So, the proof the BBC is biased against the SNP is that it is reporting the election in a way that is favourable to the SNP. I am sure that makes sense to nationalist fundamentalists, but I have to say it does not immediately work for me.
I'm not offering any evidence of bias in BBC Scotland, that would be another topic.
Not sure why you're ignoring the point at hand. Labour and the other opposition are highlighting the wrong issue.
Your point was:
"It seems bizarre but the overwhelming bias of BBC Scotland in their attempts to sabotage the SNP campaign they have ended up helping the SNP by completely misunderstanding the relevant issues. They've created a narrative to discredit the SNP which, in the public's mind, isn't at all discrediting to start with."
Which is a consequence of them believing the Labour choice of issue. The bias of BBC Scotland isn't directly relevant, it is a somewhat ironic outcome of the choice of attack by Labour.
BBC Scotland can't create a narrative without (if you believe they are institutionally biased) being led there by Labour or (if you believe they are impartial) by Labour focusing on the issue. Either way, whatever your believe on BBC Scotland bias, it is Labour which dictates how this plays out and as an issue a Second Referendum cannot be harmful to the SNP whatever the outcome of the exchanges.
Unexpectedly, and hugely to their credit, the BBC did a great job last night. In all the hoohah about debate formats we seem to have hit upon a winning formula. Politicians are ultimately answerable to the people and it somehow seems just right that the tough questioning came from the people and not from each other. This can only really work if the audience is selected such that it is going to grill the leaders deeply and not shy away from sticking it where it hurts in each case. The audience last night was super. I had feared the usual QT lefython. But not a bit of it. I think the decision to go 25/25/25/25 Con/Lab/LD/Other was spot on. So...well done Auntie!
I completely agree.The sad thing about the show is that its political balance stands out so much compared to other BBC coverage. Whether the left leaning, Guardian reading BBC producers & editors actually learnt anything from last night, remains to be seen. I doubt they will.
My wife came out with a very interesting insight to last night's remarks by Miliband that he would not go into Govt with SNP. She said that he probably knows that he is going to lose and is simply positioning himself to continuing to lead Labour in opposition.
So the years 2000-10 saw the size of the state soar from 34pc to 50pc – a rise of 16 points. This is a faster rise than any other country, over any other postwar decade. ......And even now, Miliband can’t bring himself to recognise what he did. As the lady from the Question Time audience so beautifully put it, if he can’t, why should voters let him do it again?
Fraser's graph shows that public spending fell between 2005 and 2007, and then soared following the crash. I, for one, am very glad that it did. God knows would have happened if it had not.
It was the same in 2005 and 2007. The only falling it did was between 2006-2007 and 2009-2010
Fair enough, it was falling at the time of the crash. And then, thankfully, rose again.
If you run a deficit of 2% and GDP grows by 2.1% then hey presto "the debt is falling" (as a %age of GDP). But is this prudent?
"We are also told there are as many as 10 million undecideds. That looks quite plausible, from my experience of door-knocking."
Wouldn't you interpret someone telling you they were undecided as suggesting they didn't want to hurt your feelings?
Roger, the voters have no problem with "hurting my feelings"! But after 40 years of doorstepping, you get a fair feel for who is polite and who is perplexed....
I guess you get the same gut feel when making an ad for a dog of a product...?
Video exclusive: ‘Green activists’ in Brighton Pavilion rip off UKIP advertisements
B & H Independent @BrightonIndy 11h11 hours ago Supposing Green activists had burned @UKIP adverts: http://bit.ly/1EUvtLe ? Non-story? Or central to free democracy?
Demonstrating their love of democracy and free speech.
I've got news for Mr Kevin Smith, UKIP candidate for Hove. No one ever joined UKIP who wasn't a racist, although few of them are much good at looking into their own souls. And with souls like theirs, who can blame them?
Arrrr me hearties! An ' with a soul as black as night, tis a brave man who'll fix his gaze upon it,, arrrr!
Unexpectedly, and hugely to their credit, the BBC did a great job last night. In all the hoohah about debate formats we seem to have hit upon a winning formula. Politicians are ultimately answerable to the people and it somehow seems just right that the tough questioning came from the people and not from each other. This can only really work if the audience is selected such that it is going to grill the leaders deeply and not shy away from sticking it where it hurts in each case. The audience last night was super. I had feared the usual QT lefython. But not a bit of it. I think the decision to go 25/25/25/25 Con/Lab/LD/Other was spot on. So...well done Auntie!
Has anyone put it on YouTube? I can't watch it on iPlayer because I'm in Tokyo at the moment (in the very noisy Lion Beer Hall in Ginza. Anyone been there?)
If Ed does become PM, does anyone think he'll last longer than 18 months? Running a government with 260 seats seems like a tall order.
Indeed, there;s a minority government, and a minority government which is 40-50 seats short. Even the tories on 300 seats + couldn't have really made it work.
Who's been full of hot air? Who's been massaging their internals?
Roger you've been dying to give my ARSE a big squeeze for months.
You will be severely disappointed.
Good morning Jack!. Only 3 more ARSE viewing opportunities before the election.
I was wondering if the ARSE would venture an opinion on the prospects of Ed as Prime Minister. I think it was mentioned once, but I might have missed it.
Unexpectedly, and hugely to their credit, the BBC did a great job last night. In all the hoohah about debate formats we seem to have hit upon a winning formula. Politicians are ultimately answerable to the people and it somehow seems just right that the tough questioning came from the people and not from each other. This can only really work if the audience is selected such that it is going to grill the leaders deeply and not shy away from sticking it where it hurts in each case. The audience last night was super. I had feared the usual QT lefython. But not a bit of it. I think the decision to go 25/25/25/25 Con/Lab/LD/Other was spot on. So...well done Auntie!
Has anyone put it on YouTube? I can't watch it on iPlayer because I'm in Tokyo at the moment (in the very noisy Lion Beer Hall in Ginza. Anyone been there?)
So the years 2000-10 saw the size of the state soar from 34pc to 50pc – a rise of 16 points. This is a faster rise than any other country, over any other postwar decade. ......And even now, Miliband can’t bring himself to recognise what he did. As the lady from the Question Time audience so beautifully put it, if he can’t, why should voters let him do it again?
Fraser's graph shows that public spending fell between 2005 and 2007, and then soared following the crash. I, for one, am very glad that it did. God knows would have happened if it had not.
It was the same in 2005 and 2007. The only falling it did was between 2006-2007 and 2009-2010
Fair enough, it was falling at the time of the crash. And then, thankfully, rose again.
If you run a deficit of 2% and GDP grows by 2.1% then hey presto "the debt is falling" (as a %age of GDP). But is this prudent?
Agreed, that is the issue. Overall public spending is a slightly misleading way of looking at it because of the crash. It's what happened before the crash that really matters.
Who's been full of hot air? Who's been massaging their internals?
Roger you've been dying to give my ARSE a big squeeze for months.
You will be severely disappointed.
Good morning Jack!. Only 3 more ARSE viewing opportunities before the election.
I was wondering if the ARSE would venture an opinion on the prospects of Ed as Prime Minister. I think it was mentioned once, but I might have missed it.
Such musings cause a severe bout of internal complications in my ARSE.
There are two things which are striking about this elections polling and both are to do with the online/phone divide. Firstly, the phone polls are producing consistently better scores for Con and the online ones favouring Lab; secondly, the online polls are incredibly static while the phone polls have shown quite a bit of movement. Are the two related through some internal methodology? I don't know but I'm suspicious of any results that come back with metronomic regularity in a field that should be inherently changing and uncertain.
But the point is an important one. Does the fact that YouGov and Populus have reported suspiciously consistent results mean that we should also be sceptical about their small Lab leads? Or are the two features independent? Or are the two right? Alternatively, do the swings reported by ICM, Mori and Ashcroft give them more credibility or less, and if more, does that mean we can put more store in their Con leads or is that too a separate matter?
Ultimately it probably comes down to gut instinct. We can't know until it's too late and there are arguments on both sides though my own take is that the phone companies are producing more believable results: I just don't think opinion is that static throughout an election campaign.
With Ukip and LibDem support being so patchy and variable across the country, surely one might reasonably expect more volatility in phone polls, depending where the calls happen to land?
"Stupid of Ed to have waited this long to rule out a deal with the SNP. If he had done so earlier,could have slowed the mass hysteria north of the border."
I take the unfashinable view that Nicola has been a huge boost to Ed. Nothing has done as much for his credibility as being visibly woowed by all the other lefty leaders. Nothing is more attractive than someone in demand.....
It not only makes him look powerful and leaderlike but it also gives momentum to all those from the centre and centre left that they are part of a movement as opposed to the rather stale reactionary right.
If Ed does become PM, does anyone think he'll last longer than 18 months? Running a government with 260 seats seems like a tall order.
It is, of course, conceivable that the reality of a minority labour government is far less horrific than is now being forecast. In which case, Ed may be able to go to the country in 18 months to ask for a majority to get the job finished. I doubt it - not least because I don't think Ed will ever be PM - but it is possible, especially as the Tories may end up having a bit of a ding dong over their next leader.
Went through last night's comments. Seems most consider Cameron to have done relatively well, and Miliband relatively poorly, both subjected to a slightly ferocious audience.
On-topic: I agree entirely with the thread's premise. It's not as bad as last time, when YouGov seemed to shape rather than reflect public opinion due to the media being bizarrely obsessed with the daily poll, but it's still excessive frequently. There ought to be curbs on how many polls can occur during an election campaign, to help stop one firm (due to frequency of new results) having a disproportionate influence.
Trying to offer some technical notes without political weighting:
- EiT's explanation of YouGov's stability looks correct to me, with the qualification that there is thrashing within the samples, so it's not that people are routinely saying whatever they said before. - It's not correct that online panels mainly have people interested in politics. Most panels routinely ask tedious things about shopping and corporate reputation, and you have to answer those to avoid getting dropped from the panel. The more obvious bias would be to people with spare time and/or a real need to earn small ammounts of money for a fair amount of effort. Because the panels do weight to previous VI, none of this matters unless there is something that makes "people who voted Conservative etc. in 2010 and do online panels" behave differently from "all people who voted Conservative etc. in 2010". - I wouldn't place huge weight on today's Populus - whatever it says, it's just one poll. - Today's YG internals look fairly "normal", though slightly more critical of the Government than usual, so it could be a slightly higher Labour sample. Recent YGs have shown some regional concentration - Labour is doing worse than before in the South and of course Scotland, better in the Midlands/Wales. I don't see much evidence of a startling Labour performance in London - we're doing OK there, but nothing very different from UNS. - It's fairly obvious that the actual position is somewhere betwen Con+3 and Lab+1. For betting purposes and personal satisfaction, we need to look at trends within comparable polls (because they make the same assumptions).This excludes special one-off polls - e.g. today's Survation on reaction to the debate will be interesting (and I suspect encouraging for Cameron, extrapolating from the ICM) but not comparable to anything - but it means that if there really was a shift either way within two or three YouGovs or two or three other polls, it would alter the overall picture. Otherwise, the default assumption is probably that not much is happening now.
Trying to offer some technical notes without political weighting:
- EiT's explanation of YouGov's stability looks correct to me, with the qualification that there is thrashing within the samples, so it's not that people are routinely saying whatever they said before. - It's not correct that online panels mainly have people interested in politics. Most panels routinely ask tedious things about shopping and corporate reputation, and you have to answer those to avoid getting dropped from the panel. The more obvious bias would be to people with spare time and/or a real need to earn small ammounts of money for a fair amount of effort. Because the panels do weight to previous VI, none of this matters unless there is something that makes "people who voted Conservative etc. in 2010 and do online panels" from "all people who voted Conservative etc. in 2010". - I wouldn't place huge weight on today's Populus - whatever it says, it's just one poll. - Today's YG internals look fairly "normal", though slightly more critical of the Government than usual, so it could be a slightly higher Labour sample. Recent YGs have shown some regional concentration - Labour is doing worse than before in the South and of course Scotland, better in the Midlands/Wales. I don't see much evidence of a startling Labour performance in London - we're doing OK there, but nothing very different from UNS. - It's fairly obvious that the actual position is somewhere betwen Con+3 and Lab+1. For betting purposes and personal satisfaction, we need to look at trends within comparable polls (because they make the same assumptions).This excludes special one-off polls - e.g. today's Survation on reaction to the debate will be interesting (and I suspect encouraging for Cameron, extrapolating from the ICM) but not comparable to anything - but it means that if there really was a shift either way within two or three YouGovs or two or three other polls, it would alter the overall picture. Otherwise, the default assumption is probably that not much is happening now.
Cameron lost out big time on QT last night. Not to Miliband or Clegg, but to the luck of the draw - he ended up battling Emmerdale on the other side, whereas the other two did not have the same competition. Whilst I doubt the programme will have rated that highly overall, perhaps 4m averaged over the 90 minutes, I reckon Clegg's section will easily have been the most watched. It would be fascinating to see if the "breakdown" of viewing gets reported today.
At least with a proper debate over 90 mins or 2 hours, viewers get to see a bit of everyone in the bit they choose to view. But then, it's karma for Cameron because he was the one who insisted on the sequence of debates we ended up with.
I thought he did the best of the three, but continues to frustrate with his evasiveness and inability to actually confront the guff he gets confronted with on, eg, food banks, bedroom tax. I am beginning to think that as well as being lazy, he's actually not that bright.
Did not get to watch QT last night as was sitting 6 month YO twins (not mine I hasten to add) and so literally had my hands full, and so was very interested to hear the BeeB comments this morning and the PBers reactions of last night.
Beeb acknowledged that DC did best and that EdM would not formally link with SNP, but an informal S&C was not mentioned. I thought that LAB had already acknowledged the overspending of the GB treasury - so why did EdM deny all responsibility - not quite as bad as GB's 'bigotgate' but if the Cons and LDs keep using it over the next 6 days - it could do a lot of damage to the credibility that EdM has built up.
Main conclusion was the audience's total distrust of politicians - but one commentator said that it was refreshing to hear from DC that savings still had to be made.
On votes in England Labour will have an advantage because their safe seats tend to have a lower turnout and smaller electorate. However, if there is an SNP whitewash in Scotland then Labour will poll more wasted votes north of the border - and this may cancel out.
Note that in May2015's figures they have the Conservatives leading Labour by 0.8% in England & Wales, and the two parties are level with one seat each in Scotland, thus implying they are level on seats in E&W, and Labour would be ahead on seats in E&W if the two parties were level on votes in E&W.
So Labour do still have an advantage - in England & Wales.
I agree the value bet is Con Min. Particularly given Ed Miliband's comments last night.
What if Ed Miliband gets 260 seats and Cameron 285, and Miliband *does* abstain on the basis he only becomes PM otherwise with SNP support?
Cameron remains as PM of extremely weak Con Min government. Yes it's not likely Ed would pass up a shot. But is it longer than a 5/1 shot?
Ed's still banking on getting most seats. If he gets less than the tories, then that goes from needing tacit support from the SNP (ie not voting against the governemnt) to needing active support (ie voting for).
If Ed gets less seats, I cannot see how 'morally' or even practially he can be PM without some form of support from the SNP..which he's just written out.
Whilst we all ruminate on the devastating news that PB only has 2 more ARSE visitations and one grand SUPER ARSE to digest, one other little factoid should also filter through to the good denizens of PB.
All the campaigns have been hyper co-ordinated to within a stumble on a stage but in the final few days flexibility will have been allowed to place the leaders and big hitters of each party where their own polling and local intel tells them they are most needed, now more than ever. Accordingly look carefully which constituencies they spend the precious last campaigning hours in.
Morning all! Just watched the debate from last night. I don't say this very often but well done to the BBC for an impartial and well informed panel that asked good questions of all the leaders. Cameron was right that done properly this is a better format than to have 3 guys shouting over each other, here they have to answer the questions and follow up points are made to those who don't!
No Survation/Daily Mirror this week I see, last week it was released Thursday evening. Anyone know if it has been canned or will just be a bit later this week? And do we know what Lord A will be doing? He is known to not like polling over Bank Holidays and took Easter off.
Suspect the polls might move a bit to Labour this weekend as people with more cash to spare go away, the rush hour traffic seems to have been a bit lighter here over the last couple of days.
"With just 6 days remaining until the UK General Election, the campaign feels increasingly like a sparring session. Sights are shifting ahead to the commencement of real politics on May 8, when the parties try to cobble together a workable government and make sure they play a part in it. Today there are suggestions that the Liberal Democrats will not renew their coalition with the Tories. Labour and the SNP are rowing about whether the former really need the latter. Ukip are talking up their influence in a hung parliament, despite the probability that they will only have two or three seats to barter with. Even the DUP are hinting at terms and red lines.
The Tories exaggerate for self-interest when they say that an indecisive election result would bring "chaos" . But these early examples of jostling and bidding are a concern for anyone who craves stability. Put yourself in the position of a foreign investor, exactly the kind of person Britain's open economy relies upon. Would you invest your marginal pound in this country, at this time?"
Really quite scary Miliband denying Labour overspending. We can't let these clowns near the levers of power again! I don't really buy the current narrative from the tories about how they have got everything going great again, but they are at least not living in complete la-la land like Miliband seems to be.
What a fool. People aren't going to let him be in charge ...are they? Please...?
If Ed believes that there was no overspending in the Blar Brown era, just needed investment in infrastructure then he is certain to repeat the process. Particularly with the SNP egging him on.
I do not like Dave much, and find much of the Conservative agenda scary. I would not want to see a Conservative government with a working majority.
I would quite like to see a continuity coalition, but the LDs look to be losing too many seats for that to be tenable.
It is all going to be quite a mess in a weeks time.
Despite the fact I am a Kipper in the interests of good governance I would vote for Continuity Coalition if I possibly could.
They have done a great job given the hand they were dealt.
Video exclusive: ‘Green activists’ in Brighton Pavilion rip off UKIP advertisements
B & H Independent @BrightonIndy 11h11 hours ago Supposing Green activists had burned @UKIP adverts: http://bit.ly/1EUvtLe ? Non-story? Or central to free democracy?
Demonstrating their love of democracy and free speech.
I've got news for Mr Kevin Smith, UKIP candidate for Hove. No one ever joined UKIP who wasn't a racist, although few of them are much good at looking into their own souls. And with souls like theirs, who can blame them?
Arrrr me hearties! An ' with a soul as black as night, tis a brave man who'll fix his gaze upon it,, arrrr!
I have looked into my soul, as it happens. And I have discovered a number of things.
First, that I should be put to death for being white. Similarly mutatis mutandis that I should be put to death for not being a cradle Catholic, or a Sunni Muslim etc etc. That is to say, that I have met people who genuinely believe such things. Who am I to say that I have a right to live, when others deny that? That would be pride, selfish pride. Whoever kills me will be right to do so, and should be decorated by Her Gracious Majesty.
Even if Ukip only win one seat, they'll have a bigger influence. The Boston Tory candidate is pretending to be a Kipper and Danczuk is not your typical Labour MP.
I, of course, believe everything an MP says because they are all honourable men.
The Kippers need a Labour minority Government with Nicola calling the shots. It would make the next by-election a hoot.
No Survation/Daily Mirror this week I see, last week it was released Thursday evening. Anyone know if it has been canned or will just be a bit later this week? And do we know what Lord A will be doing? He is known to not like polling over Bank Holidays and took Easter off.
Suspect the polls might move a bit to Labour this weekend as people with more cash to spare go away, the rush hour traffic seems to have been a bit lighter here over the last couple of days.
Whilst we all ruminate on the devastating news that PB only has 2 more ARSE visitations and one grand SUPER ARSE to digest, one other little factoid should also filter through to the good denizens of PB.
All the campaigns have been hyper co-ordinated to within a stumble on a stage but in the final few days flexibility will have been allowed to place the leaders and big hitters of each party where their own polling and local intel tells them they are most needed, now more than ever. Accordingly look carefully which constituencies they spend the precious last campaigning hours in.
Bears and woods springs to mind dear Jack. I can hardly imagine Cameron campaigning in Tunbridge Wells for the next week.
Most interesting part of QT for me was Ed seemingly painting himself into a corner over a deal with the SNP. Having basically said "I will only take power if I get a majority or a big enough minority to be able to govern myself implementing my manifesto without compromise", he is surely going to end up trumping Clegg's 2010 "read my lips, no increase in tuition fees" promise when he is forced to do exactly what he said he wouldn't in a week or so's time!
Video exclusive: ‘Green activists’ in Brighton Pavilion rip off UKIP advertisements
B & H Independent @BrightonIndy 11h11 hours ago Supposing Green activists had burned @UKIP adverts: http://bit.ly/1EUvtLe ? Non-story? Or central to free democracy?
Demonstrating their love of democracy and free speech.
I've got news for Mr Kevin Smith, UKIP candidate for Hove. No one ever joined UKIP who wasn't a racist, although few of them are much good at looking into their own souls. And with souls like theirs, who can blame them?
Arrrr me hearties! An ' with a soul as black as night, tis a brave man who'll fix his gaze upon it,, arrrr!
I have looked into my soul, as it happens. And I have discovered a number of things.
First, that I should be put to death for being white. Similarly mutatis mutandis that I should be put to death for not being a cradle Catholic, or a Sunni Muslim etc etc. That is to say, that I have met people who genuinely believe such things. Who am I to say that I have a right to live, when others deny that? That would be pride, selfish pride. Whoever kills me will be right to do so, and should be decorated by Her Gracious Majesty.
Arrr! Ye should be walkin' the plank for crimes against blog posts
I agree the value bet is Con Min. Particularly given Ed Miliband's comments last night.
What if Ed Miliband gets 260 seats and Cameron 285, and Miliband *does* abstain on the basis he only becomes PM otherwise with SNP support?
Cameron remains as PM of extremely weak Con Min government. Yes it's not likely Ed would pass up a shot. But is it longer than a 5/1 shot?
I'm sorry, but are people really taking seriously the prospect that a situation occurs where Labour + SNP > 323 votes and Cameron remains PM on the basis that Ed says "No deals"? If so I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you
Ed is a ruthlessly ambitious person, but more than that, he really really believes he is the solution to the UKs problems, there is no way his heart will let him sit back and let the Tories govern.
The keys to downing street are offered but once, he'll grab them and deal with the consequences later.
Video exclusive: ‘Green activists’ in Brighton Pavilion rip off UKIP advertisements
B & H Independent @BrightonIndy 11h11 hours ago Supposing Green activists had burned @UKIP adverts: http://bit.ly/1EUvtLe ? Non-story? Or central to free democracy?
Demonstrating their love of democracy and free speech.
I've got news for Mr Kevin Smith, UKIP candidate for Hove. No one ever joined UKIP who wasn't a racist, although few of them are much good at looking into their own souls. And with souls like theirs, who can blame them?
What makes you the judge of other peoples' souls.
This is the guy who posted that the only reason he didn't advocate the extermination of all white people is that he is white himself.
He's got plenty of bigger issues to work on first beyond sanctimoniousness and judging
Most interesting part of QT for me was Ed seemingly painting himself into a corner over a deal with the SNP. Having basically said "I will only take power if I get a majority or a big enough minority to be able to govern myself implementing my manifesto without compromise", he is surely going to end up trumping Clegg's 2010 "read my lips, no increase in tuition fees" promise when he is forced to do exactly what he said he wouldn't in a week or so's time!
I'm guessing that he wants to frighten Scottish voters into returning to Labour as the only way to guarantee getting Labour. He'll deal with the consequences later, although I do have my doubts about Labour behaving logically. I know the numbers weren't right in 2010 for a Labour led coalition, but they (apart from Mandelson) didn't seem seriously to have considered the possibility.
If you run a deficit of 2% and GDP grows by 2.1% then hey presto "the debt is falling" (as a %age of GDP). But is this prudent?
This goes right to the heart of Labour's economic idiocy. If your defict is 2% of GDP and GDP growth, WHICH INCLUDES PUBLIC SPENDING, is 2.1% then what you're really saying is that there is only 0.1% of real growth of non-debt fueled spaying it up the wall. The real economy is essentially flat while the absolute debt rises by 2% a year. Keep that shit up for a decade and hey presto when an inevitable downturn comes along you find you have added hugely to the debt but the real GDP to pay for it isn't there any more. This is economics 1.0 for for dummies. Brown, Balls and clearly Miliband simply don't recognise that borrowed growth is not real. The GDP growth of the Labour years was a chimera. They borrowed to spend. The real economy didn't really grow. The public sector did. They massively overspent. Miliband 'does not accept that'. Because he's an effwit.
I totally agree. A properly balanced audience and a moderated Cameron Direct style q and a worked very well. The questioner got to respond and there was connection. Much prefer that to arguing over each other or ganging up with their political bedfellows.
Morning all! Just watched the debate from last night. I don't say this very often but well done to the BBC for an impartial and well informed panel that asked good questions of all the leaders. Cameron was right that done properly this is a better format than to have 3 guys shouting over each other, here they have to answer the questions and follow up points are made to those who don't!
Video exclusive: ‘Green activists’ in Brighton Pavilion rip off UKIP advertisements
B & H Independent @BrightonIndy 11h11 hours ago Supposing Green activists had burned @UKIP adverts: http://bit.ly/1EUvtLe ? Non-story? Or central to free democracy?
Demonstrating their love of democracy and free speech.
I've got news for Mr Kevin Smith, UKIP candidate for Hove. No one ever joined UKIP who wasn't a racist, although few of them are much good at looking into their own souls. And with souls like theirs, who can blame them?
Arrrr me hearties! An ' with a soul as black as night, tis a brave man who'll fix his gaze upon it,, arrrr!
I have looked into my soul, as it happens. And I have discovered a number of things.
First, that I should be put to death for being white. Similarly mutatis mutandis that I should be put to death for not being a cradle Catholic, or a Sunni Muslim etc etc. That is to say, that I have met people who genuinely believe such things. Who am I to say that I have a right to live, when others deny that? That would be pride, selfish pride. Whoever kills me will be right to do so, and should be decorated by Her Gracious Majesty.
Arrr! Ye should be walkin' the plank for crimes against blog posts
Everyone talks about the 92 polling debacle, but 2001 was pretty appalling too. See the link above. The polling average gave Labour a 16% lead when in reality it proved to be 10%.
The 2005 polling average overstated Labour too by 3%.
Since we are now at final polling stage could we now see something similar and Labour fall below it's 2010 level as Jack's ARSE predicts if you translate seats into vote shares?
As I've said before, consider that he's effectively ruined his relationship with his brother to get the Labour leadership. Imagine doing that, and then failing when everything ought to be in your favour (coalition government, unpopular cuts, being sole nationwide opposition party [yes, yes, UKIP, but let's be serious, Farage isn't in the running for PM]).
And if he is lying, and gets, say, 270 seats, would he turn down the chance to be PM to honour a pledge made pre-election?
One suspects the sort of chap who believes that might also be interested in buying some magic beans.
Unexpectedly, and hugely to their credit, the BBC did a great job last night. In all the hoohah about debate formats we seem to have hit upon a winning formula. Politicians are ultimately answerable to the people and it somehow seems just right that the tough questioning came from the people and not from each other. This can only really work if the audience is selected such that it is going to grill the leaders deeply and not shy away from sticking it where it hurts in each case. The audience last night was super. I had feared the usual QT lefython. But not a bit of it. I think the decision to go 25/25/25/25 Con/Lab/LD/Other was spot on. So...well done Auntie!
Most interesting part of QT for me was Ed seemingly painting himself into a corner over a deal with the SNP. Having basically said "I will only take power if I get a majority or a big enough minority to be able to govern myself implementing my manifesto without compromise", he is surely going to end up trumping Clegg's 2010 "read my lips, no increase in tuition fees" promise when he is forced to do exactly what he said he wouldn't in a week or so's time!
Why ? He said nothing different. All he said was no coalition and no Supply & Confidence.
He is taking, in my opinion, a considered gamble that the SNP will not vote down Labour's Queen's speech.
What can the SNP do ? They have said that they will vote against a Tory QS. So, if they would against a Labour QS as well then we have a full blown crisis.
Do the SNP want to precipitate that now ? Are they going to vote down a Labour government having acquired new sizable Labour voters in the last 8 moths !
Whilst we all ruminate on the devastating news that PB only has 2 more ARSE visitations and one grand SUPER ARSE to digest, one other little factoid should also filter through to the good denizens of PB.
All the campaigns have been hyper co-ordinated to within a stumble on a stage but in the final few days flexibility will have been allowed to place the leaders and big hitters of each party where their own polling and local intel tells them they are most needed, now more than ever. Accordingly look carefully which constituencies they spend the precious last campaigning hours in.
Bears and woods springs to mind dear Jack. I can hardly imagine Cameron campaigning in Tunbridge Wells for the next week.
Quite so.
However which marginal/target seats will they venture to :
Will Nick Palmer and team heckle as the PM descends on Broxtowe .... Will Ed stumble over the border and risk a Glasgow kiss from those faint hearts of the SNP .... Will former LibDems voters chuck their 2010 sandals at Nick Clegg in Cornwall North and finally will Nigel Farage get pissed himself or with the voters in Rotherham ????????
Most interesting part of QT for me was Ed seemingly painting himself into a corner over a deal with the SNP. Having basically said "I will only take power if I get a majority or a big enough minority to be able to govern myself implementing my manifesto without compromise", he is surely going to end up trumping Clegg's 2010 "read my lips, no increase in tuition fees" promise when he is forced to do exactly what he said he wouldn't in a week or so's time!
I'm guessing that he wants to frighten Scottish voters into returning to Labour as the only way to guarantee getting Labour. He'll deal with the consequences later, although I do have my doubts about Labour behaving logically. I know the numbers weren't right in 2010 for a Labour led coalition, but they (apart from Mandelson) didn't seem seriously to have considered the possibility.
It looked to me as if Ed is planning no deal with snp but will dare them to vote his queens speech down. Should be in that position.
If you run a deficit of 2% and GDP grows by 2.1% then hey presto "the debt is falling" (as a %age of GDP). But is this prudent?
This goes right to the heart of Labour's economic idiocy. If your defict is 2% of GDP and GDP growth, WHICH INCLUDES PUBLIC SPENDING, is 2.1% then what you're really saying is that there is only 0.1% of real growth of non-debt fueled spaying it up the wall. The real economy is essentially flat while the absolute debt rises by 2% a year. Keep that shit up for a decade and hey presto when an inevitable downturn comes along you find you have added hugely to the debt but the real GDP to pay for it isn't there any more. This is economics 1.0 for for dummies. Brown, Balls and clearly Miliband simply don't recognise that borrowed growth is not real. The GDP growth of the Labour years was a chimera. They borrowed to spend. The real economy didn't really grow. The public sector did. They massively overspent. Miliband 'does not accept that'. Because he's an effwit.
I agree the value bet is Con Min. Particularly given Ed Miliband's comments last night.
What if Ed Miliband gets 260 seats and Cameron 285, and Miliband *does* abstain on the basis he only becomes PM otherwise with SNP support?
Cameron remains as PM of extremely weak Con Min government. Yes it's not likely Ed would pass up a shot. But is it longer than a 5/1 shot?
I'm sorry, but are people really taking seriously the prospect that a situation occurs where Labour + SNP > 323 votes and Cameron remains PM on the basis that Ed says "No deals"? If so I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you
Ed is a ruthlessly ambitious person, but more than that, he really really believes he is the solution to the UKs problems, there is no way his heart will let him sit back and let the Tories govern.
The keys to downing street are offered but once, he'll grab them and deal with the consequences later.
It won't just be his decision, if he only gets 260 he won't be PM, trying from so far behind potentially could cause huge damage to his party, he has to make some ground on Brown's result otherwise he has failed totally. If Labour get closer as the major forecasters are currently predicting they would be much more likely to have a realistic go.
If you run a deficit of 2% and GDP grows by 2.1% then hey presto "the debt is falling" (as a %age of GDP). But is this prudent?
This goes right to the heart of Labour's economic idiocy. If your defict is 2% of GDP and GDP growth, WHICH INCLUDES PUBLIC SPENDING, is 2.1% then what you're really saying is that there is only 0.1% of real growth of non-debt fueled spaying it up the wall. The real economy is essentially flat while the absolute debt rises by 2% a year. Keep that shit up for a decade and hey presto when an inevitable downturn comes along you find you have added hugely to the debt but the real GDP to pay for it isn't there any more. This is economics 1.0 for for dummies. Brown, Balls and clearly Miliband simply don't recognise that borrowed growth is not real. The GDP growth of the Labour years was a chimera. They borrowed to spend. The real economy didn't really grow. The public sector did. They massively overspent. Miliband 'does not accept that'. Because he's an effwit.
How's that different from Osborne ?
Because under Osborne the deficit has been falling and growth rising. The real economy has been growing as witnessed by millions more private sector jobs.
Video exclusive: ‘Green activists’ in Brighton Pavilion rip off UKIP advertisements
B & H Independent @BrightonIndy 11h11 hours ago Supposing Green activists had burned @UKIP adverts: http://bit.ly/1EUvtLe ? Non-story? Or central to free democracy?
Demonstrating their love of democracy and free speech.
I've got news for Mr Kevin Smith, UKIP candidate for Hove. No one ever joined UKIP who wasn't a racist, although few of them are much good at looking into their own souls. And with souls like theirs, who can blame them?
Arrrr me hearties! An ' with a soul as black as night, tis a brave man who'll fix his gaze upon it,, arrrr!
I have looked into my soul, as it happens. And I have discovered a number of things.
First, that I should be put to death for being white. Similarly mutatis mutandis that I should be put to death for not being a cradle Catholic, or a Sunni Muslim etc etc. That is to say, that I have met people who genuinely believe such things. Who am I to say that I have a right to live, when others deny that? That would be pride, selfish pride. Whoever kills me will be right to do so, and should be decorated by Her Gracious Majesty.
Arrr! Ye should be walkin' the plank for crimes against blog posts
Shiver me timbers; Ye scurvy knaves!
Is it national Talk like a Pirate day already?
Don't know why, but something about innocentabroads post made me go into pirate mode
Most interesting part of QT for me was Ed seemingly painting himself into a corner over a deal with the SNP. Having basically said "I will only take power if I get a majority or a big enough minority to be able to govern myself implementing my manifesto without compromise", he is surely going to end up trumping Clegg's 2010 "read my lips, no increase in tuition fees" promise when he is forced to do exactly what he said he wouldn't in a week or so's time!
Why ? He said nothing different. All he said was no coalition and no Supply & Confidence.
He is taking, in my opinion, a considered gamble that the SNP will not vote down Labour's Queen's speech.
What can the SNP do ? They have said that they will vote against a Tory QS. So, if they would against a Labour QS as well then we have a full blown crisis.
Do the SNP want to precipitate that now ? Are they going to vote down a Labour government having acquired new sizable Labour voters in the last 8 moths !
Well a crisis that precipitates Scotland leaving the UK is their reason for existence.
Though the can do far more damage with amendments than just voting down.
. I fully expect the Tories to win the national vote share. The national polls point to Ed (In aggregate) being ahead on seats or it being too close to call. The likely distribution from the models (UKElect, FIsher, Hanretty) points to a Tory lead on votes and seats. BUT Here is the thing... Con + LD + DUP must equal 323. In order for Ed to NOT become PM he musty abstain the Conservative Queen speech. SNP, PC, SDLP, Green voting it down is even more sure than the Labour party. No doubt if it really is Labour 260, Tories 285 he will give it serious consideration. But then he will put forward a Labour Queen speech and DARE the SNP to vote it down. There will be some Labour rebels who will be expelled, Danczuk, Mann, perhaps one or two others.
The SNP will vote it through.. And thus as Rod Crosby has pointed towards in his constitutional musings Ed is PM. I expect him to remain in post till Holyrood 2016. Past that the SNP may well pull the plug.
My book is well enough balanced that the final betting consequences of either Ed or Dave (Or other) should be fine for me. But this is my prediction.
I disagree.
I think this election is effectively a re-run of 2010, but with some small amendments. Basically no one who voted Tory in 2010 because of economics will have a reason to vote Labour this time.
So what you have is:
Labour = 2010 + Red Libs - Red Kippers - SLAB - Watermelons
Tories = 2010 - Blue Kippers + Blue Libs
Fundamentally, I think that there will be a lot of people - most likely Blue Kippers - who will get the the polling booth and decide that they are not prepared to take the risk of voting against the Tories. Not because they love Cameron, but because they perceive the alternative to be worse. Labour will do well in London but will get crushed in the Midlands. And it's the Midlands where elections are won.
I think Ed Miliband is Labour's Hague: core vote strategy, but the majority just ain't listening. Which would make Chuka, Labour's IDS
(On a longer term perspective, the two things that are hugely significant about this election are the eradication of the LibDems in the SW [at least outside Cornwall] and the destruction of SLAB. Both of these are hugely positive developments for the Tories, as the former has been the element that has stopped them winning majorities for a generation, while the latter has always been a bedrock for Labour)
If you run a deficit of 2% and GDP grows by 2.1% then hey presto "the debt is falling" (as a %age of GDP). But is this prudent?
This goes right to the heart of Labour's economic idiocy. If your defict is 2% of GDP and GDP growth, WHICH INCLUDES PUBLIC SPENDING, is 2.1% then what you're really saying is that there is only 0.1% of real growth of non-debt fueled spaying it up the wall. The real economy is essentially flat while the absolute debt rises by 2% a year. Keep that shit up for a decade and hey presto when an inevitable downturn comes along you find you have added hugely to the debt but the real GDP to pay for it isn't there any more. This is economics 1.0 for for dummies. Brown, Balls and clearly Miliband simply don't recognise that borrowed growth is not real. The GDP growth of the Labour years was a chimera. They borrowed to spend. The real economy didn't really grow. The public sector did. They massively overspent. Miliband 'does not accept that'. Because he's an effwit.
How's that different from Osborne ?
Because under Osborne the deficit has been falling and growth rising. The real economy has been growing as witnessed by millions more private sector jobs.
That's just total crap. Take out Osborne's borrowing and what's left ? He has done next to bugger all on economic reform and his "growth" is as dependent on government borrowing as Brown's was. Look at out balance of payments if you want to see the effects.
Mr. Surbiton, indeed, but there's a problem for Miliband.
Gets his Queen's Speech, but there are consequences: 1) He's got [in that scenario] fewer MPs than Cameron, and an SNP carving out a pound of flesh for every measure of support, not to mention nervous backbenchers who might turn purple. 2) Miliband would have fewer votes and seats than the Conservatives and only be in power due to the favour of a separatist party. That might get him five years of crawling on his knees for Nicola, but it could destroy Labour. Scots wouldn't turn red, and the English/Welsh would likely turn blue.
There would, however, be a very interesting and difficult question for the blues: keep Cameron, or axe him? Or would he walk anyway?
So the years 2000-10 saw the size of the state soar from 34pc to 50pc – a rise of 16 points. This is a faster rise than any other country, over any other postwar decade. ......And even now, Miliband can’t bring himself to recognise what he did. As the lady from the Question Time audience so beautifully put it, if he can’t, why should voters let him do it again?
Fraser's graph shows that public spending fell between 2005 and 2007, and then soared following the crash. I, for one, am very glad that it did. God knows would have happened if it had not.
It was the same in 2005 and 2007. The only falling it did was between 2006-2007 and 2009-2010
Fair enough, it was falling at the time of the crash. And then, thankfully, rose again.
The problem wasn't the immediate aftermath when spending rose (I assume you have adjusted for the consolidation of RBS).
The problem was that Brown let rip during the noughties because he believed tax income was sustainable. When it proved a mirage he absolutely refused to do anything to address the structural spending gap. It's the structural deficit that's the issue.
I agree the value bet is Con Min. Particularly given Ed Miliband's comments last night.
What if Ed Miliband gets 260 seats and Cameron 285, and Miliband *does* abstain on the basis he only becomes PM otherwise with SNP support?
Cameron remains as PM of extremely weak Con Min government. Yes it's not likely Ed would pass up a shot. But is it longer than a 5/1 shot?
I'm sorry, but are people really taking seriously the prospect that a situation occurs where Labour + SNP > 323 votes and Cameron remains PM on the basis that Ed says "No deals"? If so I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you
Ed is a ruthlessly ambitious person, but more than that, he really really believes he is the solution to the UKs problems, there is no way his heart will let him sit back and let the Tories govern.
The keys to downing street are offered but once, he'll grab them and deal with the consequences later.
It won't just be his decision, if he only gets 260 he won't be PM, trying from so far behind potentially could cause huge damage to his party, he has to make some ground on Brown's result otherwise he has failed totally. If Labour get closer as the major forecasters are currently predicting they would be much more likely to have a realistic go.
It's very difficult to judge and it will depend on the zeitgeist if and when we get to such a situation. But 20 - 25 behind in seats, perhaps a million votes and some Labour figures would probably counsel publicly against trying to take power - the long-term risks would be huge. What Miliband said last night about the SNP was ambiguous, but it will be interpreted by the media in a manner which is unhelpful to him. There will be no deal with SNP, perhaps Miliband would not even speak to them; but like it or not Miliband would be dependent on the SNP.
If you run a deficit of 2% and GDP grows by 2.1% then hey presto "the debt is falling" (as a %age of GDP). But is this prudent?
----------
People tend make a simple mistake all the time. Debt does not go up by inflation. Nominal GDP does. OK, there is no inflation at this moment but , say, if we get rate of inflation going up by just 2%, and if Real GDP increases by 2.5%, nominal GDP will be up 4.5%.
Debt as a share of GDP will fall unless the deficit itself increases. Rising GDP, all things being equal, will bring in more taxes, so deficit will go down unless any government deliberately stokes up spending.
Inflation is always good to get rid of debt in reals terms; for governments and people !
Cameron lost out big time on QT last night. Not to Miliband or Clegg, but to the luck of the draw - he ended up battling Emmerdale on the other side, whereas the other two did not have the same competition. Whilst I doubt the programme will have rated that highly overall, perhaps 4m averaged over the 90 minutes, I reckon Clegg's section will easily have been the most watched. It would be fascinating to see if the "breakdown" of viewing gets reported today.
At least with a proper debate over 90 mins or 2 hours, viewers get to see a bit of everyone in the bit they choose to view. But then, it's karma for Cameron because he was the one who insisted on the sequence of debates we ended up with.
I thought he did the best of the three, but continues to frustrate with his evasiveness and inability to actually confront the guff he gets confronted with on, eg, food banks, bedroom tax. I am beginning to think that as well as being lazy, he's actually not that bright.
But I guess he's history anyway in a week, sadly.
I think you make good points especially on the Food Banks, I suspect he is advised to play safe and avoid sounding callous.
I believe Cameron will get a credible result next week bearing in mind the hand he was dealt, with a seat lead over Labour of 25 to 30, it won't be good enough for him long term, I would expect him to stand down and let someone else have a go. If it goes the way I think it will be another election with new leaders. I can't see any of the 3 leaders getting a result acceptable enough to justify staying in their exalted positions.
If you run a deficit of 2% and GDP grows by 2.1% then hey presto "the debt is falling" (as a %age of GDP). But is this prudent?
This goes right to the heart of Labour's economic idiocy. If your defict is 2% of GDP and GDP growth, WHICH INCLUDES PUBLIC SPENDING, is 2.1% then what you're really saying is that there is only 0.1% of real growth of non-debt fueled spaying it up the wall. The real economy is essentially flat while the absolute debt rises by 2% a year. Keep that shit up for a decade and hey presto when an inevitable downturn comes along you find you have added hugely to the debt but the real GDP to pay for it isn't there any more. This is economics 1.0 for for dummies. Brown, Balls and clearly Miliband simply don't recognise that borrowed growth is not real. The GDP growth of the Labour years was a chimera. They borrowed to spend. The real economy didn't really grow. The public sector did. They massively overspent. Miliband 'does not accept that'. Because he's an effwit.
How's that different from Osborne ?
Well - Ozzy has clearly tried and half succeeded at getting rid of the deficit. The Tories have a clear plan to eliminate it entirely and return to an actual surplus. Public sector jobs have fallen dramatically as we rebalance back from public to private sector. I agree with you that the speed of travel and determination here could have been sharper - but he needs to get re-elected. I suspect the coalition pushed things back in the right direction just about as fast as was do-able. And Danny Alexander deserves credit as does Justin Webb - it's not all Tory good stuff. Think of the alternative - where would the UK be now if the last 5 years had been Brown/Balls running the show as before? I shudder to think.
Tories have the twitter sphere flooded with this claiming gasps of disbelief from the audience and reminding people that Ed Balls thought that the letter left by Bryne was just a joke.
Might not have been the best way for Ed to have confronted this.
If you run a deficit of 2% and GDP grows by 2.1% then hey presto "the debt is falling" (as a %age of GDP). But is this prudent?
This goes right to the heart of Labour's economic idiocy. If your defict is 2% of GDP and GDP growth, WHICH INCLUDES PUBLIC SPENDING, is 2.1% then what you're really saying is that there is only 0.1% of real growth of non-debt fueled spaying it up the wall. The real economy is essentially flat while the absolute debt rises by 2% a year. Keep that shit up for a decade and hey presto when an inevitable downturn comes along you find you have added hugely to the debt but the real GDP to pay for it isn't there any more. This is economics 1.0 for for dummies. Brown, Balls and clearly Miliband simply don't recognise that borrowed growth is not real. The GDP growth of the Labour years was a chimera. They borrowed to spend. The real economy didn't really grow. The public sector did. They massively overspent. Miliband 'does not accept that'. Because he's an effwit.
How's that different from Osborne ?
Well - Ozzy has clearly tried and half succeeded at getting rid of the deficit. The Tories have a clear plan to eliminate it entirely and return to an actual surplus. Public sector jobs have fallen dramatically as we rebalance back from public to private sector. I agree with you that the speed of travel and determination here could have been sharper - but he needs to get re-elected. I suspect the coalition pushed things back in the right direction just about as fast as was do-able. And Danny Alexander deserves credit as does Justin Webb - it's not all Tory good stuff. Think of the alternative - where would the UK be now if the last 5 years had been Brown/Balls running the show as before? I shudder to think.
So the choice is between shit economic management and totally shit economic management.
Where's the option of voting good economic management ?
If there has to be another GE prior to 2017 because of government instability, will the political parties be more realsitic about the economy or still be offering more sweeties than are in the jar?
If you run a deficit of 2% and GDP grows by 2.1% then hey presto "the debt is falling" (as a %age of GDP). But is this prudent?
This goes right to the heart of Labour's economic idiocy. If your defict is 2% of GDP and GDP growth, WHICH INCLUDES PUBLIC SPENDING, is 2.1% then what you're really saying is that there is only 0.1% of real growth of non-debt fueled spaying it up the wall. The real economy is essentially flat while the absolute debt rises by 2% a year. Keep that shit up for a decade and hey presto when an inevitable downturn comes along you find you have added hugely to the debt but the real GDP to pay for it isn't there any more. This is economics 1.0 for for dummies. Brown, Balls and clearly Miliband simply don't recognise that borrowed growth is not real. The GDP growth of the Labour years was a chimera. They borrowed to spend. The real economy didn't really grow. The public sector did. They massively overspent. Miliband 'does not accept that'. Because he's an effwit.
How's that different from Osborne ?
Because under Osborne the deficit has been falling and growth rising. The real economy has been growing as witnessed by millions more private sector jobs.
That's just total crap. Take out Osborne's borrowing and what's left ? He has done next to bugger all on economic reform and his "growth" is as dependent on government borrowing as Brown's was. Look at out balance of payments if you want to see the effects.
Osborne is simply Brown in slow motion.
This is innumerate nonsense. In 2014 the deficit was reduced by 2.6% of GDP which GDP was growing faster than any other major western nation. Name the last time Brown reduced the deficit so considerably.
After GE2010 Labour's leadership did try and put a "rainbow" alliance together including the then 6 SNP MPs. At GE 2015 the SNP are now ruled out by Labour of any coalition.... Did the SNP change any major policy or was it when they looked like beating SLAB at a GE?
Video exclusive: ‘Green activists’ in Brighton Pavilion rip off UKIP advertisements
B & H Independent @BrightonIndy 11h11 hours ago Supposing Green activists had burned @UKIP adverts: http://bit.ly/1EUvtLe ? Non-story? Or central to free democracy?
My wife drives past UKIP hoardings everyday whilst taking my son to school - she has commented that something or someone knocks them down within 24 hours of being put up. One I think is up and down like the proverbial whores drawers.
This is on rural roads in north Essex and Suffolk (between Colchester and Stowmarket)
What Ed has done is to increase the chances of DC staying in Downing Street. If the Conservatives are the largest party and the opposition has ruled out a deal that would produce a majority, he is well within his constitutional rights to carry on, put up his own QS and dare them all the vote against it. It would include the EUref, tax guarantee and devomax for Caledonia and Wales.
If you run a deficit of 2% and GDP grows by 2.1% then hey presto "the debt is falling" (as a %age of GDP). But is this prudent?
This goes right to the heart of Labour's economic idiocy. If your defict is 2% of GDP and GDP growth, WHICH INCLUDES PUBLIC SPENDING, is 2.1% then what you're really saying is that there is only 0.1% of real growth of non-debt fueled spaying it up the wall. The real economy is essentially flat while the absolute debt rises by 2% a year. Keep that shit up for a decade and hey presto when an inevitable downturn comes along you find you have added hugely to the debt but the real GDP to pay for it isn't there any more. This is economics 1.0 for for dummies. Brown, Balls and clearly Miliband simply don't recognise that borrowed growth is not real. The GDP growth of the Labour years was a chimera. They borrowed to spend. The real economy didn't really grow. The public sector did. They massively overspent. Miliband 'does not accept that'. Because he's an effwit.
How's that different from Osborne ?
Because under Osborne the deficit has been falling and growth rising. The real economy has been growing as witnessed by millions more private sector jobs.
That's just total crap. Take out Osborne's borrowing and what's left ? He has done next to bugger all on economic reform and his "growth" is as dependent on government borrowing as Brown's was. Look at out balance of payments if you want to see the effects.
Osborne is simply Brown in slow motion.
I agree but he has the excuse of the Lib Dem coalition.
Video exclusive: ‘Green activists’ in Brighton Pavilion rip off UKIP advertisements
B & H Independent @BrightonIndy 11h11 hours ago Supposing Green activists had burned @UKIP adverts: http://bit.ly/1EUvtLe ? Non-story? Or central to free democracy?
My wife drives past UKIP hoardings everyday whilst taking my son to school - she has commented that something or someone knocks them down within 24 hours of being put up. One I think is up and down like the proverbial whores drawers.
This is on rural roads in north Essex and Suffolk (between Colchester and Stowmarket)
I read a case about the entire UKIP leaflet drop in Tower Hamlets being stolen from the printers and the Met were looking into it. Not only is it disgraceful behaviour by supporters of left-wing parties (and we all know its supporters of left-wing parties), but it's counter productive and makes UKIP seem oppressed.
If you run a deficit of 2% and GDP grows by 2.1% then hey presto "the debt is falling" (as a %age of GDP). But is this prudent?
This goes right to the heart of Labour's economic idiocy. If your defict is 2% of GDP and GDP growth, WHICH INCLUDES PUBLIC SPENDING, is 2.1% then what you're really saying is that there is only 0.1% of real growth of non-debt fueled spaying it up the wall. The real economy is essentially flat while the absolute debt rises by 2% a year. Keep that shit up for a decade and hey presto when an inevitable downturn comes along you find you have added hugely to the debt but the real GDP to pay for it isn't there any more. This is economics 1.0 for for dummies. Brown, Balls and clearly Miliband simply don't recognise that borrowed growth is not real. The GDP growth of the Labour years was a chimera. They borrowed to spend. The real economy didn't really grow. The public sector did. They massively overspent. Miliband 'does not accept that'. Because he's an effwit.
How's that different from Osborne ?
Because under Osborne the deficit has been falling and growth rising. The real economy has been growing as witnessed by millions more private sector jobs.
That's just total crap. Take out Osborne's borrowing and what's left ? He has done next to bugger all on economic reform and his "growth" is as dependent on government borrowing as Brown's was. Look at out balance of payments if you want to see the effects.
Osborne is simply Brown in slow motion.
This is innumerate nonsense. In 2014 the deficit was reduced by 2.6% of GDP which GDP was growing faster than any other major western nation. Name the last time Brown reduced the deficit so considerably.
LOL you believe debt is wealth do you ?
Take out government overspending from GDP and how does it look ? Govt deficit 4.5% of GDP, growth 2.6%, inflation not very much. Where's the growth ?
Mr. Surbiton, indeed, but there's a problem for Miliband.
Gets his Queen's Speech, but there are consequences: 1) He's got [in that scenario] fewer MPs than Cameron, and an SNP carving out a pound of flesh for every measure of support, not to mention nervous backbenchers who might turn purple. 2) Miliband would have fewer votes and seats than the Conservatives and only be in power due to the favour of a separatist party. That might get him five years of crawling on his knees for Nicola, but it could destroy Labour. Scots wouldn't turn red, and the English/Welsh would likely turn blue.
There would, however, be a very interesting and difficult question for the blues: keep Cameron, or axe him? Or would he walk anyway?
I don't think there is any doubt that Cam would be ditched in that scenario- he wouldn't be given a choice I'm afraid. Sadly I have no doubt that he has MP's who want him to lose as they hate him so much. Extreme madness in my view but sadly that is the reality.
I agree the value bet is Con Min. Particularly given Ed Miliband's comments last night.
What if Ed Miliband gets 260 seats and Cameron 285, and Miliband *does* abstain on the basis he only becomes PM otherwise with SNP support?
Cameron remains as PM of extremely weak Con Min government. Yes it's not likely Ed would pass up a shot. But is it longer than a 5/1 shot?
I'm sorry, but are people really taking seriously the prospect that a situation occurs where Labour + SNP > 323 votes and Cameron remains PM on the basis that Ed says "No deals"? If so I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you
Ed is a ruthlessly ambitious person, but more than that, he really really believes he is the solution to the UKs problems, there is no way his heart will let him sit back and let the Tories govern.
The keys to downing street are offered but once, he'll grab them and deal with the consequences later.
It won't just be his decision, if he only gets 260 he won't be PM, trying from so far behind potentially could cause huge damage to his party, he has to make some ground on Brown's result otherwise he has failed totally. If Labour get closer as the major forecasters are currently predicting they would be much more likely to have a realistic go.
It's very difficult to judge and it will depend on the zeitgeist if and when we get to such a situation. But 20 - 25 behind in seats, perhaps a million votes and some Labour figures would probably counsel publicly against trying to take power - the long-term risks would be huge. What Miliband said last night about the SNP was ambiguous, but it will be interpreted by the media in a manner which is unhelpful to him. There will be no deal with SNP, perhaps Miliband would not even speak to them; but like it or not Miliband would be dependent on the SNP.
I'm beginning to think my wife has a point. Ed's strategy is not so much now about winning the election, but planning the aftermath and fending off the inevitable backlash from his party.
A la Kinnock, he'll want another crack at it, and seeing a weak minority Govt force through the planned cuts over the next years with the spectrum of the in and out referendum looming over amid the Grexit.
Maybe Hague's result in 2001- a solitary seat gain, will be the best result for him
"Stupid of Ed to have waited this long to rule out a deal with the SNP. If he had done so earlier,could have slowed the mass hysteria north of the border."
I take the unfashinable view that Nicola has been a huge boost to Ed. Nothing has done as much for his credibility as being visibly woowed by all the other lefty leaders. Nothing is more attractive than someone in demand.....
It not only makes him look powerful and leaderlike but it also gives momentum to all those from the centre and centre left that they are part of a movement as opposed to the rather stale reactionary right.
Hahahahahahahahahahah.....No stop Roger...please stop I can't take it anymore...... Oh my aching sides....I mean seriously????
If you run a deficit of 2% and GDP grows by 2.1% then hey presto "the debt is falling" (as a %age of GDP). But is this prudent?
This goes right to the heart of Labour's economic idiocy. If your defict is 2% of GDP and GDP growth, WHICH INCLUDES PUBLIC SPENDING, is 2.1% then what you're really saying is that there is only 0.1% of real growth of non-debt fueled spaying it up the wall. The real economy is essentially flat while the absolute debt rises by 2% a year. Keep that shit up for a decade and hey presto when an inevitable downturn comes along you find you have added hugely to the debt but the real GDP to pay for it isn't there any more. This is economics 1.0 for for dummies. Brown, Balls and clearly Miliband simply don't recognise that borrowed growth is not real. The GDP growth of the Labour years was a chimera. They borrowed to spend. The real economy didn't really grow. The public sector did. They massively overspent. Miliband 'does not accept that'. Because he's an effwit.
How's that different from Osborne ?
Well - Ozzy has clearly tried and half succeeded at getting rid of the deficit. The Tories have a clear plan to eliminate it entirely and return to an actual surplus. Public sector jobs have fallen dramatically as we rebalance back from public to private sector. I agree with you that the speed of travel and determination here could have been sharper - but he needs to get re-elected. I suspect the coalition pushed things back in the right direction just about as fast as was do-able. And Danny Alexander deserves credit as does Justin Webb - it's not all Tory good stuff. Think of the alternative - where would the UK be now if the last 5 years had been Brown/Balls running the show as before? I shudder to think.
So the choice is between shit economic management and totally shit economic management.
Where's the option of voting good economic management ?
The option is always there. The trouble is for 13 years the British people voted for economic idiocy. If the Tories get in this time with a big majority (fat chance) then we'll see a full return to sound money.
"Stupid of Ed to have waited this long to rule out a deal with the SNP. If he had done so earlier,could have slowed the mass hysteria north of the border."
I take the unfashinable view that Nicola has been a huge boost to Ed. Nothing has done as much for his credibility as being visibly woowed by all the other lefty leaders. Nothing is more attractive than someone in demand.....
It not only makes him look powerful and leaderlike but it also gives momentum to all those from the centre and centre left that they are part of a movement as opposed to the rather stale reactionary right.
Hahahahahahahahahahah.....No stop Roger...please stop I can't take it anymore...... Oh my aching sides....I mean seriously????
Hohohohoh......
It's brilliant isn't...to take the entire collaspe of Scottish labour....and spin it to...yep...thats great for Ed!!
Cameron lost out big time on QT last night. Not to Miliband or Clegg, but to the luck of the draw - he ended up battling Emmerdale on the other side, whereas the other two did not have the same competition. Whilst I doubt the programme will have rated that highly overall, perhaps 4m averaged over the 90 minutes, I reckon Clegg's section will easily have been the most watched. It would be fascinating to see if the "breakdown" of viewing gets reported today.
At least with a proper debate over 90 mins or 2 hours, viewers get to see a bit of everyone in the bit they choose to view. But then, it's karma for Cameron because he was the one who insisted on the sequence of debates we ended up with.
I thought he did the best of the three, but continues to frustrate with his evasiveness and inability to actually confront the guff he gets confronted with on, eg, food banks, bedroom tax. I am beginning to think that as well as being lazy, he's actually not that bright.
But I guess he's history anyway in a week, sadly.
The person that lost out last night was Nigel Farage, who didn't get broadcast until several hours after the program when everyone has gone to bed.
If you run a deficit of 2% and GDP grows by 2.1% then hey presto "the debt is falling" (as a %age of GDP). But is this prudent?
This goes right to the heart of Labour's economic idiocy. If your defict is 2% of GDP and GDP growth, WHICH INCLUDES PUBLIC SPENDING, is 2.1% then what you're really saying is that there is only 0.1% of real growth of non-debt fueled spaying it up the wall. The real economy is essentially flat while the absolute debt rises by 2% a year. Keep that shit up for a decade and hey presto when an inevitable downturn comes along you find you have added hugely to the debt but the real GDP to pay for it isn't there any more. This is economics 1.0 for for dummies. Brown, Balls and clearly Miliband simply don't recognise that borrowed growth is not real. The GDP growth of the Labour years was a chimera. They borrowed to spend. The real economy didn't really grow. The public sector did. They massively overspent. Miliband 'does not accept that'. Because he's an effwit.
How's that different from Osborne ?
Well - Ozzy has clearly tried and half succeeded at getting rid of the deficit. The Tories have a clear plan to eliminate it entirely and return to an actual surplus. Public sector jobs have fallen dramatically as we rebalance back from public to private sector. I agree with you that the speed of travel and determination here could have been sharper - but he needs to get re-elected. I suspect the coalition pushed things back in the right direction just about as fast as was do-able. And Danny Alexander deserves credit as does Justin Webb - it's not all Tory good stuff. Think of the alternative - where would the UK be now if the last 5 years had been Brown/Balls running the show as before? I shudder to think.
So the choice is between shit economic management and totally shit economic management.
Where's the option of voting good economic management ?
The option is always there. The trouble is for 13 years the British people voted for economic idiocy. If the Tories get in this time with a big majority (fat chance) then we'll see a full return to sound money.
I very much doubt it, we'll see nothing sensible from the Tories until Osborne is moved even then what will replace him. The Tories under Cameron haven't the guts for reform.
Video exclusive: ‘Green activists’ in Brighton Pavilion rip off UKIP advertisements
B & H Independent @BrightonIndy 11h11 hours ago Supposing Green activists had burned @UKIP adverts: http://bit.ly/1EUvtLe ? Non-story? Or central to free democracy?
Demonstrating their love of democracy and free speech.
I've got news for Mr Kevin Smith, UKIP candidate for Hove. No one ever joined UKIP who wasn't a racist, although few of them are much good at looking into their own souls. And with souls like theirs, who can blame them?
Is this a serious post, or am I missing some kind of satire?
You've met people who think you should be put to death for not being a Sunni or a cradle Catholic?
I can understand you being cautious about going to Syria ... but going round to your local bring and buy sale at the Church isn't usually fraught with terror. I've often been to the Catholic Church and I've yet to meet a Jihadi priest with a beheading sword. Perhaps I move in the wrong circles.
Comments
BBC Scotland can't create a narrative without (if you believe they are institutionally biased) being led there by Labour or (if you believe they are impartial) by Labour focusing on the issue. Either way, whatever your believe on BBC Scotland bias, it is Labour which dictates how this plays out and as an issue a Second Referendum cannot be harmful to the SNP whatever the outcome of the exchanges.
You will be severely disappointed.
I guess you get the same gut feel when making an ad for a dog of a product...?
I was wondering if the ARSE would venture an opinion on the prospects of Ed as Prime Minister. I think it was mentioned once, but I might have missed it.
24 hours 24 minutes 24 seconds
"Stupid of Ed to have waited this long to rule out a deal with the SNP.
If he had done so earlier,could have slowed the mass hysteria north of the border."
I take the unfashinable view that Nicola has been a huge boost to Ed. Nothing has done as much for his credibility as being visibly woowed by all the other lefty leaders. Nothing is more attractive than someone in demand.....
It not only makes him look powerful and leaderlike but it also gives momentum to all those from the centre and centre left that they are part of a movement as opposed to the rather stale reactionary right.
Went through last night's comments. Seems most consider Cameron to have done relatively well, and Miliband relatively poorly, both subjected to a slightly ferocious audience.
On-topic: I agree entirely with the thread's premise. It's not as bad as last time, when YouGov seemed to shape rather than reflect public opinion due to the media being bizarrely obsessed with the daily poll, but it's still excessive frequently. There ought to be curbs on how many polls can occur during an election campaign, to help stop one firm (due to frequency of new results) having a disproportionate influence.
What if Ed Miliband gets 260 seats and Cameron 285, and Miliband *does* abstain on the basis he only becomes PM otherwise with SNP support?
Cameron remains as PM of extremely weak Con Min government. Yes it's not likely Ed would pass up a shot. But is it longer than a 5/1 shot?
- EiT's explanation of YouGov's stability looks correct to me, with the qualification that there is thrashing within the samples, so it's not that people are routinely saying whatever they said before.
- It's not correct that online panels mainly have people interested in politics. Most panels routinely ask tedious things about shopping and corporate reputation, and you have to answer those to avoid getting dropped from the panel. The more obvious bias would be to people with spare time and/or a real need to earn small ammounts of money for a fair amount of effort. Because the panels do weight to previous VI, none of this matters unless there is something that makes "people who voted Conservative etc. in 2010 and do online panels" behave differently from "all people who voted Conservative etc. in 2010".
- I wouldn't place huge weight on today's Populus - whatever it says, it's just one poll.
- Today's YG internals look fairly "normal", though slightly more critical of the Government than usual, so it could be a slightly higher Labour sample. Recent YGs have shown some regional concentration - Labour is doing worse than before in the South and of course Scotland, better in the Midlands/Wales. I don't see much evidence of a startling Labour performance in London - we're doing OK there, but nothing very different from UNS.
- It's fairly obvious that the actual position is somewhere betwen Con+3 and Lab+1. For betting purposes and personal satisfaction, we need to look at trends within comparable polls (because they make the same assumptions).This excludes special one-off polls - e.g. today's Survation on reaction to the debate will be interesting (and I suspect encouraging for Cameron, extrapolating from the ICM) but not comparable to anything - but it means that if there really was a shift either way within two or three YouGovs or two or three other polls, it would alter the overall picture. Otherwise, the default assumption is probably that not much is happening now.
At least with a proper debate over 90 mins or 2 hours, viewers get to see a bit of everyone in the bit they choose to view. But then, it's karma for Cameron because he was the one who insisted on the sequence of debates we ended up with.
I thought he did the best of the three, but continues to frustrate with his evasiveness and inability to actually confront the guff he gets confronted with on, eg, food banks, bedroom tax. I am beginning to think that as well as being lazy, he's actually not that bright.
But I guess he's history anyway in a week, sadly.
Beeb acknowledged that DC did best and that EdM would not formally link with SNP, but an informal S&C was not mentioned. I thought that LAB had already acknowledged the overspending of the GB treasury - so why did EdM deny all responsibility - not quite as bad as GB's 'bigotgate' but if the Cons and LDs keep using it over the next 6 days - it could do a lot of damage to the credibility that EdM has built up.
Main conclusion was the audience's total distrust of politicians - but one commentator said that it was refreshing to hear from DC that savings still had to be made.
Note that in May2015's figures they have the Conservatives leading Labour by 0.8% in England & Wales, and the two parties are level with one seat each in Scotland, thus implying they are level on seats in E&W, and Labour would be ahead on seats in E&W if the two parties were level on votes in E&W.
So Labour do still have an advantage - in England & Wales.
If Ed gets less seats, I cannot see how 'morally' or even practially he can be PM without some form of support from the SNP..which he's just written out.
Very murky.
All the campaigns have been hyper co-ordinated to within a stumble on a stage but in the final few days flexibility will have been allowed to place the leaders and big hitters of each party where their own polling and local intel tells them they are most needed, now more than ever. Accordingly look carefully which constituencies they spend the precious last campaigning hours in.
Just watched the debate from last night. I don't say this very often but well done to the BBC for an impartial and well informed panel that asked good questions of all the leaders. Cameron was right that done properly this is a better format than to have 3 guys shouting over each other, here they have to answer the questions and follow up points are made to those who don't!
Suspect the polls might move a bit to Labour this weekend as people with more cash to spare go away, the rush hour traffic seems to have been a bit lighter here over the last couple of days.
"With just 6 days remaining until the UK General Election, the campaign feels increasingly like a sparring session. Sights are shifting ahead to the commencement of real politics on May 8, when the parties try to cobble together a workable government and make sure they play a part in it. Today there are suggestions that the Liberal Democrats will not renew their coalition with the Tories. Labour and the SNP are rowing about whether the former really need the latter. Ukip are talking up their influence in a hung parliament, despite the probability that they will only have two or three seats to barter with. Even the DUP are hinting at terms and red lines.
The Tories exaggerate for self-interest when they say that an indecisive election result would bring "chaos" . But these early examples of jostling and bidding are a concern for anyone who craves stability. Put yourself in the position of a foreign investor, exactly the kind of person Britain's open economy relies upon. Would you invest your marginal pound in this country, at this time?"
They have done a great job given the hand they were dealt.
First, that I should be put to death for being white. Similarly mutatis mutandis that I should be put to death for not being a cradle Catholic, or a Sunni Muslim etc etc. That is to say, that I have met people who genuinely believe such things. Who am I to say that I have a right to live, when others deny that? That would be pride, selfish pride. Whoever kills me will be right to do so, and should be decorated by Her Gracious Majesty.
Even if Ukip only win one seat, they'll have a bigger influence. The Boston Tory candidate is pretending to be a Kipper and Danczuk is not your typical Labour MP.
I, of course, believe everything an MP says because they are all honourable men.
The Kippers need a Labour minority Government with Nicola calling the shots. It would make the next by-election a hoot.
Is this analytic or emotional ?
Of course not Ed,
And as the audience pointed out last night if you can't admit that we all know you will do it again.
It's in Labours DNA.
Ed is a ruthlessly ambitious person, but more than that, he really really believes he is the solution to the UKs problems, there is no way his heart will let him sit back and let the Tories govern.
The keys to downing street are offered but once, he'll grab them and deal with the consequences later.
He's got plenty of bigger issues to work on first beyond sanctimoniousness and judging
This goes right to the heart of Labour's economic idiocy. If your defict is 2% of GDP and GDP growth, WHICH INCLUDES PUBLIC SPENDING, is 2.1% then what you're really saying is that there is only 0.1% of real growth of non-debt fueled spaying it up the wall. The real economy is essentially flat while the absolute debt rises by 2% a year. Keep that shit up for a decade and hey presto when an inevitable downturn comes along you find you have added hugely to the debt but the real GDP to pay for it isn't there any more. This is economics 1.0 for for dummies. Brown, Balls and clearly Miliband simply don't recognise that borrowed growth is not real. The GDP growth of the Labour years was a chimera. They borrowed to spend. The real economy didn't really grow. The public sector did. They massively overspent. Miliband 'does not accept that'. Because he's an effwit.
Is it national Talk like a Pirate day already?
Everyone talks about the 92 polling debacle, but 2001 was pretty appalling too. See the link above. The polling average gave Labour a 16% lead when in reality it proved to be 10%.
The 2005 polling average overstated Labour too by 3%.
Since we are now at final polling stage could we now see something similar and Labour fall below it's 2010 level as Jack's ARSE predicts if you translate seats into vote shares?
As I've said before, consider that he's effectively ruined his relationship with his brother to get the Labour leadership. Imagine doing that, and then failing when everything ought to be in your favour (coalition government, unpopular cuts, being sole nationwide opposition party [yes, yes, UKIP, but let's be serious, Farage isn't in the running for PM]).
And if he is lying, and gets, say, 270 seats, would he turn down the chance to be PM to honour a pledge made pre-election?
One suspects the sort of chap who believes that might also be interested in buying some magic beans.
He is taking, in my opinion, a considered gamble that the SNP will not vote down Labour's Queen's speech.
What can the SNP do ? They have said that they will vote against a Tory QS. So, if they would against a Labour QS as well then we have a full blown crisis.
Do the SNP want to precipitate that now ? Are they going to vote down a Labour government having acquired new sizable Labour voters in the last 8 moths !
However which marginal/target seats will they venture to :
Will Nick Palmer and team heckle as the PM descends on Broxtowe .... Will Ed stumble over the border and risk a Glasgow kiss from those faint hearts of the SNP .... Will former LibDems voters chuck their 2010 sandals at Nick Clegg in Cornwall North and finally will Nigel Farage get pissed himself or with the voters in Rotherham ????????
'Them as dies'll be the lucky ones!'
Though the can do far more damage with amendments than just voting down.
I think this election is effectively a re-run of 2010, but with some small amendments. Basically no one who voted Tory in 2010 because of economics will have a reason to vote Labour this time.
So what you have is:
Labour = 2010 + Red Libs - Red Kippers - SLAB - Watermelons
Tories = 2010 - Blue Kippers + Blue Libs
Fundamentally, I think that there will be a lot of people - most likely Blue Kippers - who will get the the polling booth and decide that they are not prepared to take the risk of voting against the Tories. Not because they love Cameron, but because they perceive the alternative to be worse. Labour will do well in London but will get crushed in the Midlands. And it's the Midlands where elections are won.
I think Ed Miliband is Labour's Hague: core vote strategy, but the majority just ain't listening. Which would make Chuka, Labour's IDS
(On a longer term perspective, the two things that are hugely significant about this election are the eradication of the LibDems in the SW [at least outside Cornwall] and the destruction of SLAB. Both of these are hugely positive developments for the Tories, as the former has been the element that has stopped them winning majorities for a generation, while the latter has always been a bedrock for Labour)
Osborne is simply Brown in slow motion.
Gets his Queen's Speech, but there are consequences:
1) He's got [in that scenario] fewer MPs than Cameron, and an SNP carving out a pound of flesh for every measure of support, not to mention nervous backbenchers who might turn purple.
2) Miliband would have fewer votes and seats than the Conservatives and only be in power due to the favour of a separatist party. That might get him five years of crawling on his knees for Nicola, but it could destroy Labour. Scots wouldn't turn red, and the English/Welsh would likely turn blue.
There would, however, be a very interesting and difficult question for the blues: keep Cameron, or axe him? Or would he walk anyway?
The problem was that Brown let rip during the noughties because he believed tax income was sustainable. When it proved a mirage he absolutely refused to do anything to address the structural spending gap. It's the structural deficit that's the issue.
If you run a deficit of 2% and GDP grows by 2.1% then hey presto "the debt is falling" (as a %age of GDP). But is this prudent?
----------
People tend make a simple mistake all the time. Debt does not go up by inflation. Nominal GDP does. OK, there is no inflation at this moment but , say, if we get rate of inflation going up by just 2%, and if Real GDP increases by 2.5%, nominal GDP will be up 4.5%.
Debt as a share of GDP will fall unless the deficit itself increases. Rising GDP, all things being equal, will bring in more taxes, so deficit will go down unless any government deliberately stokes up spending.
Inflation is always good to get rid of debt in reals terms; for governments and people !
I believe Cameron will get a credible result next week bearing in mind the hand he was dealt, with a seat lead over Labour of 25 to 30, it won't be good enough for him long term, I would expect him to stand down and let someone else have a go. If it goes the way I think it will be another election with new leaders. I can't see any of the 3 leaders getting a result acceptable enough to justify staying in their exalted positions.
Might not have been the best way for Ed to have confronted this.
https://amp.twimg.com/v/61eec292-7155-4e1e-bffe-7fef996b7e03
Where's the option of voting good economic management ?
At GE 2015 the SNP are now ruled out by Labour of any coalition....
Did the SNP change any major policy or was it when they looked like beating SLAB at a GE?
This is on rural roads in north Essex and Suffolk (between Colchester and Stowmarket)
If the Conservatives are the largest party and the opposition has ruled out a deal that would produce a majority, he is well within his constitutional rights to carry on, put up his own QS and dare them all the vote against it.
It would include the EUref, tax guarantee and devomax for Caledonia and Wales.
Take out government overspending from GDP and how does it look ? Govt deficit 4.5% of GDP, growth 2.6%, inflation not very much. Where's the growth ?
A la Kinnock, he'll want another crack at it, and seeing a weak minority Govt force through the planned cuts over the next years with the spectrum of the in and out referendum looming over amid the Grexit.
Maybe Hague's result in 2001- a solitary seat gain, will be the best result for him
Hahahahahahahahahahah.....No stop Roger...please stop I can't take it anymore...... Oh my aching sides....I mean seriously????
Hohohohoh......
Mr. Buss, a fair point.
Last election I got the 1000th comment on a thread
:-)
You've met people who think you should be put to death for not being a Sunni or a cradle Catholic?
I can understand you being cautious about going to Syria ... but going round to your local bring and buy sale at the Church isn't usually fraught with terror. I've often been to the Catholic Church and I've yet to meet a Jihadi priest with a beheading sword. Perhaps I move in the wrong circles.
Where are yours?