph's Tactical Voting guide doesn't seem to do what it claims.
"Contrary to widespread belief, there is no duty on the Prime Minister, still less any inherent right, to recommend the man to be sent for..." [The Governance of Britain, 1976]
Still, he did recommend the Queen send for Callaghan in 1976.
The Brand bounce
The Labour campaign has been mediocre in my opinion (yes, the Tory campaign has been equally poor but they are the governing party and the onus is always on the opposition). Labour first checkmated themselves with this anti-austerity push trying to out-do the Tories - what madness! Some of their policy announcements have been welcome but there is very little joined-up thinking. They have had 5 years to come up with a compelling and coherent social democratic alternative and they have failed at that.
The tragedy is that this country and especially the most vulnerable in our society can do some much better without the current Tory/Tory Lite Government - the opportunity was there but it seems like Labour will fail to take it.
I am not being defeatist, just pragmatic. I really hope (and hope is now operative word) that Labour can form a strong Government after the GE. If Ed falls 20 seats short of the Tories he should not try to form a Government - let the Tories and their allies govern. Meanwhile Labour can spend the time to truly articulate a more attractive, passionate and inspiring social democratic alternative in the pursuit of winning the next GE.
How can they be contacted to correct this?
As for my scenario, I never said that Harman had an automatic right. I said that if the Lib Dems had negotiated a deal but insisted as part of that they were willing to work with Harman as acting leader until a permanent leader was selected. In those circumstances I'm sure the Cabinet (and NEC) could find a way to unanimously accept Harman as acting leader, in the same way the Tories managed to find a way to get Howard to take over without a vote.