I think I am right in saying that only Panelbase and Populus now show Labour leads (albeit a healthy 3% lead with both)
LAB 260 seats gives Ed M a theoretical chance of being PM, but I would say that must be close to the floor.
In 2001 William Hague was Mr Plus One Seat since he increased the number of Tory seats from 165 to 166. Maybe something very similar could happen with Ed Miliband in 2015.
Unlike William Hague, Ed Milliband might become Prime Minister, if he makes a net gain of one seat.
Hague polled 32.7% in 2001. Ed may struggle to reach that level if a fair number of the latest polls are to be believed.
Imagine it. If Labour won 259 seats with 32% of the vote, he could still be PM. I think that such a government would be a desperately weak one, but it could be done.
Say 259 Labour 58 SNP 3 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Green Lady Hermon, makes 325 votes.
Streuth. That truly is the stuff of nightmares. My skin is crawling just thinking about it.
Labour will get WAY more than 259 seats.
I'm sticking with c285. I simply do not believe they will be near wiped out in Scotland. Big losses to SNP sure, but no wipe out. The Scots are teasing the pollsters and taunting Scottish Labour politicians for good measure too.
With the Tories in my view incapable of getting past 270-odd, Ed will become PM with just the acquiescence of the SNP, he won't need to cobble together every last vote from the assorted other lefties.
All the evidence suggests that Labour will be wiped out in Scotland, but let's be generous, and leave them 10 seats.
To reach 285 seats, they'd need to make 58 gains, which I just don't see.
Labour are looking at 30-40 gains in E&W if they are lucky. Five holds in Scotland if they are unbelievably lucky. It is not going to get better than that for them and is likely to be worse.
Final electorate figures for Broxtowe in case anyone is interested - 71764 (virtually unchanged), of whom 13246 are postal voters (of whom most voted last week). Last time, the winning mark was just over 20,000 - with fewer LDs but more UKIP this time, I expect it'll be somewhere similar, but perhaps a bit higher since there's really a lot of interest - turnout will probably be 55000 or so (71% last time). If we can get 75% of the promise out, we should be OK.
My missus was waxing lyrical about the "Women's Equality Party" the other week, saying she was going to join and bemoaning the fact they didn't have candidates this time round. I thought it was a joke, although she wasn't greatly amused as I harrumphed around complaining about the blatantly contradictory nature of seting up a "Women's Equality Party".
Learning that one of my least favourite celebrity Lefties is going to front it will not endear it to me further....!
Wow that is unexpected. I was expecting Tories to squeeze Ukip and Lib dem. In fact Nicky Campbell said on the radio this morning that people were not going from Labour to Tory or Tory to Labour but they were going to the minor parties. A bit like the seat analysis every vote you take directly from your opponent is worth 2.
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
I quite like the idea of regional parliaments, as long as they were proper regions that people actually identified with. You could have just four: the North, the Midlands, the Westcountry and the South East.
East Anglians do not identify with Midlands or SE
I thought a lot of people commute from Ipswich and Cambridge to London on a daily basis? You can carve them off if needed, although it would be a tiny population region.
Norwich has commuters too, but then so does Lincoln and Peterborough etc etc. You could make a convincing Eastern Region out of everything costal from Humber to Essex and include Cambridgeshire. The East is very different to the Home Counties, it's rural, agrarian and aloof
Parliament's Eastern Association has always been a distinct region.
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
I quite like the idea of regional parliaments, as long as they were proper regions that people actually identified with. You could have just four: the North, the Midlands, the Westcountry and the South East.
East Anglians do not identify with Midlands or SE
I thought a lot of people commute from Ipswich and Cambridge to London on a daily basis? You can carve them off if needed, although it would be a tiny population region.
The US has no problems with the idea of having separate governance for entities as small as Rhode Island and Wyoming and as large as Alaska and California. East Anglia has a distinct culture of its own [INSERT JOKE HERE] and should not be bundled up with other areas for administrative convenience.
Agreed. Hampshire would have a not unreasonable population for a state of the USA, I see no utility in us being part of an amorphous South East (not including London) Region and run from Milton Keynes.
I had my biggest bet of the election yesterday, Farage to win S Thanet at EVS.. hard not to make it value when you've backed EVS -6.5!
Farage at Evens was a great & wondrous price. Had to take some of that myself !
We'll just have to seriously disagree on that one. UKIP are very evidently heading south and this is likely to continue as minds are further concentrated over the few remaining days leading up to the GE.
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
I quite like the idea of regional parliaments, as long as they were proper regions that people actually identified with. You could have just four: the North, the Midlands, the Westcountry and the South East.
I have some sympathy for this position, but you'd need London separate from SE
My personal preference would be for proper (ie pre 1974) beefed up counties.
The problem with London being separate from the South East is that all our economies are based around London. The poor planning and chaos at London Bridge station is something that affects a lot of us commuters on a daily basis. The proposed solution is to give control of Southeastern trains to the Mayor of London, who we don't get to vote for!
If devolution was to counties of England, then Scotland really would rule the roost when it came to arguing over funds. The First Minister of Northamptonshire is unlikely to have much visibility when it came time to demand more money.
I think we can all agree, the one thing we all want to be able to say on May 8 is 'were you up for Balls?'
I f*cking don't. I'm holding some 7-2 and 3-1 next chancellor betslips on him.
My child, set thou aside your hopes for the greater hope of joy unbounded
If Balls isn't CoTE in a Labour administration it'll be Reeves or Leslie. The Nats will push them around far more than Balls who clearly is not a loony lefty. Trust me if Ed is PM, we need Balls as CoTE.
Totally right and Balls will stand up to MacCluskey and his pals as well. Balls is the one senior Labour front bencher at present I have confidence in.
I've always thought Balls would have made a good leader. I don't quite understand the hatred of him (nor do I share it, nor do most of the public, I suspect).
He's clever, articulate, and he manages to appear ordinary (e.g. playing football with a pot belly), even if he isn't. He speaks homo sapiens, unlike Miliband. He's sensible centre-left, not loony.
Yes he is associated with Brown, but so is Ed Miliband.
Labour should have had Balls.
Sean, the hatred of him is that he was Brown's henchman when Brown was at the worst of his bullying behaviour, sitting next to "Mr" McBride.
I agree that in the past 5 years he's calmed down a lot and is moderating the loony left of his party, but he will always have that nasty smell hanging around him.
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
I quite like the idea of regional parliaments, as long as they were proper regions that people actually identified with. You could have just four: the North, the Midlands, the Westcountry and the South East.
East Anglians do not identify with Midlands or SE
I thought a lot of people commute from Ipswich and Cambridge to London on a daily basis? You can carve them off if needed, although it would be a tiny population region.
Norwich has commuters too, but then so does Lincoln and Peterborough etc etc. You could make a convincing Eastern Region out of everything costal from Humber to Essex and include Cambridgeshire. The East is very different to the Home Counties, it's rural, agrarian and aloof
I'll have you know that the Home Counties are plenty rural and agrarian! Kent is the garden of England!
Regional assemblies are demented. Leaving aside the fact that a 'North' Assembly would take about six seconds to be riven by a War of the Roses, they guarantee England gets a raw deal.
Here's why: 1) Scotland has devolution, which will only increase 2) English equality demand that England retains competence over devolved areas [for England, of course] 3) If England is carved into rubbish regions, this is impossible, because: 4) Could we really have varying education, transport, and fiscal policies between Yorkshire and Kent? Between Dover and Bristol? Would income tax [due to be devolved to Holyrood] ever credibly be varied within England? 5) Therefore an England-wide political body is required for England to have parity with Scotland. We could call it: 6) An English Parliament.
My eldest boy is voting Green. He was very adamant about it last night. He said none of the major parties are telling the truth, so why bother with them? He doesn't expect anything from the Greens, but likes the fact that they are interested in saving the planet - whatever that means. He fully expects never to be able to buy his own home or to enjoy the lifestyle and opportunities his Mum and Dad have enjoyed. He is probably right about that - until we snuff it. My guess is that his views are to a greater or lesser extent shared by many under-30s.
I have 3 grown up children under 30.
1 will not vote, the other two are voting UKIP.
1 will certainly vote, I remain to be convinced that the other one will bother.
My missus was waxing lyrical about the "Women's Equality Party" the other week, saying she was going to join and bemoaning the fact they didn't have candidates this time round. I thought it was a joke, although she wasn't greatly amused as I harrumphed around complaining about the blatantly contradictory nature of seting up a "Women's Equality Party".
Learning that one of my least favourite celebrity Lefties is going to front it will not endear it to me further....!
When Sandi Toksvig makes a joke, it's no laughing matter.
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
In that situation, I wonder if Miliband's party would allow him to form a government, given its clear suicidality for Labour.
Labour's best interest (not Ed's) would be in sitting back, and letting Cameron flail around, trying to form a minority government, which would soon fall (over the EU ref?). Meanwhile Labour get rid of their loser leader, and find someone with more charm for the swiftly ensuing 2nd election.
Result: Labour win, as the Tories fight over Europe or whatever.
So Ed's personal ambitions might be in opposition to Labour's wider interests.
Cameron could call Milibands bluff, resign, then he would be forced to make it work..
In fact that would be a smart move by the tories, and I expect Cameron wouldn't want to hang around in that situation.
Being in government at the moment does give you some advantages.
Likewise. Cameron's not stupid, he's done his time in the top job and would want to do the right thing in resigning if his party have clearly gone backwards.
The last thing he'd want is to try and cobble together an unstable and unwilling coalition of abstainers propping up a minority government - better to allow the party to select a new leader to fight the inevitable second election.
As @SeanT says, eloquently as always, what is good for Ed is not what's good for Labour. I can well see Ed try and make the mess work, but he'll be completely outplayed by Salmond and the LDs a few months down the line.
This can get very complicated very quickly....
The only way i can see Cameron staying it is if we have a second election, and the either labour or tory majority might be possible.
But, that can only happen if Cameron resigns as PM, but remains leader of the tories, but i think thats unlikely.
If Ed gets a chance to be PM, he'll HAVE to try to make it work, and I can't see how labour could remove him.
If the Queen calls you to be PM, you have to follow it through.
Final electorate figures for Broxtowe in case anyone is interested - 71764 (virtually unchanged), of whom 13246 are postal voters (of whom most voted last week). Last time, the winning mark was just over 20,000 - with fewer LDs but more UKIP this time, I expect it'll be somewhere similar, but perhaps a bit higher since there's really a lot of interest - turnout will probably be 55000 or so (71% last time). If we can get 75% of the promise out, we should be OK.
Any idea how much Soubry has been "promised" ?
Nick by 1,000, I reckon. But a late swing to the Tories could chip away at that.
Can anyone remember to before the last election, the mantra was to take the best figure for the Tories and the worst for Labour across the polls. Was this disproved?
That was my mantra which has been changed. Polling overstatement not reserved for LAB. In all the by-election polls prior to 2014 CON was overstated as it was to a considerable extent in the 2012 London election.
The people who see it going their way are calling for it following the derision and forensic investigation when it was showing bad figures for them
Who knew?!
This week 9 polls form 7 different pollsters (all time 26 polls from 11)
CON +10 (+2) LAB -5 (-18) UKIP -1 (+7) LD -3 (-2) GREEN +4 (+5)
just how badly was it going for UKIP when you decided to invent it?
UKIP are polling 10-18%, so it obviously isn't going that badly.
But do you believe the 18%?
11-13% has been my forecast for some time, and I stick to it.
And I am a more bearish 9 point something. There's a hell of a lot of Kippers re-evaluating their position right now. Even had one guy with a poster up saying he was now going to vote Tory...
Some of them are thinking the idea of being ruled by Scotland as even more of a horror show than being ruled by Brussels!
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
I quite like the idea of regional parliaments, as long as they were proper regions that people actually identified with. You could have just four: the North, the Midlands, the Westcountry and the South East.
I have some sympathy for this position, but you'd need London separate from SE
My personal preference would be for proper (ie pre 1974) beefed up counties.
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
I quite like the idea of regional parliaments, as long as they were proper regions that people actually identified with. You could have just four: the North, the Midlands, the Westcountry and the South East.
I have some sympathy for this position, but you'd need London separate from SE
My personal preference would be for proper (ie pre 1974) beefed up counties.
Yes, counties not regions. With proper powers devolved from London in both tax and spending. Anyone suggesting regions will be slapped with Mr Dancer's wet enormo-haddock!
What I'm wondering is whether an EVEL bill can be rammed through the house, thus neutralising a lot of the SNP. Another way of doing it might be a Tory bill, that the LDs back and then 20 Labour rebels break ranks, enough to get it through.
I was thinking along similar lines the other day.
Given the forecast complete deadlock, red and blue teams could find a few common interests surely?
EV4EL, Barnett formula, boundary review/reduction to 600 MPs - even Trident renewal, Royal Commission on HoL reform etc.
Yes, all of that. But I have no idea how cooperative the two parties will be, even if it's in their clear interests to be so.
Mr. Sandpit, an English Parliament is essential. If there's further devolution to counties, fine, but an English Parliament must come first otherwise England cannot have equality with Scotland.
Can anyone remember to before the last election, the mantra was to take the best figure for the Tories and the worst for Labour across the polls. Was this disproved?
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
In that situation, I wonder if Miliband's party would allow him to form a government, given its clear suicidality for Labour.
Labour's best interest (not Ed's) would be in sitting back, and letting Cameron flail around, trying to form a minority government, which would soon fall (over the EU ref?). Meanwhile Labour get rid of their loser leader, and find someone with more charm for the swiftly ensuing 2nd election.
Result: Labour win, as the Tories fight over Europe or whatever.
So Ed's personal ambitions might be in opposition to Labour's wider interests.
I suspect that the party will be split and it will not be able to whip its full strength against the Queen's speech. You are right: it's a political suicide vest.
Which specific Labour MPs do you think will be standing up and voting for a Tory Queen's Speech, or letting people say they got a Tory government because they couldn't be arsed to show up for the vote?
Surely the very definition of a three line whip is a vote on the first Queen's speech following a hung Parliament? Anyone not there must surely be fired by their party?
My guess is UKIP are going to be squeezed very hard in the marginals. But in the safe seats they could still put in some unexpectedly good showings, especially safe Labour seats in places like Yorkshire and the North East.
The people who see it going their way are calling for it following the derision and forensic investigation when it was showing bad figures for them
Who knew?!
This week 9 polls form 7 different pollsters (all time 26 polls from 11)
CON +10 (+2) LAB -5 (-18) UKIP -1 (+7) LD -3 (-2) GREEN +4 (+5)
just how badly was it going for UKIP when you decided to invent it?
UKIP are polling 10-18%, so it obviously isn't going that badly.
But do you believe the 18%?
11-13% has been my forecast for some time, and I stick to it.
And I am a more bearish 9 point something. There's a hell of a lot of Kippers re-evaluating their position right now. Even had one guy with a poster up saying he was now going to vote Tory...
Some of them are thinking the idea of being ruled by Scotland as even more of a horror show than being ruled by Brussels!
Can I ask - who on here is actually going out canvassing and meeting a wide swathe of the voters? There seem to be a lot of folks here who are happy to bet solely on what the polls are saying.....
Regional assemblies are demented. Leaving aside the fact that a 'North' Assembly would take about six seconds to be riven by a War of the Roses, they guarantee England gets a raw deal.
Here's why: 1) Scotland has devolution, which will only increase 2) English equality demand that England retains competence over devolved areas [for England, of course] 3) If England is carved into rubbish regions, this is impossible, because: 4) Could we really have varying education, transport, and fiscal policies between Yorkshire and Kent? Between Dover and Bristol? Would income tax [due to be devolved to Holyrood] ever credibly be varied within England? 5) Therefore an England-wide political body is required for England to have parity with Scotland. We could call it: 6) An English Parliament.
That would lead to an extremely centralised England. I would then want to devolve most power down to some form of local unit, with the national parliament in Oxford keeping a few strategic functions. I see no reason why Hampshire can't run health, transport and schools, for example. It is after all bigger than the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg which does all those and more.
Can anyone remember to before the last election, the mantra was to take the best figure for the Tories and the worst for Labour across the polls. Was this disproved?
They still did pretty well on their predictions. If you strip out Angus Reid who I seem to remember were not highly thought of on here then the average score for the Tories is about 36 and average for Labour is 28 which considering how overstated lib dems was pretty good. I had forgotten the suppose level of support for th lib dems at last election. I remember well when you could openly admit voting lib dem. I wonder if there are shy lib dems this time?
Can anyone remember to before the last election, the mantra was to take the best figure for the Tories and the worst for Labour across the polls. Was this disproved?
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
In that situation, I wonder if Miliband's party would allow him to form a government, given its clear suicidality for Labour.
Labour's best interest (not Ed's) would be in sitting back, and letting Cameron flail around, trying to form a minority government, which would soon fall (over the EU ref?). Meanwhile Labour get rid of their loser leader, and find someone with more charm for the swiftly ensuing 2nd election.
Result: Labour win, as the Tories fight over Europe or whatever.
So Ed's personal ambitions might be in opposition to Labour's wider interests.
I suspect that the party will be split and it will not be able to whip its full strength against the Queen's speech. You are right: it's a political suicide vest.
Which specific Labour MPs do you think will be standing up and voting for a Tory Queen's Speech, or letting people say they got a Tory government because they couldn't be arsed to show up for the vote?
Surely the very definition of a three line whip is a vote on the first Queen's speech following a hung Parliament? Anyone not there must surely be fired by their party?
I would have thought so, but then if they can gather 20-30 likeminded individuals they could collectively make the call for new elections rather than a C+S arrangement.
£400 at 1.89 queuing to back UKIP in S Thanet on Betfair.. anyone not on the Even money w Coral must be mad, literally mad as a punter to be allowing the annual inflow of thousands of pounds into other peoples bank accounts
Can I ask - who on here is actually going out canvassing and meeting a wide swathe of the voters? There seem to be a lot of folks here who are happy to bet solely on what the polls are saying.....
My entire betting strategy at present is built around the basic premise that no one really knows what is going on.
Final electorate figures for Broxtowe in case anyone is interested - 71764 (virtually unchanged), of whom 13246 are postal voters (of whom most voted last week). Last time, the winning mark was just over 20,000 - with fewer LDs but more UKIP this time, I expect it'll be somewhere similar, but perhaps a bit higher since there's really a lot of interest - turnout will probably be 55000 or so (71% last time). If we can get 75% of the promise out, we should be OK.
Any idea how much Soubry has been "promised" ?
Nick by 1,000, I reckon. But a late swing to the Tories could chip away at that.
All depends on the UKIP vote, if a proportion of that swings late to the Conservatives Soubry could sneak it, my impression last weekend is though the vast majority of the UKIP support will stay solid, Nick by less than 1000, maybe 500 but Conservatives to hold Amber Valley well worth a punt, UKIP support in that seat much more ex-Labour.
Thanks, that's really interesting - always good to learn something from PB.
Surely
Another interesting (and house price inflationary) thing about low rates is how fast you pay down the principal. With a 25-year mortgage at 10%, over the first 5 years, you pay off only 6% of the principal. At 2%, you pay off 16% of the principal amount over that time.
It would take you 10 years to pay off 16% of the principal at 10%. Over 10 years on a 2% mortgage rate, you could pay off 35% - and so on. So although these hug mortgages look oppressive, you accumulate equity at an unprecedentedly rapid rate now; which must itself encourage people to pay more.
It is an often-overlooked advantage from low rates that is similar, if not equivalent, to the benefit baby boomers enjoyed, whereby inflation eroded the cost of their mortgage. That doesn't happen any more, but today, you can erode your mortgage pretty damn fast by, er, repaying it!
When we were on the gold standard for 300 odd years prices remained flat, on the fiat money system, as you mention, we have had rampant inflation. You are conflating two very different systems. There is an argument that like Japan we will have low rates for the foreseeable future but I would not count on it.
We have had both inflation and deflation on fiat money so I am not sure this is conclusive either way. I reckon low rates are here for a lot longer than is widely expected, simply because I see nothing on the horizon to send the north.
I could very well be missing something obvious but my main exposure to interest rates comes through my mortgage which I will have for only another 10 years or so; so my horizon is short.
I would like to see rates normalised asap, Taylor rule determining the appropriate level, but I am not convinced CBers have the guts. I do believe artificially low rates are having a disastrous impact with misallocation of resources.
Can I ask - who on here is actually going out canvassing and meeting a wide swathe of the voters? There seem to be a lot of folks here who are happy to bet solely on what the polls are saying.....
You seem to be extrapolating national shares from your own take on what's happening in Torbay
Can anyone remember to before the last election, the mantra was to take the best figure for the Tories and the worst for Labour across the polls. Was this disproved?
Angus Reid happened.
The trick is not to completely discount any poll. All of them have their uses - even the new kid on the block "BPG" or whatever - their actual % figures can be pretty much disregarded - but if they're showing a headline change between polls, that tells us *something* doesn't it?
Don't know whether this has been discussed already, but I was just thinking that it may be the case that because Labour aren't going to win an overall majority some of their voters are going to be a bit disillusioned and won't bother voting in the same numbers as they would have done had they thought they had a chance of doing so, which most of them probably did believe just a few months ago (no matter how unlikely it was even then).
That might create an opening for the Tories to make one or two gains in places like Southampton Itchen, Halifax, etc. Unlikely but not as unlikely as it used to be, maybe.
I think both are fair shouts from whAt I understand. In Halifax I think there was a central office late appointment for th Labour PPC.
In South Itchen the Labour candidate is a privately educated oxford ppe graduate and the Tory is a local councillor with a forces background who is a local hero after foiling a shooting in 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13022096
It's just as likely Labour will win some surprise seats as well. Despite the SNP strengths in Scotland Labour are bound to win a few as the swing against will not be uniform.
Harrow East, Enfield Southgate, Ilford North, Finchley & Golders Green are the best examples of seats Labour could win with a much bigger than average swing. I can't think of many outside London though.
Can I ask - who on here is actually going out canvassing and meeting a wide swathe of the voters? There seem to be a lot of folks here who are happy to bet solely on what the polls are saying.....
My entire betting strategy at present is built around the basic premise that no one really knows what is going on.
£400 at 1.89 queuing to back UKIP in S Thanet on Betfair.. anyone not on the Even money w Coral must be mad, literally mad as a punter to be allowing the annual inflow of thousands of pounds into other peoples bank accounts
Coral allowed me £25 yesterday and have barred me from staking any more today.
Regional assemblies are demented. Leaving aside the fact that a 'North' Assembly would take about six seconds to be riven by a War of the Roses, they guarantee England gets a raw deal.
Here's why: 1) Scotland has devolution, which will only increase 2) English equality demand that England retains competence over devolved areas [for England, of course] 3) If England is carved into rubbish regions, this is impossible, because: 4) Could we really have varying education, transport, and fiscal policies between Yorkshire and Kent? Between Dover and Bristol? Would income tax [due to be devolved to Holyrood] ever credibly be varied within England? 5) Therefore an England-wide political body is required for England to have parity with Scotland. We could call it: 6) An English Parliament.
Mr. Morris Dancer,
Your point (4) is actually why I disagree with the other commenters that suggest devolution should only be done at the county level. The counties are far too small to have different education and transport systems. I do not think that is true of the larger regions I have suggested. I would actually argue that the North or the South West being able to decide their own local transport decisions would be much superior to doing this at the all-England level.
Income tax varying for different regions would also be workable, or even desirable. You could have a certain base level going to the UK level, with the rest being set at the regional level. If the North of England prefers social democratic governance, they can give it a try, while us in the South East can focus on being more competitive and laissez-faire. We can then see which regional economic approach is most successful.
Having canvassed in Devon, I know how alienated they feel from Westminster, and I can't see that changing if it was done at the English level in London either. I think it would be helpful to get some big political figures from the regions to help change the national debate away from the metropolitan bubble.
Final electorate figures for Broxtowe in case anyone is interested - 71764 (virtually unchanged), of whom 13246 are postal voters (of whom most voted last week). Last time, the winning mark was just over 20,000 - with fewer LDs but more UKIP this time, I expect it'll be somewhere similar, but perhaps a bit higher since there's really a lot of interest - turnout will probably be 55000 or so (71% last time). If we can get 75% of the promise out, we should be OK.
Any idea how much Soubry has been "promised" ?
Nick by 1,000, I reckon. But a late swing to the Tories could chip away at that.
Doubt it. More like 2,000 to 4,000. I still think Broxtowe is the most likely Lab gain from Con in the country. It has the best demographics. North Warwickshire is slowly trending against Labour, although they're likely to win it this time.
Can anyone remember to before the last election, the mantra was to take the best figure for the Tories and the worst for Labour across the polls. Was this disproved?
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
In that situation, I wonder if Miliband's party would allow him to form a government, given its clear suicidality for Labour.
Labour's best interest (not Ed's) would be in sitting back, and letting Cameron flail around, trying to form a minority government, which would soon fall (over the EU ref?). Meanwhile Labour get rid of their loser leader, and find someone with more charm for the swiftly ensuing 2nd election.
Result: Labour win, as the Tories fight over Europe or whatever.
So Ed's personal ambitions might be in opposition to Labour's wider interests.
I suspect that the party will be split and it will not be able to whip its full strength against the Queen's speech. You are right: it's a political suicide vest.
Which specific Labour MPs do you think will be standing up and voting for a Tory Queen's Speech, or letting people say they got a Tory government because they couldn't be arsed to show up for the vote?
Surely the very definition of a three line whip is a vote on the first Queen's speech following a hung Parliament? Anyone not there must surely be fired by their party?
Exactly, I can't see it happening. What Tom Watson etc did in 2010 was to threaten to vote against the concessions that Labour were trying to promise the LibDems. This is obviously much easier to sell to the base than directly voting against bringing down the enemy government or voting to prevent your own party from taking office, and if you can threaten credibly you can scare off the other party so you never actually need to carry it out. The risk of this kind of thing is probably one reason why the LibDems have rules out being the third leg of a Lab+SNP+Lib deal.
Can anyone remember to before the last election, the mantra was to take the best figure for the Tories and the worst for Labour across the polls. Was this disproved?
Angus Reid happened.
The trick is not to completely discount any poll. All of them have their uses - even the new kid on the block "BPG" or whatever - their actual % figures can be pretty much disregarded - but if they're showing a headline change between polls, that tells us *something* doesn't it?
My guess is UKIP are going to be squeezed very hard in the marginals. But in the safe seats they could still put in some unexpectedly good showings, especially safe Labour seats in places like Yorkshire and the North East.
Agree. I know it's unscientific, but here in a VERY safe NE urban seat, hearing a lot of support for UKIP. From the weirdest quarters too - a primary school head whose school has 65% EAL kids, a police officer, Iranian man who runs cafe. This of course is very unlikely to convert to seats, but I think UKIP will do very well in constituencies where people "know" that labour will win anyway.
£400 at 1.89 queuing to back UKIP in S Thanet on Betfair.. anyone not on the Even money w Coral must be mad, literally mad as a punter to be allowing the annual inflow of thousands of pounds into other peoples bank accounts
Coral allowed me £25 yesterday and have barred me from staking any more today.
Mr. Lilburne, further devolution (to county level, say) could still occur, but if there's no English Parliament then equality with Scotland's Parliament is impossible.
Mr Palmer how have you been occupying yourself since 2010?
Director of Policy for http://crueltyfreeinternational.org/ . Satisfying and interesting job - visited 20 countries in the last few years and helped get a lot of change in legislation around the world, even in unlikely-seeming places like Korea. Some surreal moments, like when we were haggling with the Amazonas cattle-farming bloc of MPs in the Brazilian Parliament. In general, being a grey-haired former MP has been a big plus in opening Ministerial doors, as I'm obviously not a loony hippie out to give them grief, and in the smaller countries they've often seemed intrigued at the interest.
It's much easier to get change in developing countries, as often they don't have much animal welfare legislation to start with, so are more open to ideas than our own dear Home Office, whose standard reaction is "Why should we do anything to change our current excellent regulations?"
Regional assemblies are demented. Leaving aside the fact that a 'North' Assembly would take about six seconds to be riven by a War of the Roses, they guarantee England gets a raw deal.
Here's why: 1) Scotland has devolution, which will only increase 2) English equality demand that England retains competence over devolved areas [for England, of course] 3) If England is carved into rubbish regions, this is impossible, because: 4) Could we really have varying education, transport, and fiscal policies between Yorkshire and Kent? Between Dover and Bristol? Would income tax [due to be devolved to Holyrood] ever credibly be varied within England? 5) Therefore an England-wide political body is required for England to have parity with Scotland. We could call it: 6) An English Parliament.
That would lead to an extremely centralised England. I would then want to devolve most power down to some form of local unit, with the national parliament in Oxford keeping a few strategic functions. I see no reason why Hampshire can't run health, transport and schools, for example. It is after all bigger than the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg which does all those and more.
No thanks - property prices are bad enough here as it is!!!
£400 at 1.89 queuing to back UKIP in S Thanet on Betfair.. anyone not on the Even money w Coral must be mad, literally mad as a punter to be allowing the annual inflow of thousands of pounds into other peoples bank accounts
Coral allowed me £25 yesterday and have barred me from staking any more today.
Shops!
My mate managed to get £400 on in his local
That, unfortunately, is normally not particularly practical for me because of time commitments. But I may get the opportunity today.
Don't know whether this has been discussed already, but I was just thinking that it may be the case that because Labour aren't going to win an overall majority some of their voters are going to be a bit disillusioned and won't bother voting in the same numbers as they would have done had they thought they had a chance of doing so, which most of them probably did believe just a few months ago (no matter how unlikely it was even then).
That might create an opening for the Tories to make one or two gains in places like Southampton Itchen, Halifax, etc. Unlikely but not as unlikely as it used to be, maybe.
I think both are fair shouts from whAt I understand. In Halifax I think there was a central office late appointment for th Labour PPC.
In South Itchen the Labour candidate is a privately educated oxford ppe graduate and the Tory is a local councillor with a forces background who is a local hero after foiling a shooting in 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13022096
It's just as likely Labour will win some surprise seats as well. Despite the SNP strengths in Scotland Labour are bound to win a few as the swing against will not be uniform.
Harrow East, Enfield Southgate, Ilford North, Finchley & Golders Green are the best examples of seats Labour could win with a much bigger than average swing. I can't think of many outside London though.
"Only the Tories can stop Labour gaining Ilford North!"
Don't know whether this has been discussed already, but I was just thinking that it may be the case that because Labour aren't going to win an overall majority some of their voters are going to be a bit disillusioned and won't bother voting in the same numbers as they would have done had they thought they had a chance of doing so, which most of them probably did believe just a few months ago (no matter how unlikely it was even then).
That might create an opening for the Tories to make one or two gains in places like Southampton Itchen, Halifax, etc. Unlikely but not as unlikely as it used to be, maybe.
I think both are fair shouts from whAt I understand. In Halifax I think there was a central office late appointment for th Labour PPC.
In South Itchen the Labour candidate is a privately educated oxford ppe graduate and the Tory is a local councillor with a forces background who is a local hero after foiling a shooting in 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13022096
It's just as likely Labour will win some surprise seats as well. Despite the SNP strengths in Scotland Labour are bound to win a few as the swing against will not be uniform.
Harrow East, Enfield Southgate, Ilford North, Finchley & Golders Green are the best examples of seats Labour could win with a much bigger than average swing. I can't think of many outside London though.
I think Southgate is out of reach, even with a bigger than average swing in London.
Don't know whether this has been discussed already, but I was just thinking that it may be the case that because Labour aren't going to win an overall majority some of their voters are going to be a bit disillusioned and won't bother voting in the same numbers as they would have done had they thought they had a chance of doing so, which most of them probably did believe just a few months ago (no matter how unlikely it was even then).
That might create an opening for the Tories to make one or two gains in places like Southampton Itchen, Halifax, etc. Unlikely but not as unlikely as it used to be, maybe.
I think both are fair shouts from whAt I understand. In Halifax I think there was a central office late appointment for th Labour PPC.
In South Itchen the Labour candidate is a privately educated oxford ppe graduate and the Tory is a local councillor with a forces background who is a local hero after foiling a shooting in 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13022096
It's just as likely Labour will win some surprise seats as well. Despite the SNP strengths in Scotland Labour are bound to win a few as the swing against will not be uniform.
Harrow East, Enfield Southgate, Ilford North, Finchley & Golders Green are the best examples of seats Labour could win with a much bigger than average swing. I can't think of many outside London though.
I've got punts on both the reading seats, Reading East at 16-1 in the Ladbrokes "Labour seat bomb" market (Where I've backed Bristol West at 16-1 further down the list) and a bit of cash on Reading West.
Paddy Power Politics @pppolitics 16m16 minutes ago Tories leading in South Thanet on latest Ashcroft, cut from 9/4 to 6/4. UKIP on the drift at 8/11. #GE2015
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
In that situation, I wonder if Miliband's party would allow him to form a government, given its clear suicidality for Labour.
So Ed's personal ambitions might be in opposition to Labour's wider interests.
Cameron could call Milibands bluff, resign, then he would be forced to make it work..
In fact that would be a smart move by the tories, and I expect Cameron wouldn't want to hang around in that situation.
Being in government at the moment does give you some advantages.
.
This can get very complicated very quickly....
The only way i can see Cameron staying it is if we have a second election, and the either labour or tory majority might be possible.
But, that can only happen if Cameron resigns as PM, but remains leader of the tories, but i think thats unlikely.
If Ed gets a chance to be PM, he'll HAVE to try to make it work, and I can't see how labour could remove him.
If the Queen calls you to be PM, you have to follow it through.
Agreed, it will get very complicated very quickly.
If Dave can't get a coalition together by - let's be generous - Saturday afternoon, he'll be making his appointment to see HM first thing Monday morning. This is exactly what Brown did on Tuesday last time.
This will serve the twin purposes of dropping Ed in it from a massive height and allowing his own party to regroup around a new leader, because there WILL be a second election a few months down the line.
Mr Palmer how have you been occupying yourself since 2010?
Director of Policy for http://crueltyfreeinternational.org/ . Satisfying and interesting job - visited 20 countries in the last few years and helped get a lot of change in legislation around the world, even in unlikely-seeming places like Korea. Some surreal moments, like when we were haggling with the Amazonas cattle-farming bloc of MPs in the Brazilian Parliament. In general, being a grey-haired former MP has been a big plus in opening Ministerial doors, as I'm obviously not a loony hippie out to give them grief, and in the smaller countries they've often seemed intrigued at the interest.
It's much easier to get change in developing countries, as often they don't have much animal welfare legislation to start with, so are more open to ideas than our own dear Home Office, whose standard reaction is "Why should we do anything to change our current excellent regulations?"
Mr. JEO, varying matters such as income tax within England would institutionalise regional divisions and all but guarantee the future break-up of the country.
England must be kept whole. Scotland has shown how from 'killing nationalism stone dead' less than two decades was needed for potentially every seat to fall to nationalism.
Paddy Power Politics @pppolitics 16m16 minutes ago Tories leading in South Thanet on latest Ashcroft, cut from 9/4 to 6/4. UKIP on the drift at 8/11. #GE2015
Reeling in the mugs
Look at Betfair exchange for the true picture not bookies adverts
Mr Palmer how have you been occupying yourself since 2010?
Director of Policy for http://crueltyfreeinternational.org/ . Satisfying and interesting job - visited 20 countries in the last few years and helped get a lot of change in legislation around the world, even in unlikely-seeming places like Korea. Some surreal moments, like when we were haggling with the Amazonas cattle-farming bloc of MPs in the Brazilian Parliament. In general, being a grey-haired former MP has been a big plus in opening Ministerial doors, as I'm obviously not a loony hippie out to give them grief, and in the smaller countries they've often seemed intrigued at the interest.
It's much easier to get change in developing countries, as often they don't have much animal welfare legislation to start with, so are more open to ideas than our own dear Home Office, whose standard reaction is "Why should we do anything to change our current excellent regulations?"
It does sound interesting and challenging ... the big question being why you'd want to jack it all in for Westminster again?
My eldest boy is voting Green. He was very adamant about it last night. He said none of the major parties are telling the truth, so why bother with them? He doesn't expect anything from the Greens, but likes the fact that they are interested in saving the planet - whatever that means. He fully expects never to be able to buy his own home or to enjoy the lifestyle and opportunities his Mum and Dad have enjoyed. He is probably right about that - until we snuff it. My guess is that his views are to a greater or lesser extent shared by many under-30s.
I'm slightly older than that age range but I feel exactly the same. No chance of owning a home in the foreseable future.
Without taking a massive risk like I did it is basically impossible if you live in London. The bank lent us 5.5x our gross joint income and we came in with just 10% on the deposit. Under today' rules there is no way we would have qualified for the mortgage, and I'm thankful we did having seen how insane property prices have become since 2013.
The decline in home ownership is really disturbing.
I think it's terrible. I have a lot of sympathy with the under 30s trying to get on now.
What on earth do they do? This is a real long-term problem for the Tories.
Until someone is willing to tackle what has become a British Third Rail of planning permission and the green belt it's always going to be tinkering at the edges.
I do think the Help To Buy ISA is a great innovation though. My wife and I bought our first home last Parliament, hardest thing as a then-20something was saving for the deposit. Helping people get into the habit of saving is a step on the right direction.
Without more homes, I'm afraid it just stokes prices. We have too many people chasing too few homes.
More homes are being built. I live in a new build (on what was brownfield land) that we bought from the developer when our whole part of the estate was just mud and grass and we had to use our imagination as to what it would look like. We were the first to move into our street and it took years until every house (there are many hundreds in our new estate) was built and sold in the estate. The developers covered the estate until they finished with adverts for Help To Buy - in other areas it may stoke prices but where developers can build it doesn't just stoke prices it helped give people the confidence to build and the confidence to buy.
Realistically the biggest problem stopping developers from building is land and the requirement to build on brownfield.
My guess is UKIP are going to be squeezed very hard in the marginals. But in the safe seats they could still put in some unexpectedly good showings, especially safe Labour seats in places like Yorkshire and the North East.
Agree. I know it's unscientific, but here in a VERY safe NE urban seat, hearing a lot of support for UKIP. From the weirdest quarters too - a primary school head whose school has 65% EAL kids, a police officer, Iranian man who runs cafe. This of course is very unlikely to convert to seats, but I think UKIP will do very well in constituencies where people "know" that labour will win anyway.
Racking up votes in no hope seats. This is the success of anti politics. Like an anti-lib dem strategy.
I am sure that th lib dems would go down to 5% in the polls if that translate into a winning number of votes in 30 seats.
Don't know whether this has been discussed already, but I was just thinking that it may be the case that because Labour aren't going to win an overall majority some of their voters are going to be a bit disillusioned and won't bother voting in the same numbers as they would have done had they thought they had a chance of doing so, which most of them probably did believe just a few months ago (no matter how unlikely it was even then).
That might create an opening for the Tories to make one or two gains in places like Southampton Itchen, Halifax, etc. Unlikely but not as unlikely as it used to be, maybe.
I think both are fair shouts from whAt I understand. In Halifax I think there was a central office late appointment for th Labour PPC.
In South Itchen the Labour candidate is a privately educated oxford ppe graduate and the Tory is a local councillor with a forces background who is a local hero after foiling a shooting in 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13022096
It's just as likely Labour will win some surprise seats as well. Despite the SNP strengths in Scotland Labour are bound to win a few as the swing against will not be uniform.
Harrow East, Enfield Southgate, Ilford North, Finchley & Golders Green are the best examples of seats Labour could win with a much bigger than average swing. I can't think of many outside London though.
I've got punts on both the reading seats, Reading East at 16-1 in the Ladbrokes "Labour seat bomb" market (Where I've backed Bristol West at 16-1 further down the list) and a bit of cash on Reading West.
I wouldn't be betting on Reading. Huge drops in those registered to vote....
Don't know whether this has been discussed already, but I was just thinking that it may be the case that because Labour aren't going to win an overall majority some of their voters are going to be a bit disillusioned and won't bother voting in the same numbers as they would have done had they thought they had a chance of doing so, which most of them probably did believe just a few months ago (no matter how unlikely it was even then).
That might create an opening for the Tories to make one or two gains in places like Southampton Itchen, Halifax, etc. Unlikely but not as unlikely as it used to be, maybe.
There are always lots of reasons for a poor Labour turnout, and we always see lower turnout in Labour seats than Tory ones - but will the Labour turnout be worse this time than in 2010?
But the Labour turnout in 2010 was actually better than expected. For example in Hackney North it was only 2% lower than the national average. In 1992 it was 15% lower. That was true for quite a number of safe Labour seats IIRC.
Don't know whether this has been discussed already, but I was just thinking that it may be the case that because Labour aren't going to win an overall majority some of their voters are going to be a bit disillusioned and won't bother voting in the same numbers as they would have done had they thought they had a chance of doing so, which most of them probably did believe just a few months ago (no matter how unlikely it was even then).
That might create an opening for the Tories to make one or two gains in places like Southampton Itchen, Halifax, etc. Unlikely but not as unlikely as it used to be, maybe.
I think both are fair shouts from whAt I understand. In Halifax I think there was a central office late appointment for th Labour PPC.
In South Itchen the Labour candidate is a privately educated oxford ppe graduate and the Tory is a local councillor with a forces background who is a local hero after foiling a shooting in 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13022096
It's just as likely Labour will win some surprise seats as well. Despite the SNP strengths in Scotland Labour are bound to win a few as the swing against will not be uniform.
Harrow East, Enfield Southgate, Ilford North, Finchley & Golders Green are the best examples of seats Labour could win with a much bigger than average swing. I can't think of many outside London though.
"Only the Tories can stop Labour gaining Ilford North!"
Don't know whether this has been discussed already, but I was just thinking that it may be the case that because Labour aren't going to win an overall majority some of their voters are going to be a bit disillusioned and won't bother voting in the same numbers as they would have done had they thought they had a chance of doing so, which most of them probably did believe just a few months ago (no matter how unlikely it was even then).
That might create an opening for the Tories to make one or two gains in places like Southampton Itchen, Halifax, etc. Unlikely but not as unlikely as it used to be, maybe.
I think both are fair shouts from whAt I understand. In Halifax I think there was a central office late appointment for th Labour PPC.
In South Itchen the Labour candidate is a privately educated oxford ppe graduate and the Tory is a local councillor with a forces background who is a local hero after foiling a shooting in 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13022096
It's just as likely Labour will win some surprise seats as well. Despite the SNP strengths in Scotland Labour are bound to win a few as the swing against will not be uniform.
Harrow East, Enfield Southgate, Ilford North, Finchley & Golders Green are the best examples of seats Labour could win with a much bigger than average swing. I can't think of many outside London though.
I met the brother-in-law of the Lab candidate in F&GG last weekend, old friend from uni. He said she thinks she will lose narrowly.
He also said she didn't campaign on Saturdays as she would inevitably encounter some Orthodox jews and "writing things down would break the sabbath". I was sure I had misheard but a quick google the next day told me that my school RE lessons were woefully inadequate. Extraordinary...but all space-wizard based belief systems are nonsense to me so will refrain from further comment!
My guess is UKIP are going to be squeezed very hard in the marginals. But in the safe seats they could still put in some unexpectedly good showings, especially safe Labour seats in places like Yorkshire and the North East.
Agree. I know it's unscientific, but here in a VERY safe NE urban seat, hearing a lot of support for UKIP. From the weirdest quarters too - a primary school head whose school has 65% EAL kids, a police officer, Iranian man who runs cafe. This of course is very unlikely to convert to seats, but I think UKIP will do very well in constituencies where people "know" that labour will win anyway.
Racking up votes in no hope seats. This is the success of anti politics. Like an anti-lib dem strategy.
I am sure that th lib dems would go down to 5% in the polls if that translate into a winning number of votes in 30 seats.
I suppose the interesting thing will be if there are former very safe LAB seats that become LAB/UKIP marginals next time round; especially if there is another election this year.
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
In that situation, I wonder if Miliband's party would allow him to form a government, given its clear suicidality for Labour.
So Ed's personal ambitions might be in opposition to Labour's wider interests.
Cameron could call Milibands bluff, resign, then he would be forced to make it work..
In fact that would be a smart move by the tories, and I expect Cameron wouldn't want to hang around in that situation.
Being in government at the moment does give you some advantages.
.
This can get very complicated very quickly....
The only way i can see Cameron staying it is if we have a second election, and the either labour or tory majority might be possible.
But, that can only happen if Cameron resigns as PM, but remains leader of the tories, but i think thats unlikely.
If Ed gets a chance to be PM, he'll HAVE to try to make it work, and I can't see how labour could remove him.
If the Queen calls you to be PM, you have to follow it through.
Agreed, it will get very complicated very quickly.
If Dave can't get a coalition together by - let's be generous - Saturday afternoon, he'll be making his appointment to see HM first thing Monday morning. This is exactly what Brown did on Tuesday last time.
This will serve the twin purposes of dropping Ed in it from a massive height and allowing his own party to regroup around a new leader, because there WILL be a second election a few months down the line.
What if he's going for a minority government instead of a coalition? The Queen's Speech isn't scheduled until May 27th, it could be three weeks until anyone even gets to vote on it...
My guess is UKIP are going to be squeezed very hard in the marginals. But in the safe seats they could still put in some unexpectedly good showings, especially safe Labour seats in places like Yorkshire and the North East.
Agree. I know it's unscientific, but here in a VERY safe NE urban seat, hearing a lot of support for UKIP. From the weirdest quarters too - a primary school head whose school has 65% EAL kids, a police officer, Iranian man who runs cafe. This of course is very unlikely to convert to seats, but I think UKIP will do very well in constituencies where people "know" that labour will win anyway.
Those examples do not surprise me at all. I've met a lot of teachers while canvassing who are very sympathetic to immigration arguments. They know the difficulty having a majority EAL class causes. They usually vote Labour for other reasons, but the immigration message is more effective with them than it is for professional business types. It's the same case with people working in local government. They know full well that areas with high immigration are under more strain because they have to deal with the issues directly. Right now they're voting Labour because of the austerity issue, but as that fades into the background after 2020 I worry a lot will be having a look at UKIP. UKIP are also catering to them on the austerity issue by promising a "middle way" and messaging on refocusing international aid/EU contributions towards alleviating austerity.
Mr. Sandpit, an English Parliament is essential. If there's further devolution to counties, fine, but an English Parliament must come first otherwise England cannot have equality with Scotland.
Agreed, but I would also devolve a lot to the Counties, for example business taxes and rates, with Country raised taxes being much more closely related to County spending. Counties need to be able to compete with each other to be attractive to business, especially new and small businesses, in a way that doesn't happen now.
Can I ask - who on here is actually going out canvassing and meeting a wide swathe of the voters? There seem to be a lot of folks here who are happy to bet solely on what the polls are saying.....
I am - but as I'm exclusively in Vauxhall I'm not sure how useful it is... I can tell you that Kate Hoey is more popular than the local Labour council (shock horror), and that people appear interested in what I am saying standing as a Pirate candidate. Don't really see how that helps anyone's betting though...
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
In that situation, I wonder if Miliband's party would allow him to form a government, given its clear suicidality for Labour.
So Ed's personal ambitions might be in opposition to Labour's wider interests.
Cameron could call Milibands bluff, resign, then he would be forced to make it work..
In fact that would be a smart move by the tories, and I expect Cameron wouldn't want to hang around in that situation.
Being in government at the moment does give you some advantages.
.
This can get very complicated very quickly....
The only way i can see Cameron staying it is if we have a second election, and the either labour or tory majority might be possible.
But, that can only happen if Cameron resigns as PM, but remains leader of the tories, but i think thats unlikely.
If Ed gets a chance to be PM, he'll HAVE to try to make it work, and I can't see how labour could remove him.
If the Queen calls you to be PM, you have to follow it through.
Agreed, it will get very complicated very quickly.
If Dave can't get a coalition together by - let's be generous - Saturday afternoon, he'll be making his appointment to see HM first thing Monday morning. This is exactly what Brown did on Tuesday last time.
This will serve the twin purposes of dropping Ed in it from a massive height and allowing his own party to regroup around a new leader, because there WILL be a second election a few months down the line.
Miliband, understandably, will do all he can to become PM next Friday - regardless of the consequences.
Even if the maths isn't with him, he has to give it all he can to forge a government. If he can get in front of the Queen and put forward a plausible government, he will have fulfilled his dream of becoming PM. It's the only chance he'll ever get and he is clearly confident enough in his own abilities to believe he can be a successful PM in a minority govt.
Next Friday morning he will be like Dr Elsa Schneider in the Last Crusade. He'll know that reaching out for the Holy Grail could bring the walls crashing down but the temptation will be too much to bear.
Don't know whether this has been discussed already, but I was just thinking that it may be the case that because Labour aren't going to win an overall majority some of their voters are going to be a bit disillusioned and won't bother voting in the same numbers as they would have done had they thought they had a chance of doing so, which most of them probably did believe just a few months ago (no matter how unlikely it was even then).
That might create an opening for the Tories to make one or two gains in places like Southampton Itchen, Halifax, etc. Unlikely but not as unlikely as it used to be, maybe.
I think both are fair shouts from whAt I understand. In Halifax I think there was a central office late appointment for th Labour PPC.
In South Itchen the Labour candidate is a privately educated oxford ppe graduate and the Tory is a local councillor with a forces background who is a local hero after foiling a shooting in 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13022096
It's just as likely Labour will win some surprise seats as well. Despite the SNP strengths in Scotland Labour are bound to win a few as the swing against will not be uniform.
Harrow East, Enfield Southgate, Ilford North, Finchley & Golders Green are the best examples of seats Labour could win with a much bigger than average swing. I can't think of many outside London though.
I've got punts on both the reading seats, Reading East at 16-1 in the Ladbrokes "Labour seat bomb" market (Where I've backed Bristol West at 16-1 further down the list) and a bit of cash on Reading West.
I wouldn't be betting on Reading. Huge drops in those registered to vote....
£20 @ 11-4 West; £10 @ 16-1 East - bet loses if Kettering goes red.
Can anyone remember to before the last election, the mantra was to take the best figure for the Tories and the worst for Labour across the polls. Was this disproved?
Angus Reid happened.
The trick is not to completely discount any poll. All of them have their uses - even the new kid on the block "BPG" or whatever - their actual % figures can be pretty much disregarded - but if they're showing a headline change between polls, that tells us *something* doesn't it?
It does, but the marginal extra information from a poll from a new firm is pretty low for a variety of reasons, including sample variation and lack of calibration to election results.
Final electorate figures for Broxtowe in case anyone is interested - 71764 (virtually unchanged), of whom 13246 are postal voters (of whom most voted last week). Last time, the winning mark was just over 20,000 - with fewer LDs but more UKIP this time, I expect it'll be somewhere similar, but perhaps a bit higher since there's really a lot of interest - turnout will probably be 55000 or so (71% last time). If we can get 75% of the promise out, we should be OK.
Were the BBC wrong to give the turnout last time as 73.2%? I wish they'd make an effort to give accurate data.
My guess is UKIP are going to be squeezed very hard in the marginals. But in the safe seats they could still put in some unexpectedly good showings, especially safe Labour seats in places like Yorkshire and the North East.
Agree. I know it's unscientific, but here in a VERY safe NE urban seat, hearing a lot of support for UKIP. From the weirdest quarters too - a primary school head whose school has 65% EAL kids, a police officer, Iranian man who runs cafe. This of course is very unlikely to convert to seats, but I think UKIP will do very well in constituencies where people "know" that labour will win anyway.
Can anyone remember to before the last election, the mantra was to take the best figure for the Tories and the worst for Labour across the polls. Was this disproved?
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
In that situation, I wonder if Miliband's party would allow him to form a government, given its clear suicidality for Labour.
Labour's best interest (not Ed's) would be in sitting back, and letting Cameron flail around, trying to form a minority government, which would soon fall (over the EU ref?). Meanwhile Labour get rid of their loser leader, and find someone with more charm for the swiftly ensuing 2nd election.
Result: Labour win, as the Tories fight over Europe or whatever.
So Ed's personal ambitions might be in opposition to Labour's wider interests.
I suspect that the party will be split and it will not be able to whip its full strength against the Queen's speech. You are right: it's a political suicide vest.
Which specific Labour MPs do you think will be standing up and voting for a Tory Queen's Speech, or letting people say they got a Tory government because they couldn't be arsed to show up for the vote?
Surely the very definition of a three line whip is a vote on the first Queen's speech following a hung Parliament? Anyone not there must surely be fired by their party?
I would have thought so, but then if they can gather 20-30 likeminded individuals they could collectively make the call for new elections rather than a C+S arrangement.
A strong leader and whips office would have the lot of them deselected if they actually voted against the leadership in the Commons?
It does sound interesting and challenging ... the big question being why you'd want to jack it all in for Westminster again?
At a personal level I don't really care whether I win or not as both options will be interesting. But being part of the labour movement comes first, always has.
Don't know whether this has been discussed already, but I was just thinking that it may be the case that because Labour aren't going to win an overall majority some of their voters are going to be a bit disillusioned and won't bother voting in the same numbers as they would have done had they thought they had a chance of doing so, which most of them probably did believe just a few months ago (no matter how unlikely it was even then).
That might create an opening for the Tories to make one or two gains in places like Southampton Itchen, Halifax, etc. Unlikely but not as unlikely as it used to be, maybe.
I think both are fair shouts from whAt I understand. In Halifax I think there was a central office late appointment for th Labour PPC.
In South Itchen the Labour candidate is a privately educated oxford ppe graduate and the Tory is a local councillor with a forces background who is a local hero after foiling a shooting in 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13022096
It's just as likely Labour will win some surprise seats as well. Despite the SNP strengths in Scotland Labour are bound to win a few as the swing against will not be uniform.
Harrow East, Enfield Southgate, Ilford North, Finchley & Golders Green are the best examples of seats Labour could win with a much bigger than average swing. I can't think of many outside London though.
I've got punts on both the reading seats, Reading East at 16-1 in the Ladbrokes "Labour seat bomb" market (Where I've backed Bristol West at 16-1 further down the list) and a bit of cash on Reading West.
As per my comments on Swindon yesterday I understand employment levels high and Tories lead within the 25 million private sector employees by 7%. Reading does not come across as somewhere that will go Labour unless there is a significant local personality or issue, or problem with Tory candidate/ strength of Labour candidate.
Can I ask - who on here is actually going out canvassing and meeting a wide swathe of the voters? There seem to be a lot of folks here who are happy to bet solely on what the polls are saying.....
You seem to be extrapolating national shares from your own take on what's happening in Torbay
I'm doing no such thing.
I'm asking - who on here is canvassing? Are you? Or are you too busy with your spread sheets?
Comments
Learning that one of my least favourite celebrity Lefties is going to front it will not endear it to me further....!
You're just making things up
If devolution was to counties of England, then Scotland really would rule the roost when it came to arguing over funds. The First Minister of Northamptonshire is unlikely to have much visibility when it came time to demand more money.
I agree that in the past 5 years he's calmed down a lot and is moderating the loony left of his party, but he will always have that nasty smell hanging around him.
Regional assemblies are demented. Leaving aside the fact that a 'North' Assembly would take about six seconds to be riven by a War of the Roses, they guarantee England gets a raw deal.
Here's why:
1) Scotland has devolution, which will only increase
2) English equality demand that England retains competence over devolved areas [for England, of course]
3) If England is carved into rubbish regions, this is impossible, because:
4) Could we really have varying education, transport, and fiscal policies between Yorkshire and Kent? Between Dover and Bristol? Would income tax [due to be devolved to Holyrood] ever credibly be varied within England?
5) Therefore an England-wide political body is required for England to have parity with Scotland. We could call it:
6) An English Parliament.
1 will not vote, the other two are voting UKIP.
1 will certainly vote, I remain to be convinced that the other one will bother.
'Yes but it was pay per view only...'
The only way i can see Cameron staying it is if we have a second election, and the either labour or tory majority might be possible.
But, that can only happen if Cameron resigns as PM, but remains leader of the tories, but i think thats unlikely.
If Ed gets a chance to be PM, he'll HAVE to try to make it work, and I can't see how labour could remove him.
If the Queen calls you to be PM, you have to follow it through.
We'll know on May 8th what current situation is.
Mr. Sykes, I had the same thought (about the ridiculousness of equality, but only for one gender).
Some of them are thinking the idea of being ruled by Scotland as even more of a horror show than being ruled by Brussels!
Still, its nice of her to start a party to make men equal with women.
Any betting on under over 9%?
And you're doing better!
Your point (4) is actually why I disagree with the other commenters that suggest devolution should only be done at the county level. The counties are far too small to have different education and transport systems. I do not think that is true of the larger regions I have suggested. I would actually argue that the North or the South West being able to decide their own local transport decisions would be much superior to doing this at the all-England level.
Income tax varying for different regions would also be workable, or even desirable. You could have a certain base level going to the UK level, with the rest being set at the regional level. If the North of England prefers social democratic governance, they can give it a try, while us in the South East can focus on being more competitive and laissez-faire. We can then see which regional economic approach is most successful.
Having canvassed in Devon, I know how alienated they feel from Westminster, and I can't see that changing if it was done at the English level in London either. I think it would be helpful to get some big political figures from the regions to help change the national debate away from the metropolitan bubble.
To lighten up everybody's day and very NSFW (apologies for the language) but this is genuinely very, very funny. Fair play to the boy.
(I like their data tables!)
My mate managed to get £400 on in his local
It's much easier to get change in developing countries, as often they don't have much animal welfare legislation to start with, so are more open to ideas than our own dear Home Office, whose standard reaction is "Why should we do anything to change our current excellent regulations?"
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/588025567427043330
Tories leading in South Thanet on latest Ashcroft, cut from 9/4 to 6/4. UKIP on the drift at 8/11. #GE2015
If Dave can't get a coalition together by - let's be generous - Saturday afternoon, he'll be making his appointment to see HM first thing Monday morning. This is exactly what Brown did on Tuesday last time.
This will serve the twin purposes of dropping Ed in it from a massive height and allowing his own party to regroup around a new leader, because there WILL be a second election a few months down the line.
England must be kept whole. Scotland has shown how from 'killing nationalism stone dead' less than two decades was needed for potentially every seat to fall to nationalism.
Look at Betfair exchange for the true picture not bookies adverts
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Anglo-Saxon_Heptarchy.jpg
Realistically the biggest problem stopping developers from building is land and the requirement to build on brownfield.
I am sure that th lib dems would go down to 5% in the polls if that translate into a winning number of votes in 30 seats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackney_North_and_Stoke_Newington_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
He also said she didn't campaign on Saturdays as she would inevitably encounter some Orthodox jews and "writing things down would break the sabbath". I was sure I had misheard but a quick google the next day told me that my school RE lessons were woefully inadequate. Extraordinary...but all space-wizard based belief systems are nonsense to me so will refrain from further comment!
Even if the maths isn't with him, he has to give it all he can to forge a government. If he can get in front of the Queen and put forward a plausible government, he will have fulfilled his dream of becoming PM. It's the only chance he'll ever get and he is clearly confident enough in his own abilities to believe he can be a successful PM in a minority govt.
Next Friday morning he will be like Dr Elsa Schneider in the Last Crusade. He'll know that reaching out for the Holy Grail could bring the walls crashing down but the temptation will be too much to bear.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/election2010/results/constituency/a78.stm
Miliband's more like Donovan. Desperate for a sip of power, and Sturgeon's on hand to pick out his cup.
I'm asking - who on here is canvassing? Are you? Or are you too busy with your spread sheets?