That is SO unequivocal I am starting to wonder (I know, I know) if he is telling the truth, and not just blatantly lying.
Perhaps he means it? Would he forego the chance to be PM if he had to rely on SNP support?
I can't believe he would. And yet he is setting himself up for a terrible fall with these adamantine statements.
He would still be PM even if the SNP refuses to support him, and then he would go to the polls in October or earlier saying that he told the truth about the SNP scare stories.
And if Jim Murphy is coming through,then it is likely Douglas Alexander is likely to survive as his seat is a lot less marginal than Murphy and he is a more popular local MP than Murphy.
This is a really silly question so apologies in advance, but what happens to the 'don't knows' in the polls? Why are they not included in the overall totals?
Different pollsters treat them in different ways.
UK Polling Report has an overview, see link below.
I think the market must be assigning some chance to Lab + SNP + PC + SDLP + Green being greater than Con + LD but Ed still not becoming PM.
I'm not saying I think that will happen - it's obviously very unlikely - but the market may be assigning some chance to it - say 10% - which is responsible for moving the overall PM odds.
That is SO unequivocal I am starting to wonder (I know, I know) if he is telling the truth, and not just blatantly lying.
Perhaps he means it? Would he forego the chance to be PM if he had to rely on SNP support?
I can't believe he would. And yet he is setting himself up for a terrible fall with these adamantine statements.
He would still be PM even if the SNP refuses to support him, and then he would go to the polls in October or earlier saying that he told the truth about the SNP scare stories.
"A vote for the SNP is a lost vote ect ect."
How do you "go to the polls" within the FTPA?
Genuine question.
Just typical Labourites not having a clue how our democracy works.
Edward Mayes @eljmayes Now Owen Smith states that the last Labour Government didn't spend too much. And promptly gets booed like Miliband last night. #WalesDebate
That is SO unequivocal I am starting to wonder (I know, I know) if he is telling the truth, and not just blatantly lying.
Perhaps he means it? Would he forego the chance to be PM if he had to rely on SNP support?
I can't believe he would. And yet he is setting himself up for a terrible fall with these adamantine statements.
He would still be PM even if the SNP refuses to support him, and then he would go to the polls in October or earlier saying that he told the truth about the SNP scare stories.
"A vote for the SNP is a lost vote ect ect."
How do you "go to the polls" within the FTPA?
Genuine question.
Engineering a loss of a vote of confidence.
How do you do that if your opponents want you to stay in office and suffer?
Would the Tories vote to support a Labour government?
And if Jim Murphy is coming through,then it is likely Douglas Alexander is likely to survive as his seat is a lot less marginal than Murphy and he is a more popular local MP than Murphy.
But Mr Alexander is in a much less Tory-rich seat, is he not? Not entirely comparable. Not so many Tories to rally round the local SLAB chap. Or am I missing something?
That is SO unequivocal I am starting to wonder (I know, I know) if he is telling the truth, and not just blatantly lying.
Perhaps he means it? Would he forego the chance to be PM if he had to rely on SNP support?
I can't believe he would. And yet he is setting himself up for a terrible fall with these adamantine statements.
He would still be PM even if the SNP refuses to support him, and then he would go to the polls in October or earlier saying that he told the truth about the SNP scare stories.
"A vote for the SNP is a lost vote ect ect."
How do you "go to the polls" within the FTPA?
Genuine question.
Engineering a loss of a vote of confidence.
How do you do that if your opponents want you to stay in office and suffer?
Would the Tories vote to support a Labour government?
I suppose if they thought they'd do even worse than Labour in a new election.
12% Conservative majority. How is that a nailed on gain? It has a huge Jewish population, a Jews are heavily Conservative.
With Miliband's craven "Islamophobia" pledge, I reckon British Jews must be about 95% Tory by now, apart from a few north London intellectuals, like Ed Miliband MP.
As for Scotland, what the F is going on? -
@Conorpope At Labour rally in Glasgow. Protesters outside screaming "scum", "quisling", "Red Tories out" at people and filming us as we go in. Grim.
The demon of nationalism. In our own country. Sad.
Labour pal who's with Miliband in Glasgow was chased by SNPers. One put a finger in his face and shouted 'You English fucking cunt'
Thatcher got worse, but had bigger balls than this Labour lot.
The SNP should of course really be called the Scottish Nazi party. They were formed in 1934, in the wake of Hitler's rise to power in 1933, and during the 1939-45 war encouraged Scots not to fight for Britain. Now (as in the referendum (when I never saw a NO poster that hadn't been torn down or defaced, we are seeing them in their true colours.
Somewhere out there a village is missing its idiot.
Sturgeon is worse than Hitler.
She may be worse at invading France. And painting. Possibly a few other things.
That is SO unequivocal I am starting to wonder (I know, I know) if he is telling the truth, and not just blatantly lying.
Perhaps he means it? Would he forego the chance to be PM if he had to rely on SNP support?
I can't believe he would. And yet he is setting himself up for a terrible fall with these adamantine statements.
He would still be PM even if the SNP refuses to support him, and then he would go to the polls in October or earlier saying that he told the truth about the SNP scare stories.
"A vote for the SNP is a lost vote ect ect."
How do you "go to the polls" within the FTPA?
Genuine question.
Engineering a loss of a vote of confidence.
How do you do that if your opponents want you to stay in office and suffer?
Would the Tories vote to support a Labour government?
Every time you want to go to the country and they refuse, they're losing the public...
That is SO unequivocal I am starting to wonder (I know, I know) if he is telling the truth, and not just blatantly lying.
Perhaps he means it? Would he forego the chance to be PM if he had to rely on SNP support?
I can't believe he would. And yet he is setting himself up for a terrible fall with these adamantine statements.
He would still be PM even if the SNP refuses to support him, and then he would go to the polls in October or earlier saying that he told the truth about the SNP scare stories.
"A vote for the SNP is a lost vote ect ect."
How do you "go to the polls" within the FTPA?
Genuine question.
Engineering a loss of a vote of confidence.
How do you do that if your opponents want you to stay in office and suffer?
Would the Tories vote to support a Labour government?
n that case, even if the Tories vote them out, then the SNP and PC vote to support them, and Labour have to positively vote themselves out of office ... or have I misunderstood the FTPA?
Edward Mayes @eljmayes Now Owen Smith states that the last Labour Government didn't spend too much. And promptly gets booed like Miliband last night. #WalesDebate
Yes, it's curious really - Labour do seem to be out of step with many of the public about spending too much last time, they seem to get genuine spontaneous negative reactions from it, and yet people will vote them back in and in fact most people want less austerity than Labour is promising, so what the hell do people want?
Chance of an sizable upset on the Isle of Wight. The Conservative incumbent has been hit by scandal after scandal in this campaign and, although I used to believe that anything standing under the Conservative banner would win here, events in the last week have changed my view. A credible UKIP candidate is available at 11/2.
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1391/hp-sauce "Tory agent disowns his own candidate!" "Anomalies’ in campaign finances The agent is also seriously worried by “significant anomalies and ambiguities” in campaign finances, again involving Lady Macbeth"
It doesn't matter though, Tory voters have the lowest standards of all.
Chance of an sizable upset on the Isle of Wight. The Conservative incumbent has been hit by scandal after scandal in this campaign and, although I used to believe that anything standing under the Conservative banner would win here, events in the last week have changed my view. A credible UKIP candidate is available at 11/2.
Not sure where you get the "anything standing" bit from as it was LibDem until 2001
And "scandal after scandal" is a bit of an odd way to describe a nutty ex girlfriend stalking him.
Apart from that; good accurate post.
The latest is [snip video]
Although singing on camera is no crime, and talking of your admiration for Enoch Powell may go down rather well with some.
Yes, there was a Lib Dem MP from '97 to 2001, but since then the Conservative majority has risen to over 10,000.
Talent-free singing and admiring Enoch Powell are both character pluses in my book.
That is SO unequivocal I am starting to wonder (I know, I know) if he is telling the truth, and not just blatantly lying.
Perhaps he means it? Would he forego the chance to be PM if he had to rely on SNP support?
I can't believe he would. And yet he is setting himself up for a terrible fall with these adamantine statements.
He would still be PM even if the SNP refuses to support him, and then he would go to the polls in October or earlier saying that he told the truth about the SNP scare stories.
"A vote for the SNP is a lost vote ect ect."
How do you "go to the polls" within the FTPA?
Genuine question.
Engineering a loss of a vote of confidence.
How do you do that if your opponents want you to stay in office and suffer?
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn 6m6 minutes ago Only 5 days to go until #GE2015, and no politics on p1s of Times, Daily Mail or The Sun tomorrow. Shows just how bored we think voters are.
I think the market must be assigning some chance to Lab + SNP + PC + SDLP + Green being greater than Con + LD but Ed still not becoming PM.
I'm not saying I think that will happen - it's obviously very unlikely - but the market may be assigning some chance to it - say 10% - which is responsible for moving the overall PM odds.
I think you're right - and I think whoever is budging the odds is mistaken.
That is SO unequivocal I am starting to wonder (I know, I know) if he is telling the truth, and not just blatantly lying.
Perhaps he means it? Would he forego the chance to be PM if he had to rely on SNP support?
I can't believe he would. And yet he is setting himself up for a terrible fall with these adamantine statements.
He would still be PM even if the SNP refuses to support him, and then he would go to the polls in October or earlier saying that he told the truth about the SNP scare stories.
"A vote for the SNP is a lost vote ect ect."
How do you "go to the polls" within the FTPA?
Genuine question.
Engineering a loss of a vote of confidence.
How do you do that if your opponents want you to stay in office and suffer?
Would the Tories vote to support a Labour government?
n that case, even if the Tories vote them out, then the SNP and PC vote to support them, and Labour have to positively vote themselves out of office ... or have I misunderstood the FTPA?
Yes Labour would have to vote for themselves out.
We could end up in a farce with the Tories supporting Labour at the same time that Labour would vote against itself for an early election.
Douglas Alexander is one of the three most locally popular Labour MP`s according to the Guardian.
Could you please *start* your evidence-lite posts with "according to the Guardian" rather than type it at the end? It saves me time when skimming the comments for stuff worth reading. Ta in advance.
Edward Mayes @eljmayes Now Owen Smith states that the last Labour Government didn't spend too much. And promptly gets booed like Miliband last night. #WalesDebate
Yes, it's curious really - Labour do seem to be out of step with many of the public about spending too much last time, they seem to get genuine spontaneous negative reactions from it, and yet people will vote them back in and in fact most people want less austerity than Labour is promising, so what the hell do people want?
It is not at all difficult to comprehend. Those who boo and hiss will not vote Labour anyway. But there are some in the Green column as well as WNV who are still angry that Labour schmoozes too much with the establishment.
Are we 100% sure that the EU in/out referendum will actually take place, if the Tories have their way?. I've noticed that Cameron is incredibly precise in his wording when talking about it. The manifesto states "we will negotiate a new settlement for Britain in Europe, and then ask the British people whether they want to stay in the EU on this reformed basis or leave"
The key phrase is "a new settlement" and that is the wording on Question Time last night.
What if he can't negotiate a "new settlement" ? what if the EU leaders don't play ball? In those circumstances, is the referendum off ?
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 11m11 minutes ago John Curtice says Tories need 3% lead to be certain of winning most seats. Current polling average has 1% lead . http://ind.pn/1dBbpl8
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 11m11 minutes ago John Curtice says Tories need 3% lead to be certain of winning most seats. Current polling average has 1% lead . http://ind.pn/1dBbpl8
LAB most seats 4.80
So punters think the Tories are really at least three ahead?
That is SO unequivocal I am starting to wonder (I know, I know) if he is telling the truth, and not just blatantly lying.
Perhaps he means it? Would he forego the chance to be PM if he had to rely on SNP support?
I can't believe he would. And yet he is setting himself up for a terrible fall with these adamantine statements.
He would still be PM even if the SNP refuses to support him, and then he would go to the polls in October or earlier saying that he told the truth about the SNP scare stories.
"A vote for the SNP is a lost vote ect ect."
How do you "go to the polls" within the FTPA?
Genuine question.
Engineering a loss of a vote of confidence.
How do you do that if your opponents want you to stay in office and suffer?
Would the Tories vote to support a Labour government?
n that case, even if the Tories vote them out, then the SNP and PC vote to support them, and Labour have to positively vote themselves out of office ... or have I misunderstood the FTPA?
Yes Labour would have to vote for themselves out.
We could end up in a farce with the Tories supporting Labour at the same time that Labour would vote against itself for an early election.
Yes, basically by pressing the self-destruct button.
However, the FTPA doesn't preclude some other configuration from forming within the 14-days, thus blocking an election, or the fandango being repeated several times during the same parliament.
Are we witnessing the demise of the labour party. They have lost Scotland for a generation and almost any option available to them in RUK is a poisoned chalice which will eventually lead to the same result as in Scotland. The polls are becoming a side show in this election as the media are now transfixed on deal or no deal and the GE will be decided by RUK voters either utter rejection of the SNP holding sway or that they don't care about the issue
Douglas Alexander is one of the three most locally popular Labour MP`s according to the Guardian.
Could you please *start* your evidence-lite posts with "according to the Guardian" rather than type it at the end? It saves me time when skimming the comments for stuff worth reading. Ta in advance.
On current form,it is loads better than evidence from The Sun,don`t you think?
Edward Mayes @eljmayes Now Owen Smith states that the last Labour Government didn't spend too much. And promptly gets booed like Miliband last night. #WalesDebate
Yes, it's curious really - Labour do seem to be out of step with many of the public about spending too much last time, they seem to get genuine spontaneous negative reactions from it, and yet people will vote them back in and in fact most people want less austerity than Labour is promising, so what the hell do people want?
It is not at all difficult to comprehend. Those who boo and hiss will not vote Labour anyway.
I don't think it is that simple. You wouldn't get the sort of genuine surprised reactions from audiences that we've occasionally seen if the only people surprised Labour don't think they spent too much (particularly when Ed M said at the QT that they hadn't, Tory cuts have been bad, but we do still need to spend less than we are now) if it was just the committed anti-Labour crowd doing it. I think people are genuinely surprised Ed thinks that (whether he is right to think that I leave to others). My feeling is people can tell Labour have learned no lessons from whatever mistakes they made last time, and that does occasionally take people by surprise, but it doesn't disquiet people so much that they won't still vote Labour in, either because Labour in general are good enough even so, or the Tories are that crap.
That is SO unequivocal I am starting to wonder (I know, I know) if he is telling the truth, and not just blatantly lying.
Perhaps he means it? Would he forego the chance to be PM if he had to rely on SNP support?
I can't believe he would. And yet he is setting himself up for a terrible fall with these adamantine statements.
He would still be PM even if the SNP refuses to support him, and then he would go to the polls in October or earlier saying that he told the truth about the SNP scare stories.
"A vote for the SNP is a lost vote ect ect."
How do you "go to the polls" within the FTPA?
Genuine question.
Engineering a loss of a vote of confidence.
How do you do that if your opponents want you to stay in office and suffer?
Would the Tories vote to support a Labour government?
n that case, even if the Tories vote them out, then the SNP and PC vote to support them, and Labour have to positively vote themselves out of office ... or have I misunderstood the FTPA?
Yes Labour would have to vote for themselves out.
We could end up in a farce with the Tories supporting Labour at the same time that Labour would vote against itself for an early election.
It's getting to the point where It might be worth a Milliband win just to get the popcorn out for the next 12 months and enjoy the ensuing spectacle.
That is SO unequivocal I am starting to wonder (I know, I know) if he is telling the truth, and not just blatantly lying.
Perhaps he means it? Would he forego the chance to be PM if he had to rely on SNP support?
I can't believe he would. And yet he is setting himself up for a terrible fall with these adamantine statements.
He would still be PM even if the SNP refuses to support him, and then he would go to the polls in October or earlier saying that he told the truth about the SNP scare stories.
"A vote for the SNP is a lost vote ect ect."
How do you "go to the polls" within the FTPA?
Genuine question.
Engineering a loss of a vote of confidence.
How do you do that if your opponents want you to stay in office and suffer?
Would the Tories vote to support a Labour government?
n that case, even if the Tories vote them out, then the SNP and PC vote to support them, and Labour have to positively vote themselves out of office ... or have I misunderstood the FTPA?
Yes Labour would have to vote for themselves out.
We could end up in a farce with the Tories supporting Labour at the same time that Labour would vote against itself for an early election.
Thanks.
Never mind the effect on these parties' voters ...
Are we witnessing the demise of the labour party. They have lost Scotland for a generation and almost any option available to them in RUK is a poisoned chalice which will eventually lead to the same result as in Scotland. The polls are becoming a side show in this election as the media are now transfixed on deal or no deal and the GE will be decided by RUK voters either utter rejection of the SNP holding sway or that they don't care about the issue
Well they are wounded, and some of those wounds could be critical, but given they are about to head into government again, they're clearly not dead yet and so have a chance to turn things around, even if the challenges they will face are, as you identify, hard.
Douglas Alexander is one of the three most locally popular Labour MP`s according to the Guardian.
Could you please *start* your evidence-lite posts with "according to the Guardian" rather than type it at the end? It saves me time when skimming the comments for stuff worth reading. Ta in advance.
On current form,it is loads better than evidence from The Sun,don`t you think?
No - but I do think that is one of the daftest posts you've made yet.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 11m11 minutes ago John Curtice says Tories need 3% lead to be certain of winning most seats. Current polling average has 1% lead . http://ind.pn/1dBbpl8
LAB most seats 4.80
@NCPoliticsUK: @MSmithsonPB Assuming a UNS. As he makes clear, the swing is 0.5-1% smaller in the marginals, so it's more like 1-2pts
That is SO unequivocal I am starting to wonder (I know, I know) if he is telling the truth, and not just blatantly lying.
Perhaps he means it? Would he forego the chance to be PM if he had to rely on SNP support?
I can't believe he would. And yet he is setting himself up for a terrible fall with these adamantine statements.
He would still be PM even if the SNP refuses to support him, and then he would go to the polls in October or earlier saying that he told the truth about the SNP scare stories.
"A vote for the SNP is a lost vote ect ect."
How do you "go to the polls" within the FTPA?
Genuine question.
Engineering a loss of a vote of confidence.
How do you do that if your opponents want you to stay in office and suffer?
Would the Tories vote to support a Labour government?
n that case, even if the Tories vote them out, then the SNP and PC vote to support them, and Labour have to positively vote themselves out of office ... or have I misunderstood the FTPA?
Yes Labour would have to vote for themselves out.
We could end up in a farce with the Tories supporting Labour at the same time that Labour would vote against itself for an early election.
Yes, basically by pressing the self-destruct button.
However, the FTPA doesn't preclude some other configuration from forming within the 14-days, thus blocking an election, or the fandango being repeated several times during the same parliament.
All very continental! Dare I say it?
No party can form a majority without the SNP. So no other alternative but to try for an early election exists in the end, if no one wants the SNP.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 11m11 minutes ago John Curtice says Tories need 3% lead to be certain of winning most seats. Current polling average has 1% lead . http://ind.pn/1dBbpl8
LAB most seats 4.80
So punters think the Tories are really at least three ahead?
Yep - tory punters think the polls are wrong.
They may be right, but betting on the polls being wrong (and wrong in your favour) is rather brave. They may also be punting on the polls swinging to the tories in the next 5 days - again, they may be right, but the value is against.
Douglas Alexander is one of the three most locally popular Labour MP`s according to the Guardian.
Could you please *start* your evidence-lite posts with "according to the Guardian" rather than type it at the end? It saves me time when skimming the comments for stuff worth reading. Ta in advance.
On current form,it is loads better than evidence from The Sun,don`t you think?
No idea, sorry. As far as newspapers are concerned I only get the Telegraph and the Times online for the crosswords these days.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 11m11 minutes ago John Curtice says Tories need 3% lead to be certain of winning most seats. Current polling average has 1% lead . http://ind.pn/1dBbpl8
LAB most seats 4.80
So punters think the Tories are really at least three ahead?
Yep - tory punters think the polls are wrong.
They may be right, but betting on the polls being wrong (and wrong in your favour) is rather brave. They may also be punting on the polls swinging to the tories in the next 5 days - again, they may be right, but the value is against.
Some recent polls had the Tories 6 ahead. These could be correct
Are we witnessing the demise of the labour party. They have lost Scotland for a generation and almost any option available to them in RUK is a poisoned chalice which will eventually lead to the same result as in Scotland. The polls are becoming a side show in this election as the media are now transfixed on deal or no deal and the GE will be decided by RUK voters either utter rejection of the SNP holding sway or that they don't care about the issue
Well they are wounded, and some of those wounds could be critical, but given they are about to head into government again, they're clearly not dead yet and so have a chance to turn things around, even if the challenges they will face are, as you identify, hard.
But are they about to head into government - that may be the straw that breaks the camels back if they cannot govern without the SNP as any other possibility seems impossible
Yesterday, in the itv/Comres poll the average swing gave Labour 43 out of 50 most Con-Lab marginal seats.
It was pooh-poohed by some saying many would not fall on an average swing. Correct.
Let's say, only 30 fell. The list of gains do not stop at 50. Labour could easily gain another 10 - 15 seats, like Norwich North, Peterborough etc. I think Croydon Central is wrong anyway. I also believe Bermondsey is now in play.
And if Jim Murphy is coming through,then it is likely Douglas Alexander is likely to survive as his seat is a lot less marginal than Murphy and he is a more popular local MP than Murphy.
Hahaha. Murphy is getting squeezed Tory voters to back him.
There are not enough Tories in Paisley and Renfrewshire South.
That is SO unequivocal I am starting to wonder (I know, I know) if he is telling the truth, and not just blatantly lying.
Perhaps he means it? Would he forego the chance to be PM if he had to rely on SNP support?
I can't believe he would. And yet he is setting himself up for a terrible fall with these adamantine statements.
He would still be PM even if the SNP refuses to support him, and then he would go to the polls in October or earlier saying that he told the truth about the SNP scare stories.
"A vote for the SNP is a lost vote ect ect."
How do you "go to the polls" within the FTPA?
Genuine question.
Engineering a loss of a vote of confidence.
How do you do that if your opponents want you to stay in office and suffer?
Would the Tories vote to support a Labour government?
n that case, even if the Tories vote them out, then the SNP and PC vote to support them, and Labour have to positively vote themselves out of office ... or have I misunderstood the FTPA?
Yes Labour would have to vote for themselves out.
We could end up in a farce with the Tories supporting Labour at the same time that Labour would vote against itself for an early election.
Yes, basically by pressing the self-destruct button.
However, the FTPA doesn't preclude some other configuration from forming within the 14-days, thus blocking an election, or the fandango being repeated several times during the same parliament.
All very continental! Dare I say it?
No party can form a majority without the SNP. So no other alternative but to try for an early election exists in the end, if no one wants the SNP.
Are the SNP against proportional representation? Labour plus SNP plus PC plus LD = PR?
Edward Mayes @eljmayes Now Owen Smith states that the last Labour Government didn't spend too much. And promptly gets booed like Miliband last night. #WalesDebate
Yes, it's curious really - Labour do seem to be out of step with many of the public about spending too much last time, they seem to get genuine spontaneous negative reactions from it, and yet people will vote them back in and in fact most people want less austerity than Labour is promising, so what the hell do people want?
It is not at all difficult to comprehend. Those who boo and hiss will not vote Labour anyway.
I don't think it is that simple. You wouldn't get the sort of genuine surprised reactions from audiences that we've occasionally seen if the only people surprised Labour don't think they spent too much (particularly when Ed M said at the QT that they hadn't, Tory cuts have been bad, but we do still need to spend less than we are now) if it was just the committed anti-Labour crowd doing it. I think people are genuinely surprised Ed thinks that (whether he is right to think that I leave to others). My feeling is people can tell Labour have learned no lessons from whatever mistakes they made last time, and that does occasionally take people by surprise, but it doesn't disquiet people so much that they won't still vote Labour in, either because Labour in general are good enough even so, or the Tories are that crap.
Yesterday, in the itv/Comres poll the average swing gave Labour 43 out of 50 most Con-Lab marginal seats.
It was pooh-poohed by some saying many would not fall on an average swing. Correct.
Let's say, only 30 fell. The list of gains do not stop at 50. Labour could easily gain another 10 - 15 seats, like Norwich North, Peterborough etc. I think Croydon Central is wrong anyway. I also believe Bermondsey is now in play.
The fact that Labour target 81 in the South of England is in play with Con only 2% ahead suggests that there could be some surprises on the night!
That is SO unequivocal I am starting to wonder (I know, I know) if he is telling the truth, and not just blatantly lying.
Perhaps he means it? Would he forego the chance to be PM if he had to rely on SNP support?
I can't believe he would. And yet he is setting himself up for a terrible fall with these adamantine statements.
He would still be PM even if the SNP refuses to support him, and then he would go to the polls in October or earlier saying that he told the truth about the SNP scare stories.
"A vote for the SNP is a lost vote ect ect."
How do you "go to the polls" within the FTPA?
Genuine question.
Engineering a loss of a vote of confidence.
How do you do that if your opponents want you to stay in office and suffer?
Would the Tories vote to support a Labour government?
No, they abstain it's too tempting for them to watch Labour suffer. Labour either vote themselves down or abstain and let the SNP vote carry them forward. It's so delicious and will make for fantastic entertainment.
Douglas Alexander is one of the three most locally popular Labour MP`s according to the Guardian.
Well, that's convinced me.
Local polling apparently suggests that Douglas will just hold on.
You're taking piss now. The only published polls show him losing. What polls are you referring to? Ones reported by the Guardian?
Concentrate on Brighton Pavilion mate!
Local polls show Caroline Lucas losing...lol
Mark Senior predicted this a year back.
But it does not change the arithmetic.
This is my point regarding Labour / SNP. Unless SNP were to win only 6 seats like last time, in Parliamentary arithmetic terms it makes very little difference.
After Holyrood 2012, the SNP would not have gone back to the 2010 GE result for Westminster. I would say , even without the referendum, the SNP would still have won, say, 25 -30 seats.
Now, 260 + 48 or 280 + 28 is really the same in Parliamentary arithmetic. Until and unless Labour won an absolute majority or was very close to it, this dependency would have remained. It is clear now that as long as Clegg is the Leader, the LDs will continue to be the Tory bitch.
Agreed, if it was 280 + 28, the presentation would have been different.
Yesterday, in the itv/Comres poll the average swing gave Labour 43 out of 50 most Con-Lab marginal seats.
It was pooh-poohed by some saying many would not fall on an average swing. Correct.
Let's say, only 30 fell. The list of gains do not stop at 50. Labour could easily gain another 10 - 15 seats, like Norwich North, Peterborough etc. I think Croydon Central is wrong anyway. I also believe Bermondsey is now in play.
The fact that Labour target 81 in the South of England is in play with Con only 2% ahead suggests that there could be some surprises on the night!
There always are surprises on the night and has anyone bet on how many recounts there will be
SeanT said "Basically Sturgeon can block almost any legislation proposed by Labour", You have not been paying attention during debates if they are progressive , helping low paid, disabled, kids, NHS, zero hours contracts, food banks etc., - she will not oppose just as PC or Green would not. She like many others would not want another election and the Scots would punish her for that. Like nearly all European societies we have to evolve our politics in a multi-party context.
Of course she won't block any legislation just for the sake of it. But she will pull it all sharply to the Left - higher taxes, more debt, more spending - after all, Scots won't have to pay for it, they have their own tax raising powers, over which the English have no say. And they are guaranteed more public spending by Barnett.
And Salmond will make sure there are plenty of amendments that subtly favour Scotland over England, to sow further division.
And Ed will have to agree, or see his bills or his government fall.
It will be an unending nightmare for him. Political root canal work, without anaesthetic. After a year or two we should see Labour polling in the low teens in England.
I'm not so sure. The SNP bloc will not be bigger than 59 MPs. That's big enough to potentially block government business if enough of the other opposition parties agree but it's not big enough to pro-actively push bills in the SNP's/Scotland's (delete according to preference) favour. Yes, the SNP bloc could propose an amendment to the Baubees For All Bill to send more baubees to Scotland and threaten to vote down the substantive measure if they don't get their way, but if if baubees for all is something they agree with in principle anyway, why would they? If they fail to get the more-baubees-for-Scots amendment through, they can at least blame the evil Sassenachs, but if they then kill the entire bill, they'd have to explain to their constituents why they aren't getting any baubees at all.
12% Conservative majority. How is that a nailed on gain? It has a huge Jewish population, a Jews are heavily Conservative.
With Miliband's craven "Islamophobia" pledge, I reckon British Jews must be about 95% Tory by now, apart from a few north London intellectuals, like Ed Miliband MP.
As for Scotland, what the F is going on? -
@Conorpope At Labour rally in Glasgow. Protesters outside screaming "scum", "quisling", "Red Tories out" at people and filming us as we go in. Grim.
The demon of nationalism. In our own country. Sad.
Labour pal who's with Miliband in Glasgow was chased by SNPers. One put a finger in his face and shouted 'You English fucking cunt'
Thatcher got worse, but had bigger balls than this Labour lot.
The SNP should of course really be called the Scottish Nazi party. They were formed in 1934, in the wake of Hitler's rise to power in 1933, and during the 1939-45 war encouraged Scots not to fight for Britain. Now (as in the referendum (when I never saw a NO poster that hadn't been torn down or defaced, we are seeing them in their true colours.
That is SO unequivocal I am starting to wonder (I know, I know) if he is telling the truth, and not just blatantly lying.
Perhaps he means it? Would he forego the chance to be PM if he had to rely on SNP support?
I can't believe he would. And yet he is setting himself up for a terrible fall with these adamantine statements.
He would still be PM even if the SNP refuses to support him, and then he would go to the polls in October or earlier saying that he told the truth about the SNP scare stories.
"A vote for the SNP is a lost vote ect ect."
How do you "go to the polls" within the FTPA?
Genuine question.
Engineering a loss of a vote of confidence.
How do you do that if your opponents want you to stay in office and suffer?
Would the Tories vote to support a Labour government?
n that case, even if the Tories vote them out, then the SNP and PC vote to support them, and Labour have to positively vote themselves out of office ... or have I misunderstood the FTPA?
Yes Labour would have to vote for themselves out.
We could end up in a farce with the Tories supporting Labour at the same time that Labour would vote against itself for an early election.
Yes, basically by pressing the self-destruct button.
However, the FTPA doesn't preclude some other configuration from forming within the 14-days, thus blocking an election, or the fandango being repeated several times during the same parliament.
All very continental! Dare I say it?
No party can form a majority without the SNP. So no other alternative but to try for an early election exists in the end, if no one wants the SNP.
Are the SNP against proportional representation? Labour plus SNP plus PC plus LD = PR?
PR = bye bye SNP
Changing the electoral system will need the support of the Tories, the SNP will never support PR after this election. Even with PR we would end up in the same place, just with UKIP holding the balance of power.
Also there is a problem into how you can accommodate constituencies in a PR system. The best is the 2 tier German one, with half the house under PR and the other half under FPTP, and then again MP's would never like the lists of the PR system.
Are we 100% sure that the EU in/out referendum will actually take place, if the Tories have their way?. I've noticed that Cameron is incredibly precise in his wording when talking about it. The manifesto states "we will negotiate a new settlement for Britain in Europe, and then ask the British people whether they want to stay in the EU on this reformed basis or leave"
The key phrase is "a new settlement" and that is the wording on Question Time last night.
What if he can't negotiate a "new settlement" ? what if the EU leaders don't play ball? In those circumstances, is the referendum off ?
Yes, I've been pointing that out for years. There certainly won't be a new settlement in 2017, or indeed before 2020, as anyone following EU affairs knows. There are 3 possibilities:
1. Cameron says "Here's what I think it will look like, is that OK?" People probably say yes. Some years later, an actual treaty emerges. Cameron says yeah, well, close enough, you're not having ANOTHER referendum, that would be silly. 2. Ditto, but Cameron DOES offer a further referendum in GE 2020, so we spend the next 7 years or so debating Europe, before probably deciding to stay. 3. Cameron says in 2017 oops, this is taking longer than we thought, we'll get back to you when it's ready, and things drift on to 2020.
It seems odd that nobody is seeking clarification of which is envisaged. But it's academic if the Tories don't get an overall majority anyway.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn 6m6 minutes ago Only 5 days to go until #GE2015, and no politics on p1s of Times, Daily Mail or The Sun tomorrow. Shows just how bored we think voters are.
Or that tonights YG VI does not show a Tory lead
Nothing wrong with a little constructive boredom, as Ed moves towards No 10.
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 2m2 minutes ago No. of Opinion polls each month between August and April (Fieldwork end-dates from 1st of each month to the last day)
That is SO unequivocal I am starting to wonder (I know, I know) if he is telling the truth, and not just blatantly lying.
Perhaps he means it? Would he forego the chance to be PM if he had to rely on SNP support?
I can't believe he would. And yet he is setting himself up for a terrible fall with these adamantine statements.
He would still be PM even if the SNP refuses to support him, and then he would go to the polls in October or earlier saying that he told the truth about the SNP scare stories.
"A vote for the SNP is a lost vote ect ect."
How do you "go to the polls" within the FTPA?
Genuine question.
Engineering a loss of a vote of confidence.
How do you do that if your opponents want you to stay in office and suffer?
Would the Tories vote to support a Labour government?
No, they abstain it's too tempting for them to watch Labour suffer. Labour either vote themselves down or abstain and let the SNP vote carry them forward. It's so delicious and will make for fantastic entertainment.
I find this thread quite comical. If a PM resigns, then unless another person is prepared to take over within 14 days, a new election has to be called. The FTPA says that.
That is SO unequivocal I am starting to wonder (I know, I know) if he is telling the truth, and not just blatantly lying.
Perhaps he means it? Would he forego the chance to be PM if he had to rely on SNP support?
I can't believe he would. And yet he is setting himself up for a terrible fall with these adamantine statements.
Perhaps his team are telling him that they are being killed on the doorstep by this issue?
I am agreed with TSE here. If the Tories have 20 plus seats (plus say 25 LD seats and an extra 8 DUP seats), and a 2-3% polling lead, I think Ed will let the Tories crack on with a queens speech and abstain, even if a left voting block is perhaps bigger (if the LD's can be turned).
Poor Mandelson- he would revel in all this political uncertainty. His time has gone.
Douglas Alexander is one of the three most locally popular Labour MP`s according to the Guardian.
Well, that's convinced me.
Local polling apparently suggests that Douglas will just hold on.
You're taking piss now. The only published polls show him losing. What polls are you referring to? Ones reported by the Guardian?
Concentrate on Brighton Pavilion mate!
Local polls show Caroline Lucas losing...lol
Mark Senior predicted this a year back.
But it does not change the arithmetic.
This is why you shouldnt make up polls, SMukesh. Dimmer posters will believe you and may even bet on the basis that they actually exist. Surbiton can probably afford the losses but think of the others.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 11m11 minutes ago John Curtice says Tories need 3% lead to be certain of winning most seats. Current polling average has 1% lead . http://ind.pn/1dBbpl8
So no one contradicting the facts about the history and origins of the Scottish Nazi Party. That's reassuring
The origins of the SNP predate the First World War which would make it pretty hard to link that to a movement which began in the late 20s and didn't become what we consider it to be until the early 1930s.
That is SO unequivocal I am starting to wonder (I know, I know) if he is telling the truth, and not just blatantly lying.
Perhaps he means it? Would he forego the chance to be PM if he had to rely on SNP support?
I can't believe he would. And yet he is setting himself up for a terrible fall with these adamantine statements.
He would still be PM even if the SNP refuses to support him, and then he would go to the polls in October or earlier saying that he told the truth about the SNP scare stories.
"A vote for the SNP is a lost vote ect ect."
How do you "go to the polls" within the FTPA?
Genuine question.
Engineering a loss of a vote of confidence.
How do you do that if your opponents want you to stay in office and suffer?
Would the Tories vote to support a Labour government?
No, they abstain it's too tempting for them to watch Labour suffer. Labour either vote themselves down or abstain and let the SNP vote carry them forward. It's so delicious and will make for fantastic entertainment.
I find this thread quite comical. If a PM resigns, then unless another person is prepared to take over within 14 days, a new election has to be called. The FTPA says that.
A second election June 25th or July 2nd if Miliband refuses to form a government on SNP support, if that is accurate.
Are we 100% sure that the EU in/out referendum will actually take place, if the Tories have their way?. I've noticed that Cameron is incredibly precise in his wording when talking about it. The manifesto states "we will negotiate a new settlement for Britain in Europe, and then ask the British people whether they want to stay in the EU on this reformed basis or leave"
The key phrase is "a new settlement" and that is the wording on Question Time last night.
What if he can't negotiate a "new settlement" ? what if the EU leaders don't play ball? In those circumstances, is the referendum off ?
Yes, I've been pointing that out for years. There certainly won't be a new settlement in 2017, or indeed before 2020, as anyone following EU affairs knows. There are 3 possibilities:
1. Cameron says "Here's what I think it will look like, is that OK?" People probably say yes. Some years later, an actual treaty emerges. Cameron says yeah, well, close enough, you're not having ANOTHER referendum, that would be silly. 2. Ditto, but Cameron DOES offer a further referendum in GE 2020, so we spend the next 7 years or so debating Europe, before probably deciding to stay. 3. Cameron says in 2017 oops, this is taking longer than we thought, we'll get back to you when it's ready, and things drift on to 2020.
It seems odd that nobody is seeking clarification of which is envisaged. But it's academic if the Tories don't get an overall majority anyway.
Nick - speaking as a Troy member I can't see the problem. Cam will get the best deal he can -and this will be put to the people for a vote. Simple as that. Nowhere has he promised a major rewrite of the treaties. True it is that many in the Party want him to negotiate something which reduces our relationship to a simple trading one but he knows that frankly without actually leaving that is not possible. The adjustments will be relatively minor in my view but they will be put to the people. There is no way Cam will back out on this as he would be removed from office by his Party quicker than you can say EU!
Would be interesting if the Royal baby appeared over the weekend and then a bank holiday followed so most people happy and feeling patriotic. A "black signet" event even though it's been expected for some time. (Actually black swan cygnets are white at firstI believe)
Not sure who such a situation favours most if at all but it would allow the politicians to be fairly unmolested by media up to polling day. Just another possibility into the confusing mix.
That is SO unequivocal I am starting to wonder (I know, I know) if he is telling the truth, and not just blatantly lying.
Perhaps he means it? Would he forego the chance to be PM if he had to rely on SNP support?
I can't believe he would. And yet he is setting himself up for a terrible fall with these adamantine statements.
Perhaps his team are telling him that they are being killed on the doorstep by this issue?
I am agreed with TSE here. If the Tories have 20 plus seats (plus say 25 LD seats and an extra 8 DUP seats), and a 2-3% polling lead, I think Ed will let the Tories crack on with a queens speech and abstain, even if a left voting block is perhaps bigger (if the LD's can be turned).
Poor Mandelson- he would revel in all this political uncertainty. His time has gone.
Not enough. Con+LD+DUP+UKIP would still be smaller than Lab+SNP+Plaid+SDLP+Grn.
That is SO unequivocal I am starting to wonder (I know, I know) if he is telling the truth, and not just blatantly lying.
Perhaps he means it? Would he forego the chance to be PM if he had to rely on SNP support?
I can't believe he would. And yet he is setting himself up for a terrible fall with these adamantine statements.
He would still be PM even if the SNP refuses to support him, and then he would go to the polls in October or earlier saying that he told the truth about the SNP scare stories.
"A vote for the SNP is a lost vote ect ect."
How do you "go to the polls" within the FTPA?
Genuine question.
Engineering a loss of a vote of confidence.
How do you do that if your opponents want you to stay in office and suffer?
Would the Tories vote to support a Labour government?
No, they abstain it's too tempting for them to watch Labour suffer. Labour either vote themselves down or abstain and let the SNP vote carry them forward. It's so delicious and will make for fantastic entertainment.
I find this thread quite comical. If a PM resigns, then unless another person is prepared to take over within 14 days, a new election has to be called. The FTPA says that.
It says nothing of the sort. If the PM resigns there will be another PM, since the Queen must always have a PM.
Mere resignation doesn't trigger an election, nor has it ever under our Constitution.
...quoth he, six days before Labour forms a government?
In the likely scenario that Labour trail the Conservative Party in seats after the election - and that Lab-SNP comes in just north of 310, there is a not insignificant likelihood that the 'WWC' becomes bemused at all the goodies flowing north of Berwick and see what good comes out of not voting Labour.
At any rate, being at all dependent on the SNP is going to cost Labour votes.
(Also - I'd give it a week or two before a Tory Queen's speech is voted down.)
That is SO unequivocal I am starting to wonder (I know, I know) if he is telling the truth, and not just blatantly lying.
Perhaps he means it? Would he forego the chance to be PM if he had to rely on SNP support?
I can't believe he would. And yet he is setting himself up for a terrible fall with these adamantine statements.
He would still be PM even if the SNP refuses to support him, and then he would go to the polls in October or earlier saying that he told the truth about the SNP scare stories.
"A vote for the SNP is a lost vote ect ect."
How do you "go to the polls" within the FTPA?
Genuine question.
Engineering a loss of a vote of confidence.
How do you do that if your opponents want you to stay in office and suffer?
Would the Tories vote to support a Labour government?
No, they abstain it's too tempting for them to watch Labour suffer. Labour either vote themselves down or abstain and let the SNP vote carry them forward. It's so delicious and will make for fantastic entertainment.
I find this thread quite comical. If a PM resigns, then unless another person is prepared to take over within 14 days, a new election has to be called. The FTPA says that.
It says nothing of the sort. If the PM resigns there will be another PM, since the Queen must always have a PM.
Mere resignation doesn't trigger an election, nor has it ever under our Constitution.
Edward Mayes @eljmayes Now Owen Smith states that the last Labour Government didn't spend too much. And promptly gets booed like Miliband last night. #WalesDebate
Yes, it's curious really - Labour do seem to be out of step with many of the public about spending too much last time, they seem to get genuine spontaneous negative reactions from it, and yet people will vote them back in and in fact most people want less austerity than Labour is promising, so what the hell do people want?
It is not at all difficult to comprehend. Those who boo and hiss will not vote Labour anyway.
I don't think it is that simple. You wouldn't get the sort of genuine surprised reactions from audiences that we've occasionally seen if the only people surprised Labour don't think they spent too much (particularly when Ed M said at the QT that they hadn't, Tory cuts have been bad, but we do still need to spend less than we are now) if it was just the committed anti-Labour crowd doing it. I think people are genuinely surprised Ed thinks that (whether he is right to think that I leave to others). My feeling is people can tell Labour have learned no lessons from whatever mistakes they made last time, and that does occasionally take people by surprise, but it doesn't disquiet people so much that they won't still vote Labour in, either because Labour in general are good enough even so, or the Tories are that crap.
I suspect they think Labour will be 'fairer'.
..'fairer' meaning that taxes will go up for other people.
Wondering if a minoriy govt might introduce PR before a second poll.
They'd have to win a referendum first (especially as no such proposal was in anyone's manifesto). We had a referendum on AV, so the principle is established - a change to the voting system requires explicit voter consent (and fair enough).
And I speak as a convert to the idea of PR. We need it. FPTP is now producing quite perverse results. It is bad for the UK.
Technically they don't need a referendum, but it might be easier with one. Wonder what the Tories will do.
That is SO unequivocal I am starting to wonder (I know, I know) if he is telling the truth, and not just blatantly lying.
Perhaps he means it? Would he forego the chance to be PM if he had to rely on SNP support?
I can't believe he would. And yet he is setting himself up for a terrible fall with these adamantine statements.
He would still be PM even if the SNP refuses to support him, and then he would go to the polls in October or earlier saying that he told the truth about the SNP scare stories.
"A vote for the SNP is a lost vote ect ect."
How do you "go to the polls" within the FTPA?
Genuine question.
Engineering a loss of a vote of confidence.
How do you do that if your opponents want you to stay in office and suffer?
Would the Tories vote to support a Labour government?
No, they abstain it's too tempting for them to watch Labour suffer. Labour either vote themselves down or abstain and let the SNP vote carry them forward. It's so delicious and will make for fantastic entertainment.
I find this thread quite comical. If a PM resigns, then unless another person is prepared to take over within 14 days, a new election has to be called. The FTPA says that.
It says nothing of the sort. If the PM resigns there will be another PM, since the Queen must always have a PM.
Mere resignation doesn't trigger an election, nor has it ever under our Constitution.
What if Miliband refuses?
Then the Queen won't accept Cameron's resignation, and he'll be PM through the next election campaign?
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 11m11 minutes ago John Curtice says Tories need 3% lead to be certain of winning most seats. Current polling average has 1% lead . http://ind.pn/1dBbpl8
That is SO unequivocal I am starting to wonder (I know, I know) if he is telling the truth, and not just blatantly lying.
Perhaps he means it? Would he forego the chance to be PM if he had to rely on SNP support?
I can't believe he would. And yet he is setting himself up for a terrible fall with these adamantine statements.
He would still be PM even if the SNP refuses to support him, and then he would go to the polls in October or earlier saying that he told the truth about the SNP scare stories.
"A vote for the SNP is a lost vote ect ect."
How do you "go to the polls" within the FTPA?
Genuine question.
Engineering a loss of a vote of confidence.
How do you do that if your opponents want you to stay in office and suffer?
Would the Tories vote to support a Labour government?
No, they abstain it's too tempting for them to watch Labour suffer. Labour either vote themselves down or abstain and let the SNP vote carry them forward. It's so delicious and will make for fantastic entertainment.
I find this thread quite comical. If a PM resigns, then unless another person is prepared to take over within 14 days, a new election has to be called. The FTPA says that.
It says nothing of the sort. If the PM resigns there will be another PM, since the Queen must always have a PM.
Mere resignation doesn't trigger an election, nor has it ever under our Constitution.
That is SO unequivocal I am starting to wonder (I know, I know) if he is telling the truth, and not just blatantly lying.
Perhaps he means it? Would he forego the chance to be PM if he had to rely on SNP support?
I can't believe he would. And yet he is setting himself up for a terrible fall with these adamantine statements.
He would still be PM even if the SNP refuses to support him, and then he would go to the polls in October or earlier saying that he told the truth about the SNP scare stories.
"A vote for the SNP is a lost vote ect ect."
How do you "go to the polls" within the FTPA?
Genuine question.
Engineering a loss of a vote of confidence.
How do you do that if your opponents want you to stay in office and suffer?
Would the Tories vote to support a Labour government?
No, they abstain it's too tempting for them to watch Labour suffer. Labour either vote themselves down or abstain and let the SNP vote carry them forward. It's so delicious and will make for fantastic entertainment.
I find this thread quite comical. If a PM resigns, then unless another person is prepared to take over within 14 days, a new election has to be called. The FTPA says that.
It says nothing of the sort. If the PM resigns there will be another PM, since the Queen must always have a PM.
Mere resignation doesn't trigger an election, nor has it ever under our Constitution.
"the period of 14 days after the day on which that motion is passed ends without the House passing a motion in the form set out in subsection (5)."
@NickPalmer- if Broxtowe had fallen in 2010 on the national swing, and incumbency had not had an impact how much would the Tories had won the seat by? In simpler terms, if the seat had been fought by a Labour newbie without your good self in 2010, how big a majority would the Tories have got then?
That is SO unequivocal I am starting to wonder (I know, I know) if he is telling the truth, and not just blatantly lying.
Perhaps he means it? Would he forego the chance to be PM if he had to rely on SNP support?
I can't believe he would. And yet he is setting himself up for a terrible fall with these adamantine statements.
He would still be PM even if the SNP refuses to support him, and then he would go to the polls in October or earlier saying that he told the truth about the SNP scare stories.
"A vote for the SNP is a lost vote ect ect."
How do you "go to the polls" within the FTPA?
Genuine question.
Engineering a loss of a vote of confidence.
How do you do that if your opponents want you to stay in office and suffer?
Would the Tories vote to support a Labour government?
No, they abstain it's too tempting for them to watch Labour suffer. Labour either vote themselves down or abstain and let the SNP vote carry them forward. It's so delicious and will make for fantastic entertainment.
I find this thread quite comical. If a PM resigns, then unless another person is prepared to take over within 14 days, a new election has to be called. The FTPA says that.
A second election June 25th or July 2nd if Miliband refuses to form a government on SNP support, if that is accurate.
the thing is the tories have a big enough war chest to fight a second election - do labour?
Comments
UK Polling Report has an overview, see link below.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9281
I think the market must be assigning some chance to Lab + SNP + PC + SDLP + Green being greater than Con + LD but Ed still not becoming PM.
I'm not saying I think that will happen - it's obviously very unlikely - but the market may be assigning some chance to it - say 10% - which is responsible for moving the overall PM odds.
Edward Mayes @eljmayes
Now Owen Smith states that the last Labour Government didn't spend too much. And promptly gets booed like Miliband last night. #WalesDebate
(I'm not being ironic.)
Only 5 days to go until #GE2015, and no politics on p1s of Times, Daily Mail or The Sun tomorrow. Shows just how bored we think voters are.
Or that tonights YG VI does not show a Tory lead
We could end up in a farce with the Tories supporting Labour at the same time that Labour would vote against itself for an early election.
They killed it with the methodology change.
It saves me time when skimming the comments for stuff worth reading. Ta in advance.
The key phrase is "a new settlement" and that is the wording on Question Time last night.
What if he can't negotiate a "new settlement" ? what if the EU leaders don't play ball? In those circumstances, is the referendum off ?
Local polling apparently suggests that Douglas will just hold on.
John Curtice says Tories need 3% lead to be certain of winning most seats. Current polling average has 1% lead . http://ind.pn/1dBbpl8
LAB most seats 4.80
However, the FTPA doesn't preclude some other configuration from forming within the 14-days, thus blocking an election, or the fandango being repeated several times during the same parliament.
All very Continental! Dare I say it?
Night All.
On the other hand the damage will be appalling...
Never mind the effect on these parties' voters ...
Wirral West
Men. Esther McVey leads Labour 44-43
women Esther McVey trails Labour 41-51
Norwich North
Men Chloe Smith trails Labour 31-42
women Chloe Smith leads Labour 42-33
Strange
Apparently. Who knows.
So no other alternative but to try for an early election exists in the end, if no one wants the SNP.
They may be right, but betting on the polls being wrong (and wrong in your favour) is rather brave. They may also be punting on the polls swinging to the tories in the next 5 days - again, they may be right, but the value is against.
It was pooh-poohed by some saying many would not fall on an average swing. Correct.
Let's say, only 30 fell. The list of gains do not stop at 50. Labour could easily gain another 10 - 15 seats, like Norwich North, Peterborough etc. I think Croydon Central is wrong anyway. I also believe Bermondsey is now in play.
There are not enough Tories in Paisley and Renfrewshire South.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Paisley-Renfrewshire-South.S3.png
Are the SNP against proportional representation?
Labour plus SNP plus PC plus LD = PR?
PR = bye bye SNP
But it does not change the arithmetic.
This is my point regarding Labour / SNP. Unless SNP were to win only 6 seats like last time, in Parliamentary arithmetic terms it makes very little difference.
After Holyrood 2012, the SNP would not have gone back to the 2010 GE result for Westminster. I would say , even without the referendum, the SNP would still have won, say, 25 -30 seats.
Now, 260 + 48 or 280 + 28 is really the same in Parliamentary arithmetic. Until and unless Labour won an absolute majority or was very close to it, this dependency would have remained. It is clear now that as long as Clegg is the Leader, the LDs will continue to be the Tory bitch.
Agreed, if it was 280 + 28, the presentation would have been different.
Even with PR we would end up in the same place, just with UKIP holding the balance of power.
Also there is a problem into how you can accommodate constituencies in a PR system.
The best is the 2 tier German one, with half the house under PR and the other half under FPTP, and then again MP's would never like the lists of the PR system.
1. Cameron says "Here's what I think it will look like, is that OK?" People probably say yes. Some years later, an actual treaty emerges. Cameron says yeah, well, close enough, you're not having ANOTHER referendum, that would be silly.
2. Ditto, but Cameron DOES offer a further referendum in GE 2020, so we spend the next 7 years or so debating Europe, before probably deciding to stay.
3. Cameron says in 2017 oops, this is taking longer than we thought, we'll get back to you when it's ready, and things drift on to 2020.
It seems odd that nobody is seeking clarification of which is envisaged. But it's academic if the Tories don't get an overall majority anyway. Nothing wrong with a little constructive boredom, as Ed moves towards No 10.
No. of Opinion polls each month between August and April (Fieldwork end-dates from 1st of each month to the last day)
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/594242341826928640
Poor Mandelson- he would revel in all this political uncertainty. His time has gone.
Not sure who such a situation favours most if at all but it would allow the politicians to be fairly unmolested by media up to polling day. Just another possibility into the confusing mix.
Mere resignation doesn't trigger an election, nor has it ever under our Constitution.
At any rate, being at all dependent on the SNP is going to cost Labour votes.
(Also - I'd give it a week or two before a Tory Queen's speech is voted down.)
In simpler terms, if the seat had been fought by a Labour newbie without your good self in 2010, how big a majority would the Tories have got then?