Initial thoughts on the ICM poll is that Tories will be disappointed to not have a wider edge over Labour and the LibDems pleased with a score double their poll rating.
One of the reasons for that I suggest is that Ed came back a bit in the second half and nudged peoples fears over tax credits. Gordo's biggest legacy in some ways was the generous tax credit system which gave so many people a vested interest in the state and its handouts.
The Sun Twitter worm had many minutes of negative rating for Cameron between minutes 12 and 27. Ed had negative rating only for half a minute between minutes 3 and 4.
The Sun Twitter worm had many minutes of negative rating for Cameron between minutes 12 and 27. Ed had negative rating only for half a minute between minutes 3 and 4.
Come on don't be paraniod. Cameron, Miliband and Clegg all just got the sh t kicked out of them.
They weren;t constantly interrupted by the Dimbleby. They also had an audience share which in Clegg's case was four times his support level, in Cameron and Milibands was close to their actual share (25% to 33%). Nicola had 20% of the audience when her vote share is 54%.
It also means, comparatively, that there was undue audience focus on the second referendum.
Clegg doing well. The only one being honest. Best PM the country will never have
He *may* have been a good PM, although we will never know. But the task of running a party with 56 MPs is much easier than running one with 302 or 256. For one thing you can meet with them personally and sound them out on issues. Cameron and Miliband don't have that luxury due to numbers.
It looks as though the task will be even easier for whoever is in charge of the Lib Dems after this GE.
The question is whether Clegg's skills could have led Labour or the Conservatives if his politics had been different (as Blair could easily have led the Conservatives (*)). I'd say yes to the Conservatives, but probably not Labour.
Initial thoughts on the ICM poll is that Tories will be disappointed to not have a wider edge over Labour and the LibDems pleased with a score double their poll rating.
One of the reasons for that I suggest is that Ed came back a bit in the second half and nudged peoples fears over tax credits. Gordo's biggest legacy in some ways was the generous tax credit system which gave so many people a vested interest in the state and its handouts.
Tax Credits...I wish a politician would have the balls to stand up and say, yes we will cut them...rather than us taxing you, you filling in a load of forms and then us giving some of it back to you...tell you what, we will let you keep it in the first place.
1. Labour did NOT overspend and 2. I will never do a "deal" with the SNP
Did he really mean both of those? Hostages to fortune, surely.
Exactly so and the Tories should hammer home 1. every hour until next Thursday. Of course, it also neatly complements Dave's 'prop' of the Byrne letter.
Had Miliband been as categoric on 2. weeks ago, he would retrieved some credibility but it's too late now: the Labour-SNP meme has become engrained.
"The Paxo debates, didn't shift any votes, the 7 way didn't shift any votes, the 4 way debate didn't shift any votes."
It probably won't but I'd be surprised if the unaligned don't find Ed a much more attractive personality than they'd thought before. I certainly did
The unaligned didnt watch.
Noeasyday Very good point. The success though has been for every party to ramp up it's base for next week- so they'll all go away happy. I have already had my ramping email from the lovely Lucy Powell telling me how brilliant our Ed was.
1. Labour did NOT overspend and 2. I will never do a "deal" with the SNP
Did he really mean both of those? Hostages to fortune, surely.
The word "deal" can mean anything you want it to, so much wiggle room there as to make it meaningless.
Overspending ? Who can say. Labour should be defending it's record more, debt was largely fine pre-GFC, all countries had debt explosions in 2008 - 10. The present administration has added much more dent than Labour ever did, I think it's pretty much close to doubled in cash terms. Problem is he's spent 5 years opposing cuts....
The Sun Twitter worm had many minutes of negative rating for Cameron between minutes 12 and 27. Ed had negative rating only for half a minute between minutes 3 and 4.
I see no-one has taken up my suggestion of the possibility of riots after the election. There were big demonstrations in 2010 demanding electoral reform. If Dave tries to hang on with the support of Uncle Rupert it could light the blue touch paper.
1. Labour did NOT overspend and 2. I will never do a "deal" with the SNP
Did he really mean both of those? Hostages to fortune, surely.
Exactly so and the Tories should hammer home 1. every hour until next Thursday. Of course, it also neatly complements Dave's 'prop' of the Byrne letter.
Had Miliband been as categoric on 2. weeks ago, he would retrieved some credibility but it's too late now: the Labour-SNP meme has become engrained.
You're not going to win a single vote you haven't already won.
Blinking heckers- just reading the thread- I know this site is mostly populated by Tory cheerleaders, but reading this thread, I didn't realise just how much. I've been posting here for 10 years, but it really is essentially a Tory site, apart from a couple of stubborn lefty dieharders.
Particularly bad this evening. Very few of us lefties can be bothered.
Maybe it's just yoiu've nothing much worth saying. What does the left stand for these days ?
The usual. Standing up for the less fortunate. Equality. Fairness. Redistribution of wealth. Holding the rich and powerful to account.
You should try it sometime. It's refreshing.
It would be nice if there was a political party that did so.
Clegg doing well. The only one being honest. Best PM the country will never have
He *may* have been a good PM, although we will never know. But the task of running a party with 56 MPs is much easier than running one with 302 or 256. For one thing you can meet with them personally and sound them out on issues. Cameron and Miliband don't have that luxury due to numbers.
It looks as though the task will be even easier for whoever is in charge of the Lib Dems after this GE.
The question is whether Clegg's skills could have led Labour or the Conservatives if his politics had been different (as Blair could easily have led the Conservatives (*)). I'd say yes to the Conservatives, but probably not Labour.
Initial thoughts on the ICM poll is that Tories will be disappointed to not have a wider edge over Labour and the LibDems pleased with a score double their poll rating.
One of the reasons for that I suggest is that Ed came back a bit in the second half and nudged peoples fears over tax credits. Gordo's biggest legacy in some ways was the generous tax credit system which gave so many people a vested interest in the state and its handouts.
Tax Credits...I wish a politician would have the balls to stand up and say, yes we will cut them...rather than us taxing you, you filling in a load of forms and then us giving some of it back to you...tell you what, we will let you keep it in the first place.
Neither the Tories or Labour will properly address Tax Credits.
Labour introduced them to create benefit dependency in the middle class and the Tories rely on those middle class voters and won't risk losing them with swingeing but necessary cuts to the ridiculousness of welfare benefits being paid to people on £50k pa.
@MrHarryCole: “@JimForScotland: Labour has called SNP bluff. The SNP must now be clear: are they willing to prevent or bring down a Labour gov"< msg shift
I see no-one has taken up my suggestion of the possibility of riots after the election. There were big demonstrations in 2010 demanding electoral reform. If Dave tries to hang on with the support of Uncle Rupert it could light the blue touch paper.
Sunday's prepared thread, mentions riots, as well as referencing the Battle of Cannae, comparing the Nats to the Nazis and Ed blowing his brains out.
I see no-one has taken up my suggestion of the possibility of riots after the election. There were big demonstrations in 2010 demanding electoral reform. If Dave tries to hang on with the support of Uncle Rupert it could light the blue touch paper.
It's not going to happen; no one cares enough about the difference between labour and tory to go onto the streets and hurl bricks. Total non starter.
If Ed is PM and governing with cobbled deals with SNP and the Libs people will understand and respect it. Hell - the Tories may even get involved helping out on trident.
And anyway - when he is PM there will be better things to attack him over.
1. Labour did NOT overspend and 2. I will never do a "deal" with the SNP
Did he really mean both of those? Hostages to fortune, surely.
Exactly so and the Tories should hammer home 1. every hour until next Thursday. Of course, it also neatly complements Dave's 'prop' of the Byrne letter.
Had Miliband been as categoric on 2. weeks ago, he would retrieved some credibility but it's too late now: the Labour-SNP meme has become engrained.
You're not going to win a single vote you haven't already won.
We seem to be doing so this week if the polls are to be believed and my prediction remains that we will lead Labour by 4-5% on May 7th (and probably closer to 5 than 4).
@MrHarryCole: “@JimForScotland: Labour has called SNP bluff. The SNP must now be clear: are they willing to prevent or bring down a Labour gov"< msg shift
Not 2. There is no confidence and supply thanks to the fixed term act and there was never going to be a full coalition.
Miliband can't help it if other parties vote down Cameron.
People won't see it that way. If Ed now governs with the unofficial support of the SNP then that will be seen as a "deal" (and with reason) and thus a very badly broken promise.
It was a stupid statement. If he is prepared to rely on the SNP to govern then he should have just been honest - and said what you say. But he didn't. He emphatically said "no deal".
FWIW it is possible he means exactly what he said, because he can see the terrible danger to Labour - possibly mortal danger - of governing in some informal alliance with the Nats, even if he leads a party with fewer MPs than Cameron.
Miliband made it absolutely clear that:
1. there will be no coalition
2. there will be no supply and confidence
What else is he supposed to say ? He can't order the SNP not to support a Labour Queen's speech.
Initial thoughts on the ICM poll is that Tories will be disappointed to not have a wider edge over Labour and the LibDems pleased with a score double their poll rating.
One of the reasons for that I suggest is that Ed came back a bit in the second half and nudged peoples fears over tax credits. Gordo's biggest legacy in some ways was the generous tax credit system which gave so many people a vested interest in the state and its handouts.
Tax Credits...I wish a politician would have the balls to stand up and say, yes we will cut them...rather than us taxing you, you filling in a load of forms and then us giving some of it back to you...tell you what, we will let you keep it in the first place.
Neither the Tories or Labour will properly address Tax Credits.
Labour introduced them to create benefit dependency in the middle class and the Tories rely on those middle class voters and won't risk losing them with swingeing but necessary cuts to the ridiculousness of welfare benefits being paid to people on £50k pa.
The history behind tax credits is something which is rarely talked about....and not just as you say how it has become a benefit dependency (I heard Ed Miliband straight away today saying it will wreck your family finances...where as fiddling with the tax thresholds can have the same effect positive and negative).
The whole reason why it is tax credit rather than a benefit has little to do with helping the poorest, it was (as so much of Gordon Brown's policies) all about the politics i.e not breaking golden rules, not interesting benefits spending etc.
1. Labour did NOT overspend and 2. I will never do a "deal" with the SNP
Did he really mean both of those? Hostages to fortune, surely.
Exactly so and the Tories should hammer home 1. every hour until next Thursday. Of course, it also neatly complements Dave's 'prop' of the Byrne letter.
Had Miliband been as categoric on 2. weeks ago, he would retrieved some credibility but it's too late now: the Labour-SNP meme has become engrained.
You're not going to win a single vote you haven't already won.
I agree, but it isn't about the tories winning votes. Now more than ever it's about Lab voters just not being able to bring themselves to vote Miliband in.
@MrHarryCole: “@JimForScotland: Labour has called SNP bluff. The SNP must now be clear: are they willing to prevent or bring down a Labour gov"< msg shift
Will Labour abstain a Tory speech ?!
No They will vote it down and propose their own, and dare the SNP to vote against it.
1. Labour did NOT overspend and 2. I will never do a "deal" with the SNP
Did he really mean both of those? Hostages to fortune, surely.
Exactly so and the Tories should hammer home 1. every hour until next Thursday. Of course, it also neatly complements Dave's 'prop' of the Byrne letter.
Had Miliband been as categoric on 2. weeks ago, he would retrieved some credibility but it's too late now: the Labour-SNP meme has become engrained.
You're not going to win a single vote you haven't already won.
We seem to be doing so this week if the polls are to be believed and my prediction remains that we will lead Labour by 4-5% on May 7th (and probably closer to 5 than 4).
Who knows, but you have made similar predictions of the Tories breaking away before.
Either way, thankfully not long 'til we find out. :-)
FB If the SNP hold the whip hand over Miliband there could be riots in the English provinces, probably more likely if Miliband governs coming second than Cameron governs coming first, this time everyone knows a vote for the LDs could put the Tories in, unlike 2010
Blimey to see the markets move I thought it was going to be more like 70-20 (I didn't watch it, I was busy profit-taking from the Cameron I bought at 2.6 earlier).
Given Cameron probably won big among kippers, that's basically a score draw with flooating voters unless he won by enough for the kippers to switch, no?
@MrHarryCole: “@JimForScotland: Labour has called SNP bluff. The SNP must now be clear: are they willing to prevent or bring down a Labour gov"< msg shift
Will Labour abstain a Tory speech ?!
No They will vote it down and propose their own, and dare the SNP to vote against it.
Even if Labour are comfortably behind the Tories in seats and share of the vote?
@MrHarryCole: “@JimForScotland: Labour has called SNP bluff. The SNP must now be clear: are they willing to prevent or bring down a Labour gov"< msg shift
Will Labour abstain a Tory speech ?!
Yes, neither of the two main parties will be held hostage by the SNP. Conservative minority is the only plausible outcome.
Not that many helpful interventions for anyone, to be expected I guess. Audience at times less questioners than seeing who is the best amateur party spokesperson/attack dog. I also don't get the pantomime groans when Cameron pulled out his letter prop. Yes it was a joke, but it was left and it fits the narrative he wants to present, if Labour find a similar one in a week they will definitely use it.
Cameron was very on message, didn't hammer the SNP 'threat' as much as I had thought he would. As to be expected, not clear on coalition except on the UKIP friendly issue of referendum. Probably the least interesting segment as he was so on message and there wasn't anything that interesting in terms of interactions.
Miliband had the most interesting segment, more aggressive challenges from audience he had to face. I didn't quite follow his line that Labour didn't spend too much, but after years of slashing from the Tories, it is still imperative that spending has to fall now. But he was strong on non-doms, and focusing back on Cameron's non-answer about child benefits was smart. I liked his firmness about doing a deal with the SNP, though I don't believe it - that was clearly the bit he's prepared for the most, and it showed.
"Let me try to be better than the other guy" he said at one point, which strikes me as his whole pitch, funnily enough. Weak on denying a referendum; the issue won't go away just because its not a priority for him.
All in all, he had a rougher ride, not quite as smooth as the proper debates, but he handled himself alright.
Clegg? It doesn't matter how I felt he did, he won't benefit if he did well and the party cannot do any worse if he did poorly. Though given he knows his party is going to take a hell of a beating, and his own seat is at risk, he's very good at presenting confidence. Either he's mad, or he's a very talented actor.
I don't accept his view that we have to accept status quo on EU and can only have a vote if things change - what if people don't like status quo? And apparently some people are still under the delusion the LDs had enough seats to make a deal with Labour an easier choice than it would have been, if it was even possible. No surprise the most angry person is a former LD voter.
@MrHarryCole: “@JimForScotland: Labour has called SNP bluff. The SNP must now be clear: are they willing to prevent or bring down a Labour gov"< msg shift
Will Labour abstain a Tory speech ?!
No They will vote it down and propose their own, and dare the SNP to vote against it.
Which is the right strategy.
And puts the SNP into difficulties - when they've won big in Scotland they're not going to want another election.
Ed might turn out to be Labour's Ted Heath. The only Tory leader I ever liked. Full of human frailty but a musician a sailor and probably gay. A human being.
Predictably he became a pariah and then came Thatch Howard IDS Hague.....and like Ratners their reputation was irrecoverable
Clegg doing well. The only one being honest. Best PM the country will never have
He *may* have been a good PM, although we will never know. But the task of running a party with 56 MPs is much easier than running one with 302 or 256. For one thing you can meet with them personally and sound them out on issues. Cameron and Miliband don't have that luxury due to numbers.
It looks as though the task will be even easier for whoever is in charge of the Lib Dems after this GE.
The question is whether Clegg's skills could have led Labour or the Conservatives if his politics had been different (as Blair could easily have led the Conservatives (*)). I'd say yes to the Conservatives, but probably not Labour.
(*) and some say he did.
Shame he is out and out liar !
Wow. That intelligent, grammatically correct and highly lucid comment has really added to the sum of human knowledge. Thanks.
Not 2. There is no confidence and supply thanks to the fixed term act and there was never going to be a full coalition.
Miliband can't help it if other parties vote down Cameron.
People won't see it that way. If Ed now governs with the unofficial support of the SNP then that will be seen as a "deal" (and with reason) and thus a very badly broken promise.
It was a stupid statement. If he is prepared to rely on the SNP to govern then he should have just been honest - and said what you say. But he didn't. He emphatically said "no deal".
FWIW it is possible he means exactly what he said, because he can see the terrible danger to Labour - possibly mortal danger - of governing in some informal alliance with the Nats, even if he leads a party with fewer MPs than Cameron.
Miliband made it absolutely clear that:
1. there will be no coalition
2. there will be no supply and confidence
What else is he supposed to say ? He can't order the SNP not to support a Labour Queen's speech.
I must say I am surprised he is basically daring them to bring him down. Perhaps that bodes well for whatever arrangement ends up occurring, that he will not be the easy pushover they might have hoped for.
@MrHarryCole: “@JimForScotland: Labour has called SNP bluff. The SNP must now be clear: are they willing to prevent or bring down a Labour gov"< msg shift
Will Labour abstain a Tory speech ?!
No They will vote it down and propose their own, and dare the SNP to vote against it.
Even if Labour are comfortably behind the Tories in seats and share of the vote?
@MrHarryCole: “@JimForScotland: Labour has called SNP bluff. The SNP must now be clear: are they willing to prevent or bring down a Labour gov"< msg shift
Will Labour abstain a Tory speech ?!
No They will vote it down and propose their own, and dare the SNP to vote against it.
Even if Labour are comfortably behind the Tories in seats and share of the vote?
If there is a sufficient anti-Tory bloc why not?
Tactically abstaining and then just pummelling a Tory minority government and forcing left-wing laws on them would be better, but I think they will have a crack at it if there is a majority against the Tories
@MrHarryCole: “@JimForScotland: Labour has called SNP bluff. The SNP must now be clear: are they willing to prevent or bring down a Labour gov"< msg shift
Will Labour abstain a Tory speech ?!
No They will vote it down and propose their own, and dare the SNP to vote against it.
Which is the right strategy.
And puts the SNP into difficulties - when they've won big in Scotland they're not going to want another election.
But there IS at least one more election - in Holyrood. Whatever the SNP and for that matter Labour want.
@MrHarryCole: “@JimForScotland: Labour has called SNP bluff. The SNP must now be clear: are they willing to prevent or bring down a Labour gov"< msg shift
Will Labour abstain a Tory speech ?!
No They will vote it down and propose their own, and dare the SNP to vote against it.
The SNP don't have to vote against Labour to beat them.
They can use amendments.
Here's an example.
Amendment to Trident bill - two new boats to be constructed in Devonport and two on the Clyde. Tories back the Amendment, SNP back the Amendment, it passes.
Labour are now proposing a bill which will take the boat building away from Barrow. Even with the Tories supporting it, they can't proceed. Bill dies.
Its not surprising that EdM doesn't think Labour overspent in government, government spending is effectively Labour's raison d'etre.
Of course Cameron and Osborne saw nothing wrong with Gordong Brown's spending plans at the time.
One thing which I've not seen or heard mentioned is that embarrassing little job EdM had before he became an MP - the job where he was meant to be in charge of the UK's long term economic planning.
Not 2. There is no confidence and supply thanks to the fixed term act and there was never going to be a full coalition.
Miliband can't help it if other parties vote down Cameron.
People won't see it that way. If Ed now governs with the unofficial support of the SNP then that will be seen as a "deal" (and with reason) and thus a very badly broken promise.
It was a stupid statement. If he is prepared to rely on the SNP to govern then he should have just been honest - and said what you say. But he didn't. He emphatically said "no deal".
FWIW it is possible he means exactly what he said, because he can see the terrible danger to Labour - possibly mortal danger - of governing in some informal alliance with the Nats, even if he leads a party with fewer MPs than Cameron.
Sean T, are you the lady with blonde hair who employs 76 people in Leeds?
@MrHarryCole: “@JimForScotland: Labour has called SNP bluff. The SNP must now be clear: are they willing to prevent or bring down a Labour gov"< msg shift
Will Labour abstain a Tory speech ?!
No They will vote it down and propose their own, and dare the SNP to vote against it.
Even if Labour are comfortably behind the Tories in seats and share of the vote?
If there is a sufficient anti-Tory bloc why not?
Tactically abstaining and then just pummelling a Tory minority government and forcing left-wing laws on them would be better, but I think they will have a crack at it if there is a majority against the Tories
Wouldn't the tories just make everything a vote of confidence?
Not 2. There is no confidence and supply thanks to the fixed term act and there was never going to be a full coalition.
Miliband can't help it if other parties vote down Cameron.
People won't see it that way. If Ed now governs with the unofficial support of the SNP then that will be seen as a "deal" (and with reason) and thus a very badly broken promise.
It was a stupid statement. If he is prepared to rely on the SNP to govern then he should have just been honest - and said what you say. But he didn't. He emphatically said "no deal".
FWIW it is possible he means exactly what he said, because he can see the terrible danger to Labour - possibly mortal danger - of governing in some informal alliance with the Nats, even if he leads a party with fewer MPs than Cameron.
Miliband made it absolutely clear that:
1. there will be no coalition
2. there will be no supply and confidence
What else is he supposed to say ? He can't order the SNP not to support a Labour Queen's speech.
He's now in deep shit: if Labour get fewer MPs, but he still becomes PM simply because he has SNP support.
It's not something you can easily overlook. He will not only be using the votes of a separatist, anti-UK party to govern the UK, he will be doing so in apparent, direct contradiction of a televised promise.
Like I said, perhaps we should give him the credit, and allow the possibility he is being sincere. Perhaps he already sees the danger for Labour, and will not seek to form a government, relying on the Nats, if he has fewer MPs and votes than Cameron.
A deal is where two people agree something.
If you park your car in your neighbour's drive and they do nothing about it, that's not a deal.
If you decide to go for a walk in the park and you get stalked, that's not a deal.
The point is there will be no concessions, Ed will put forward his manifesto policies and if they get voted down that's the way it goes.
Not 2. There is no confidence and supply thanks to the fixed term act and there was never going to be a full coalition.
Miliband can't help it if other parties vote down Cameron.
People won't see it that way. If Ed now governs with the unofficial support of the SNP then that will be seen as a "deal" (and with reason) and thus a very badly broken promise.
It was a stupid statement. If he is prepared to rely on the SNP to govern then he should have just been honest - and said what you say. But he didn't. He emphatically said "no deal".
FWIW it is possible he means exactly what he said, because he can see the terrible danger to Labour - possibly mortal danger - of governing in some informal alliance with the Nats, even if he leads a party with fewer MPs than Cameron.
Miliband made it absolutely clear that:
1. there will be no coalition
2. there will be no supply and confidence
What else is he supposed to say ? He can't order the SNP not to support a Labour Queen's speech.
He's now in deep shit: if Labour get fewer MPs, but he still becomes PM simply because he has SNP support.
It's not something you can easily overlook. He will not only be using the votes of a separatist, anti-UK party to govern the UK, he will be doing so in apparent, direct contradiction of a televised promise.
Like I said, perhaps we should give him the credit, and allow the possibility he is being sincere. Perhaps he already sees the danger for Labour, and will not seek to form a government, relying on the Nats, if he has fewer MPs and votes than Cameron.
Labour could be backed by another left wing party but also PC and the Greens but not formally. I do not agree with your prognosis.
@MrHarryCole: “@JimForScotland: Labour has called SNP bluff. The SNP must now be clear: are they willing to prevent or bring down a Labour gov"< msg shift
Will Labour abstain a Tory speech ?!
No They will vote it down and propose their own, and dare the SNP to vote against it.
Even if Labour are comfortably behind the Tories in seats and share of the vote?
If there is a sufficient anti-Tory bloc why not?
Tactically abstaining and then just pummelling a Tory minority government and forcing left-wing laws on them would be better, but I think they will have a crack at it if there is a majority against the Tories
Wouldn't the tories just make everything a vote of confidence?
Every time events seem to favour the Tories, the following op poll has been a kick in the balls for them.
True enough. If Tories broken clear a few weeks ago, I'd have amended my prediction from Lab most seats - I came close on a few occasions last year even - but it never seems to last. They could lead by +5 in every poll from now to election day and I'd not be confident of Tories winning as a result. (alright, if it was +5 in all of them I might, but there's bound to be some good for Lab in there to make me doubt)
'I see no-one has taken up my suggestion of the possibility of riots after the election. There were big demonstrations in 2010 demanding electoral reform. '
Your right, nobody has because it's nonsense.
By big demonstrations i guess you mean the 100 or so Lib Dem activists demonstrating outside Lib Dem HQ when the coalition negotiations were taking place in 2010 ?
But that isnt a deal. Its basically Miliband just being there. And the SNP knowing the Scottish people would never ever ever ever ever vote for them or independence again if they kept the Tories in.
'I see no-one has taken up my suggestion of the possibility of riots after the election. There were big demonstrations in 2010 demanding electoral reform. '
Your right, nobody has because it's nonsense.
By big demonstrations i guess you mean the 100 or so Lib Dem activists demonstrating outside Lib Dem HQ when the coalition negotiations were taking place in 2010 ?
Labour activists planted there by Mandelson, if C4 is to be believed.
I see I have drilled into the dental nerve, judging by the response.
Miliband f*cked up with his No SNP Deal shtick. Any government which relies on the Nats to survive will be seen as a "deal". Voters won't care about the careful usage of the phrase "no deal" that Miliband did or did not employ.
Tsk. Big unforced error.
Miliband isn't a complete nut like Brown, he isn't daft enough to ally with the SNP. Doubt it was a slip.
Ed might turn out to be Labour's Ted Heath. The only Tory leader I ever liked. Full of human frailty but a musician a sailor and probably gay. A human being.
But that isnt a deal. Its basically Miliband just being there. And the SNP knowing the Scottish people would never ever ever ever ever vote for them or independence again if they kept the Tories in.
Exactly my point. The audience don't understand the Constitution, asked the wrong question, and consequently gave Miliband wriggle room.
I see I have drilled into the dental nerve, judging by the response.
Miliband f*cked up with his No SNP Deal shtick. Any government which relies on the Nats to survive will be seen as a "deal". Voters won't care about the careful usage of the phrase "no deal" that Miliband did or did not employ.
Tsk. Big unforced error.
Miliband isn't a complete nut like Brown, he isn't daft enough to ally with the SNP. Doubt it was a slip.
He's not a complete nut like Brown; his nuttiness is complete but different, ;-)
Not 2. There is no confidence and supply thanks to the fixed term act and there was never going to be a full coalition.
Miliband can't help it if other parties vote down Cameron.
People won't see it that way. If Ed now governs with the unofficial support of the SNP then that will be seen as a "deal" (and with reason) and thus a very badly broken promise.
It was a stupid statement. If he is prepared to rely on the SNP to govern then he should have just been honest - and said what you say. But he didn't. He emphatically said "no deal".
FWIW it is possible he means exactly what he said, because he can see the terrible danger to Labour - possibly mortal danger - of governing in some informal alliance with the Nats, even if he leads a party with fewer MPs than Cameron.
Miliband made it absolutely clear that:
1. there will be no coalition
2. there will be no supply and confidence
What else is he supposed to say ? He can't order the SNP not to support a Labour Queen's speech.
He's now in deep shit: if Labour get fewer MPs, but he still becomes PM simply because he has SNP support.
It's not something you can easily overlook. He will not only be using the votes of a separatist, anti-UK party to govern the UK, he will be doing so in apparent, direct contradiction of a televised promise.
Like I said, perhaps we should give him the credit, and allow the possibility he is being sincere. Perhaps he already sees the danger for Labour, and will not seek to form a government, relying on the Nats, if he has fewer MPs and votes than Cameron.
A deal is where two people agree something.
If you park your car in your neighbour's drive and they do nothing about it, that's not a deal. .
Its an implicit arrangement. I'd suggest it's a grey area. A deal may well be something formal, but people can still regard an informal arrangement as a deal, in the same way someone telling you an untruth is a lie, but we can still regard saying something true but misleading as a lie by omission. It was not a lie, but because of its intentional effect, we have come up with a name to make it clear that behaviour is as good as a direct lie.
I see no-one has taken up my suggestion of the possibility of riots after the election. There were big demonstrations in 2010 demanding electoral reform. If Dave tries to hang on with the support of Uncle Rupert it could light the blue touch paper.
10mg Xanax, per diem
The left were calling for riots on May 10th 2010 - it took them about 5 months to find a suitable cause celebre. (Students against spending cuts)
I see I have drilled into the dental nerve, judging by the response.
Miliband f*cked up with his No SNP Deal shtick. Any government which relies on the Nats to survive will be seen as a "deal". Voters won't care about the careful usage of the phrase "no deal" that Miliband did or did not employ.
Tsk. Big unforced error.
So to be clear, what you are saying having won the election, become PM and established a govt Ed will have problems to solve. I reckon he would settle for that today.
I see I have drilled into the dental nerve, judging by the response.
Miliband f*cked up with his No SNP Deal shtick. Any government which relies on the Nats to survive will be seen as a "deal". Voters won't care about the careful usage of the phrase "no deal" that Miliband did or did not employ.
Tsk. Big unforced error.
I think the bigger unforced error though was his assertion that Labour did not overspend. That will have greater resonance if the Tories home in on it unrelentingly in these final days of the campaign.
Not 2. There is no confidence and supply thanks to the fixed term act and there was never going to be a full coalition.
Miliband can't help it if other parties vote down Cameron.
People won't see it that way. If Ed now governs with the unofficial support of the SNP then that will be seen as a "deal" (and with reason) and thus a very badly broken promise.
It was a stupid statement. If he is prepared to rely on the SNP to govern then he should have just been honest - and said what you say. But he didn't. He emphatically said "no deal".
FWIW it is possible he means exactly what he said, because he can see the terrible danger to Labour - possibly mortal danger - of governing in some informal alliance with the Nats, even if he leads a party with fewer MPs than Cameron.
Miliband made it absolutely clear that:
1. there will be no coalition
2. there will be no supply and confidence
What else is he supposed to say ? He can't order the SNP not to support a Labour Queen's speech.
He's now in deep shit: if Labour get fewer MPs, but he still becomes PM simply because he has SNP support.
It's not something you can easily overlook. He will not only be using the votes of a separatist, anti-UK party to govern the UK, he will be doing so in apparent, direct contradiction of a televised promise.
Like I said, perhaps we should give him the credit, and allow the possibility he is being sincere. Perhaps he already sees the danger for Labour, and will not seek to form a government, relying on the Nats, if he has fewer MPs and votes than Cameron.
I'm not sure that many people will care as long as EdM doesn't increase their taxes or cut their services.
And he wont do either.
Then after showing that the world hasn't ended, brought in a few populist measures and had a trip to meet Obama EdM goes for another election.
That's the plan I suspect.
If it doesn't work out then EdM still gets his name in the history books and his picture on the Downing Street wall. Not to mention all the future earning possibilities.
And Labour will blame the SNP or the LibDems or the 'banks' for brining down their government.
I see I have drilled into the dental nerve, judging by the response.
Miliband f*cked up with his No SNP Deal shtick. Any government which relies on the Nats to survive will be seen as a "deal". Voters won't care about the careful usage of the phrase "no deal" that Miliband did or did not employ.
Tsk. Big unforced error.
Miliband isn't a complete nut like Brown, he isn't daft enough to ally with the SNP. Doubt it was a slip.
Comments
Come on don't be paraniod. Cameron, Miliband and Clegg all just got the sh t kicked out of them.
Sadly, no one will be watching Nige tonight. 10.50pm is hardly a great slot.
Not 2. There is no confidence and supply thanks to the fixed term act and there was never going to be a full coalition.
Miliband can't help it if other parties vote down Cameron.
Standard MOE is 3% if a party is at 50% but its smaller at lower percentages.
http://www.sunnation.co.uk/what-will-twitter-make-of-tonights-question-time-debate/
44 - 3 = 41
Its 3% plus or minus for each party. Not between them.
It also means, comparatively, that there was undue audience focus on the second referendum.
It looks as though the task will be even easier for whoever is in charge of the Lib Dems after this GE.
The question is whether Clegg's skills could have led Labour or the Conservatives if his politics had been different (as Blair could easily have led the Conservatives (*)). I'd say yes to the Conservatives, but probably not Labour.
(*) and some say he did.
Had Miliband been as categoric on 2. weeks ago, he would retrieved some credibility but it's too late now: the Labour-SNP meme has become engrained.
Not gonna shift a vote. If you are bothered by that stuff then you decided you weren't going to vote for Mili a long time ago.
Paranoia - to think they won't give Cam a good line!
Very good point. The success though has been for every party to ramp up it's base for next week- so they'll all go away happy.
I have already had my ramping email from the lovely Lucy Powell telling me how brilliant our Ed was.
Overspending ? Who can say. Labour should be defending it's record more, debt was largely fine pre-GFC, all countries had debt explosions in 2008 - 10. The present administration has added much more dent than Labour ever did, I think it's pretty much close to doubled in cash terms. Problem is he's spent 5 years opposing cuts....
You're either a troll or utterly, hopelessly thick.
Labour introduced them to create benefit dependency in the middle class and the Tories rely on those middle class voters and won't risk losing them with swingeing but necessary cuts to the ridiculousness of welfare benefits being paid to people on £50k pa.
If Ed is PM and governing with cobbled deals with SNP and the Libs people will understand and respect it. Hell - the Tories may even get involved helping out on trident.
And anyway - when he is PM there will be better things to attack him over.
1. there will be no coalition
2. there will be no supply and confidence
What else is he supposed to say ? He can't order the SNP not to support a Labour Queen's speech.
Miliand stumbles over his spending record
#bbqt #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers http://t.co/1LUv9KIu7R
The whole reason why it is tax credit rather than a benefit has little to do with helping the poorest, it was (as so much of Gordon Brown's policies) all about the politics i.e not breaking golden rules, not interesting benefits spending etc.
They will vote it down and propose their own, and dare the SNP to vote against it.
Either way, thankfully not long 'til we find out. :-)
Blimey to see the markets move I thought it was going to be more like 70-20 (I didn't watch it, I was busy profit-taking from the Cameron I bought at 2.6 earlier).
Given Cameron probably won big among kippers, that's basically a score draw with flooating voters unless he won by enough for the kippers to switch, no?
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB
On Betfair exchange CON to win most seats now a 78% chance
And thats where I can tell you we are fired up :-) Sorry old bean but Labour people are voting
'Didn't like some of the QT audience. You don't have to be aggressive or rude to ask tough questions. '
Oh diddums,it wasn't Mary Poppins.
Not that many helpful interventions for anyone, to be expected I guess. Audience at times less questioners than seeing who is the best amateur party spokesperson/attack dog. I also don't get the pantomime groans when Cameron pulled out his letter prop. Yes it was a joke, but it was left and it fits the narrative he wants to present, if Labour find a similar one in a week they will definitely use it.
Cameron was very on message, didn't hammer the SNP 'threat' as much as I had thought he would. As to be expected, not clear on coalition except on the UKIP friendly issue of referendum. Probably the least interesting segment as he was so on message and there wasn't anything that interesting in terms of interactions.
Miliband had the most interesting segment, more aggressive challenges from audience he had to face. I didn't quite follow his line that Labour didn't spend too much, but after years of slashing from the Tories, it is still imperative that spending has to fall now. But he was strong on non-doms, and focusing back on Cameron's non-answer about child benefits was smart. I liked his firmness about doing a deal with the SNP, though I don't believe it - that was clearly the bit he's prepared for the most, and it showed.
"Let me try to be better than the other guy" he said at one point, which strikes me as his whole pitch, funnily enough. Weak on denying a referendum; the issue won't go away just because its not a priority for him.
All in all, he had a rougher ride, not quite as smooth as the proper debates, but he handled himself alright.
Clegg? It doesn't matter how I felt he did, he won't benefit if he did well and the party cannot do any worse if he did poorly. Though given he knows his party is going to take a hell of a beating, and his own seat is at risk, he's very good at presenting confidence. Either he's mad, or he's a very talented actor.
I don't accept his view that we have to accept status quo on EU and can only have a vote if things change - what if people don't like status quo? And apparently some people are still under the delusion the LDs had enough seats to make a deal with Labour an easier choice than it would have been, if it was even possible. No surprise the most angry person is a former LD voter.
And puts the SNP into difficulties - when they've won big in Scotland they're not going to want another election.
Predictably he became a pariah and then came Thatch Howard IDS Hague.....and like Ratners their reputation was irrecoverable
'And thats where I can tell you we are fired up :-) Sorry old bean but Labour people are voting'
How's it going in the South west?
How many Labour gains are you forecasting?
Especially when it would effectively shift everyone back behind Labour.
Tactically abstaining and then just pummelling a Tory minority government and forcing left-wing laws on them would be better, but I think they will have a crack at it if there is a majority against the Tories
They can use amendments.
Here's an example.
Amendment to Trident bill - two new boats to be constructed in Devonport and two on the Clyde. Tories back the Amendment, SNP back the Amendment, it passes.
Labour are now proposing a bill which will take the boat building away from Barrow. Even with the Tories supporting it, they can't proceed. Bill dies.
Of course Cameron and Osborne saw nothing wrong with Gordong Brown's spending plans at the time.
One thing which I've not seen or heard mentioned is that embarrassing little job EdM had before he became an MP - the job where he was meant to be in charge of the UK's long term economic planning.
My point was we were out canvassing the Tories according to the Libs.
In case you missed it - we have spoken with over 4 million voters - and we will speak to another million this week.
You are smarter than that. What happens if the SDLP vote down the Tories queens speech - or the DUP abstain.
No SNP deal. No fear factor. Sorry
If you park your car in your neighbour's drive and they do nothing about it, that's not a deal.
If you decide to go for a walk in the park and you get stalked, that's not a deal.
The point is there will be no concessions, Ed will put forward his manifesto policies and if they get voted down that's the way it goes.
Its 3% both ways. Come on you can add - I did the sums for you!
The Queen must have a government, and PM.
'I see no-one has taken up my suggestion of the possibility of riots after the election. There were big demonstrations in 2010 demanding electoral reform. '
Your right, nobody has because it's nonsense.
By big demonstrations i guess you mean the 100 or so Lib Dem activists demonstrating outside Lib Dem HQ when the coalition negotiations were taking place in 2010 ?
But that isnt a deal. Its basically Miliband just being there. And the SNP knowing the Scottish people would never ever ever ever ever vote for them or independence again if they kept the Tories in.
Clegg doing ell enough to reassure some Key SW voters
Scottish voters left in no doubt that SNP=DC = lower standard of living
Interesting
Unless Cameron and a Nick Clegg lead Lib Dems have 315 seats then Cameron is gone.
Pretty much no matter what happens with any deals or no deals.
Last Leg Bullshit Button for Ed Miliband. Literally everyone non-stop pressing when Miliband denies a deal with SNP.
And he wont do either.
Then after showing that the world hasn't ended, brought in a few populist measures and had a trip to meet Obama EdM goes for another election.
That's the plan I suspect.
If it doesn't work out then EdM still gets his name in the history books and his picture on the Downing Street wall. Not to mention all the future earning possibilities.
And Labour will blame the SNP or the LibDems or the 'banks' for brining down their government.