Trouble is, even if Con, UKIP, DUP, and LD are 327 altogether, the LDs have said they won't enter coalition with either the DUP or UKIP, and apparently according to Sam Coates, Clegg doesn't want confidence and supply, either as the LDs would still be in opposition.
So......
The thing is neither the DUP or UKIP would have enough MPs to provide ministers or be a part of the coalition. In that scenario it'd be a formal Con+LD coalition with DUP and UKIP confidence and supply. Probably would get through to 2017 and then a new election.
Tbh, I agree with the PBTories that it would be suicide for Labour to try to form a minority government if they're WAY behind the Tories on seats,
Tbh, I still don't see what would be so bad about allowing the Tories to have a super-minority government. Most Labour people don't have such an irrational hatred of the Tories that they're depserate for them as people to be gotten rid of, we just want them stripped of their power to do more nasty things. In a super-hung parliament Labour would get an absolute veto in parliament over anything the Tories propose (including any further austerity). They could even pass votes of no confidence in individual ministers like Osborne and IDS.
Big news in the last 24 hours: Professor John Curtis predicting Con, LD, DUP and UKIP to win 327 seats.
DUP are far more likely to back Labour than the Tories.
It shows a distinct and fundamental mis-understanding of NI politics and a complete ignorance to believe the DUP are naturally aligned to the Conservatives. It is their differences to the Conservatives that allowed them to completely take over NI politics from the UUP.
Good Friday and Religion helped them. But it was their left-wing Socialism politics which made this stick.
God, you're hilarious. The DUP will back the highest bidder if they are lucky enough to find themselves in a bidding war.
EVEL is a red line for DUP. Welfare cuts are a red line for DUP.
The DUP will not back to Tories on May 8th despite what #BBCbias tells you.
As an aside, I suspect if the LibDems lose all their Scottish seats, then they will also lose their opposition to EV4EL.
Whatever rump is left of the Liberals, their 5 MSPs maybe an MP and their party hierarchy will be telling Lib Dem HQ that they can definitely win everything back in 2020. Obviously, Lib Dem HQ could tell them their deluded but it might be attractive for the Lib Dem leadership to pretend its true (and believe it of the seats they're losing in England).
They won't drop opposition to EVEL this year. They might if they are reduced to 2 MSPs in 2016 and probably will in 2020 when they get nothing back.
Trouble is, even if Con, UKIP, DUP, and LD are 327 altogether, the LDs have said they won't enter coalition with either the DUP or UKIP, and apparently according to Sam Coates, Clegg doesn't want confidence and supply, either as the LDs would still be in opposition.
So......
The thing is neither the DUP or UKIP would have enough MPs to provide ministers or be a part of the coalition. In that scenario it'd be a formal Con+LD coalition with DUP and UKIP confidence and supply. Probably would get through to 2017 and then a new election.
Trouble is, even if Con, UKIP, DUP, and LD are 327 altogether, the LDs have said they won't enter coalition with either the DUP or UKIP, and apparently according to Sam Coates, Clegg doesn't want confidence and supply, either as the LDs would still be in opposition.
So......
The thing is neither the DUP or UKIP would have enough MPs to provide ministers or be a part of the coalition. In that scenario it'd be a formal Con+LD coalition with DUP and UKIP confidence and supply. Probably would get through to 2017 and then a new election.
What's in it for UKIP and DUP ?
How about this from the DUP manifesto:
" A feasibility study into a tunnel or enclosed bridge across the North Channel from Larne to the Scottish coastline."
With interest rates so low we'd be mad not to build one!
do we think there will be a fair few contentious counts still going through Friday?
Edmund, to answer the question about count times, according to this (slightly incomplete) record of 2010 election, there were 33 counts that declared at midday Friday or later, against the PA prediction of 22. One election was postponed. http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge10/dec.htm
The variables this time will be any local elections getting in the way (or not), and anywhere where several recounts are needed. It's not unheard of for the counters to get so tired recounting they adjourn until the morning and recount after sleep and coffee!
I guess the leaders will have a pretty good idea before breakfast where the numbers are, but with a couple of seats either way potentially making a big difference to the outcome, maybe they will sit on their hands until after lunch.
Personally I think though the thing is presentationally dreadful, the main disaster is the dire lack of ambition and equivocation of all the 'pledges'. Like they actually aimed to have nothing on the stone that they could be measured on, which defeats the entire purpose.
'What about "an NHS with time to care"?'
That brings to mind lingering in hospitals, waiting for treatment whilst drinking stagnant water from flower vases.
The sheer hubris of Labour supporters on this website is a joy to behold today. Enjoying their Sheffield moment whilst doing a victory dance around Ed's meaningless pledges on a gravestone. I'd love to meet the bell end who thought up that idea.
A Birthday Weekend in the Cyclefree household as one of the Master Cyclefrees celebrates.
Also we saw the new Far from the Madding Crowd film which was lovely. Mind you, given how gorgeous Gabriel Oak is Bathsheba must have been blind to prefer Troy to him or even to the Boldwood as played by the heartbreaking Michael Sheen.
So have not been paying much attention to politics.
DavidL's post on an earlier thread is spot on. If you're Unionist you cannot deny the SNP the right to form part of the government if the numbers stack up. Unionists cannot have their cake and eat it.
However, my point is that while that is correct from a legal and constitutional perspective I wonder whether the politics of it will play out like that. It seems odd that the second-placed party should form a government, especially when added to the fact that SNP MPs can vote on taxes affecting E&W when English MPs cannot do the same for taxes affecting Scotland. That imbalance risks, in time, causing real political issues for a government.
Also if Labour lose Scotland and come second in seats in E&W it is hard to see them as winners. Such a result is pretty awful for any party. They could end up being in office but not in power. to coin a phrase.
Big news in the last 24 hours: Professor John Curtis predicting Con, LD, DUP and UKIP to win 327 seats.
DUP are far more likely to back Labour than the Tories.
It shows a distinct and fundamental mis-understanding of NI politics and a complete ignorance to believe the DUP are naturally aligned to the Conservatives. It is their differences to the Conservatives that allowed them to completely take over NI politics from the UUP.
Good Friday and Religion helped them. But it was their left-wing Socialism politics which made this stick.
God, you're hilarious. The DUP will back the highest bidder if they are lucky enough to find themselves in a bidding war.
EVEL is a red line for DUP. Welfare cuts are a red line for DUP.
The DUP will not back to Tories on May 8th despite what #BBCbias tells you.
As an aside, I suspect if the LibDems lose all their Scottish seats, then they will also lose their opposition to EV4EL.
Good point! The Lib Dems are more likely to be the only party to hold the balance of power in an English Westminster. They only have 3 Welsh MPs too, much less than Labour or the Tories.
Trouble is, even if Con, UKIP, DUP, and LD are 327 altogether, the LDs have said they won't enter coalition with either the DUP or UKIP, and apparently according to Sam Coates, Clegg doesn't want confidence and supply, either as the LDs would still be in opposition.
So......
The thing is neither the DUP or UKIP would have enough MPs to provide ministers or be a part of the coalition. In that scenario it'd be a formal Con+LD coalition with DUP and UKIP confidence and supply. Probably would get through to 2017 and then a new election.
The LDs have also said they'd rule out any arrangements with UKIP (and as a result, you'd think it'd be the same with the DUP). I also don't see the LDs voting for a coalition either way - a Con-Lib coalition again simply is unlikely to offer anything for them, that the Conservatives will accept. I cannot see the Tory Right for example seriously accepting LD powers to veto budgets and so on. The one area it's looking like the Conservatives will have to concede on is welfare cuts; both LDs and DUP have them as red lines.
Stick to your side of the North Channel. Neither EVEL nor welfare get a mention in the main bullet points the DUP themselves chose to highlight from their manifesto. The DUP are actively campaigning for votes on the back of getting the best possible deal for Northern Ireland. Refusing to deal with the party most likely to give them it would clearly be bonkers. But then you do hold quite a few bonkers opinions on NI politics.
Dodds has already made public declarations on Bedroom Tax and EVEL.
Admittedly it is very advantageous for the DUP to have the English media and the Westminster bubble think there is a possiblity of them backing the Tories (or even better a very high probability) as it lets them extract the maximum possible pork from Labour when Labour are really their only choice.
Clearly your "green" facade is slipping and your true allegiance becoming clear.
Tbh, I agree with the PBTories that it would be suicide for Labour to try to form a minority government if they're WAY behind the Tories on seats,
Tbh, I still don't see what would be so bad about allowing the Tories to have a super-minority government. Most Labour people don't have such an irrational hatred of the Tories that they're depserate for them as people to be gotten rid of, we just want them stripped of their power to do more nasty things. In a super-hung parliament Labour would get an absolute veto in parliament over anything the Tories propose (including any further austerity). They could even pass votes of no confidence in individual ministers like Osborne and IDS.
Unfortunately, by not allowing the Tories to do silly things, the Tories will get more popular. A moderate government is what people like whatever party loyalists think.
In fact, that is precisely my hope. Minority Labour government making sure no bill is voted down - only put forward popular items like 50% HRT, 10% starting rate of tax, scrapping of the Bedroom tax which will receive support from Parliament.
If economic growth continues, deficit comes down further as a result, Labour gets more popular.
The Sunday Mail has rather grudgingly come out for the SNP:
" Nicola Sturgeon, tireless and talented, deserves the opportunity to show that her party and her MPs can take on that responsibility and responsibly speak for all Scots at Westminster ".
They have concluded that SLAB needs to be completely levelled before it can be rebuilt into a real party. It will be interesting to see how the Daily Record plays things tomorrow, I think they will endorse a Labour Government but will point out that SLAB are done for in Scotland so folks might as well vote SNP.
I wonder if there has been some drastic editing of the Brand..Miliband int..Taking out the bit where Russ says..How about carving it into stone mate....
Does the Queen have to invite someone to form the government, even if it a continuation of the old one?
For all the discussion on the constitutional processes over the past few days on here, the consensus was that Dave remains PM and the government in place until he goes to the Queen to resign. If he doesn't resign then his government will deliver the Queen's Speech, I don't see where in that process the Queen asks him to form a government? Too ambiguous, no bet.
Correct. It is not usual for a PM who continues merrily in office to seek an audience merely because he has been re-elected at the polls.
If the nature of the government were to change significantly, however, with or without an election, it would be proper to resign and be re-appointed, as MacDonald was in August 1931.
I might be imagining it, but I seem to remember Blair going to the Palace after he was reelected in 2001. If I remember it rightly she insisted that he got there early as she had a horse running in the Oaks and she wanted to go to Epsom to watch it.
Does the Queen have to invite someone to form the government, even if it a continuation of the old one?
For all the discussion on the constitutional processes over the past few days on here, the consensus was that Dave remains PM and the government in place until he goes to the Queen to resign. If he doesn't resign then his government will deliver the Queen's Speech, I don't see where in that process the Queen asks him to form a government? Too ambiguous, no bet.
Correct. It is not usual for a PM who continues merrily in office to seek an audience merely because he has been re-elected at the polls.
If the nature of the government were to change significantly, however, with or without an election, it would be proper to resign and be re-appointed, as MacDonald was in August 1931.
Thanks Rod for the reply.
An interesting couple of weeks awaits, with probably some constitutional firsts thrown in for good measure!
Trouble is, even if Con, UKIP, DUP, and LD are 327 altogether, the LDs have said they won't enter coalition with either the DUP or UKIP, and apparently according to Sam Coates, Clegg doesn't want confidence and supply, either as the LDs would still be in opposition.
So......
The thing is neither the DUP or UKIP would have enough MPs to provide ministers or be a part of the coalition. In that scenario it'd be a formal Con+LD coalition with DUP and UKIP confidence and supply. Probably would get through to 2017 and then a new election.
The LDs have also said they'd rule out any arrangements with UKIP (and as a result, you'd think it'd be the same with the DUP). I also don't see the LDs voting for a coalition either way - a Con-Lib coalition again simply is unlikely to offer anything for them, that the Conservatives will accept. I cannot see the Tory Right for example seriously accepting LD powers to veto budgets and so on. The one area it's looking like the Conservatives will have to concede on is welfare cuts; both LDs and DUP have them as red lines.
The Tory right aren't crazy, give them more credit than that. They'll understand that's how the public have voted. They may grumble and be unhappy, but if that's the way it is then that's the way it is. If Con+LD is the stable coalition that has the numbers then like in 2010 that's what the result will be. If those add to 327 then other than a rainbow coalition of the losers (which will be rejected for the same reason it was in 2010) it's the only outcome.
Trouble is, even if Con, UKIP, DUP, and LD are 327 altogether, the LDs have said they won't enter coalition with either the DUP or UKIP, and apparently according to Sam Coates, Clegg doesn't want confidence and supply, either as the LDs would still be in opposition.
So......
The thing is neither the DUP or UKIP would have enough MPs to provide ministers or be a part of the coalition. In that scenario it'd be a formal Con+LD coalition with DUP and UKIP confidence and supply. Probably would get through to 2017 and then a new election.
Trouble is, even if Con, UKIP, DUP, and LD are 327 altogether, the LDs have said they won't enter coalition with either the DUP or UKIP, and apparently according to Sam Coates, Clegg doesn't want confidence and supply, either as the LDs would still be in opposition.
So......
The thing is neither the DUP or UKIP would have enough MPs to provide ministers or be a part of the coalition. In that scenario it'd be a formal Con+LD coalition with DUP and UKIP confidence and supply. Probably would get through to 2017 and then a new election.
What's in it for UKIP and DUP ?
How about this from the DUP manifesto:
" A feasibility study into a tunnel or enclosed bridge across the North Channel from Larne to the Scottish coastline."
With interest rates so low we'd be mad not to build one!
As much as it would be useful, my understanding is that drilling through hard rock is some magnitude more expensive than, for example, the soft clay the Chunnel was dug from.
Tbh, I agree with the PBTories that it would be suicide for Labour to try to form a minority government if they're WAY behind the Tories on seats,
Tbh, I still don't see what would be so bad about allowing the Tories to have a super-minority government. Most Labour people don't have such an irrational hatred of the Tories that they're depserate for them as people to be gotten rid of, we just want them stripped of their power to do more nasty things. In a super-hung parliament Labour would get an absolute veto in parliament over anything the Tories propose (including any further austerity). They could even pass votes of no confidence in individual ministers like Osborne and IDS.
Unfortunately, by not allowing the Tories to do silly things, the Tories will get more popular. A moderate government is what people like whatever party loyalists think.
In fact, that is precisely my hope. Minority Labour government making sure no bill is voted down - only put forward popular items like 50% HRT, 10% starting rate of tax, scrapping of the Bedroom tax which will receive support from Parliament.
If economic growth continues, deficit comes down further as a result, Labour gets more popular.
Really? I can't see a lame-duck government who can't anything done suddenly becoming popular as a result. If anything, such as scenario looks disastrous for any party; bringing out divisions, backbenchers who will take the opportunity to assert their agenda etc.
Stick to your side of the North Channel. Neither EVEL nor welfare get a mention in the main bullet points the DUP themselves chose to highlight from their manifesto. The DUP are actively campaigning for votes on the back of getting the best possible deal for Northern Ireland. Refusing to deal with the party most likely to give them it would clearly be bonkers. But then you do hold quite a few bonkers opinions on NI politics.
Dodds has already made public declarations on Bedroom Tax and EVEL.
Admittedly it is very advantageous for the DUP to have the English media and the Westminster bubble think there is a possiblity of them backing the Tories (or even better a very high probability) as it lets them extract the maximum possible pork from Labour when Labour are really their only choice.
Clearly your "green" facade is slipping and your true allegiance becoming clear.
Tbh, I agree with the PBTories that it would be suicide for Labour to try to form a minority government if they're WAY behind the Tories on seats,
Tbh, I still don't see what would be so bad about allowing the Tories to have a super-minority government. Most Labour people don't have such an irrational hatred of the Tories that they're depserate for them as people to be gotten rid of, we just want them stripped of their power to do more nasty things. In a super-hung parliament Labour would get an absolute veto in parliament over anything the Tories propose (including any further austerity). They could even pass votes of no confidence in individual ministers like Osborne and IDS.
Unfortunately, by not allowing the Tories to do silly things, the Tories will get more popular. A moderate government is what people like whatever party loyalists think.
OK but so what? At the end of the day, I want poor people to get a fair deal. If that comes through the Tories caring about poor people more (rather than clinging to the extreme-right austerity ideology), and the price of that is that the Tories get more popular then so be it; at the end of the day, we would still get the end results in policies that I think are best for the country. I want social-democratic/centre-left policies irrespective of which party they come from, I don't just want a Labour government over a Tory government for its own sake.
The Sunday Mail has rather grudgingly come out for the SNP:
" Nicola Sturgeon, tireless and talented, deserves the opportunity to show that her party and her MPs can take on that responsibility and responsibly speak for all Scots at Westminster ".
They have concluded that SLAB needs to be completely levelled before it can be rebuilt into a real party. It will be interesting to see how the Daily Record plays things tomorrow, I think they will endorse a Labour Government but will point out that SLAB are done for in Scotland so folks might as well vote SNP.
So the Torygraph and Steven Swinford, Deputy Political Editor, were lying when he wrote the above
This is Nigel's actual statement: “When it comes to entertainment, the BBC should be proud of its ‘crown jewels’ such as Strictly Come Dancing and dramas such as Dr Who. They have become valuable global brands as well as programmes hugely appreciated by British audiences."
do we think there will be a fair few contentious counts still going through Friday?
Edmund, to answer the question about count times, according to this (slightly incomplete) record of 2010 election, there were 33 counts that declared at midday Friday or later, against the PA prediction of 22. One election was postponed. http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge10/dec.htm
The variables this time will be any local elections getting in the way (or not), and anywhere where several recounts are needed. It's not unheard of for the counters to get so tired recounting they adjourn until the morning and recount after sleep and coffee!
I guess the leaders will have a pretty good idea before breakfast where the numbers are, but with a couple of seats either way potentially making a big difference to the outcome, maybe they will sit on their hands until after lunch.
Thanks, so it sounds like Dave can tidy the thing up Friday and get the whole weekend off if he doesn't have the numbers.
Yes some shockingly bad predix from other regular pb-ers (excluding antifrank, who claims he did it deliberately, and the Nats, who can be forgiven bias?), Easterross, Rod Crosby and Morris Dancer were all wildly out.
If you're playing a prediction competition to win then you also have to consider the number of other predictions close to yours, so it can be worth going a long way out from the most likely result if that results in you winning on a wider band of outcomes.
It doesn't work like that though. If you move further away from where the bulk of entries are, you are (probably) further away from the likely correct result.
What you gain from the lower number of entries in an area, you lose from the lower chance of being right.
Does anyone have a link to the current NoJam predictions? I am struggling to find it.
Tbh, I agree with the PBTories that it would be suicide for Labour to try to form a minority government if they're WAY behind the Tories on seats,
Tbh, I still don't see what would be so bad about allowing the Tories to have a super-minority government. Most Labour people don't have such an irrational hatred of the Tories that they're depserate for them as people to be gotten rid of, we just want them stripped of their power to do more nasty things. In a super-hung parliament Labour would get an absolute veto in parliament over anything the Tories propose (including any further austerity). They could even pass votes of no confidence in individual ministers like Osborne and IDS.
Unfortunately, by not allowing the Tories to do silly things, the Tories will get more popular. A moderate government is what people like whatever party loyalists think.
In fact, that is precisely my hope. Minority Labour government making sure no bill is voted down - only put forward popular items like 50% HRT, 10% starting rate of tax, scrapping of the Bedroom tax which will receive support from Parliament.
If economic growth continues, deficit comes down further as a result, Labour gets more popular.
Really? I can't see a lame-duck government who can't anything done suddenly becoming popular as a result. If anything, such as scenario looks disastrous for any party; bringing out divisions, backbenchers who will take the opportunity to assert their agenda etc.
People like governments which does middle of the road stuff - whatever people themselves say. That is why occupying centre ground is the answer to get re-elected.
I didn't like Tony Blair - but he knew how to win elections.
For all this talk on the "Bedroom Tax", did not a poll at the time which actually explained the change, find that support for ending the spare room subsidy for council housing was in the order of 75%??
For every family over-occupying social housing, there are more that are crammed in to small apartments and expensive bedsits. There is also the principle that people who pay for their own housing cannot often afford a guest room, especially in the larger cities such as London.
Very well played politics by the Left on this one, much like the "Pasty Tax". Shame as usual about their economics.
Tbh, I agree with the PBTories that it would be suicide for Labour to try to form a minority government if they're WAY behind the Tories on seats,
Tbh, I still don't see what would be so bad about allowing the Tories to have a super-minority government. Most Labour people don't have such an irrational hatred of the Tories that they're depserate for them as people to be gotten rid of, we just want them stripped of their power to do more nasty things. In a super-hung parliament Labour would get an absolute veto in parliament over anything the Tories propose (including any further austerity). They could even pass votes of no confidence in individual ministers like Osborne and IDS.
Yep, I could happily live with a Tory-led government that was unable to implement Tory policy. The added bonus would be that the Tory right would find it totally intolerable, with all the fun and games that would lead to.
Tbh, I agree with the PBTories that it would be suicide for Labour to try to form a minority government if they're WAY behind the Tories on seats,
Tbh, I still don't see what would be so bad about allowing the Tories to have a super-minority government. Most Labour people don't have such an irrational hatred of the Tories that they're depserate for them as people to be gotten rid of, we just want them stripped of their power to do more nasty things. In a super-hung parliament Labour would get an absolute veto in parliament over anything the Tories propose (including any further austerity). They could even pass votes of no confidence in individual ministers like Osborne and IDS.
Yep, I could happily live with a Tory-led government that was unable to implement Tory policy. The added bonus would be that the Tory right would find it totally intolerable, with all the fun and games that would lead to.
At the end of the day, there has been no exodus from the Conservative Party under the coalition.
Tbh, I agree with the PBTories that it would be suicide for Labour to try to form a minority government if they're WAY behind the Tories on seats,
Tbh, I still don't see what would be so bad about allowing the Tories to have a super-minority government. Most Labour people don't have such an irrational hatred of the Tories that they're depserate for them as people to be gotten rid of, we just want them stripped of their power to do more nasty things. In a super-hung parliament Labour would get an absolute veto in parliament over anything the Tories propose (including any further austerity). They could even pass votes of no confidence in individual ministers like Osborne and IDS.
Yep, I could happily live with a Tory-led government that was unable to implement Tory policy. The added bonus would be that the Tory right would find it totally intolerable, with all the fun and games that would lead to.
That's the mirror image of how I feel about the Ed becoming PM.
Tbh, I agree with the PBTories that it would be suicide for Labour to try to form a minority government if they're WAY behind the Tories on seats,
Tbh, I still don't see what would be so bad about allowing the Tories to have a super-minority government. Most Labour people don't have such an irrational hatred of the Tories that they're depserate for them as people to be gotten rid of, we just want them stripped of their power to do more nasty things. In a super-hung parliament Labour would get an absolute veto in parliament over anything the Tories propose (including any further austerity). They could even pass votes of no confidence in individual ministers like Osborne and IDS.
Yep, I could happily live with a Tory-led government that was unable to implement Tory policy. The added bonus would be that the Tory right would find it totally intolerable, with all the fun and games that would lead to.
At the end of the day, there has been no exodus from the Conservative Party under the coalition.
You are right. Two MPs defecting does not constitute exodus - it is normal.
DavidL's post on an earlier thread is spot on. If you're Unionist you cannot deny the SNP the right to form part of the government if the numbers stack up. Unionists cannot have their cake and eat it.
However, my point is that while that is correct from a legal and constitutional perspective I wonder whether the politics of it will play out like that. It seems odd that the second-placed party should form a government, especially when added to the fact that SNP MPs can vote on taxes affecting E&W when English MPs cannot do the same for taxes affecting Scotland. That imbalance risks, in time, causing real political issues for a government.
Also if Labour lose Scotland and come second in seats in E&W it is hard to see them as winners. Such a result is pretty awful for any party. They could end up being in office but not in power. to coin a phrase.
You're right that it can't work out the way that Unionists want.
Because fundamentally the English Attitude to Scotland is NOT Unionist - it is Paternalist. It is the same attitude that STILL thinks the British Empire was "good for India" despite the impact it had on one of the wealthiest nations on earth being reduced to poverty and how much it was held back for generations despite significant scientific and technical advantages.
Paternalists do not view their colony as equal, they view the people are inferior "children" to be cared for. Anything they do is to the benefit of the "child" regardless of actual outcome. And it always "helps the child".
Fundamental problems are created as soon as the "child" "grows up" and demands to be treated as an equal. It is absolutely impossible for the Paternalist to accept this. It is why France kept so much of its colonial Empire as integral parts of France (its basis as a Republic of Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité meant it was Unionist not Paternalist in nature). England's elite do not share this sentiment, it cannot accept equality, it's why all the economically viable territories (i.e. not micro-states) left.
It's why the SNP having a controlling hand in Westminster is so unthinkable to Paternalists and why it must, inevitably, lead to dissolution of the UK.
do we think there will be a fair few contentious counts still going through Friday?
Edmund, to answer the question about count times, according to this (slightly incomplete) record of 2010 election, there were 33 counts that declared at midday Friday or later, against the PA prediction of 22. One election was postponed. http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge10/dec.htm
The variables this time will be any local elections getting in the way (or not), and anywhere where several recounts are needed. It's not unheard of for the counters to get so tired recounting they adjourn until the morning and recount after sleep and coffee!
I guess the leaders will have a pretty good idea before breakfast where the numbers are, but with a couple of seats either way potentially making a big difference to the outcome, maybe they will sit on their hands until after lunch.
Thanks, so it sounds like Dave can tidy the thing up Friday and get the whole weekend off if he doesn't have the numbers.
Quite possibly.
Memories return of a visibly relieved John Major watching the cricket at the Oval on Friday afternoon in 1997.
Personally I think though the thing is presentationally dreadful, the main disaster is the dire lack of ambition and equivocation of all the 'pledges'. Like they actually aimed to have nothing on the stone that they could be measured on, which defeats the entire purpose.
It's naff and deserves plenty of piss taking, but I'm not sure I'd describe it as a disaster. I can't see it swaying many votes. Lots and lots of people have shared the pledges, which was presumably one aim of the stunt.
The Seven Mile Bridge is a famous bridge in the Florida Keys, in Monroe County, Florida, United States. It connects Knight's Key (part of the city of Marathon, Florida) in the Middle Keys to Little Duck Key in the Lower Keys. Among the longest bridges in existence when it was built, it is one of the many bridges on US 1 in the Keys, where the road is called the Overseas Highway.
There are two bridges in this location. The older bridge, originally known as the Knights Key-Pigeon Key-Moser Channel-Pacet Channel Bridge, was constructed from 1909 to 1912 under the direction of Henry Flagler as part of the Florida East Coast Railway's Key West Extension, also known as the Overseas Railroad.
All the other tables have been published so hopefully we should see this one shortly, the sceptical among us might suspect that there's been some jiggery pokery going on, by that I mean some spiral of silence adjustments to keep Unionist hopes up.
The Seven Mile Bridge is a famous bridge in the Florida Keys, in Monroe County, Florida, United States. It connects Knight's Key (part of the city of Marathon, Florida) in the Middle Keys to Little Duck Key in the Lower Keys. Among the longest bridges in existence when it was built, it is one of the many bridges on US 1 in the Keys, where the road is called the Overseas Highway.
There are two bridges in this location. The older bridge, originally known as the Knights Key-Pigeon Key-Moser Channel-Pacet Channel Bridge, was constructed from 1909 to 1912 under the direction of Henry Flagler as part of the Florida East Coast Railway's Key West Extension, also known as the Overseas Railroad.
@SouthamObserver Leave our blue friends with their comfort blankets. This has been a traumatic time for them as they realize the enormous majority was only ever a pipe dream. Compassion is possible, even in politics.
"Roger, proposing that the anti-aids COI campaign was an example of "a Tory government who couldn't spend enough on TV trying to get themselves re elected" is a disgusting and inaccurate assertion."
I thought the AD was very effective. In fact TBWA were one of my best clients. But that has nothing to do with the proliferation of COI ads immediately before the '87 and '92 General Elections.
You could hardly get TV time for privatizations and other COI ads. Agencies were queuing up to get their snouts into the trough.
Throughout the 80's they were almost certainly the largest spender on TV and there wasn't the slightest doubt that the use of public money for pet government projects before elections was political chicanery worthy of Putin.
That the Aids one was worthwhile didn't excuse the plethora that were just political
@Philip Thompson I'd argue the Conservative Right are crazy - I don't see them simply accepting anything to stay in power, they'd much prefer a Tory minority government where they can more easily exert their influence. Looking at the polls/projections a Con-Lib coalition won't have the numbers it did in 2010 - it'll be just short of a majority by about 10 seats, and so quite vulnerable to rebellious LDs and Conservatives in any case. I think you're underestimating that things have changed since 2010. The LDs have seen the very hard political price they've had to pay for being in coalition with the Conservatives, and as a result are far more weary, and cautious of entering into such an arrangement than before. Clegg also arguably has less power than he once did in his own party - he's gone from 'I agree with Nick', to the most unpopular, toxic politician in the country.
Remember Clegg, does not represent your average LD, who while is unlikely to be much of a fan of the Labour these days, is still centre-left. Having see their party in vote-share go from being Britain's third to fifth biggest political party, and lose 3rd in seat share to the SNP, they'll want to detoxify their brand, rebuild their local government base up, and arguably restore their image as a centre-left party. Going into coalition with the Conservatives, and potentially reinforcing a negative image among centre-left voters as the LDs being a mere annex to the Conservative party makes that cause impossible. Clegg's strategy - of attempting to move the LDs to the centre in the coalition, and gain votes from there has failed, and LDs will see how badly it's failed on Thursday night, Friday morning. This means that pursuing that kind of strategy in a new Con-Lib coalition is a dead-end.
Coates did some very interesting tweets on why it's going to be very hard to form a Con-Lib coalition this week. There are a variety of variables which make such an arrangement far more harder to achieve than simply being the 'only option' - from LDs being reluctance to be a part of a government dominated by austerity and a EU ref, a distrust of David Cameron after Lords Reform saga (and probably AV too), some LDs not even being enamored with the current existing red-lines now, cautiousness of the DUP, not believing that a Con-Lib coalition could command a significant majority to govern anyway, some LDs being prepared to vote down a Queen's Speech regardless of party whip, and some are even prepared to do so to get Cameron out of office! Rather interestingly, party rules have also been tightened on coalition rules - Clegg needs two-thirds of his grassroots to agree to a coalition.
I think the only option, really is a Tory minority government, with UKIP and DUP support.
Tbh, I agree with the PBTories that it would be suicide for Labour to try to form a minority government if they're WAY behind the Tories on seats,
Tbh, I still don't see what would be so bad about allowing the Tories to have a super-minority government. Most Labour people don't have such an irrational hatred of the Tories that they're depserate for them as people to be gotten rid of, we just want them stripped of their power to do more nasty things. In a super-hung parliament Labour would get an absolute veto in parliament over anything the Tories propose (including any further austerity). They could even pass votes of no confidence in individual ministers like Osborne and IDS.
Yep, I could happily live with a Tory-led government that was unable to implement Tory policy. The added bonus would be that the Tory right would find it totally intolerable, with all the fun and games that would lead to.
At the end of the day, there has been no exodus from the Conservative Party under the coalition.
It is entirely possible that essentially only one MP will be lost following the election if Rochester and Strood is recovered this time. The loss of Clacton is regrettable but no exodus.
do we think there will be a fair few contentious counts still going through Friday?
Edmund, to answer the question about count times, according to this (slightly incomplete) record of 2010 election, there were 33 counts that declared at midday Friday or later, against the PA prediction of 22. One election was postponed. http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge10/dec.htm
The variables this time will be any local elections getting in the way (or not), and anywhere where several recounts are needed. It's not unheard of for the counters to get so tired recounting they adjourn until the morning and recount after sleep and coffee!
I guess the leaders will have a pretty good idea before breakfast where the numbers are, but with a couple of seats either way potentially making a big difference to the outcome, maybe they will sit on their hands until after lunch.
Thanks, so it sounds like Dave can tidy the thing up Friday and get the whole weekend off if he doesn't have the numbers.
Quite possibly.
Memories return of a visibly relieved John Major watching the cricket at the Oval on Friday afternoon in 1997.
I was very happy to swap Major for Blair in 97 (like many others). I feel more sympathy with him now.
But resigning as leader so precipitously was not good. The Conservatives may have benefited from a longer period of thought before appointing a new leader in the autumn. I hope they take their time this post election period, as should other losing parties.
Russell Brand. Now a tablet of stone. Something doesn't quite feel right with Labour and Miliband. I wonder if the Scottish wipe out is going to be a trauma of such massive and unprecedented proportions for Labour that this weird stuff is some sort denial behaviour before the maelstrom. What else can explain it?
do we think there will be a fair few contentious counts still going through Friday?
Edmund, to answer the question about count times, according to this (slightly incomplete) record of 2010 election, there were 33 counts that declared at midday Friday or later, against the PA prediction of 22. One election was postponed. http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge10/dec.htm
The variables this time will be any local elections getting in the way (or not), and anywhere where several recounts are needed. It's not unheard of for the counters to get so tired recounting they adjourn until the morning and recount after sleep and coffee!
I guess the leaders will have a pretty good idea before breakfast where the numbers are, but with a couple of seats either way potentially making a big difference to the outcome, maybe they will sit on their hands until after lunch.
Thanks, so it sounds like Dave can tidy the thing up Friday and get the whole weekend off if he doesn't have the numbers.
Quite possibly.
Memories return of a visibly relieved John Major watching the cricket at the Oval on Friday afternoon in 1997.
I was very happy to swap Major for Blair in 97 (like many others). I feel more sympathy with him now.
But resigning as leader so precipitously was not good. The Conservatives may have benefited from a longer period of thought before appointing a new leader in the autumn. I hope they take their time this post election period, as should other losing parties.
Howard continuing as party leader during a leadership election period was ultimately a good thing. It allowed us to select a future election winner and Prime Minister after a campaign period rather than rush into a premature leadership election immediately.
It must be terrible upsetting to turn up to PMQs as an election loser, especially if you were previously PM yourself. But its the right thing to do.
From 13-16th May HM will be at Royal Windsor Horse Show so unless PM appointed on Tuesday 11th would imagine no rush to conclude talks before week beginning May 18
"Roger, proposing that the anti-aids COI campaign was an example of "a Tory government who couldn't spend enough on TV trying to get themselves re elected" is a disgusting and inaccurate assertion."
I thought the AD was very effective. In fact TBWA were one of my best clients. But that has nothing to do with the proliferation of COI ads immediately before the '87 and '92 General Elections.
You could hardly get TV time for privatizations and other COI ads. Agencies were queuing up to get their snouts into the trough.
Throughout the 80's they were almost certainly the largest spender on TV and there wasn't the slightest doubt that the use of public money for pet government projects before elections was political chicanery worthy of Putin.
That the Aids one was worthwhile didn't excuse the plethora that were just political
Labour have nothing to be pleased about. Thank god the COI was wound up.
'...Government departments have spent more than £1.9 billion on advertising campaigns since Labour came to power, increasing from £59 million in 1998 to £232 million in 2009. In 2007-8 the figure was £168 million.'
Come on my lefty friends,if you had seen the ed stone on the thick of it,even you lot would have thought,'what the fcuk' ;-)
Totally naff and totally harmless. I can understand the piss taking completely. But I have seen some Tweeters compare it to Kinnock and Sheffield. That is ridiculous. I think everyone, on all sides, is getting slightly stir crazy.
do we think there will be a fair few contentious counts still going through Friday?
Edmund, to answer the question about count times, according to this (slightly incomplete) record of 2010 election, there were 33 counts that declared at midday Friday or later, against the PA prediction of 22. One election was postponed. http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge10/dec.htm
The variables this time will be any local elections getting in the way (or not), and anywhere where several recounts are needed. It's not unheard of for the counters to get so tired recounting they adjourn until the morning and recount after sleep and coffee!
I guess the leaders will have a pretty good idea before breakfast where the numbers are, but with a couple of seats either way potentially making a big difference to the outcome, maybe they will sit on their hands until after lunch.
Thanks, so it sounds like Dave can tidy the thing up Friday and get the whole weekend off if he doesn't have the numbers.
Quite possibly.
Memories return of a visibly relieved John Major watching the cricket at the Oval on Friday afternoon in 1997.
I was very happy to swap Major for Blair in 97 (like many others). I feel more sympathy with him now.
But resigning as leader so precipitously was not good. The Conservatives may have benefited from a longer period of thought before appointing a new leader in the autumn. I hope they take their time this post election period, as should other losing parties.
Howard continuing as party leader during a leadership election period was ultimately a good thing. It allowed us to select a future election winner and Prime Minister after a campaign period rather than rush into a premature leadership election immediately.
It must be terrible upsetting to turn up to PMQs as an election loser, especially if you were previously PM yourself. But its the right thing to do.
Yep. It takes some humility, which is no bad thing. A deputy leader is another way round a post-defeat resignation. I suspect will see Hazza Harman doing a few PMQs come June.
do we think there will be a fair few contentious counts still going through Friday?
Edmund, to answer the question about count times, according to this (slightly incomplete) record of 2010 election, there were 33 counts that declared at midday Friday or later, against the PA prediction of 22. One election was postponed. http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge10/dec.htm
The variables this time will be any local elections getting in the way (or not), and anywhere where several recounts are needed. It's not unheard of for the counters to get so tired recounting they adjourn until the morning and recount after sleep and coffee!
I guess the leaders will have a pretty good idea before breakfast where the numbers are, but with a couple of seats either way potentially making a big difference to the outcome, maybe they will sit on their hands until after lunch.
Thanks, so it sounds like Dave can tidy the thing up Friday and get the whole weekend off if he doesn't have the numbers.
Quite possibly.
Memories return of a visibly relieved John Major watching the cricket at the Oval on Friday afternoon in 1997.
I was very happy to swap Major for Blair in 97 (like many others). I feel more sympathy with him now.
But resigning as leader so precipitously was not good. The Conservatives may have benefited from a longer period of thought before appointing a new leader in the autumn. I hope they take their time this post election period, as should other losing parties.
An interesting viewpoint, but I think after suffering such a landslide he probably wanted to get as far away as possible from politics. The mistake the Tories made was going for the young Hague in 1997, they should have gone with him in 2001.
As to what happens after this election, I think there's a high chance of an autumn re-run; so whomever of Dave and Ed is not PM will resign quickly as party leader and allow a new leader to make his or her mark. I don't know about Ed - the Labour party have always seemed unwilling to ditch a leader who didn't want to go - but I would guess that Dave would resign as party leader as soon as Ed gets the Queen's Speech passed and it becomes clear that the second election won't be immediate.
@LadPolitics: Where will the Labour stone plinth be after the election? 10/1 Labour Hq 5/4 Downing Street Rose Gardens 4/5 Anywhere else! #EdStone
Maybe they can turn it into a giant kitchen table...Ed could have it in his kitchen, oh no wait, that won't work. He could have it a coffee table, somewhere to put the limited edition racist mugs.
Come on my lefty friends,if you had seen the ed stone on the thick of it,even you lot would have thought,'what the fcuk' ;-)
Totally naff and totally harmless. I can understand the piss taking completely. But I have seen some Tweeters compare it to Kinnock and Sheffield. That is ridiculous. I think everyone, on all sides, is getting slightly stir crazy.
No kinnock moment but funny and ask the Question who thought of it and why ed let it go through
Some good news out of it,proberly more views on labour pledges than usual ;-) that is they not looking at the bacon sandwich one ;-)
The legacy which Britain bequeathed to India that held them back for 50 years after Independence was Socialism. Having rejected such folly, India has in recent years begun to prosper.
Stick to your side of the North Channel. Neither EVEL nor welfare get a mention in the main bullet points the DUP themselves chose to highlight from their manifesto. The DUP are actively campaigning for votes on the back of getting the best possible deal for Northern Ireland. Refusing to deal with the party most likely to give them it would clearly be bonkers. But then you do hold quite a few bonkers opinions on NI politics.
Dodds has already made public declarations on Bedroom Tax and EVEL.
Admittedly it is very advantageous for the DUP to have the English media and the Westminster bubble think there is a possiblity of them backing the Tories (or even better a very high probability) as it lets them extract the maximum possible pork from Labour when Labour are really their only choice.
Clearly your "green" facade is slipping and your true allegiance becoming clear.
The DUP are entirely capable of working with either Labour or Conservatives.
My 'late' observations from the QT Leaders debate. David Cameron looked far more comfortable than the other two and actually seemed to enjoy it. EdM looked like a fish out of water, he was clearly uncomfortable. As a northern MP, I'm surprised, as he should have known we northerners call a spade a spade. NIck Clegg always reverts to peevishness when under pressure. The real losers of the night, were the main stream 'metropolitan' media. The good folk of Yorkshire really showed them up and they got more answers from the politicians than any other programme I have seen. The Media are overrated and overpaid In my view. Their coverage of this campaign, has been absolutely dire.
Did you read AA Gill in the ST today?
"I watched the Question Time Debate and thought: "My God, but they're frightful." They don't listen, they trot out the same guff and they ooze insincerity, with their dismissive body language and phonily chummy first-name thing. They are entranced by the sound of their own voices. By the end I was simply grateful I didn't live next to any of them. By comparison, Cameron, Miliband and Clegg seemed quite nice."
Slightly predictable punch line perhaps but also quite amusing.
The legacy which Britain bequeathed to India that held them back for 50 years after Independence was Socialism. Having rejected such folly, India has in recent years begun to prosper.
GDP estimates in 1990 dollars: -
1600 India - $74bn Western Europe - $66bn
1700 India - $91bn Western Europe - $81bn
1820 India - $111bn Western Europe - $161bn
1913 India - $204bn Western Europe - $902bn
Since Colonialism ended, the GDP of India has gone from around 1/7th of Wester Europe to more than 1/4 bucking the highly negative trend during the colonial period.
The legacy which Britain bequeathed to India that held them back for 50 years after Independence was Socialism. Having rejected such folly, India has in recent years begun to prosper.
GDP estimates in 1990 dollars: -
1600 India - $74bn Western Europe - $66bn
1700 India - $91bn Western Europe - $81bn
1820 India - $111bn Western Europe - $161bn
1913 India - $204bn Western Europe - $902bn
Since Colonialism ended, the GDP of India has gone from around 1/7th of Wester Europe to more than 1/4 bucking the highly negative trend during the colonial period.
Even Chelsea winning the Premiership is struggling to knock #EdStone back. Considering how long #EdStone has been trending (over 4 hours now?) that's pretty remarkable and shows that #EdStone is a significant moment in this campaign.
John Terry #EdStone MK Dons Congratulations Chelsea Palace Willian #SamkingftwYouTube Mikel #ontopictalkshow Notts County
My 'late' observations from the QT Leaders debate. David Cameron looked far more comfortable than the other two and actually seemed to enjoy it. EdM looked like a fish out of water, he was clearly uncomfortable. As a northern MP, I'm surprised, as he should have known we northerners call a spade a spade. NIck Clegg always reverts to peevishness when under pressure. The real losers of the night, were the main stream 'metropolitan' media. The good folk of Yorkshire really showed them up and they got more answers from the politicians than any other programme I have seen. The Media are overrated and overpaid In my view. Their coverage of this campaign, has been absolutely dire.
Did you read AA Gill in the ST today?
"I watched the Question Time Debate and thought: "My God, but they're frightful." They don't listen, they trot out the same guff and they ooze insincerity, with their dismissive body language and phonily chummy first-name thing. They are entranced by the sound of their own voices. By the end I was simply grateful I didn't live next to any of them. By comparison, Cameron, Miliband and Clegg seemed quite nice."
Slightly predictable punch line perhaps but also quite amusing.
Some of the questioners clearly loved their own voice !
Trouble is, even if Con, UKIP, DUP, and LD are 327 altogether, the LDs have said they won't enter coalition with either the DUP or UKIP, and apparently according to Sam Coates, Clegg doesn't want confidence and supply, either as the LDs would still be in opposition.
So......
The thing is neither the DUP or UKIP would have enough MPs to provide ministers or be a part of the coalition. In that scenario it'd be a formal Con+LD coalition with DUP and UKIP confidence and supply. Probably would get through to 2017 and then a new election.
The LDs have also said they'd rule out any arrangements with UKIP (and as a result, you'd think it'd be the same with the DUP). I also don't see the LDs voting for a coalition either way - a Con-Lib coalition again simply is unlikely to offer anything for them, that the Conservatives will accept. I cannot see the Tory Right for example seriously accepting LD powers to veto budgets and so on. The one area it's looking like the Conservatives will have to concede on is welfare cuts; both LDs and DUP have them as red lines.
The Tory right aren't crazy, give them more credit than that. They'll understand that's how the public have voted. They may grumble and be unhappy, but if that's the way it is then that's the way it is. If Con+LD is the stable coalition that has the numbers then like in 2010 that's what the result will be. If those add to 327 then other than a rainbow coalition of the losers (which will be rejected for the same reason it was in 2010) it's the only outcome.
"The Tory right aren't crazy..." Sorry didn't get any further
Mr. Dair, perhaps. Certainly a significantly long Twitter event. Whether it matters beyond that remains to be seen.
Given the echo chamber like nature of twitter, I place next to nothing if something is trending, how long it trends for etc etc etc, despite how over excited the MSM get over it.
Think about the Labour campaign with the get Cameron out hash tag that ran for weeks on end, effect basically nothing.
Assuming he somehow wins, do you think Cameron could buy the stone slab and smash it with a hammer or would that look bad - some of the platitudes are of course inoffensive enough.
I would support that. It will also catch some North of England traffic to the Republic.
Good invisible earnings for NI. Good for jobs too on both sides.
It would have to be Scottish money as well as NI money to build it though. Isn't transport devolved? If such a link would divert traffic from North Wales and Merseyside then I would have thought the English would have the right of veto.
@LadPolitics: Where will the Labour stone plinth be after the election? 10/1 Labour Hq 5/4 Downing Street Rose Gardens 4/5 Anywhere else! #EdStone
Maybe they can turn it into a giant kitchen table...Ed could have it in his kitchen, oh no wait, that won't work. He could have it a coffee table, somewhere to put the limited edition racist mugs.
It will be found in The Edward Miliband sanctuary for freed owls.
Comments
Tbh, I still don't see what would be so bad about allowing the Tories to have a super-minority government. Most Labour people don't have such an irrational hatred of the Tories that they're depserate for them as people to be gotten rid of, we just want them stripped of their power to do more nasty things. In a super-hung parliament Labour would get an absolute veto in parliament over anything the Tories propose (including any further austerity). They could even pass votes of no confidence in individual ministers like Osborne and IDS.
They won't drop opposition to EVEL this year. They might if they are reduced to 2 MSPs in 2016 and probably will in 2020 when they get nothing back.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32572988
Not a word will I say!
" A feasibility study into a tunnel or enclosed bridge across the North Channel from Larne to the Scottish coastline."
With interest rates so low we'd be mad not to build one!
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge10/dec.htm
The variables this time will be any local elections getting in the way (or not), and anywhere where several recounts are needed. It's not unheard of for the counters to get so tired recounting they adjourn until the morning and recount after sleep and coffee!
The PA list of expected declaration times for this election is at
http://election.pressassociation.com/Declaration_times/general_2015_by_time.php
They are expecting this time only St Ives to be after midday, and only half a dozen more counting in the morning.
I guess the leaders will have a pretty good idea before breakfast where the numbers are, but with a couple of seats either way potentially making a big difference to the outcome, maybe they will sit on their hands until after lunch.
The sheer hubris of Labour supporters on this website is a joy to behold today. Enjoying their Sheffield moment whilst doing a victory dance around Ed's meaningless pledges on a gravestone. I'd love to meet the bell end who thought up that idea.
Also we saw the new Far from the Madding Crowd film which was lovely. Mind you, given how gorgeous Gabriel Oak is Bathsheba must have been blind to prefer Troy to him or even to the Boldwood as played by the heartbreaking Michael Sheen.
So have not been paying much attention to politics.
DavidL's post on an earlier thread is spot on. If you're Unionist you cannot deny the SNP the right to form part of the government if the numbers stack up. Unionists cannot have their cake and eat it.
However, my point is that while that is correct from a legal and constitutional perspective I wonder whether the politics of it will play out like that. It seems odd that the second-placed party should form a government, especially when added to the fact that SNP MPs can vote on taxes affecting E&W when English MPs cannot do the same for taxes affecting Scotland. That imbalance risks, in time, causing real political issues for a government.
Also if Labour lose Scotland and come second in seats in E&W it is hard to see them as winners. Such a result is pretty awful for any party. They could end up being in office but not in power. to coin a phrase.
Admittedly it is very advantageous for the DUP to have the English media and the Westminster bubble think there is a possiblity of them backing the Tories (or even better a very high probability) as it lets them extract the maximum possible pork from Labour when Labour are really their only choice.
Clearly your "green" facade is slipping and your true allegiance becoming clear.
In fact, that is precisely my hope. Minority Labour government making sure no bill is voted down - only put forward popular items like 50% HRT, 10% starting rate of tax, scrapping of the Bedroom tax which will receive support from Parliament.
If economic growth continues, deficit comes down further as a result, Labour gets more popular.
" Nicola Sturgeon, tireless and talented, deserves the opportunity to show that her party and her MPs can take on that responsibility and responsibly speak for all Scots at Westminster ".
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/sunday-mail-opinion-rise-nicola-5626917
They have concluded that SLAB needs to be completely levelled before it can be rebuilt into a real party. It will be interesting to see how the Daily Record plays things tomorrow, I think they will endorse a Labour Government but will point out that SLAB are done for in Scotland so folks might as well vote SNP.
It's never his fault.
An interesting couple of weeks awaits, with probably some constitutional firsts thrown in for good measure!
Would a Tory government create chaos?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32575123
So the Torygraph and Steven Swinford, Deputy Political Editor, were lying when he wrote the above
This is Nigel's actual statement:
“When it comes to entertainment, the BBC should be proud of its ‘crown jewels’ such as Strictly Come Dancing and dramas such as Dr Who. They have become valuable global brands as well as programmes hugely appreciated by British audiences."
I didn't like Tony Blair - but he knew how to win elections.
For every family over-occupying social housing, there are more that are crammed in to small apartments and expensive bedsits. There is also the principle that people who pay for their own housing cannot often afford a guest room, especially in the larger cities such as London.
Very well played politics by the Left on this one, much like the "Pasty Tax". Shame as usual about their economics.
Ed's "monumental blunder" is irresistible and must have taken days to put together.
Should this man be out on his own?
"How about this from the DUP manifesto:
" A feasibility study into a tunnel or enclosed bridge across the North Channel from Larne to the Scottish coastline."
With interest rates so low we'd be mad not to build one!"
The sort of prefab fixed link that the Isle of Wight is considering may be the way to go:
http://m.iwcp.co.uk/news/newsitem.aspx?rurl=news%slsnews%slsisle-of-wight-fixed-link-tunnel-attractive-to-investors-79839.aspx
Because fundamentally the English Attitude to Scotland is NOT Unionist - it is Paternalist. It is the same attitude that STILL thinks the British Empire was "good for India" despite the impact it had on one of the wealthiest nations on earth being reduced to poverty and how much it was held back for generations despite significant scientific and technical advantages.
Paternalists do not view their colony as equal, they view the people are inferior "children" to be cared for. Anything they do is to the benefit of the "child" regardless of actual outcome. And it always "helps the child".
Fundamental problems are created as soon as the "child" "grows up" and demands to be treated as an equal. It is absolutely impossible for the Paternalist to accept this. It is why France kept so much of its colonial Empire as integral parts of France (its basis as a Republic of Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité meant it was Unionist not Paternalist in nature). England's elite do not share this sentiment, it cannot accept equality, it's why all the economically viable territories (i.e. not micro-states) left.
It's why the SNP having a controlling hand in Westminster is so unthinkable to Paternalists and why it must, inevitably, lead to dissolution of the UK.
Memories return of a visibly relieved John Major watching the cricket at the Oval on Friday afternoon in 1997.
A classy resignation statement. http://www.johnmajor.co.uk/page824.html
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2015/05/yougov-snp-surge-holds-steady/
All the other tables have been published so hopefully we should see this one shortly, the sceptical among us might suspect that there's been some jiggery pokery going on, by that I mean some spiral of silence adjustments to keep Unionist hopes up.
The 7m bridge that isn't 7 miles :-)
The new one really isn't all that exciting tbh when actually driving it.
The old one that you can walk across sections of, you do get to see some fantastic sunsets from.
Leave our blue friends with their comfort blankets. This has been a traumatic time for them as they realize the enormous majority was only ever a pipe dream.
Compassion is possible, even in politics.
"Roger, proposing that the anti-aids COI campaign was an example of "a Tory government who couldn't spend enough on TV trying to get themselves re elected" is a disgusting and inaccurate assertion."
I thought the AD was very effective. In fact TBWA were one of my best clients. But that has nothing to do with the proliferation of COI ads immediately before the '87 and '92 General Elections.
You could hardly get TV time for privatizations and other COI ads. Agencies were queuing up to get their snouts into the trough.
Throughout the 80's they were almost certainly the largest spender on TV and there wasn't the slightest doubt that the use of public money for pet government projects before elections was political chicanery worthy of Putin.
That the Aids one was worthwhile didn't excuse the plethora that were just political
I'd argue the Conservative Right are crazy - I don't see them simply accepting anything to stay in power, they'd much prefer a Tory minority government where they can more easily exert their influence. Looking at the polls/projections a Con-Lib coalition won't have the numbers it did in 2010 - it'll be just short of a majority by about 10 seats, and so quite vulnerable to rebellious LDs and Conservatives in any case. I think you're underestimating that things have changed since 2010. The LDs have seen the very hard political price they've had to pay for being in coalition with the Conservatives, and as a result are far more weary, and cautious of entering into such an arrangement than before. Clegg also arguably has less power than he once did in his own party - he's gone from 'I agree with Nick', to the most unpopular, toxic politician in the country.
Remember Clegg, does not represent your average LD, who while is unlikely to be much of a fan of the Labour these days, is still centre-left. Having see their party in vote-share go from being Britain's third to fifth biggest political party, and lose 3rd in seat share to the SNP, they'll want to detoxify their brand, rebuild their local government base up, and arguably restore their image as a centre-left party. Going into coalition with the Conservatives, and potentially reinforcing a negative image among centre-left voters as the LDs being a mere annex to the Conservative party makes that cause impossible. Clegg's strategy - of attempting to move the LDs to the centre in the coalition, and gain votes from there has failed, and LDs will see how badly it's failed on Thursday night, Friday morning. This means that pursuing that kind of strategy in a new Con-Lib coalition is a dead-end.
Coates did some very interesting tweets on why it's going to be very hard to form a Con-Lib coalition this week. There are a variety of variables which make such an arrangement far more harder to achieve than simply being the 'only option' - from LDs being reluctance to be a part of a government dominated by austerity and a EU ref, a distrust of David Cameron after Lords Reform saga (and probably AV too), some LDs not even being enamored with the current existing red-lines now, cautiousness of the DUP, not believing that a Con-Lib coalition could command a significant majority to govern anyway, some LDs being prepared to vote down a Queen's Speech regardless of party whip, and some are even prepared to do so to get Cameron out of office! Rather interestingly, party rules have also been tightened on coalition rules - Clegg needs two-thirds of his grassroots to agree to a coalition.
I think the only option, really is a Tory minority government, with UKIP and DUP support.
But resigning as leader so precipitously was not good. The Conservatives may have benefited from a longer period of thought before appointing a new leader in the autumn. I hope they take their time this post election period, as should other losing parties.
And yet we are still going to win the election.
It must be terrible upsetting to turn up to PMQs as an election loser, especially if you were previously PM yourself. But its the right thing to do.
I hope she drew a big L on the forehead of the sleeping colossus afterwards.
'...Government departments have spent more than £1.9 billion on advertising campaigns since Labour came to power, increasing from £59 million in 1998 to £232 million in 2009. In 2007-8 the figure was £168 million.'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/6982306/Grant-Shapps-advertising-David-Cameron.html
Good invisible earnings for NI. Good for jobs too on both sides.
@LadPolitics: Where will the Labour stone plinth be after the election?
10/1 Labour Hq
5/4 Downing Street Rose Gardens
4/5 Anywhere else!
#EdStone
Why are we getting these silly post-election threads?
As to what happens after this election, I think there's a high chance of an autumn re-run; so whomever of Dave and Ed is not PM will resign quickly as party leader and allow a new leader to make his or her mark.
I don't know about Ed - the Labour party have always seemed unwilling to ditch a leader who didn't want to go - but I would guess that Dave would resign as party leader as soon as Ed gets the Queen's Speech passed and it becomes clear that the second election won't be immediate.
Some good news out of it,proberly more views on labour pledges than usual ;-) that is they not looking at the bacon sandwich one ;-)
Bit late to bet on what happens after the election markets once the election has happened.
You sound like a bitter Gooner.
Been out for a little while. Has Miliband descended from the mountain with the last four commandments yet?
"I watched the Question Time Debate and thought: "My God, but they're frightful." They don't listen, they trot out the same guff and they ooze insincerity, with their dismissive body language and phonily chummy first-name thing. They are entranced by the sound of their own voices. By the end I was simply grateful I didn't live next to any of them. By comparison, Cameron, Miliband and Clegg seemed quite nice."
Slightly predictable punch line perhaps but also quite amusing.
1600
India - $74bn
Western Europe - $66bn
1700
India - $91bn
Western Europe - $81bn
1820
India - $111bn
Western Europe - $161bn
1913
India - $204bn
Western Europe - $902bn
Since Colonialism ended, the GDP of India has gone from around 1/7th of Wester Europe to more than 1/4 bucking the highly negative trend during the colonial period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)#World_1.E2.80.932003_.28Maddison.29
John Terry
#EdStone
MK Dons
Congratulations Chelsea
Palace
Willian
#SamkingftwYouTube
Mikel
#ontopictalkshow
Notts County
Think about the Labour campaign with the get Cameron out hash tag that ran for weeks on end, effect basically nothing.
When I first saw I had got the name wrong I edited it. But having reflected further, I do think it could cost Carmichael a few hundred votes.
A few hundred in Orkney and Zetland could swing this election.