Thus I read this poll as indicating the Conservatives are actually significantly ahead.
It surely has to be a worry that for the Tories to win such reading is necessary though
I think the most worrying prospect for the Tories now is if they do worse in the marginals than elsewhere, and Lab get a majority in England and Wales. I think the Tories will manage to avoid that, but it's not certain. That being the case, and the with the SNP supporting, temporarily, Ed M as PM, and the change of a Tory government are hard to spot. It's fascinating to me that either I could be so wrong, or other people, some of whom I know are a lot brighter than I am, could be so wrong, neither of which possibilities is very encouraging for me.
It does not matter if Clegg wins or not. What remains of the Party will ensure that he is not part of the decision process going forward
A more interesting process if he wins his seat though. Makes the setting him aside something that actually have to sack up and do, not just the electorate removing that obstacle.
Conversely, if the Lib Dems are decapitated, how will they make decisions in the wake of an election in a hung Parliament?
It does not matter if Clegg wins or not. What remains of the Party will ensure that he is not part of the decision process going forward
A more interesting process if he wins his seat though. Makes the setting him aside something that actually have to sack up and do, not just the electorate removing that obstacle.
Conversely, if the Lib Dems are decapitated, how will they make decisions in the wake of an election in a hung Parliament?
Mike said, the MPs elects an interim/deputy leader to deal with things whilst the new leader is elected.
If the Lib Dem poll ratings have been right this term then the 'orange' Tory vote is just too small and not sustainable for the party in the long term. They're relying strongly on incumbency to get them through this time.
Rod is not stupid. The Conservatives will gain 20 odd seats from the LibDems, and probably won't lose any in Scotland. That makes a majority eminently achievable.
It does not matter if Clegg wins or not. What remains of the Party will ensure that he is not part of the decision process going forward
A more interesting process if he wins his seat though. Makes the setting him aside something that actually have to sack up and do, not just the electorate removing that obstacle.
Conversely, if the Lib Dems are decapitated, how will they make decisions in the wake of an election in a hung Parliament?
Mike said, the MPs elects an interim/deputy leader to deal with things whilst the new leader is elected.
Interesting "who" question there. Presumably not one of the runners and riders in the actual election, or that would give them an unfair advantage. Vince Cable?
Thus I read this poll as indicating the Conservatives are actually significantly ahead.
It surely has to be a worry that for the Tories to win such reading is necessary though
I think the most worrying prospect for the Tories now is if they do worse in the marginals than elsewhere, and Lab get a majority in England and Wales. I think the Tories will manage to avoid that, but it's not certain. That being the case, and the with the SNP supporting, temporarily, Ed M as PM, and the change of a Tory government are hard to spot. It's fascinating to me that either I could be so wrong, or other people, some of whom I know are a lot brighter than I am, could be so wrong, neither of which possibilities is very encouraging for me.
Yes ! This really is the Election where we, as individuals, have to face the fact that we are either geniuses or idiots !!
My heart says I am a genius-my head says I am an arse!!
It does not matter if Clegg wins or not. What remains of the Party will ensure that he is not part of the decision process going forward
Good old Liberal Democrats... 'We're not Labour, we're not Tories, we're not Nationalist... we're not Russell Brand. We're not interested. We're irrelevant.'
I will be emotionally devastated by the end of the union but I am resigned to that. But it doesn't matter whether I would prefer Con break away or not - I merely laid out why I cannot see it happening if it has not already. I don't think an SNP-Lab alliance necessarily need be as destructive as the worst case scenarios put it, though with the sides needing to fight hard at HolyRood very soon it does not encourage a peaceful arrangement to say the least. And that is more pressing. With the SNP winning a landslide the union is already dead - I cannot see them making the mistakes of PQ in Canada - so its about management of the nation in other ways now. I don't think Ed M would be a disastrous PM, I think his hands will be too constrained to be one, but though I am one of those oddballs who did agree with the austerity agenda and was angry the Tories failed in their plan for it, so I do have some trepidation about throwing caution to the wind.
I read this sometimes. But I don't get it.
Why would you be devastated by the end of the Union? Were you devastated by Partition (either)? Were you devastated by the "loss" of Rhodesia? I don't get it.
England is England with English people. Be happy to be English. Stop expecting and requiring other nations to prop up your importance in the world. Be happy with what and who you are, stop requiring Scotland to prop you up.
Rod is not stupid. The Conservatives will gain 20 odd seats from the LibDems, and probably won't lose any in Scotland. That makes a majority eminently achievable.
surely that implies that labour would have to make nearly zero gains from cons??
It does not matter if Clegg wins or not. What remains of the Party will ensure that he is not part of the decision process going forward
A more interesting process if he wins his seat though. Makes the setting him aside something that actually have to sack up and do, not just the electorate removing that obstacle.
Conversely, if the Lib Dems are decapitated, how will they make decisions in the wake of an election in a hung Parliament?
Mike said, the MPs elects an interim/deputy leader to deal with things whilst the new leader is elected.
i would have thought he remained party leader even outside the Commons. After all he is party leader at the moment and isn't an MP. Or do the rules say he has to be an MP for some reason? Is the party leader and the leader of the LibDems in parliament the same thing? Or is it two seperate posts currently held by the same person?
Sorry folks but this ComRes poll is an outlier. Conservatives more votes in Scotland than Labour? Maybe but rather unlikely. The whopper though is on page 15. 30% of the sample think of themselves as Labour while only 23% think of themselves as Conservative. By that measure alone, Labour should be 7 points ahead but in fact they're just even indicating that there is a lot of crossover.
It might well be an outlier as it's only one poll. But the pattern of more people thinking of themselves as Labour is traditional - we've seen it in most polls that ask the question for at least a decade, and it's also why more people always say they "like" Labour than the Tories. Labour's classic problem is that general sympathy doesn't always convert into votes.
I hate Labour, and detect no sympathy for it. I don't know where all these "likes" come from.
Facebook?
Hate is a strong word comrade
Don't call me comrade, unless you want a slap. This is Britain, not the 1950s Soviet Union.
Ouchh- you obviously do hate Labour.
I wish I could say the same about the Tories, I don't think I hate any of them. They are people who have a different view of how the world works than I do, and the vast majority of them genuinely believe that they are doing the right thing for the right reasons. I disagree, but I can empathise with their perspective.
It does not matter if Clegg wins or not. What remains of the Party will ensure that he is not part of the decision process going forward
A more interesting process if he wins his seat though. Makes the setting him aside something that actually have to sack up and do, not just the electorate removing that obstacle.
Conversely, if the Lib Dems are decapitated, how will they make decisions in the wake of an election in a hung Parliament?
Gives them a convenient out for not supporting anyone, that. No real national emergency to require it, and no no, we're too busy picking a new leader, which would impact who we would support. See who gets in, then try to reposition as the recipient of protest votes from those groups when government unpopularity hits.
The LD's have lost what they reasonably stood to lose by joining the Tories in 2010, I don't see them losing much more if they stick in government if they can. Partially because they don't have much more to lose. May as well go out with a bang than a whimper.
I thought they'd lost all they reasonably stood to lose too, but then they continued to decline all through 2014. I think they expected some recovery by now at least. As it is, that won't happen and they cannot reach out to more voters if they continue on with a Tory coalition. If they want to try to regain some votes, they have to choose another option, even if it means passing on a few ministerial cars, they have to think long term. That's my guess at their reasoning anyway.
Sorry folks but this ComRes poll is an outlier. Conservatives more votes in Scotland than Labour? Maybe but rather unlikely. The whopper though is on page 15. 30% of the sample think of themselves as Labour while only 23% think of themselves as Conservative. By that measure alone, Labour should be 7 points ahead but in fact they're just even indicating that there is a lot of crossover.
It might well be an outlier as it's only one poll. But the pattern of more people thinking of themselves as Labour is traditional - we've seen it in most polls that ask the question for at least a decade, and it's also why more people always say they "like" Labour than the Tories. Labour's classic problem is that general sympathy doesn't always convert into votes.
I hate Labour, and detect no sympathy for it. I don't know where all these "likes" come from.
Facebook?
There was a poll highlighted on PB quite recently that asked for people's views on the parties and the leaders. Cameron was viewed more favourably than EM by quite a margin but 50% had a favourable view of the Labour Party whereas the figure for the Conservative Party was about 33% from memory. No doubt, as with all polls favourable to Labour, it was obviously rubbish because the weighting or something must have been was wrong.
I will be emotionally devastated by the end of the union but I am resigned to that. But it doesn't matter whether I would prefer Con break away or not - I merely laid out why I cannot see it happening if it has not already. I don't think an SNP-Lab alliance necessarily need be as destructive as the worst case scenarios put it, though with the sides needing to fight hard at HolyRood very soon it does not encourage a peaceful arrangement to say the least. And that is more pressing. With the SNP winning a landslide the union is already dead - I cannot see them making the mistakes of PQ in Canada - so its about management of the nation in other ways now. I don't think Ed M would be a disastrous PM, I think his hands will be too constrained to be one, but though I am one of those oddballs who did agree with the austerity agenda and was angry the Tories failed in their plan for it, so I do have some trepidation about throwing caution to the wind.
I read this sometimes. But I don't get it.
Why would you be devastated by the end of the Union? Were you devastated by Partition (either)? Were you devastated by the "loss" of Rhodesia? I don't get it.
England is England with English people. Be happy to be English. Stop expecting and requiring other nations to prop up your importance in the world. Be happy with what and who you are, stop requiring Scotland to prop you up.
I will be emotionally devastated by the end of the union but I am resigned to that. But it doesn't matter whether I would prefer Con break away or not - I merely laid out why I cannot see it happening if it has not already. I don't think an SNP-Lab alliance necessarily need be as destructive as the worst case scenarios put it, though with the sides needing to fight hard at HolyRood very soon it does not encourage a peaceful arrangement to say the least. And that is more pressing. With the SNP winning a landslide the union is already dead - I cannot see them making the mistakes of PQ in Canada - so its about management of the nation in other ways now. I don't think Ed M would be a disastrous PM, I think his hands will be too constrained to be one, but though I am one of those oddballs who did agree with the austerity agenda and was angry the Tories failed in their plan for it, so I do have some trepidation about throwing caution to the wind.
I read this sometimes. But I don't get it.
Why would you be devastated by the end of the Union? Were you devastated by Partition (either)? Were you devastated by the "loss" of Rhodesia? I don't get it.
England is England with English people. Be happy to be English. Stop expecting and requiring other nations to prop up your importance in the world. Be happy with what and who you are, stop requiring Scotland to prop you up.
Scotland prop up England.....I can't stop laughing.
Yeah, today the Lib Dems are doing their best to ensure, I don't vote Lib Dem next Thursday.
Crazy - Hallam Cons should vote blue - let him rot.
Cable on an anti Con rant in the Indy too.
I think if you want to torture Clegg you should let him win. Cable should be just be put out of his misery. The Sage of Twickenham is well past his sell by date.
Rod is not stupid. The Conservatives will gain 20 odd seats from the LibDems, and probably won't lose any in Scotland. That makes a majority eminently achievable.
surely that implies that labour would have to make nearly zero gains from cons??
Not likely, I grant. But given a 4% poll lead, not impossible either.
Rod is not stupid. The Conservatives will gain 20 odd seats from the LibDems, and probably won't lose any in Scotland. That makes a majority eminently achievable.
surely that implies that labour would have to make nearly zero gains from cons??
It's eminently possible the Labour vote could collapse between now and polling day.
I will be emotionally devastated by the end of the union but I am resigned to that. But it doesn't matter whether I would prefer Con break away or not - I merely laid out why I cannot see it happening if it has not already. I don't think an SNP-Lab alliance necessarily need be as destructive as the worst case scenarios put it, though with the sides needing to fight hard at HolyRood very soon it does not encourage a peaceful arrangement to say the least. And that is more pressing. With the SNP winning a landslide the union is already dead - I cannot see them making the mistakes of PQ in Canada - so its about management of the nation in other ways now. I don't think Ed M would be a disastrous PM, I think his hands will be too constrained to be one, but though I am one of those oddballs who did agree with the austerity agenda and was angry the Tories failed in their plan for it, so I do have some trepidation about throwing caution to the wind.
I read this sometimes. But I don't get it.
Why would you be devastated by the end of the Union? Were you devastated by Partition (either)? Were you devastated by the "loss" of Rhodesia? I don't get it.
England is England with English people. Be happy to be English. Stop expecting and requiring other nations to prop up your importance in the world. Be happy with what and who you are, stop requiring Scotland to prop you up.
I cannot believe that you can seriously not understand such a thing. My identity is English and British. Many people, even in England, don't feel anything with regards the latter, and I do them the courtesy of not belittling them by suggesting they be happy with what I think they should be. What an incredibly dismissive thing for you to suggest, that my identity is somehow false because you do not share it (and do not pretend you meant any different 'be happy with what and who you are' is a clear instruction that what I think I am, British, is not true)
That has to be one of the most idiotic things I've read on this site - the very fact you form cogent sentences and have made many insightful and intelligent points indicates you cannot be incapable of understanding that people have different concepts of cultural identity, making it a frankly bizarre pretense to the contrary.
I can honestly say that in around 9000 posts on this site (including disqus. Gods, that's a lot of ramblings), I have only lost my cool on perhaps 6-7 occasions, and on all but around 2 occasions it has been at comments like that belittling my views about my own identity as if they are incomprehensible.
The other 2 times were in response to our master provocateur, Mr SeanT.
Those "leaked" £8bn of welfare cuts seem well-thought through and eminently sensible to me.
Absolutely. Considering its policy to find £12bn of cuts, that would reduce the cuts needed to be found to just £4bn. Looks good to me.
Me too. I have never understood why you get the same amount of child benefit and CTCs for each successive child, at the very least there should be a taper.
Child benefit was originally a non-refundable child tax allowance.
Rod is not stupid. The Conservatives will gain 20 odd seats from the LibDems, and probably won't lose any in Scotland. That makes a majority eminently achievable.
surely that implies that labour would have to make nearly zero gains from cons??
It's eminently possible the Labour vote could collapse between now and polling day.
Reading BTL in the Guardian's obituary of Keith Harris, wondering whether he would meet the official Guardianista seal of approval, I found this gem of a comment:
"Few if any know that Harris was a late convert to the socialist cause. He and Orville starred in the SWP annual panto at Coventry at Christmas 2009 and he and Orville also performed at Rize and Sebastopol in the Black Sea at the CPRF festivals there. RIP a great entertainer who saw the light before it was too late."
That is either one of the greatest pieces of internet trolling I have seen (in rather poor taste, but such is the way of trolls) or the world is an even weirder place than I'd given it due credit for. The mental image of octogenarian Russian communists watching a fame-faded British ventriloquist is hard to escape.
I thought they'd lost all they reasonably stood to lose too, but then they continued to decline all through 2014. I think they expected some recovery by now at least. As it is, that won't happen and they cannot reach out to more voters if they continue on with a Tory coalition. If they want to try to regain some votes, they have to choose another option, even if it means passing on a few ministerial cars, they have to think long term. That's my guess at their reasoning anyway.
What's the point of being in politics if not to take the power to put in your policies when you get the opportunity. Do the Lib Dem rump MPs want an opportunity to put some more LD policies into action or do they want to moan from the sidelines in the vain hope that something better may possibly come along?
"This is the worst result for the Tories from the firm since the Daily Mail began its GE 2015 polling with ComRes nearly two months ago."
For completeness, it's also the equal worst-ever Lib Dem score on a ComRes phone poll, matching that of 29/6/2014.
The 35% is also within a point of the Tories' best score with ComRes since 2012.
'Completeness'?? You can tell Mr Smithson learned his trade with the LDs. And to think the PB Purist are always criticising politicians!
I'll be glad when this election is over and everyone's heads have finally exploded. I will totally switch off, perhaps emigrate, if there is another election this year. Its all too much.
Ed is best priced 4/6 to be pm. Seems about right. But given that, 7/4 on lab minority seems too big. The only coalition partner that is likely give him a majority is the snp and thats been ruled out. Lab/lib dem wont have the numbers so why bother. Just to be bigger than Tories? Alternatively Lab might let Tories try a minority government and wait for the right moment to bring it down. Tory minority best price 5/1.
Child benefit decreases after the first child so there is a taper of sorts.
Reducing the first child payment is surely a non starter - taking £360 a year from almost every family in Brtiain. Would wipe out the personal allowance increase at a stroke.
MBE I think it was probably fair to say Keith Harris was a Tory in the 80s when he was making his millions, he even had a signed thankyou from Pincess Diana after performing at William's 3rd birthday party, great entertainer though regardless of how his views evolved
Farage's speech at the EU parliament has received good coverage with all of the broadcasters. What he discussed would have resonated well with a significant number of voters.
Maybe he should have stayed at home and only be mentioned in passing.
Child benefit decreases after the first child so there is a taper of sorts.
Reducing the first child payment is surely a non starter - taking £360 a year from almost every family in Brtiain. Would wipe out the personal allowance increase at a stroke.
Freeze it.
Reduce the upper taxable limit for new births one year hence.
I will be emotionally devastated by the end of the union but I am resigned to that. But it doesn't matter whether I would prefer Con break away or not - I merely laid out why I cannot see it happening if it has not already. I don't think an SNP-Lab alliance necessarily need be as destructive as the worst case scenarios put it, though with the sides needing to fight hard at HolyRood very soon it does not encourage a peaceful arrangement to say the least. And that is more pressing. With the SNP winning a landslide the union is already dead - I cannot see them making the mistakes of PQ in Canada - so its about management of the nation in other ways now. I don't think Ed M would be a disastrous PM, I think his hands will be too constrained to be one, but though I am one of those oddballs who did agree with the austerity agenda and was angry the Tories failed in their plan for it, so I do have some trepidation about throwing caution to the wind.
I read this sometimes. But I don't get it.
Why would you be devastated by the end of the Union? Were you devastated by Partition (either)? Were you devastated by the "loss" of Rhodesia? I don't get it.
England is England with English people. Be happy to be English. Stop expecting and requiring other nations to prop up your importance in the world. Be happy with what and who you are, stop requiring Scotland to prop you up.
Guess it depends on whether you see yourself as British first and then English, or English first and then British.
I'm in the latter camp, and am entirely relaxed with the idea of an independent England, or at least Scotland going its own way. The status quo is untenable, but some are in denial and think it will all go away eventually.
I'm not surprised at that at all - just because Clegg wants a Con/Lib coalition, doesn't mean it'll go through. He needs the support of his party, and given their brand has been so damaged in the last five years, they'll be very cautious of a second coalition.
Yes indeed. I can just about believe Clegg would genuinely want to go into coalition again, that he shares the view that if the LD numbers together with Con is enough for a majority, they have to take it. Power first and all that. But as bruised and battered as they are and will be, I cannot see the remainder of the party thinking the continued cost worth what little power they would have. That doesn't mean the party has no point, as some claim, but it is a reasonable assessment that the price of further coalition is not worth the cost to the party or country (parties often conflating the two of course). Half of LD voters jumped ship immediately in 2010, but they've gone down even further since then, particularly in the last year, and that says to me those who had stuck with them in 2010-13 did not think the cost was worth what they were getting out of it. And the parties MPs seem unlikely to think different I suspect, at the prospect of doing that again.
The danger for the LDs, is that their brand is further damaged by another coalition. Arguably, they need a fresh start after the election, and that includes ditching Clegg. I think, quite unfairly he's come to represent something of an anti-christ for many people for doing what nearly all politicians do (break promises), and his association with the LDs will only continue to make them more and more toxic. I also think that the Orange-Booker strategy of focusing on 'soft Tories' won't work - these people will always come back to the Conservatives I feel, and that the LDs best bet it to try and be a centre-left party. Moreover, the arithmetic doesn't favour a Con-Lib coalition surviving for 5 years in the way it did in 2010.
I thought they'd lost all they reasonably stood to lose too, but then they continued to decline all through 2014. I think they expected some recovery by now at least. As it is, that won't happen and they cannot reach out to more voters if they continue on with a Tory coalition. If they want to try to regain some votes, they have to choose another option, even if it means passing on a few ministerial cars, they have to think long term. That's my guess at their reasoning anyway.
What's the point of being in politics if not to take the power to put in your policies when you get the opportunity. Do the Lib Dem rump MPs want an opportunity to put some more LD policies into action or do they want to moan from the sidelines in the vain hope that something better may possibly come along?
It's a cost vs benefit calculation. I don't see that it is unreasonable to turn down the power to put some policies into action if you feel that the benefits of those policies will not outweigh the cost of implementing other policies. The LDs with their pitch to the centre make the argument that it can be worth it, but that does not mean they must automatically grab the chance if they don't think they can get a good deal with that chance. Something better may well come along, as you put it. Reasonable people may call that a mistake, and it might be proven to be, but my point is that it is not automatically a mistake, nor have their lost their 'point' or resigned themselves to 'never' having power just because they might not wish to enter into an arrangement at this time.
Off topic, on Sporting Index's "Scottish Regional Markets", Labour are now priced at 5.5-7.5.
If you had told me that at the end of September, I'd have gawped at you.
Lol
Yeah, Spreadex kindly offered me the opportunity to lay the SNP in North & Leith @ 1.3. When I took the bet a few days ago, the odds looked very decent - tonight, I'm not so sure...
I will be emotionally devastated by the end of the union but I am resigned to that. But it doesn't matter whether I would prefer Con break away or not - I merely laid out why I cannot see it happening if it has not already. I don't think an SNP-Lab alliance necessarily need be as destructive as the worst case scenarios put it, though with the sides needing to fight hard at HolyRood very soon it does not encourage a peaceful arrangement to say the least. And that is more pressing. With the SNP winning a landslide the union is already dead - I cannot see them making the mistakes of PQ in Canada - so its about management of the nation in other ways now. I don't think Ed M would be a disastrous PM, I think his hands will be too constrained to be one, but though I am one of those oddballs who did agree with the austerity agenda and was angry the Tories failed in their plan for it, so I do have some trepidation about throwing caution to the wind.
I read this sometimes. But I don't get it.
Why would you be devastated by the end of the Union? Were you devastated by Partition (either)? Were you devastated by the "loss" of Rhodesia? I don't get it.
England is England with English people. Be happy to be English. Stop expecting and requiring other nations to prop up your importance in the world. Be happy with what and who you are, stop requiring Scotland to prop you up.
Guess it depends on whether you see yourself as British first and then English, or English first and then British.
I'm in the latter camp, and am entirely relaxed with the idea of an independent England, or at least Scotland going its own way. The status quo is untenable, but some are in denial and think it will all go away eventually.
I'm not in denial - I thought Yes would win last year, and I'm certain they'll win the next one - I'm just sad about it, though I know that after some initial bitterness we will go our own ways, be close friendly nations and do well together.
"This is the worst result for the Tories from the firm since the Daily Mail began its GE 2015 polling with ComRes nearly two months ago."
For completeness, it's also the equal worst-ever Lib Dem score on a ComRes phone poll, matching that of 29/6/2014.
The 35% is also within a point of the Tories' best score with ComRes since 2012.
'Completeness'?? You can tell Mr Smithson learned his trade with the LDs. And to think the PB Purist are always criticising politicians!
I'll be glad when this election is over and everyone's heads have finally exploded. I will totally switch off, perhaps emigrate, if there is another election this year. Its all too much.
This election has been too fluffing long. A three week campaign and basta. It seems to have lasted a lifetime. It has seen my posts go from three to nearly five hundred- that is getting on for a 100 a week.
MBE I think it was probably fair to say Keith Harris was a Tory in the 80s when he was making his millions, he even had a signed thankyou from Pincess Diana after performing at William's 3rd birthday party, great entertainer though regardless of how his views evolved
Trying to interpolate Keith Harris's political leanings from the lyrics of Orville songs, well, that way madness lies, but I did find that post intriguing. Standing on the threshold of obviously absurd, but not so unbelievable as to be definitively ruled out, it is quite possibly a masterpiece of trolldom. Though beneath an obituary is not the decent place for it.
Perhaps you've just got to be desperately short of work to resort to the Communist Panto tour.
Apparently the poor sod never read his contracts (due to dyslexia) and so didn't get to enjoy the considerable fruits of his labours, which is a proper shame.
Dair It was the Scots who asked to join the Union in the 18th century, following the imposition of a Scottish king on the English throne and it is the Scots who are the only Home Nation ever to have endorsed the Union in last September's referendum. The English have never had a say on the Union one way or the other
I will be emotionally devastated by the end of the union but I am resigned to that. But it doesn't matter whether I would prefer Con break away or not - I merely laid out why I cannot see it happening if it has not already. I don't think an SNP-Lab alliance necessarily need be as destructive as the worst case scenarios put it, though with the sides needing to fight hard at HolyRood very soon it does not encourage a peaceful arrangement to say the least. And that is more pressing. With the SNP winning a landslide the union is already dead - I cannot see them making the mistakes of PQ in Canada - so its about management of the nation in other ways now. I don't think Ed M would be a disastrous PM, I think his hands will be too constrained to be one, but though I am one of those oddballs who did agree with the austerity agenda and was angry the Tories failed in their plan for it, so I do have some trepidation about throwing caution to the wind.
I read this sometimes. But I don't get it.
Why would you be devastated by the end of the Union? Were you devastated by Partition (either)? Were you devastated by the "loss" of Rhodesia? I don't get it.
England is England with English people. Be happy to be English. Stop expecting and requiring other nations to prop up your importance in the world. Be happy with what and who you are, stop requiring Scotland to prop you up.
Would you be upset if Scotland split in two?
Scotland is a coherent state, it's not a Union of constituent countries. I can't imagine any part of Scotland seeking to remove itself from the nation. It's a very strange question.
If some part wanted to break off, and people voted for it, sure. Not a problem, it;s individuals choice. You can make up nonsense about the Northern Isle or Borders leaving Scotland but it will still be utter nonsense, no-one will vote for it.
I thought they'd lost all they reasonably stood to lose too, but then they continued to decline all through 2014. I think they expected some recovery by now at least. As it is, that won't happen and they cannot reach out to more voters if they continue on with a Tory coalition. If they want to try to regain some votes, they have to choose another option, even if it means passing on a few ministerial cars, they have to think long term. That's my guess at their reasoning anyway.
What's the point of being in politics if not to take the power to put in your policies when you get the opportunity. Do the Lib Dem rump MPs want an opportunity to put some more LD policies into action or do they want to moan from the sidelines in the vain hope that something better may possibly come along?
It's a cost vs benefit calculation. I don't see that it is unreasonable to turn down the power to put some policies into action if you feel that the benefits of those policies will not outweigh the cost of implementing other policies. The LDs with their pitch to the centre make the argument that it can be worth it, but that does not mean they must automatically grab the chance if they don't think they can get a good deal with that chance. Something better may well come along, as you put it. Reasonable people may call that a mistake, and it might be proven to be, but my point is that it is not automatically a mistake, nor have their lost their 'point' or resigned themselves to 'never' having power just because they might not wish to enter into an arrangement at this time.
Barring WWII (where there was a national government not due to numbers) it was nearly a century between when the Liberals were last in government and getting into government in 2010. If they get an opportunity and turn it down it wouldn't surprise me if the Liberals never get another shot this century (if ever).
If the Liberals lose many hundreds of deposits on Thursday then voluntarily going into opposition is not going to reverse that collapse.
They've lost the mantle of the party of the protest vote and they're not getting it back, the Greens and UKIP have that now. If they won't even be a serious centre party then what is the point of them?
I will be emotionally devastated by the end of the union but I am resigned to that. But it doesn't matter whether I would prefer Con break away or not - I merely laid out why I cannot see it happening if it has not already. I don't think an SNP-Lab alliance necessarily need be as destructive as the worst case scenarios put it, though with the sides needing to fight hard at HolyRood very soon it does not encourage a peaceful arrangement to say the least. And that is more pressing. With the SNP winning a landslide the union is already dead - I cannot see them making the mistakes of PQ in Canada - so its about management of the nation in other ways now. I don't think Ed M would be a disastrous PM, I think his hands will be too constrained to be one, but though I am one of those oddballs who did agree with the austerity agenda and was angry the Tories failed in their plan for it, so I do have some trepidation about throwing caution to the wind.
I read this sometimes. But I don't get it.
Why would you be devastated by the end of the Union? Were you devastated by Partition (either)? Were you devastated by the "loss" of Rhodesia? I don't get it.
England is England with English people. Be happy to be English. Stop expecting and requiring other nations to prop up your importance in the world. Be happy with what and who you are, stop requiring Scotland to prop you up.
Guess it depends on whether you see yourself as British first and then English, or English first and then British.
I'm in the latter camp, and am entirely relaxed with the idea of an independent England, or at least Scotland going its own way. The status quo is untenable, but some are in denial and think it will all go away eventually.
I'm not in denial - I thought Yes would win last year, and I'm certain they'll win the next one - I'm just sad about it, though I know that after some initial bitterness we will go our own ways, be close friendly nations and do well together.
I wasn't referring to you in particular kle4, I meant people in general. There has been, is, and will continue to be a lot of fudging in word and deed on this issue. The simple fact is: Scottish independence is inevitable.
Dair It was the Scots who asked to join the Union in the 18th century, following the imposition of a Scottish king on the English throne and it is the Scots who are the only Home Nation ever to have endorsed the Union in last September's referendum. The English have never had a say on the Union one way or the other
We didn't actually ask to join the Union in the 18th Century. Perhaps you should ask for a say, we wont stop you.
The Aplocalypse If you want a left of Labour party you will now vote Green or SNP not LD. If you want a right of Tory Party you will vote UKIP, the LDs best bet is to try and be a centrist party like Francois Bayrou's MoDem Party in France
I will be emotionally devastated by the end of the union but I am resigned to that. But it doesn't matter whether I would prefer Con break away or not - I merely laid out why I cannot see it happening if it has not already. I don't think an SNP-Lab alliance necessarily need be as destructive as the worst case scenarios put it, though with the sides needing to fight hard at HolyRood very soon it does not encourage a peaceful arrangement to say the least. And that is more pressing. With the SNP winning a landslide the union is already dead - I cannot see them making the mistakes of PQ in Canada - so its about management of the nation in other ways now. I don't think Ed M would be a disastrous PM, I think his hands will be too constrained to be one, but though I am one of those oddballs who did agree with the austerity agenda and was angry the Tories failed in their plan for it, so I do have some trepidation about throwing caution to the wind.
I read this sometimes. But I don't get it.
Why would you be devastated by the end of the Union? Were you devastated by Partition (either)? Were you devastated by the "loss" of Rhodesia? I don't get it.
England is England with English people. Be happy to be English. Stop expecting and requiring other nations to prop up your importance in the world. Be happy with what and who you are, stop requiring Scotland to prop you up.
Would you be upset if Scotland split in two?
Scotland is a coherent state, it's not a Union of constituent countries. I can't imagine any part of Scotland seeking to remove itself from the nation. It's a very strange question.
If some part wanted to break off, and people voted for it, sure. Not a problem, it;s individuals choice. You can make up nonsense about the Northern Isle or Borders leaving Scotland but it will still be utter nonsense, no-one will vote for it.
If Orkney and Shetland elected a separatist MP and demanded a referendum on staying a part of Scotland, i doubt you would be supportive.
Dair It was the Scots who asked to join the Union in the 18th century, following the imposition of a Scottish king on the English throne and it is the Scots who are the only Home Nation ever to have endorsed the Union in last September's referendum. The English have never had a say on the Union one way or the other
A large part of Dair's identity is clearly focused on an antipathy towards England and the English. It's important to him that not only Scotland becomes independent, but that this somehow harms England too. And because he is a fundamentalist, Dair has convinced hiself that this will be the case. Dair wants a border, a big international line, one that tells him: Scotland is not England, Scotland is better than England, look now how England suffers. Dair makes facts fit his world view. He is a nationalist. Bless him.
I thought Ed was courageous meeting Russell Brand. What I didn't realize was that Brand had a readership bigger than the Sun so not just courageous but astute
Farage's speech at the EU parliament has received good coverage with all of the broadcasters. What he discussed would have resonated well with a significant number of voters.
Maybe he should have stayed at home and only be mentioned in passing.
Neither Farage nor UKIP were mentioned at all in the main GE report which occupied the first 12 minutes of the BBC1 10pm News.
Cameron and Miliband both got very extensive coverage - first in the headlines and both then featured in two separate reports.
Clegg got one brief soundbite.
Farage - zero.
EDIT: There was a separate report on Farage right at the end of the programme.
I cannot believe that you can seriously not understand such a thing. My identity is English and British. Many people, even in England, don't feel anything with regards the latter, and I do them the courtesy of not belittling them by suggesting they be happy with what I think they should be. What an incredibly dismissive thing for you to suggest, that my identity is somehow false because you do not share it (and do not pretend you meant any different 'be happy with what and who you are' is a clear instruction that what I think I am, British, is not true)
That has to be one of the most idiotic things I've read on this site - the very fact you form cogent sentences and have made many insightful and intelligent points indicates you cannot be incapable of understanding that people have different concepts of cultural identity, making it a frankly bizarre pretense to the contrary.
I can honestly say that in around 9000 posts on this site (including disqus. Gods, that's a lot of ramblings), I have only lost my cool on perhaps 6-7 occasions, and on all but around 2 occasions it has been at comments like that belittling my views about my own identity as if they are incomprehensible.
The other 2 times were in response to our master provocateur, Mr SeanT.
"British" does not exist. It is a fantasy without any bearing in reality. It has never been particularly strong in the belief system of the very few people who believed it.
As a State, Britain has existed since 1707. For the next 100 years Scotland and Ireland disputed it and fought against the concept. For around 80 years between 1800 and 1880 Britain was (relatively) a coherent state, strange for such an artificial construct but it didn't exist outside these 80 years, so it's the best you got.
Then from 1880 Ireland disputed it, often violently, from 1920 Scotland started to dispute it, from the 1930s Wales as well, despite not even being a country. You gave wales a language act, you ignored Scotland and you gave up on Ireland. Britain ended in 1922.
You might as well have a tear in your eye for Europe or Oceania or Airstrip One. None of them are nations. Scotland is a Nation. England is a Nation. Let's be happy and go our own way, like the Czechs and Slovaks did in 1992, 18 months after voting No.
Farage's speech at the EU parliament has received good coverage with all of the broadcasters. What he discussed would have resonated well with a significant number of voters.
Maybe he should have stayed at home and only be mentioned in passing.
Neither Farage nor UKIP were mentioned at all on the BBC1 10pm News.
Cameron and Miliband both got very extensive coverage - first in the headlines and both then featured in two separate reports.
Clegg got one brief soundbite.
Farage - zero.
It's a stitch up that Farage isn't on the main Question Time tomorrow.
I thought Ed was courageous meeting Russell Brand. What I didn't realize was that Brand had a readership bigger than the Sun so not just courageous but astute
"readership"...are you talking about twitter followers or youtube subscribers? Because if you are, you don't really understand how this stuff works do you...
Farage's speech at the EU parliament has received good coverage with all of the broadcasters. What he discussed would have resonated well with a significant number of voters.
Maybe he should have stayed at home and only be mentioned in passing.
Neither Farage nor UKIP were mentioned at all on the BBC1 10pm News.
Cameron and Miliband both got very extensive coverage - first in the headlines and both then featured in two separate reports.
Clegg got one brief soundbite.
Farage - zero.
It is curious that in what is billed as the most divided election in many many years, with more parties to have an impact than ever before, the media narrative, were it not for the SNP, would be even more focused on the big two than ever, and even the SNP element is one part amazement at how well they're doing and two parts what the implications are on Dave and Ed specifically.
It's as though the clarity that there will be no majority has somehow intensified the acknowledgement that only these 2 people can be PM (even though such a dimension was always true) and so any reflection on other parties only really matters in how they would with the big two and what they would ask for to work with them, and the smaller parties are irrelevant as we all know there are enough of them to prevent a majority, so we don't need to listen to them further, instead they can watch the talk about the big two as well, since they have the proper choice to make after all that voting is done with.
I will be emotionally devastated by the end of the union but I am resigned to that. But it doesn't matter whether I would prefer Con break away or not - I merely laid out why I cannot see it happening if it has not already. I don't think an SNP-Lab alliance necessarily need be as destructive as the worst case scenarios put it, though with the sides needing to fight hard at HolyRood very soon it does not encourage a peaceful arrangement to say the least. And that is more pressing. With the SNP winning a landslide the union is already dead - I cannot see them making the mistakes of PQ in Canada - so its about management of the nation in other ways now. I don't think Ed M would be a disastrous PM, I think his hands will be too constrained to be one, but though I am one of those oddballs who did agree with the austerity agenda and was angry the Tories failed in their plan for it, so I do have some trepidation about throwing caution to the wind.
I read this sometimes. But I don't get it.
Why would you be devastated by the end of the Union? Were you devastated by Partition (either)? Were you devastated by the "loss" of Rhodesia? I don't get it.
England is England with English people. Be happy to be English. Stop expecting and requiring other nations to prop up your importance in the world. Be happy with what and who you are, stop requiring Scotland to prop you up.
Guess it depends on whether you see yourself as British first and then English, or English first and then British.
I'm in the latter camp, and am entirely relaxed with the idea of an independent England, or at least Scotland going its own way. The status quo is untenable, but some are in denial and think it will all go away eventually.
British is pretty much a distinct identity of about half of Northern Ireland and a small portion of WCS.
I will be emotionally devastated by the end of the union but I am resigned to that. But it doesn't matter whether I would prefer Con break away or not - I merely laid out why I cannot see it happening if it has not already. I don't think an SNP-Lab alliance necessarily need be as destructive as the worst case scenarios put it, though with the sides needing to fight hard at HolyRood very soon it does not encourage a peaceful arrangement to say the least. And that is more pressing. With the SNP winning a landslide the union is already dead - I cannot see them making the mistakes of PQ in Canada - so its about management of the nation in other ways now. I don't think Ed M would be a disastrous PM, I think his hands will be too constrained to be one, but though I am one of those oddballs who did agree with the austerity agenda and was angry the Tories failed in their plan for it, so I do have some trepidation about throwing caution to the wind.
I read this sometimes. But I don't get it.
Why would you be devastated by the end of the Union? Were you devastated by Partition (either)? Were you devastated by the "loss" of Rhodesia? I don't get it.
England is England with English people. Be happy to be English. Stop expecting and requiring other nations to prop up your importance in the world. Be happy with what and who you are, stop requiring Scotland to prop you up.
Guess it depends on whether you see yourself as British first and then English, or English first and then British.
I'm in the latter camp, and am entirely relaxed with the idea of an independent England, or at least Scotland going its own way. The status quo is untenable, but some are in denial and think it will all go away eventually.
Scotland is not Scotland with Scottish people. We have a whole range of people including rabid Scots like Dair. However he is a sad minority who in no way reflects the majority. Most of us are more than happy to be British. We tolerate the nationalistic Scots as we do the nationalist English but they do not and never will control us.
I have said before and will say it again. The election in Scotland is not about the SNP but rather about the abject failure of Labour and to some extent the Lib Dems. I detest the SNP but I cannot think of one reason why I would vote to help save my Labour MP. If it gets any worse then the Tories will get more votes than Labour in Scotland.
I cannot believe that you can seriously not understand such a thing. My identity is English and British. Many people, even in England, don't feel anything with regards the latter, and I do them the courtesy of not belittling them by suggesting they be happy with what I think they should be. What an incredibly dismissive thing for you to suggest, that my identity is somehow false because you do not share it (and do not pretend you meant any different 'be happy with what and who you are' is a clear instruction that what I think I am, British, is not true)
That has to be one of the most idiotic things I've read on this site - the very fact you form cogent sentences and have made many insightful and intelligent points indicates you cannot be incapable of understanding that people have different concepts of cultural identity, making it a frankly bizarre pretense to the contrary.
I can honestly say that in around 9000 posts on this site (including disqus. Gods, that's a lot of ramblings), I have only lost my cool on perhaps 6-7 occasions, and on all but around 2 occasions it has been at comments like that belittling my views about my own identity as if they are incomprehensible.
The other 2 times were in response to our master provocateur, Mr SeanT.
"British" does not exist. It is a fantasy without any bearing in reality. It has never been particularly strong in the belief system of the very few people who believed it.
As a State, Britain has existed since 1707. For the next 100 years Scotland and Ireland disputed it and fought against the concept. For around 80 years between 1800 and 1880 Britain was (relatively) a coherent state, strange for such an artificial construct but it didn't exist outside these 80 years, so it's the best you got.
Then from 1880 Ireland disputed it, often violently, from 1920 Scotland started to dispute it, from the 1930s Wales as well, despite not even being a country. You gave wales a language act, you ignored Scotland and you gave up on Ireland. Britain ended in 1922.
You might as well have a tear in your eye for Europe or Oceania or Airstrip One. None of them are nations. Scotland is a Nation. England is a Nation. Let's be happy and go our own way, like the Czechs and Slovaks did in 1992, 18 months after voting No.
Dair It was the Scots who asked to join the Union in the 18th century, following the imposition of a Scottish king on the English throne and it is the Scots who are the only Home Nation ever to have endorsed the Union in last September's referendum. The English have never had a say on the Union one way or the other
A large part of Dair's identity is clearly focused on an antipathy towards England and the English. It's important to him that not only Scotland becomes independent, but that this somehow harms England too. And because he is a fundamentalist, Dair has convinced hiself that this will be the case. Dair wants a border, a big international line, one that tells him: Scotland is not England, Scotland is better than England, look now how England suffers. Dair makes facts fit his world view. He is a nationalist. Bless him.
I enjoy hte company of English people, I am happy for England to exist and I want England to succeed.
Charlie Hebdo cartoonist "Luz", who designed the front page of the magazine that appeared after the Paris attacks, has said he will no longer draw the Prophet Muhammad.
I will be emotionally devastated by the end of the union but I am resigned to that. But it doesn't matter whether I would prefer Con break away or not - I merely laid out why I cannot see it happening if it has not already. I don't think an SNP-Lab alliance necessarily need be as destructive as the worst case scenarios put it, though with the sides needing to fight hard at HolyRood very soon it does not encourage a peaceful arrangement to say the least. And that is more pressing. With the SNP winning a landslide the union is already dead - I cannot see them making the mistakes of PQ in Canada - so its about management of the nation in other ways now. I don't think Ed M would be a disastrous PM, I think his hands will be too constrained to be one, but though I am one of those oddballs who did agree with the austerity agenda and was angry the Tories failed in their plan for it, so I do have some trepidation about throwing caution to the wind.
I read this sometimes. But I don't get it.
Why would you be devastated by the end of the Union? Were you devastated by Partition (either)? Were you devastated by the "loss" of Rhodesia? I don't get it.
England is England with English people. Be happy to be English. Stop expecting and requiring other nations to prop up your importance in the world. Be happy with what and who you are, stop requiring Scotland to prop you up.
Guess it depends on whether you see yourself as British first and then English, or English first and then British.
I'm in the latter camp, and am entirely relaxed with the idea of an independent England, or at least Scotland going its own way. The status quo is untenable, but some are in denial and think it will all go away eventually.
British is pretty much a distinct identity of about half of Northern Ireland and a small portion of WCS.
You missed the Olympics ? The nation as one waving what you call "the butchers apron" ?
Dair It was the Scots who asked to join the Union in the 18th century, following the imposition of a Scottish king on the English throne and it is the Scots who are the only Home Nation ever to have endorsed the Union in last September's referendum. The English have never had a say on the Union one way or the other
A large part of Dair's identity is clearly focused on an antipathy towards England and the English. It's important to him that not only Scotland becomes independent, but that this somehow harms England too. And because he is a fundamentalist, Dair has convinced hiself that this will be the case. Dair wants a border, a big international line, one that tells him: Scotland is not England, Scotland is better than England, look now how England suffers. Dair makes facts fit his world view. He is a nationalist. Bless him.
I enjoy hte company of English people, I am happy for England to exist and I want England to succeed.
Nope, you're fibbing. That's not part of your cultural identity.
The Lib Dems going into opposition doesn't automatically reverse their fortunes, but does give them chance to re-invent themselves as a separate entity away from the Tories, which will be important for any chance of future success. Right now, especially with some of the Pro-Conservative noises Clegg has made, the LDs have looked to many people, like an annex to the Conservative party, rather than an entity in their own right. I don't really see what another coalition offers the LDs. Five years of one has not seen them be taken more seriously, or seen as more credible, or even as a party government - they've become incredibly unpopular, look likely to be wiped out in the South-West and Scotland, several of their figures are not seen as competent or popular (Clegg, Alexander...etc) and they've struggled to assert their own identity in a coalition. There differentiation strategy is looking like it will fail. And the Lib Dems have struggled to put forward how they've influenced the coalition; they can only mention the tax allowance and the pupil premium - which voters don't appear to really care much about anyway.
Their argument that they've diluted the influence of the Tory Right is not being appreciated by waving voters, nor those on the left - and those on the centre-right, sympathetic to Clegg, for let's face it, giving them a gateway to government aren't voting for his party anyway. I also don't really see many voters going back to the LDs over the EU ref in 2017 (if it happens). The LDs got support not just because they were a pro-EU party, but largely because they were seen as a centre-left alternative to Blair-led Labour that was seen to be increasingly moving to the centre-right, especially after Iraq. Being in coalition with the Tories won't help them regain that image.
I will be emotionally devastated by the end of the union but I am resigned to that. But it doesn't matter whether I would prefer Con break away or not - I merely laid out why I cannot see it happening if it has not already. I don't think an SNP-Lab alliance necessarily need be as destructive as the worst case scenarios put it, though with the sides needing to fight hard at HolyRood very soon it does not encourage a peaceful arrangement to say the least. And that is more pressing. With the SNP winning a landslide the union is already dead - I cannot see them making the mistakes of PQ in Canada - so its about management of the nation in other ways now. I don't think Ed M would be a disastrous PM, I think his hands will be too constrained to be one, but though I am one of those oddballs who did agree with the austerity agenda and was angry the Tories failed in their plan for it, so I do have some trepidation about throwing caution to the wind.
I read this sometimes. But I don't get it.
Why would you be devastated by the end of the Union? Were you devastated by Partition (either)? Were you devastated by the "loss" of Rhodesia? I don't get it.
England is England with English people. Be happy to be English. Stop expecting and requiring other nations to prop up your importance in the world. Be happy with what and who you are, stop requiring Scotland to prop you up.
Guess it depends on whether you see yourself as British first and then English, or English first and then British.
I'm in the latter camp, and am entirely relaxed with the idea of an independent England, or at least Scotland going its own way. The status quo is untenable, but some are in denial and think it will all go away eventually.
Scotland is not Scotland with Scottish people. We have a whole range of people including rabid Scots like Dair. However he is a sad minority who in no way reflects the majority. Most of us are more than happy to be British. We tolerate the nationalistic Scots as we do the nationalist English but they do not and never will control us.
I have said before and will say it again. The election in Scotland is not about the SNP but rather about the abject failure of Labour and to some extent the Lib Dems. I detest the SNP but I cannot think of one reason why I would vote to help save my Labour MP. If it gets any worse then the Tories will get more votes than Labour in Scotland.
Hahah. Keep kidding yourself on.
Scottish is very high in Scotland - probably 70%. Non-Scottish is about 10% of total population who are Englsih and over half of them voted no and Europeans who are about 8% and voted mixed. British is about 10% at most, much less than NI anyway. But fear wins the odd vote. Won't win another one.
Charlie Hebdo cartoonist "Luz", who designed the front page of the magazine that appeared after the Paris attacks, has said he will no longer draw the Prophet Muhammad.
I feel more British the further I am from Britain. Except when I arrive in Australia or NZ, when I feel very English again. I only ever feel European when I am in the US.
I will be emotionally devastated by the end of the union but I am resigned to that. But it doesn't matter whether I would prefer Con break away or not - I merely laid out why I cannot see it happening if it has not already. I don't think an SNP-Lab alliance necessarily need be as destructive as the worst case scenarios put it, though with the sides needing to fight hard at HolyRood very soon it does not encourage a peaceful arrangement to say the least. And that is more pressing. With the SNP winning a landslide the union is already dead - I cannot see them making the mistakes of PQ in Canada - so its about management of the nation in other ways now. I don't think Ed M would be a disastrous PM, I think his hands will be too constrained to be one, but though I am one of those oddballs who did agree with the austerity agenda and was angry the Tories failed in their plan for it, so I do have some trepidation about throwing caution to the wind.
I read this sometimes. But I don't get it.
Why would you be devastated by the end of the Union? Were you devastated by Partition (either)? Were you devastated by the "loss" of Rhodesia? I don't get it.
England is England with English people. Be happy to be English. Stop expecting and requiring other nations to prop up your importance in the world. Be happy with what and who you are, stop requiring Scotland to prop you up.
Would you be upset if Scotland split in two?
Scotland is a coherent state, it's not a Union of constituent countries. I can't imagine any part of Scotland seeking to remove itself from the nation. It's a very strange question.
If some part wanted to break off, and people voted for it, sure. Not a problem, it;s individuals choice. You can make up nonsense about the Northern Isle or Borders leaving Scotland but it will still be utter nonsense, no-one will vote for it.
If Orkney and Shetland elected a separatist MP and demanded a referendum on staying a part of Scotland, i doubt you would be supportive.
And if my aunt had balls* etc.
*I'd be entirely supportive if she chose to go down this road.
They've lost the mantle of the party of the protest vote and they're not getting it back, the Greens and UKIP have that now. If they won't even be a serious centre party then what is the point of them?
Two thoughts occur. One, people asked what the point of them was before they got into power as well, and it was largely wishful thinking from the big two who have long wished for there to be no sizable third party to take away their votes and prevent majorities. So I will admit to, perhaps unfairly, discounting such an argument. As I said, not going into power when the cost is too high does not mean they are ruling it out forever, or that they are not right that the cost would be too high. Some people are seriously saying that Labour would be making a mistake going into power with the SNP, even if it is the only opportunity they have to get into power. And they would be the senior partner in that alliance, numerically at least. Is their reluctance to go into that alliance showing they have no point?
Two, while they might well struggle to get the protest vote back, I don't think that can be assumed. We have seen some quite rapid collapses of party shares in the last few years, and in one case a rapid rise. Now the Tories' demise in Scotland and failure to recover (to the point where winning more than a couple of seats is a possibility at least) shows it can be very hard to come back from that, but if parties are collapsing all around, there remains the possibility a pre-collapsed party could pick up that newly collapsed support. I don't put it as likely, but people have claimed the demise of the LDs before in precious incarnations, and they came back from that. It took decades. Maybe it will take decades again, maybe it will be one recovery too many. But I don't think we can claim it is inevitable, certainly not because they might make a judgement that in these particular circumstances it might not be worthy propping up someone else. As that is what this is really about. Upset that they might not play ball do what someone else wants. Why should they? For plenty on the left, simply denying the Tories a chance at government through their inaction would be point enough.
Not for me, I'd prefer a Tory-LD coalition, but I'm not going to comdemn them for partisan and perhaps even short sighted behaviour. That's what political parties do. The point of politics is to gain power, but all of our minor parties went decades with no power at Westminster, did they have no point for all those decades? No. You bide your time and pick your moment; and you don't have to jump at the first offer it.
The Aplocalypse If you want a left of Labour party you will now vote Green or SNP not LD. If you want a right of Tory Party you will vote UKIP, the LDs best bet is to try and be a centrist party like Francois Bayrou's MoDem Party in France
That's a point, but the trouble with that is that Labour and the Conservative will always try to put themselves in the centre-ground, which complicates that position for the LDs. It's also arguable whether a Pro-EU party liberal on immigration and crime can be 'centerist'.
Comments
I think the most worrying prospect for the Tories now is if they do worse in the marginals than elsewhere, and Lab get a majority in England and Wales. I think the Tories will manage to avoid that, but it's not certain. That being the case, and the with the SNP supporting, temporarily, Ed M as PM, and the change of a Tory government are hard to spot. It's fascinating to me that either I could be so wrong, or other people, some of whom I know are a lot brighter than I am, could be so wrong, neither of which possibilities is very encouraging for me.
'Love Mike Smithson being true to form by stamping all over the Tories' hopes at any chance.'
How on earth did you notice that?
9 losses to SNP
8 to Labour
21 to Conservatives
This really is the Election where we, as individuals, have to face the fact that we are either geniuses or idiots !!
My heart says I am a genius-my head says I am an arse!!
Only a week to go.........
Why would you be devastated by the end of the Union? Were you devastated by Partition (either)? Were you devastated by the "loss" of Rhodesia? I don't get it.
England is England with English people. Be happy to be English. Stop expecting and requiring other nations to prop up your importance in the world. Be happy with what and who you are, stop requiring Scotland to prop you up.
Ouchh- you obviously do hate Labour.
I wish I could say the same about the Tories, I don't think I hate any of them. They are people who have a different view of how the world works than I do, and the vast majority of them genuinely believe that they are doing the right thing for the right reasons. I disagree, but I can empathise with their perspective.
Cable should be just be put out of his misery. The Sage of Twickenham is well past his sell by date.
I think they peaked three weeks ago.
If you had told me that at the end of September, I'd have gawped at you.
That has to be one of the most idiotic things I've read on this site - the very fact you form cogent sentences and have made many insightful and intelligent points indicates you cannot be incapable of understanding that people have different concepts of cultural identity, making it a frankly bizarre pretense to the contrary.
I can honestly say that in around 9000 posts on this site (including disqus. Gods, that's a lot of ramblings), I have only lost my cool on perhaps 6-7 occasions, and on all but around 2 occasions it has been at comments like that belittling my views about my own identity as if they are incomprehensible.
The other 2 times were in response to our master provocateur, Mr SeanT.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/janetdaley/100141699/ken-clarke-is-wrong-on-child-benefit-cut-no-surprise-there/
"Few if any know that Harris was a late convert to the socialist cause. He and Orville starred in the SWP annual panto at Coventry at Christmas 2009 and he and Orville also performed at Rize and Sebastopol in the Black Sea at the CPRF festivals there. RIP a great entertainer who saw the light before it was too late."
That is either one of the greatest pieces of internet trolling I have seen (in rather poor taste, but such is the way of trolls) or the world is an even weirder place than I'd given it due credit for. The mental image of octogenarian Russian communists watching a fame-faded British ventriloquist is hard to escape.
You can tell Mr Smithson learned his trade with the LDs. And to think the PB Purist are always criticising politicians!
I'll be glad when this election is over and everyone's heads have finally exploded. I will totally switch off, perhaps emigrate, if there is another election this year. Its all too much.
'LibDems 11-20 seats at 4-1 still epic value. I'm maxed out at all bookmakers.'
Sure is,have also got 0 - 10 seats at 12/1 in case they move from dockside pounding to euro style wipe out.
Reducing the first child payment is surely a non starter - taking £360 a year from almost every family in Brtiain. Would wipe out the personal allowance increase at a stroke.
Maybe he should have stayed at home and only be mentioned in passing.
Reduce the upper taxable limit for new births one year hence.
Gradual phase out ..
I'm in the latter camp, and am entirely relaxed with the idea of an independent England, or at least Scotland going its own way. The status quo is untenable, but some are in denial and think it will all go away eventually.
Yeah, Spreadex kindly offered me the opportunity to lay the SNP in North & Leith @ 1.3. When I took the bet a few days ago, the odds looked very decent - tonight, I'm not so sure...
12/3/15
RodCrosby said:
Applying the L&N model to Ipsos MORI we have:-
Central forecast)
Con vote lead 7.9%
Con seat lead 67 seats
(10000 Monte Carlo simulations)
Chance of a Tory vote lead: 100.0%
Chance of a Tory seat lead: 98.9%
Chance of a Hung Parliament: 60.7%
Chance of a Tory majority: 39.3%
Chance of a Labour majority: 0.0%
http://www.aol.co.uk/article/2015/04/29/the-sun-comes-out-for-the-tories-and-snp/21178181/?icid=maing-grid7|uk|dl1|sec1_lnk2&pLid=347453
Perhaps you've just got to be desperately short of work to resort to the Communist Panto tour.
Apparently the poor sod never read his contracts (due to dyslexia) and so didn't get to enjoy the considerable fruits of his labours, which is a proper shame.
That said, I'm long LibDems in Bradford East and Cambridge at excellent odds, and expect to collect on both ☺
If some part wanted to break off, and people voted for it, sure. Not a problem, it;s individuals choice. You can make up nonsense about the Northern Isle or Borders leaving Scotland but it will still be utter nonsense, no-one will vote for it.
Their 2015 ITV/Daily Mail polls have put UKIP on:
28 April 11%
22 April 10%
8 April 12%
29 March 12%
22 March 10%
23 Feb 13%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_general_election#2015
IF MORI is a Con lead in the morning then the last 10 polls will be:
7 Con leads
2 Lab leads
1 Tie
Now the momentum could change - but it's clear where the momentum is at the moment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://promotions.betfair.com/sbk-generalelection?
If the Liberals lose many hundreds of deposits on Thursday then voluntarily going into opposition is not going to reverse that collapse.
They've lost the mantle of the party of the protest vote and they're not getting it back, the Greens and UKIP have that now. If they won't even be a serious centre party then what is the point of them?
England Scum : Stop SNP running the country
Scottish Scum: Vote SNP
Cameron and Miliband both got very extensive coverage - first in the headlines and both then featured in two separate reports.
Clegg got one brief soundbite.
Farage - zero.
EDIT: There was a separate report on Farage right at the end of the programme.
As a State, Britain has existed since 1707. For the next 100 years Scotland and Ireland disputed it and fought against the concept. For around 80 years between 1800 and 1880 Britain was (relatively) a coherent state, strange for such an artificial construct but it didn't exist outside these 80 years, so it's the best you got.
Then from 1880 Ireland disputed it, often violently, from 1920 Scotland started to dispute it, from the 1930s Wales as well, despite not even being a country. You gave wales a language act, you ignored Scotland and you gave up on Ireland. Britain ended in 1922.
You might as well have a tear in your eye for Europe or Oceania or Airstrip One. None of them are nations. Scotland is a Nation. England is a Nation. Let's be happy and go our own way, like the Czechs and Slovaks did in 1992, 18 months after voting No.
It's as though the clarity that there will be no majority has somehow intensified the acknowledgement that only these 2 people can be PM (even though such a dimension was always true) and so any reflection on other parties only really matters in how they would with the big two and what they would ask for to work with them, and the smaller parties are irrelevant as we all know there are enough of them to prevent a majority, so we don't need to listen to them further, instead they can watch the talk about the big two as well, since they have the proper choice to make after all that voting is done with.
I have said before and will say it again. The election in Scotland is not about the SNP but rather about the abject failure of Labour and to some extent the Lib Dems. I detest the SNP but I cannot think of one reason why I would vote to help save my Labour MP. If it gets any worse then the Tories will get more votes than Labour in Scotland.
'I took the trouble to record some of those on here who have the special status'
At we don't have to take the trouble to check who has the special status on here of being wrong every time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32520563
Yeah the polls could be wrong. I am very skeptical of the greens getting anything like 6 or 7% of the vote.
Their argument that they've diluted the influence of the Tory Right is not being appreciated by waving voters, nor those on the left - and those on the centre-right, sympathetic to Clegg, for let's face it, giving them a gateway to government aren't voting for his party anyway. I also don't really see many voters going back to the LDs over the EU ref in 2017 (if it happens). The LDs got support not just because they were a pro-EU party, but largely because they were seen as a centre-left alternative to Blair-led Labour that was seen to be increasingly moving to the centre-right, especially after Iraq. Being in coalition with the Tories won't help them regain that image.
Scottish is very high in Scotland - probably 70%. Non-Scottish is about 10% of total population who are Englsih and over half of them voted no and Europeans who are about 8% and voted mixed. British is about 10% at most, much less than NI anyway. But fear wins the odd vote. Won't win another one.
*I'd be entirely supportive if she chose to go down this road.
Two, while they might well struggle to get the protest vote back, I don't think that can be assumed. We have seen some quite rapid collapses of party shares in the last few years, and in one case a rapid rise. Now the Tories' demise in Scotland and failure to recover (to the point where winning more than a couple of seats is a possibility at least) shows it can be very hard to come back from that, but if parties are collapsing all around, there remains the possibility a pre-collapsed party could pick up that newly collapsed support. I don't put it as likely, but people have claimed the demise of the LDs before in precious incarnations, and they came back from that. It took decades. Maybe it will take decades again, maybe it will be one recovery too many. But I don't think we can claim it is inevitable, certainly not because they might make a judgement that in these particular circumstances it might not be worthy propping up someone else. As that is what this is really about. Upset that they might not play ball do what someone else wants. Why should they? For plenty on the left, simply denying the Tories a chance at government through their inaction would be point enough.
Not for me, I'd prefer a Tory-LD coalition, but I'm not going to comdemn them for partisan and perhaps even short sighted behaviour. That's what political parties do. The point of politics is to gain power, but all of our minor parties went decades with no power at Westminster, did they have no point for all those decades? No. You bide your time and pick your moment; and you don't have to jump at the first offer it.