But I just don't see it that way. This is the United Kingdom. SNP MPs have as much legitimacy as any other MPs and have the right to form a majority in the UK Parliament with other parties. The rules of the game are simple: do you have a majority in the House of Commons?
Ed Miliband is an idiot and has said some idiotic things but that does not change the rules. A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it. Cameron has the right to ask the House the question but once he gets a negative answer he has to leave.
Of course I am deeply disappointed that Scotland is going to elect so many SNP MPs. But an underlying mindset which suggests that they do not have as much right to determine the government as MPs from any other part of this United Kingdom is not a mindset that this Unionist can support.
I doubt that anyone thinks the SNP isn't legitimate, David. It's just that a government would be better not to be dependent on their votes.
Yes, we don't want democracy taking hold , bad for the troughers.
So the Scots are allowed to complain about 'getting a government they didn't vote for', but the English aren't?
You're all confused because the OUTRAGE!!! bus has switched lanes......
You are confused as ever, it is impossible for the English to not get the government they voted for, they have nearly all of the seats. Get a grip on reality for goodness sake.
The English don't vote as a block and neither do the Scots. I have voted Lib Dem most of my life and never had a Lib Dem government. There would be a problem if Glaswegians voted the council tax rate for Edinburgh so why can the Scots vote on business rates in England.
If those business rates affect Scotland's budget it is perfectly legitimate. As long as our pocket money is based on what Westminster votes for England then there is nothing that should stop us voting on it. Same would apply to your Scottish examples above, you cannot have your cake and eat it. If they do not like it then they should introduce a fair system so that English votes do not affect Scotland. Also you have had a LibDem coalition government twice , once in Holyrood and once in UK.
But I just don't see it that way. This is the United Kingdom. SNP MPs have as much legitimacy as any other MPs and have the right to form a majority in the UK Parliament with other parties. The rules of the game are simple: do you have a majority in the House of Commons?
Ed Miliband is an idiot and has said some idiotic things but that does not change the rules. A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it. Cameron has the right to ask the House the question but once he gets a negative answer he has to leave.
Of course I am deeply disappointed that Scotland is going to elect so many SNP MPs. But an underlying mindset which suggests that they do not have as much right to determine the government as MPs from any other part of this United Kingdom is not a mindset that this Unionist can support.
I doubt that anyone thinks the SNP isn't legitimate, David. It's just that a government would be better not to be dependent on their votes.
Yes, we don't want democracy taking hold , bad for the troughers.
So the Scots are allowed to complain about 'getting a government they didn't vote for', but the English aren't?
You're all confused because the OUTRAGE!!! bus has switched lanes......
You are confused as ever, it is impossible for the English to not get the government they voted for, they have nearly all of the seats. Get a grip on reality for goodness sake.
it's entirely possible. Look at present situation.
The present situation suggests that the English don't want to vote for 'a' government.
But I just don't see it that way. This is the United Kingdom. SNP MPs have as much legitimacy as any other MPs and have the right to form a majority in the UK Parliament with other parties. The rules of the game are simple: do you have a majority in the House of Commons?
Ed Miliband is an idiot and has said some idiotic things but that does not change the rules. A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it. Cameron has the right to ask the House the question but once he gets a negative answer he has to leave.
Of course I am deeply disappointed that Scotland is going to elect so many SNP MPs. But an underlying mindset which suggests that they do not have as much right to determine the government as MPs from any other part of this United Kingdom is not a mindset that this Unionist can support.
I doubt that anyone thinks the SNP isn't legitimate, David. It's just that a government would be better not to be dependent on their votes.
Yes, we don't want democracy taking hold , bad for the troughers.
So the Scots are allowed to complain about 'getting a government they didn't vote for', but the English aren't?
You're all confused because the OUTRAGE!!! bus has switched lanes......
You are confused as ever, it is impossible for the English to not get the government they voted for, they have nearly all of the seats. Get a grip on reality for goodness sake.
England votes majority votes & seats Tory, ends up with Lab+SNP government. Doesn't that fit the bill?
You mean exactly what Scotland got in 1992 - 1997 ?
That's the point CarlottaVance was making.......
Am I missing the point , when did we have a Lab + SNP government in the UK
1. Labour, just like Gore in 2000, are allowing the conservatives to write the story. We've seen this already with the successful Sturgeon=bogeywoman spin which has disctated the terms of the second half of the campaign. Notice how the Tories and the Tory media managed this even though Sturgeon had only just been voted the darling of the undecided voters. Instead of facing this spin down, Ed got frit and caved in. Now we have the Tories proactively talking down the legitimacy of a Labour minority government and, again, Labour doing nothing to correct this narrative.
As it happens, even though the Tories can easily be accused of being the pot calling the kettle black, Labour are pushed into a corner here by the reality of the voting. The left-wing parties (excluding the LibDems ha ha) will muster less than 45% of the vote.
2. The LibDems will probably remain as the key to number 10. I don't think anyone will manage the magic 323 without them. Clearly there is irony there in that they're at their most powerful when they're at their weakest. Can it be business as usual for the LibDems during such a traumatic time for the party? I doubt it; and DUP+weak LD make for pretty tragic colleagues for a new Cameron government.
3. The Con-Lab-SNP love triangle. Despite all the rhetoric of the last few days, it's in no-one's interest to rock the boat too much after the election. The English Votes issue will putter on, but I expect it to be All Quiet on the Northern Front.
4. The People. What will people (not politicians) do after the election? There were rumblings after the last election, and they will probbaly be worse this time. What form will they take?
But I just don't see it that way. This is the United Kingdom. SNP MPs have as much legitimacy as any other MPs and have the right to form a majority in the UK Parliament with other parties. The rules of the game are simple: do you have a majority in the House of Commons?
Ed Miliband is an idiot and has said some idiotic things but that does not change the rules. A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it. Cameron has the right to ask the House the question but once he gets a negative answer he has to leave.
Of course I am deeply disappointed that Scotland is going to elect so many SNP MPs. But an underlying mindset which suggests that they do not have as much right to determine the government as MPs from any other part of this United Kingdom is not a mindset that this Unionist can support.
I doubt that anyone thinks the SNP isn't legitimate, David. It's just that a government would be better not to be dependent on their votes.
Yes, we don't want democracy taking hold , bad for the troughers.
So the Scots are allowed to complain about 'getting a government they didn't vote for', but the English aren't?
You're all confused because the OUTRAGE!!! bus has switched lanes......
You are confused as ever, it is impossible for the English to not get the government they voted for, they have nearly all of the seats. Get a grip on reality for goodness sake.
it's entirely possible. Look at present situation.
Malc is a stranger to arithmetic.....or reason......
The word 'Nationalism' is a bit of a giveaway. Labour is a proud party and should have no truck with nationalists.
The SNP want to break up Britain and masquerade as left-of-centre redistributionists only because it suits their current needs. In reality they are just a party of tribalist thugs who hate Britain, hate England, hate being ruled from London and hate anyone who disagrees with them. The manner of the Cybernats alone should be enough to put any sensible mainstream politician off.
Extra irradiated Ready Brek this am?
Mainstream 'One Nation' Labour..
He has got his union jack underpants in a twist and is going all light headed
A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it.
That's where you run into trouble.
A minority Government has the right to govern, unless it's Conservative...
A minority Government doesn't have a majority with the support of the SNP unless there is a formal deal. Otherwise it's just a minority Government, like the Conservatives.
Not so. A minority government that the HoC is willing to support has the right to govern. It really does not matter how Ed and Nicola dance around the handbags. At the end of the day there is a vote and the answer is yes or no.
At the moment it looks like the answer will be no for Cameron and yes for Miliband. Thems the rules.
The constitutional position is pretty straight forward.
The political position is very 'interesting'.
Miliband and Sturgeon run the risk of having a second election having voted down popular measures - or confirming Tory accusations of 'back room deals' - which may add England to Labour's casualty fatality list....Having seen the slaughter in Scotland - how 'brave' will Labour backbenchers be?
That's a perfectly valid question.
But all this talk of illegitimacy is bullsh!t. Any government [ minority or otherwise ] which commands the confidence of the House of Commons is legitimate. Period.
Yes, everyone on here know that whoever can command a majority should be the Government. However vast swathes of the population and media won't see it that way. They'll see Wallace (who is ~20 seats behind DC) making an illegitimate deal with Salmond & Sturgeon, which he had explicitly ruled out!
That's what polling says:
Voters tend to believe the leader of the largest party has the better claim to be Prime Minister, not the leader of whichever group of parties can command a majority
Only one in four British people (26%) feel that the leader of the biggest group of MPs – even if it doesn’t include the largest party – has the mandate to move into Number Ten. Nearly twice as many (48%) believe the leader of the party with the most seats has the more credible claim, even if he or she cannot command a majority.
Good thread tse. What a mess we could face. Any chance of a thread on the labour uncut piece, it is pretty major as to why it was written if complete fantasy... or something more important...
But I just don't see it that way. This is the United Kingdom. SNP MPs have as much legitimacy as any other MPs and have the right to form a majority in the UK Parliament with other parties. The rules of the game are simple: do you have a majority in the House of Commons?
Ed Miliband is an idiot and has said some idiotic things but that does not change the rules. A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it. Cameron has the right to ask the House the question but once he gets a negative answer he has to leave.
Of course I am deeply disappointed that Scotland is going to elect so many SNP MPs. But an underlying mindset which suggests that they do not have as much right to determine the government as MPs from any other part of this United Kingdom is not a mindset that this Unionist can support.
I doubt that anyone thinks the SNP isn't legitimate, David. It's just that a government would be better not to be dependent on their votes.
Yes, we don't want democracy taking hold , bad for the troughers.
So the Scots are allowed to complain about 'getting a government they didn't vote for', but the English aren't?
You're all confused because the OUTRAGE!!! bus has switched lanes......
You are confused as ever, it is impossible for the English to not get the government they voted for, they have nearly all of the seats. Get a grip on reality for goodness sake.
England votes majority votes & seats Tory, ends up with Lab+SNP government. Doesn't that fit the bill?
You mean exactly what Scotland got in 1992 - 1997 ?
That's the point CarlottaVance was making.......
Am I missing the point , when did we have a Lab + SNP government in the UK
A very possible outcome from the election is England voting majority seats+votes Tories, but getting EICIPM with a Lab government supported by the SNP for confidence motions. Which is what you declared to be impossible.
''You will never be happy with anything until you achieve independence.''
In a discussion Malcolm never makes a point without attaching a personal insult to the person he is addressing.
What an unpleasant individual he is.
Given some of the reports emerging of the conduct of the SNP and its supporters, Malcolm's attitude is hardly surprising.
I'm Welsh, and perfectly understand the patriotic (mainly sport-related) anti-Englishness. But there is a stark difference between patriotism and nationalism. As history proves.
LOL, idiot loses argument and whines like a big jessie. Supported by another sad loser, fenster and Taffy , two cheeks of the same whinging ARSE,
Good to see the messaging back on the economy from the blue team for the final few days. Liam Byrne must now be ashamed of himself for that note, expect to see it on TV every day until the election.
Around the same time, the SNP will find out whether it has defeated the Lib Dems in their fortress of Orkney & Shetland, a seat that has returned Liberal MPs in every election but one since 1837. If the nationalists win there, only the hugely popular Charles Kennedy, whose Ross, Skye & Lochaber seat reports at 7am, will stand in the way of a total SNP victory.
Ahahah If O&S goes, you can put every penny you've got on Kennedy going.
As I understand it O&S isn’t any more keen on being ruled by Edinburgh than it is by London. Given the opporftunioty older inhabitants at any rate would probably prefer Oslo or Copenhagen!
The word 'Nationalism' is a bit of a giveaway. Labour is a proud party and should have no truck with nationalists.
The SNP want to break up Britain and masquerade as left-of-centre redistributionists only because it suits their current needs. In reality they are just a party of tribalist thugs who hate Britain, hate England, hate being ruled from London and hate anyone who disagrees with them. The manner of the Cybernats alone should be enough to put any sensible mainstream politician off.
Extra irradiated Ready Brek this am?
Mainstream 'One Nation' Labour..
Yeah, maybe a bit strongly worded, but the fact is - from a the point of view of the main parties - I can't see any upside to a deal with the SNP.
The SNP are the one truly successful UK party at the moment. Sturgeon was excellent in the debates, Salmond was arguably the UK's best political leader before her and they are flying in Scotland. Fair play to them and their supporters.
But would it make any medium to long-term sense for Labour to do a handshake deal with the SNP and rely on them for votes? The answer to that is no.
LABOUR 276 CONSERVATIVES 272 SNP 52 LIBERAL DEMOCRATS 24 OTHER 19
YouGov Forecast
CONSERVATIVES 283 LABOUR 261 SNP50 LIBERAL DEMOCRATS 32 OTHER 21
How are LD going to gain 8 further seats compared to now and if LAB are to not gain 15 seats 11 of which are now Conservative holds, 4 presumably LD holds.
So LD suddenly losing 8 less how?
With only 4 days to go ? Kellner might as well say , either:
1. His figures are crap, or
2. They are not crap BUT he is the expert who decides.
The Nowcast depending on when was "now" is what their model says just like electionforecast. The only material figure in it is the SNP score. This could range from 45 to 59.
electionforecast says C 278, L 271, SNP 50. Updated today.
Is it just me or have the press tried to play down the possibility of Nick Clegg losing his seat? On the Marr show this morning he was very keen to point out that Farage might not win his seat, but there's no mention of Clegg's battle in Sheffield.
Good thread tse. What a mess we could face. Any chance of a thread on the labour uncut piece, it is pretty major as to why it was written if complete fantasy... or something more important...
I was tempted to do so, but this tweet from Sam Coates of the Times is burned onto my brain, and I really don't want to get OGH into trouble
That looks flat, at best, for Labour based on constituency question
I predict that PC will do better than YG predcit day before election. Wood is the new Sturgeon. But, who will it affect? Labour seats in cities?
The elections in Wales blog gave an overview of Plaid's best prospects last year.
"...Ynys Môn looks the obvious Plaid target. Yet this requires a swing from Labour to Plaid in an election where Labour will generally be looking to advance rather than lose ground. Beyond that, Ceredigion may just be a possible: it requires a big (11%) swing, but a stronger Plaid candidate than in 2010 and a softening of Liberal Democrat support among the large student vote might just put it into play.
After that, Plaid’s remaining priority would seem to be to put in place some advance ground work for seats that will be targets in 2016: such as Llanelli, Aberconwy and Carmarthen West & South Pembrokeshire."
Thank you for that clarity. So 'Leanne Wood...you're no Nicola Sturgeon!'
As Salmond himself remarked some years ago, the case for Scottish independence is mainly economic, whereas Welsh nationalism is more cultural. The rest follows, as it is Cardiff, not Westminster, who can deliver on, for instance, language and heritage issues.
Around the same time, the SNP will find out whether it has defeated the Lib Dems in their fortress of Orkney & Shetland, a seat that has returned Liberal MPs in every election but one since 1837. If the nationalists win there, only the hugely popular Charles Kennedy, whose Ross, Skye & Lochaber seat reports at 7am, will stand in the way of a total SNP victory.
Ahahah If O&S goes, you can put every penny you've got on Kennedy going.
As I understand it O&S isn’t any more keen on being ruled by Edinburgh than it is by London. Given the opporftunioty older inhabitants at any rate would probably prefer Oslo or Copenhagen!
''You will never be happy with anything until you achieve independence.''
In a discussion Malcolm never makes a point without attaching a personal insult to the person he is addressing.
What an unpleasant individual he is.
Given some of the reports emerging of the conduct of the SNP and its supporters, Malcolm's attitude is hardly surprising.
I'm Welsh, and perfectly understand the patriotic (mainly sport-related) anti-Englishness. But there is a stark difference between patriotism and nationalism. As history proves.
LOL, idiot loses argument and whines like a big jessie.
Was doing some knocking-up in Great Yarmouth yesterday with some GOTV for P's & Qs.
I know that people will say that you only see what you want to see but in this seaside town, the UKIP vote in the marginal wards of Bradwell and Caister [where the election will be determined] is evaporating.
A bus-load of FBU heavies up from London was doing likewise, but in the 'Labour' heartlands.
When I canvassed these areas last Autumn [during Clacton & Rochester], UKIP were ahead. So, today, UKIP has fallen-away dramatically.
So, the most recent Ashcroft just doesn't look like what I'm seeing on the ground. Yes there is _some_ UKIP but not in the bucket-loads that's being stated. UKIP does control seats on the local Council. Last year they took 10 of the 13 places up for grabs, equally as it turns out from Labour [5] and Conservatives [5]. So there are people who GENUINELY did vote for UKIP quite recently within the last 12 months in the borough.
We know polls adjust for past-vote-weighting.
I'm just wondering in a General [as opposed to borough or EU vote] whether this is distorting the past vote weighting so that the polls are showing UKIP performing more strongly in the General than they actually are by observable calibration on the ground.
If I'm right, then polls are methodogically over-stating UKIP. My thesis is that a past-vote weighting for a Borough or EU poll should not be confused with a past-vote weighting for the General. Yet it seems that they are.
Can those who look at these things more closely than me comment? Is there a methodology point here that might explain why the UKIP vote appears to be holding up on the polls more than we're seeing on the ground?
Yeah, maybe a bit strongly worded, but the fact is - from a the point of view of the main parties - I can't see any upside to a deal with the SNP.
Except the upside of being PM. Whatever Ed lacks, I don't think it's ambition (whether that's personal or 'ambititon for the progressive, value-led ideals that will transform blah, blah').
But I just don't see it that way. This is the United Kingdom. SNP MPs have as much legitimacy as any other MPs and have the right to form a majority in the UK Parliament with other parties. The rules of the game are simple: do you have a majority in the House of Commons?
Ed Miliband is an idiot and has said some idiotic things but that does not change the rules. A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it. Cameron has the right to ask the House the question but once he gets a negative answer he has to leave.
Of course I am deeply disappointed that Scotland is going to elect so many SNP MPs. But an underlying mindset which suggests that they do not have as much right to determine the government as MPs from any other part of this United Kingdom is not a mindset that this Unionist can support.
I doubt that anyone thinks the SNP isn't legitimate, David. It's just that a government would be better not to be dependent on their votes.
Yes, we don't want democracy taking hold , bad for the troughers.
So the Scots are allowed to complain about 'getting a government they didn't vote for', but the English aren't?
You're all confused because the OUTRAGE!!! bus has switched lanes......
You are confused as ever, it is impossible for the English to not get the government they voted for, they have nearly all of the seats. Get a grip on reality for goodness sake.
England votes majority votes & seats Tory, ends up with Lab+SNP government. Doesn't that fit the bill?
You mean exactly what Scotland got in 1992 - 1997 ?
That's the point CarlottaVance was making.......
Am I missing the point , when did we have a Lab + SNP government in the UK
A very possible outcome from the election is England voting majority seats+votes Tories, but getting EICIPM with a Lab government supported by the SNP for confidence motions. Which is what you declared to be impossible.
You seem confused Rob, that is a Labour government only with SNP in opposition.
LABOUR 276 CONSERVATIVES 272 SNP 52 LIBERAL DEMOCRATS 24 OTHER 19
YouGov Forecast
CONSERVATIVES 283 LABOUR 261 SNP50 LIBERAL DEMOCRATS 32 OTHER 21
How are LD going to gain 8 further seats compared to now and if LAB are to not gain 15 seats 11 of which are now Conservative holds, 4 presumably LD holds.
So LD suddenly losing 8 less how?
Assuming UKIP is on 14%, then if the LibDems get 7% they get 6 seats, and if they get 12%, they get 34 seats.
Kelner seats forecast is all over the place and seems to have been written before last nights polls IMO
It's based on Yougov, as far as I can tell.
He says Yougov indicates that the Conservatives are outperforming in Con/Lab marginals, and the Lib Dems are outperforming in the seats they hold. Ashcroft seat polls seem to back this up.
Really cant see Kelners numbers on any YG poll in the past few weeks. Even less so on latest comres phone polls To say nothing of the MASSIVE Survation. Equally where the hell did he get his previous Lab seats forecast from too.
Kellner explains his forecast in detail on the Yougov website. Survation was good for Labour, but Survation and Panelbase are the only two pollsters putting Labour ahead.
Around the same time, the SNP will find out whether it has defeated the Lib Dems in their fortress of Orkney & Shetland, a seat that has returned Liberal MPs in every election but one since 1837. If the nationalists win there, only the hugely popular Charles Kennedy, whose Ross, Skye & Lochaber seat reports at 7am, will stand in the way of a total SNP victory.
Ahahah If O&S goes, you can put every penny you've got on Kennedy going.
As I understand it O&S isn’t any more keen on being ruled by Edinburgh than it is by London. Given the opporftunioty older inhabitants at any rate would probably prefer Oslo or Copenhagen!
Dear Dear OKC, get real.
History, my dear sir, history!
Bollox you mean, you should not believe everything you read in the Daily Heil
@MattBrookes3: @GuidoFawkes I met a traveller from no.10 who said, "A carven block of stone stands, in the garden. Near it, a shattered promise lies..."
It strikes me that Cameron can very well attempt this sort of narrative and force a vote, but it's really only as an attempt to help out whoever the next Conservative leader is. It won't change whether or not Cameron has enough votes in the Commons, or if Ed has cobbled together a not-deal, and while surprisingly the public may think the party not on most seats getting in would not be ideal, they for one won't differently ahead of time in outrage at the possibility, and for two won't be so angry that they will do anything about it. It would hang in the background the same way some people, in official communications no less, have still been using the 'government no one voted for' argument against the coalition five years in. So the only affect would be, Cameron hopes, to provide his successor with an easy target.
Is it just me or have the press tried to play down the possibility of Nick Clegg losing his seat? On the Marr show this morning he was very keen to point out that Farage might not win his seat, but there's no mention of Clegg's battle in Sheffield.
I think that's probably just a consequence of the LDs being largely invisible
''You will never be happy with anything until you achieve independence.''
In a discussion Malcolm never makes a point without attaching a personal insult to the person he is addressing.
What an unpleasant individual he is.
Given some of the reports emerging of the conduct of the SNP and its supporters, Malcolm's attitude is hardly surprising.
I'm Welsh, and perfectly understand the patriotic (mainly sport-related) anti-Englishness. But there is a stark difference between patriotism and nationalism. As history proves.
LOL, idiot loses argument and whines like a big jessie. Supported by another sad loser, fenster and Taffy , two cheeks of the same whinging ARSE,
You may add me to that arse if you like. I remain baffled why being able to 'dish it out but also take it' is some point of pride, when we could just remain civil in the first place, or why getting angry at personal insults, reacting to those insults (with complaints rather than merely retaliation) means someone has 'lost' an argument. It's frankly bizarre.
But go ahead, call me a whinging loser idiot nancy idiot. (may as well be twice for good measure) That'll prove you are clearly the master debater. (bear in mind I thought Yes would win and think Scotland will be independent before too many years have passed, so I cannot be too much of an idiot, right)
''You will never be happy with anything until you achieve independence.''
In a discussion Malcolm never makes a point without attaching a personal insult to the person he is addressing.
What an unpleasant individual he is.
Given some of the reports emerging of the conduct of the SNP and its supporters, Malcolm's attitude is hardly surprising.
I'm Welsh, and perfectly understand the patriotic (mainly sport-related) anti-Englishness. But there is a stark difference between patriotism and nationalism. As history proves.
LOL, idiot loses argument and whines like a big jessie.
You really want to bring up the referendum again?
Go ahead , you have not heard me whining about losing the referendum vote, I am happy to know that the weak and scared will not be as cowardly the next time. Do your worst Toom.
I suspect we are now looking at 2 possible outcomes here.
1. Tory + Lib Dems + DUP/UP + maybe UKIP: - Tory lead in seats and just enough support from the other parties to limp over the finish line in a supply and confidence deal. Likely to be a very bumpy ride trying to please everybody. Lib Dems won't enjoy having to compete with DUP and UKIP for influence and could pull the plug mid - parliament.
2. (What I think is actually most likely): Tory minority with Labour/Tories trying to find consensus in an unofficial confidence and supply arrangement. Basically, Tories get most seats and Labour abstain on a Tory Queen's speech. What happens then is essentially an arrangement where both large parties try to find consensus, with a lot of brinkmanship and game - playing going on at the sidelines, of course. I imagine Labour would vote through a cuts - lite budget so long as there was a bone thrown to them, but at the same time with the Tories in power there'll be no risk of a mega spending spree. I get the feeling this arrangement would actually work better than both major parties would care to admit. Whether the Parliament would last the full 5 years is another matter (could imagine Tories daring Labour to vote down an EU referendum, for instance). Could lead to party splits, UKIP defections, Lib Dems improving their position, SNP continuing their ascendancy, but would be a very interesting time for politics watchers indeed.
So this stone slab business, is it better or worse than the Tories passing a law to make sure they do something? Same principle - shows our commitment to do this - more striking and bizarre visual manifestation (in that is has a visual manifestation), but actually creating a law to force themselves not to back down.
Mr. Twelve, alas, I think number 2 is unrealistic. If Miliband can crawl over the line, even if he loses England and is wiped out in Scotland, he will.
“But the prime minister’s allies say he would not resign unless it was clear that Labour had enough votes to pass a Queen’s speech, meaning Miliband would need to hold talks with the SNP, which he has vowed not to do.” They probably think that is a clever trap.
But it is not Cameron's call. If Cameron fails to win the confidence of the House, he has to resign, regardless of whether or not it is clear to him that Miliband would get enough votes to pass a Queen's Speech. He could say to the Queen "I don't think the other fellow has the confidence of the House. We must have an immediate election." I think the Queen would be duty bound not just to take Cameron's word for it but to give Miliband the opportunity of demonstrating he has the confidence of the House - even without a specific deal with SNP.
If Ed's monument ultimately turns out to be so much wasted stone, perhaps OGH might like to put in an offer for just the piece with the top two lines for his garden. A BETTER PLAN A BETTER FUTURE Just the thing for Political Betting?
It's not just about what happens "on Friday morning". It's about the Tories trying to increase the number of people who will vote for them in the election.
Propaganda (or advertising, as it's also known) is usually simple. Just look at the headlines (and it's them and the pictures that count most):
I WON'T FORM A LABOUR GOVERNMENT...if blah blah
NO LABOUR GOVERNMENT...if blah blah
You've got a negative there, and the words "Labour government". That's ideal propaganda for the Tory party, towards both the main market (floating voters) and the chatterer market.
Few care about the condition clause. They'll read "No Labour government" and they'll go out and vote Tory.
There will be similar headlines in the run-up to Thursday. Am I allowed to call the press biased, or will I get my bottom smacked?
The Lab leadership has very little clue. They could have seized control of the ideosphere after the indyref victory. Sadly they couldn't be bothered, or didn't understand the opportunity. Maybe they were too busy trying to be second-rate PR agents or pundits, with their minds full of the latest media talking-points and the latest pollster gossip, rather than any drive to act as political leaders with purpose and vision.
And now the Tories' greatest fantasy about Scotland has come true.
We will have pluralities of voters in both England and Scotland have voted for the main party whose leaders are incumbent in government office. Wow! Are people really so satisfied? No. They just don't know what they're doing, the poor sausages.
The SNP will have accomplished what they did in 1979 when they brought down the LAB government, ushering in the destruction of most that was positive in the country, and what the SDP-LIB alliance did in 1982, and indeed what the LD party did in 2010 - they will have kept LAB out of office.
I despise the Tory party, but it's quite accurate to call them the natural party of government in this country. For as long as almost anyone can remember, they have only ever been kicked out of office spectacularly - in 1945 and 1997 with huge groundswells of hope and support helping the Labour party; in 1964 when the Tory government was an obvious shambles and there'd clearly been a decision from up-top that it was time for a change (just look at the TV comedy of the time); and in 1974 when the miners kicked their backsides with huge popular support.
None of those conditions pertain now. The Tories won't go with a whimper. They never go with a whimper.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if there's a Tory absolute majority.
And for all the talk about front-runners falling at hedges and remember Portillo and Johnson on the sofa, Johnson went to Eton and he's likely to be handed the job. He's likely to be piped into it by Cameron.
"Rugby may be more clever, Harrow may make more row, But we'll row for ever, Steady from stroke to bow"
Mr. kle4, it looks worse. You're right that the law-passing (same applies to the 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid) is utterly stupid, but it's a notion, a concept. Eight feet of stone with Miliband smirking next to it is rather mroe, er, concrete.
- 58 per cent prefer Tory/LD deal to Labour/SNP - Kellner says
Conservatives 283 Labour 261 SNP 50 Lib Dem 32 Ukip 2
- Curtice says
Conservatives 291 Labour 265 SNP 44 Lib Dem 24 Ukip 3
Three and eight gains for Ed respectively. However those SNP figures may be a bit low. If they are right and the Cons are between 22 and 26 ahead it's hard to see Eddy's Govt. getting any legitimacy and Labour not getting hammered at the next GE.
Ed is Crap has to be no more than 20 seats behind IMO in order for EICIPM to happen
I look at it this way:
2005 Lab 35% C 33% Lab maj 55. Lab = 353
Take away 40. , i.e. Lab = 313
Reduce Lab to make it 33%, Con 34%.
So Labour suddenly becomes 260 ?
If anything Labour is doing better in England than in 2005.
The Conservatives also look as though they'll do better than 2005. There was a boundary review in 2010; the Conservatives did a bit better than UNS that year; and Conservative MP's elected that year have the chance to build up a personal vote. There are seats that Labour won in 2005 that look completely out of reach now.
Then of course, there's Scotland. A fall in Labour's vote share of 1% (in GB wide terms) can cost them 5% of the seats in the Commons.
I already have deducted 40. Can't do it twice. If anything the loss of votes in Scotland means the Labour votes in England [ within the 33% ] will be higher proportionately.
So this stone slab business, is it better or worse than the Tories passing a law to make sure they do something? Same principle - shows our commitment to do this - more striking and bizarre visual manifestation (in that is has a visual manifestation), but actually creating a law to force themselves not to back down.
Well, for a start, the Tories have not passed such a law. Ed actually commissioned his own gravestone this monument to political hubris and stupidity
Has OGH picked through Survation last night yet to see if there are any holes in it?
No? Thought not.
Lab leads are flawless
Isn't that what chestnut is for? He has only found labour bias, or mistakes in samples that encourage labour leads, after looking at the last 759 polls
He might agree to a 0.1% increase. Clegg is such a poor politician ! His red lines barely has any ink on them.
Given how confident and assured he can sound a lot of the time, I am increasingly of the opinion that Clegg is either genuinely mad or simply a very very good actor. To borrow and paraphrase from the late, great Terry Pratchett, he's the only person out there who will try to bluff a hand with no cards.
That stone is really the most ridiculous thing I have seen for a long while.
Whilst it adequately demonstrates Ed's weirdness anyone in any doubt should really only read what is on it. Ed thinks this will hold him to account?
What does "controls on immigration" mean? Does Ed think we don't have any? Even when the last Labour government was searching the world for potential immigrants we had controls, at least on paper.
What does "An NHS with time to care" mean? Is he saying the staff currently in the NHS don't care? Really?
"A stronger economic foundation". I give up.
"A country where the next generation can do better than the last." When did we last have a generation that did not achieve that derisory objective?
"Homes to buy and action on rent." "Action" Right. Like cutting HB which is artificially maintaining rent at an excessive level perhaps? Nah. You are going to need a Tory government for that.
It really is the most vacuous tosh I have ever seen a major political party present. And to set it in stone? A sense of humour is a good thing but only in its place.
Was doing some knocking-up in Great Yarmouth yesterday with some GOTV for P's & Qs.
I know that people will say that you only see what you want to see but in this seaside town, the UKIP vote in the marginal wards of Bradwell and Caister [where the election will be determined] is evaporating.
A bus-load of FBU heavies up from London was doing likewise, but in the 'Labour' heartlands.
When I canvassed these areas last Autumn [during Clacton & Rochester], UKIP were ahead. So, today, UKIP has fallen-away dramatically.
So, the most recent Ashcroft just doesn't look like what I'm seeing on the ground. Yes there is _some_ UKIP but not in the bucket-loads that's being stated. UKIP does control seats on the local Council. Last year they took 10 of the 13 places up for grabs, equally as it turns out from Labour [5] and Conservatives [5]. So there are people who GENUINELY did vote for UKIP quite recently within the last 12 months in the borough.
We know polls adjust for past-vote-weighting.
I'm just wondering in a General [as opposed to borough or EU vote] whether this is distorting the past vote weighting so that the polls are showing UKIP performing more strongly in the General than they actually are by observable calibration on the ground.
If I'm right, then polls are methodogically over-stating UKIP. My thesis is that a past-vote weighting for a Borough or EU poll should not be confused with a past-vote weighting for the General. Yet it seems that they are.
Can those who look at these things more closely than me comment? Is there a methodology point here that might explain why the UKIP vote appears to be holding up on the polls more than we're seeing on the ground?
Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot
We can assume UKIP hold up well in non- marginal seats, but are squeezed in marginal seats, unless they are a strong contender (eg Thurrock or Thanet South).
Around the same time, the SNP will find out whether it has defeated the Lib Dems in their fortress of Orkney & Shetland, a seat that has returned Liberal MPs in every election but one since 1837. If the nationalists win there, only the hugely popular Charles Kennedy, whose Ross, Skye & Lochaber seat reports at 7am, will stand in the way of a total SNP victory.
Ahahah If O&S goes, you can put every penny you've got on Kennedy going.
As I understand it O&S isn’t any more keen on being ruled by Edinburgh than it is by London. Given the opporftunioty older inhabitants at any rate would probably prefer Oslo or Copenhagen!
Dear Dear OKC, get real.
History, my dear sir, history!
Bollox you mean, you should not believe everything you read in the Daily Heil
''You will never be happy with anything until you achieve independence.''
In a discussion Malcolm never makes a point without attaching a personal insult to the person he is addressing.
What an unpleasant individual he is.
Given some of the reports emerging of the conduct of the SNP and its supporters, Malcolm's attitude is hardly surprising.
I'm Welsh, and perfectly understand the patriotic (mainly sport-related) anti-Englishness. But there is a stark difference between patriotism and nationalism. As history proves.
LOL, idiot loses argument and whines like a big jessie. Supported by another sad loser, fenster and Taffy , two cheeks of the same whinging ARSE,
You may add me to that arse if you like. I remain baffled why being able to 'dish it out but also take it' is some point of pride, when we could just remain civil in the first place, or why getting angry at personal insults, reacting to those insults (with complaints rather than merely retaliation) means someone has 'lost' an argument. It's frankly bizarre.
But go ahead, call me a whinging loser idiot nancy idiot. (may as well be twice for good measure) That'll prove you are clearly the master debater. (bear in mind I thought Yes would win and think Scotland will be independent before too many years have passed, so I cannot be too much of an idiot, right)
LOL, you are not the full bawbee. If people are not civil to you it is not sensible to turn the other cheek , they just skelp that one as well. When you have whinging jessies posting rubbish they should be called out for the idiots they are.
PS: I have yet to see or even hear of a 3 cheeked arse but who knows.
Hang, on what does 'An NHS with the time to care' actually mean? I think a need a second slab giving the success and failure criteria on each of these points.
Awkward visuals this, probably not a bad idea to test it out when the papers will be full of royal coverage, see if it hits home. I know it will hit home in Tory quarters, but we all know how the polls have been reacting to things. Not at all.
It's lucky for Miliband he didn't carve his energy price freeze into stone. It would've been trickier for him to pretend he meant a 'cap' when the price fell.
It's not just about what happens "on Friday morning". It's about the Tories trying to increase the number of people who will vote for them in the election.
Propaganda (or advertising, as it's also known) is usually simple. Just look at the headlines (and it's them and the pictures that count most):
I WON'T FORM A LABOUR GOVERNMENT...if blah blah
NO LABOUR GOVERNMENT...if blah blah
You've got a negative there, and the words "Labour government". That's ideal propaganda for the Tory party, towards both the main market (floating voters) and the chatterer market.
Few care about the condition clause. They'll read "No Labour government" and they'll go out and vote Tory.
There will be similar headlines in the run-up to Thursday. Am I allowed to call the press biased, or will I get my bottom smacked?
The Lab leadership has very little clue. They could have seized control of the ideosphere after the indyref victory. Sadly they couldn't be bothered, or didn't understand the opportunity. Maybe they were too busy trying to be second-rate PR agents or pundits, with their minds full of the latest media talking-points and the latest pollster gossip, rather than any drive to act as political leaders with purpose and vision.
And now the Tories' greatest fantasy about Scotland has come true.
We will have pluralities of voters in both England and Scotland have voted for the main party whose leaders are incumbent in government office. Wow! Are people really so satisfied? No. They just don't know what they're doing, the poor sausages.
The SNP will have accomplished what they did in 1979 when they brought down the LAB government, ushering in the destruction of most that was positive in the country, and what the SDP-LIB alliance did in 1982, and indeed what the LD party did in 2010 - they will have kept LAB out of office.
I despise the Tory party, but it's quite accurate to call them the natural party of government in this country. For as long as almost anyone can remember, they have only ever been kicked out of office spectacularly - in 1945 and 1997 with huge groundswells of hope and support helping the Labour party; in 1964 when the Tory government was an obvious shambles and there'd clearly been a decision from up-top that it was time for a change (just look at the TV comedy of the time); and in 1974 when the miners kicked their backsides with huge popular support.
And for all the talk about front-runners falling at hedges and remember Portillo and Johnson on the sofa, Johnson went to Eton and he's likely to be handed the job. He's likely to be piped into it by Cameron.
"Rugby may be more clever, Harrow may make more row, But we'll row for ever, Steady from stroke to bow"
I take it you are talking about Portillo and [ Alan ] Johnson on the sofa and [ Boris ] Johnson went to Eton !
''You will never be happy with anything until you achieve independence.''
In a discussion Malcolm never makes a point without attaching a personal insult to the person he is addressing.
What an unpleasant individual he is.
Given some of the reports emerging of the conduct of the SNP and its supporters, Malcolm's attitude is hardly surprising.
I'm Welsh, and perfectly understand the patriotic (mainly sport-related) anti-Englishness. But there is a stark difference between patriotism and nationalism. As history proves.
LOL, idiot loses argument and whines like a big jessie. Supported by another sad loser, fenster and Taffy , two cheeks of the same whinging ARSE,
You may add me to that arse if you like. I remain baffled why being able to 'dish it out but also take it' is some point of pride, when we could just remain civil in the first place, or why getting angry at personal insults, reacting to those insults (with complaints rather than merely retaliation) means someone has 'lost' an argument. It's frankly bizarre.
But go ahead, call me a whinging loser idiot nancy idiot. (may as well be twice for good measure) That'll prove you are clearly the master debater. (bear in mind I thought Yes would win and think Scotland will be independent before too many years have passed, so I cannot be too much of an idiot, right)
LOL, you are not the full bawbee. If people are not civil to you it is not sensible to turn the other cheek , they just skelp that one as well. When you have whinging jessies posting rubbish they should be called out for the idiots they are. .
That stone is really the most ridiculous thing I have seen for a long while.
Whilst it adequately demonstrates Ed's weirdness anyone in any doubt should really only read what is on it. Ed thinks this will hold him to account?
What does "controls on immigration" mean? Does Ed think we don't have any? Even when the last Labour government was searching the world for potential immigrants we had controls, at least on paper.
What does "An NHS with time to care" mean? Is he saying the staff currently in the NHS don't care? Really?
"A stronger economic foundation". I give up.
"A country where the next generation can do better than the last." When did we last have a generation that did not achieve that derisory objective?
"Homes to buy and action on rent." "Action" Right. Like cutting HB which is artificially maintaining rent at an excessive level perhaps? Nah. You are going to need a Tory government for that.
It really is the most vacuous tosh I have ever seen a major political party present. And to set it in stone? A sense of humour is a good thing but only in its place.
Was at a mates 40th party last night.. Went out for a fag even though I don't smoke to avoid dancing... People talked politics
Small sample of 4... 3 voting Tory 1 undecided Tory or Ukip
Reasons... Have to keep out Ed Miliband because he is a joke
3 would vote Ukip but worry it would let in labour
By the end of it I had talked one of the definite Tories into voting Ukip instead
UKIP, fighting for votes on every front.
I hope they do well. This election seems to have papers on the left and right telling people that they know why people are disappointed and want to vote for UKIP/Greens/Whatever, and they even support that in principle, just...just not right now, ok? Too risky. UKIP seem likely to break through that in a few locations at least, which could provide a platform for better things (the Greens never had the same platform despite 1 MP).
My final take of the campaign... .....all in all pretty uninspiring.
Labour campaign started pretty well but then it went nowhere.
Conservative's start was mediocre (not fucusing on the stable economy message vs labour wild spending, making bizarre unfounded promises about NHS, Fallon's personal attacks at random) but then they found a story to hit home (the SNP deal) whose main effect has been pushing Miliband ruling out a deal.....if he needs one, people won't care if he meant a formal deal, a supply and confidence, something informal or whatever...
Clegg? Who?
SLAB....they pay the heavy price of having been lazy for years. When the tide turns, it turns heavely if you've taken people for granted. They could have made lots of conversations on the doorstep in recent months, problem is all those they didn't in the past. 2007 was a signal, they didn't take it. In 2010 they were saved by Gordon being Scottish. They thought "it is just Salmond. When he goes, it will be back to normal" only to be massacrated by Sturgeon. I have simpathy for their activists. Less so for the MPs who should have led SLAB to be more active and responsive on the ground instead of spending time whispering how crap their MSPs are (not that half of the partliamentary party is made up by those political genious....)
Predictions? Bridget Phillipson will be the first MP elected followed by Big Sharon.---then who knows....I won't make anyway, if I get them all wrong, I don't want eggs on my face. They are not chic!
Mr. Royale, you can actually judge a political pledge's worth by examining the contrary argument. If both are valid, then the original pledge is worth something. The classic right/left low taxes/high public spending argument would be one such example.
But when a politician says they want a fairer Britain, what's the bloody point of wasting breath on such nonsense? Who's going to stand up on stage and proclaim we have too much fairness?
Comments
Same would apply to your Scottish examples above, you cannot have your cake and eat it. If they do not like it then they should introduce a fair system so that English votes do not affect Scotland.
Also you have had a LibDem coalition government twice , once in Holyrood and once in UK.
I'm Welsh too, but have lived and prospered in England all my adult life.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11578416/Scots-are-in-for-a-shock-when-the-English-run-out-of-patience.html
@MrHarryCole: Last night I thought, how long before lefties try spin the moses jokes as anti-semitic. answer = 9 hours.
1. Labour, just like Gore in 2000, are allowing the conservatives to write the story. We've seen this already with the successful Sturgeon=bogeywoman spin which has disctated the terms of the second half of the campaign. Notice how the Tories and the Tory media managed this even though Sturgeon had only just been voted the darling of the undecided voters. Instead of facing this spin down, Ed got frit and caved in. Now we have the Tories proactively talking down the legitimacy of a Labour minority government and, again, Labour doing nothing to correct this narrative.
As it happens, even though the Tories can easily be accused of being the pot calling the kettle black, Labour are pushed into a corner here by the reality of the voting. The left-wing parties (excluding the LibDems ha ha) will muster less than 45% of the vote.
2. The LibDems will probably remain as the key to number 10. I don't think anyone will manage the magic 323 without them. Clearly there is irony there in that they're at their most powerful when they're at their weakest. Can it be business as usual for the LibDems during such a traumatic time for the party? I doubt it; and DUP+weak LD make for pretty tragic colleagues for a new Cameron government.
3. The Con-Lab-SNP love triangle. Despite all the rhetoric of the last few days, it's in no-one's interest to rock the boat too much after the election. The English Votes issue will putter on, but I expect it to be All Quiet on the Northern Front.
4. The People. What will people (not politicians) do after the election? There were rumblings after the last election, and they will probbaly be worse this time. What form will they take?
@MrHarryCole: This is funnier and my symbolic than when a car crashed in a Gordon Brown poster launch in 2010.
LABOUR 276
CONSERVATIVES 272
SNP 52
LIBERAL DEMOCRATS 24
OTHER 19
YouGov Forecast
CONSERVATIVES 283
LABOUR 261
SNP50
LIBERAL DEMOCRATS 32
OTHER 21
How are LD going to gain 8 further seats compared to now and if LAB are to not gain 15 seats 21 of which are now Conservative holds.
So LD suddenly losing 8 less how?
Cons to hold their seats and maybe take Gower?
Cant see Dave agreeing to that!
Con 34, Lab 35, LD 9, UKIP 12, Greens 5.
Note, the fieldwork ended on Thursday, so is not as up to date as the Sunday Times one.
http://bit.ly/1zFQwPI
The press should be all over this: sinking their teeth in to the simple extreme-weirdness of this, and it's smack of megalomania, and hubris.
The SNP are the one truly successful UK party at the moment. Sturgeon was excellent in the debates, Salmond was arguably the UK's best political leader before her and they are flying in Scotland. Fair play to them and their supporters.
But would it make any medium to long-term sense for Labour to do a handshake deal with the SNP and rely on them for votes? The answer to that is no.
1. His figures are crap, or
2. They are not crap BUT he is the expert who decides.
The Nowcast depending on when was "now" is what their model says just like electionforecast. The only material figure in it is the SNP score. This could range from 45 to 59.
electionforecast says C 278, L 271, SNP 50. Updated today.
And then I fall about laughing.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/594591413368676353
Was doing some knocking-up in Great Yarmouth yesterday with some GOTV for P's & Qs.
I know that people will say that you only see what you want to see but in this seaside town, the UKIP vote in the marginal wards of Bradwell and Caister [where the election will be determined] is evaporating.
A bus-load of FBU heavies up from London was doing likewise, but in the 'Labour' heartlands.
When I canvassed these areas last Autumn [during Clacton & Rochester], UKIP were ahead. So, today, UKIP has fallen-away dramatically.
So, the most recent Ashcroft just doesn't look like what I'm seeing on the ground. Yes there is _some_ UKIP but not in the bucket-loads that's being stated. UKIP does control seats on the local Council. Last year they took 10 of the 13 places up for grabs, equally as it turns out from Labour [5] and Conservatives [5]. So there are people who GENUINELY did vote for UKIP quite recently within the last 12 months in the borough.
We know polls adjust for past-vote-weighting.
I'm just wondering in a General [as opposed to borough or EU vote] whether this is distorting the past vote weighting so that the polls are showing UKIP performing more strongly in the General than they actually are by observable calibration on the ground.
If I'm right, then polls are methodogically over-stating UKIP. My thesis is that a past-vote weighting for a Borough or EU poll should not be confused with a past-vote weighting for the General. Yet it seems that they are.
Can those who look at these things more closely than me comment? Is there a methodology point here that might explain why the UKIP vote appears to be holding up on the polls more than we're seeing on the ground?
Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot
Whatever Ed lacks, I don't think it's ambition (whether that's personal or 'ambititon for the progressive, value-led ideals that will transform blah, blah').
Take the 4-1 on LibDems 11-20 seats
But I doubt Cameron will get the chance. I think that's probably just a consequence of the LDs being largely invisible You may add me to that arse if you like. I remain baffled why being able to 'dish it out but also take it' is some point of pride, when we could just remain civil in the first place, or why getting angry at personal insults, reacting to those insults (with complaints rather than merely retaliation) means someone has 'lost' an argument. It's frankly bizarre.
But go ahead, call me a whinging loser idiot nancy idiot. (may as well be twice for good measure) That'll prove you are clearly the master debater. (bear in mind I thought Yes would win and think Scotland will be independent before too many years have passed, so I cannot be too much of an idiot, right)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-pollsters-predict-a-tory-lead--but-a-miliband-government-10221488.html
- **goes back to ELBOW drawing board**
1. Tory + Lib Dems + DUP/UP + maybe UKIP: - Tory lead in seats and just enough support from the other parties to limp over the finish line in a supply and confidence deal. Likely to be a very bumpy ride trying to please everybody. Lib Dems won't enjoy having to compete with DUP and UKIP for influence and could pull the plug mid - parliament.
2. (What I think is actually most likely): Tory minority with Labour/Tories trying to find consensus in an unofficial confidence and supply arrangement. Basically, Tories get most seats and Labour abstain on a Tory Queen's speech. What happens then is essentially an arrangement where both large parties try to find consensus, with a lot of brinkmanship and game - playing going on at the sidelines, of course. I imagine Labour would vote through a cuts - lite budget so long as there was a bone thrown to them, but at the same time with the Tories in power there'll be no risk of a mega spending spree. I get the feeling this arrangement would actually work better than both major parties would care to admit. Whether the Parliament would last the full 5 years is another matter (could imagine Tories daring Labour to vote down an EU referendum, for instance). Could lead to party splits, UKIP defections, Lib Dems improving their position, SNP continuing their ascendancy, but would be a very interesting time for politics watchers indeed.
But it is not Cameron's call. If Cameron fails to win the confidence of the House, he has to resign, regardless of whether or not it is clear to him that Miliband would get enough votes to pass a Queen's Speech. He could say to the Queen "I don't think the other fellow has the confidence of the House. We must have an immediate election." I think the Queen would be duty bound not just to take Cameron's word for it but to give Miliband the opportunity of demonstrating he has the confidence of the House - even without a specific deal with SNP.
A BETTER PLAN
A BETTER FUTURE
Just the thing for Political Betting?
Propaganda (or advertising, as it's also known) is usually simple. Just look at the headlines (and it's them and the pictures that count most):
I WON'T FORM A LABOUR GOVERNMENT...if blah blah
NO LABOUR GOVERNMENT...if blah blah
You've got a negative there, and the words "Labour government". That's ideal propaganda for the Tory party, towards both the main market (floating voters) and the chatterer market.
Few care about the condition clause. They'll read "No Labour government" and they'll go out and vote Tory.
There will be similar headlines in the run-up to Thursday. Am I allowed to call the press biased, or will I get my bottom smacked?
The Lab leadership has very little clue. They could have seized control of the ideosphere after the indyref victory. Sadly they couldn't be bothered, or didn't understand the opportunity. Maybe they were too busy trying to be second-rate PR agents or pundits, with their minds full of the latest media talking-points and the latest pollster gossip, rather than any drive to act as political leaders with purpose and vision.
And now the Tories' greatest fantasy about Scotland has come true.
We will have pluralities of voters in both England and Scotland have voted for the main party whose leaders are incumbent in government office. Wow! Are people really so satisfied? No. They just don't know what they're doing, the poor sausages.
The SNP will have accomplished what they did in 1979 when they brought down the LAB government, ushering in the destruction of most that was positive in the country, and what the SDP-LIB alliance did in 1982, and indeed what the LD party did in 2010 - they will have kept LAB out of office.
I despise the Tory party, but it's quite accurate to call them the natural party of government in this country. For as long as almost anyone can remember, they have only ever been kicked out of office spectacularly - in 1945 and 1997 with huge groundswells of hope and support helping the Labour party; in 1964 when the Tory government was an obvious shambles and there'd clearly been a decision from up-top that it was time for a change (just look at the TV comedy of the time); and in 1974 when the miners kicked their backsides with huge popular support.
None of those conditions pertain now. The Tories won't go with a whimper. They never go with a whimper.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if there's a Tory absolute majority.
And for all the talk about front-runners falling at hedges and remember Portillo and Johnson on the sofa, Johnson went to Eton and he's likely to be handed the job. He's likely to be piped into it by Cameron.
"Rugby may be more clever,
Harrow may make more row,
But we'll row for ever,
Steady from stroke to bow"
Whilst it adequately demonstrates Ed's weirdness anyone in any doubt should really only read what is on it. Ed thinks this will hold him to account?
What does "controls on immigration" mean? Does Ed think we don't have any? Even when the last Labour government was searching the world for potential immigrants we had controls, at least on paper.
What does "An NHS with time to care" mean? Is he saying the staff currently in the NHS don't care? Really?
"A stronger economic foundation". I give up.
"A country where the next generation can do better than the last." When did we last have a generation that did not achieve that derisory objective?
"Homes to buy and action on rent." "Action" Right. Like cutting HB which is artificially maintaining rent at an excessive level perhaps? Nah. You are going to need a Tory government for that.
It really is the most vacuous tosh I have ever seen a major political party present. And to set it in stone? A sense of humour is a good thing but only in its place.
PS: I have yet to see or even hear of a 3 cheeked arse but who knows.
Awkward visuals this, probably not a bad idea to test it out when the papers will be full of royal coverage, see if it hits home. I know it will hit home in Tory quarters, but we all know how the polls have been reacting to things. Not at all.
Small sample of 4... 3 voting Tory 1 undecided Tory or Ukip
Reasons... Have to keep out Ed Miliband because he is a joke
3 would vote Ukip but worry it would let in labour
By the end of it I had talked one of the definite Tories into voting Ukip instead
#EdStone
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/594787141273649152
"An NHS with the time to care", eh? What does success actually look like on that, Ed? How do you MEASURE it?
"A girlfriend who listens to you"
"A car that never disappoints"
"A lawn we can all be proud of"
Meaningless trite guff. But oh so ripe for satire.
Ahem.
I hope they do well. This election seems to have papers on the left and right telling people that they know why people are disappointed and want to vote for UKIP/Greens/Whatever, and they even support that in principle, just...just not right now, ok? Too risky. UKIP seem likely to break through that in a few locations at least, which could provide a platform for better things (the Greens never had the same platform despite 1 MP).
.....all in all pretty uninspiring.
Labour campaign started pretty well but then it went nowhere.
Conservative's start was mediocre (not fucusing on the stable economy message vs labour wild spending, making bizarre unfounded promises about NHS, Fallon's personal attacks at random) but then they found a story to hit home (the SNP deal) whose main effect has been pushing Miliband ruling out a deal.....if he needs one, people won't care if he meant a formal deal, a supply and confidence, something informal or whatever...
Clegg? Who?
SLAB....they pay the heavy price of having been lazy for years. When the tide turns, it turns heavely if you've taken people for granted. They could have made lots of conversations on the doorstep in recent months, problem is all those they didn't in the past. 2007 was a signal, they didn't take it. In 2010 they were saved by Gordon being Scottish. They thought "it is just Salmond. When he goes, it will be back to normal" only to be massacrated by Sturgeon.
I have simpathy for their activists. Less so for the MPs who should have led SLAB to be more active and responsive on the ground instead of spending time whispering how crap their MSPs are (not that half of the partliamentary party is made up by those political genious....)
Predictions? Bridget Phillipson will be the first MP elected followed by Big Sharon.---then who knows....I won't make anyway, if I get them all wrong, I don't want eggs on my face. They are not chic!
But when a politician says they want a fairer Britain, what's the bloody point of wasting breath on such nonsense? Who's going to stand up on stage and proclaim we have too much fairness?