The election battle in London is set for a sensational climax, with all three of the biggest parties putting on support, an exclusive new poll reveals today.
Ed Miliband enters his final day of campaigning with Labour 13 points ahead among Londoners, according to research conducted by YouGov for the Evening Standard. Labour is up two points in a fortnight to hit 46 per cent — its best share since November 2013.
David Cameron’s Conservatives are up one point to 33 per cent, while Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats are up one point to be third with nine per cent.
The three parties’ gains come at the expense of Ukip and the Greens — both squeezed hard in the run-up to polling day, which could produce some surprise results in key battlegrounds.
Nigel Farage’s Ukip is down two points to eight — which could make all the difference in seats such as Croydon Central and Harrow East, where thousands of Ukippers hold the balance.
Natalie Bennett’s Greens have suffered the biggest squeeze, down two to stand at three per cent — the party’s lowest level since last August. That could make a crucial difference in seats such as Bermondsey & Old Southwark, where the Labour v Lib-Dem battle is on a knife-edge.
Labour’s poll lead, according to the research conducted from April 29 to May 1, is its biggest since last May when it had its best local election results for a generation. The result marks a swing of 5.5 per cent from the Conservatives since the 2010 election.
That would be the equivalent of Lab 40%, Con 36%, if repeated nationally. Clearly, London's politics is very different to the rest of the UK.
Labour would gain six from the Conservatives, and three from the Lib Dems on UNS. The Conservatives would gain two from the Lib Dems. In reality, some of these seats will be very tough nuts to crack.
London is now Labour ground-zero. I wouldn't be surprised if they cleaned up.
The only thing that can save the Tories now in some of those seats is turnout. I'm not holding my breath.
The anecdote I got about Labour being "very confident" in Ilford North was from a Conservative councillor friend of mine. He reckons if they're 10 pts ahead in London it'll drop. He had Finchley down as a Con Hold, and Battersea well out of reach. Had Enfield Southgate as a possible Lab gain, but that is obviously a longshot.
Owen Jones@OwenJones84·2 mins2 minutes ago The Tories only have a shot in this election because of a campaign of fear and smear. I wonder how their supporters privately feel about it
The hopeless naivety of that Tweet is rather tragic.
Using the current state of play just seems common sense.. prob why it isn't used
No, it's not common sense at all. It would mean you are not comparing like with like. Imagine two very similar seats next door to each other, both won at the last GE by party X, which was the government party. One of them happened to have a by-election mid-term, and, as often happens, was won at the by-election by the opposition. When it comes to the next GE, if they both go back to the same party which won them last time, it's misleading to say that party X has made a 'gain' in the seat which held the by-election but not in the other, because this 'gain' is actually just a reflection of the random event of the by-election being held, not of progress by the party in one seat but not in the other.
Yes, using the last GE as a baseline datum ensures that the results are easily comparable. Also by-election results are usually more likely to be unusual for a whole number of reasons, the seats tend to revert to the status quo ante at the following GE.
There will be I think 3 seats at the election that are held by a different party than in 2010, the two UKIP defections and Corby, which was a genuine Con>Lab swing in a marginal seat where the sitting MP resigned. That's a surprisingly small number of changes over the past 5 years.
Ed Miliband certain to be PM, the Maths just doesn't even begin to stack up for Cameron. The 1922 on leader replacement alert, he will be gone by Tuesday.
Using the current state of play just seems common sense.. prob why it isn't used
No, it's not common sense at all. It would mean you are not comparing like with like. Imagine two very similar seats next door to each other, both won at the last GE by party X, which was the government party. One of them happened to have a by-election mid-term, and, as often happens, was won at the by-election by the opposition. When it comes to the next GE, if they both go back to the same party which won them last time, it's misleading to say that party X has made a 'gain' in the seat which held the by-election but not in the other, because this 'gain' is actually just a reflection of the random event of the by-election being held, not of progress by the party in one seat but not in the other.
It is complete common sense which is possibly why the political anoraks think it is wrong
"A foetus is still part of the mother's body, a baby isn't"
An interesting view of developmental biology. leading to the question ... is it OK to abort a nine month old foetus, but only until the umbilical cord is cut?
I'm not joining this argument because it's about emotion more than anything else. Facts won't matter.
Question for those who know - we need to have boundary reforms as the current boundaries are 15 years out of date now and reforms were due this Parliament but were postponed.
What happens with boundary reforms after this election. Will we see a new process of getting boundaries start again from scratch? How soon would that start and how long would it take until these come to a vote in the Commons? Is this set already or would the new government need to decide on the timetable?
I wonder when Ed will resign. Will he give himself the weekend?
He has surprised me and I suspect plenty of others during this campaign. I thought he would be a six week car crash, but he has actually done well. However, the bottom line is that despite having four years to make a mark he has failed to deliver a coherent, credible set of policies to put in front of the electorate. On top of which he has presided over Labour's total collapse in Scotland. That is not a prospectus for continued leadership after an election in which Labour will stand still in seat numbers, at best. So, farewell Ed - you fought a decent campaign, but you were a desperately poor leader.
Ah cheer up you old bugger.
I thought the Tories might pull a bit clear in the final couple of weeks. It hasn't happened. Every time the Tories looked to pull away, the Labour share firmed up.
The Tories *may* get most seats, but not by much. And certainly by not enough.
I'm much more hopeful now that Cameron and his cronies are close to being justifiably defenestrated.
Miliband is not beholden to the rightwing press and it'll slosh around in impotent fits of anger while he puts his loose Labour / SNP arrangement together in the commons.
The next election will then be 5 years hence.
Once 2016 elections are out of the way, what advantage is there for the SNP to keep a by then unpopular Labour minority government in power?
Owen Jones@OwenJones84·2 mins2 minutes ago The Tories only have a shot in this election because of a campaign of fear and smear. I wonder how their supporters privately feel about it
I can confidently say that Conservative supporters are almost as embarrassed by it as Owen Jones is at Labour's campaign fear and smear over the NHS.
Exactly. I would have some sympathy with his point of view if it wasn't for the fact that they're all as bad as each other
It is complete common sense which is possibly why the political anoraks think it is wrong
The political anoraks are right. In your 'commonsense' view, a party could 'gain' 10 seats but end up with exactly the same number as it won last time.
Owen Jones@OwenJones84·2 mins2 minutes ago The Tories only have a shot in this election because of a campaign of fear and smear. I wonder how their supporters privately feel about it
And Labour's sole campaign policy is: The Tories will destroy the NHS
Mr. G, they'll take their tax revenue with them. And jobs.
There is always work for the industrious Morris, and the sooner we liberate the working men and women of the UK from global corporate yoke, the sooner we can forge ahead, together. Small businesses and small people are the backbone of a small and enduring state.
A large number of small businesses rely on trade with the larger corporations. So let's remove all aircraft, arms, vehicle and steel, manufacture plus oil and gas companies from the UK, as well as large retailers and banks - are you suggesting going back to the time when every village had its own farmer, bootmaker, butcher, etc?
Using the current state of play just seems common sense.. prob why it isn't used
No, it's not common sense at all. It would mean you are not comparing like with like. Imagine two very similar seats next door to each other, both won at the last GE by party X, which was the government party. One of them happened to have a by-election mid-term, and, as often happens, was won at the by-election by the opposition. When it comes to the next GE, if they both go back to the same party which won them last time, it's misleading to say that party X has made a 'gain' in the seat which held the by-election but not in the other, because this 'gain' is actually just a reflection of the random event of the by-election being held, not of progress by the party in one seat but not in the other.
It is complete common sense which is possibly why the political anoraks think it is wrong
I wonder when Ed will resign. Will he give himself the weekend?
He has surprised me and I suspect plenty of others during this campaign. I thought he would be a six week car crash, but he has actually done well. However, the bottom line is that despite having four years to make a mark he has failed to deliver a coherent, credible set of policies to put in front of the electorate. On top of which he has presided over Labour's total collapse in Scotland. That is not a prospectus for continued leadership after an election in which Labour will stand still in seat numbers, at best. So, farewell Ed - you fought a decent campaign, but you were a desperately poor leader.
You are too fatalistic, SO. Ed could easily be on his way to shake hands with the Queen in 48 hours.
You, Dan Hodges and Rogerdamus all predicting a Tory win is the worst news I've had all week!
we've got labourites thinking Ed's a gonner , and PB tories thinking he's next PM..
What a bizzare election.
I expected consistent Tory leads of 4-5% in the phone polls by now, and 1-2% in the online polls.
That hasn't happened, and we're now out of time, so I've changed my mind.
Although I've put my money on EICIPM, I still half expect that Ben Page of IPSO (?) will turn out to be right and there will be a very very late swing to Tories on the actual day itself.
Owen Jones@OwenJones84·2 mins2 minutes ago The Tories only have a shot in this election because of a campaign of fear and smear. I wonder how their supporters privately feel about it
As opposed to Labour's positive campaign about the evil Tories killing our NHS and selling it off to their rich friends?
It is complete common sense which is possibly why the political anoraks think it is wrong
The political anoraks are right. In your 'commonsense' view, a party could 'gain' 10 seats but end up with exactly the same number as it won last time.
Yes because when you "lose" something, when you get it back it is called a "gain"
Owen Jones@OwenJones84·2 mins2 minutes ago The Tories only have a shot in this election because of a campaign of fear and smear. I wonder how their supporters privately feel about it
The hopeless naivety of that Tweet is rather tragic.
The mindless vacuum that is Owen Jones reminds us how far the notion of the 'intellectual left' has fallen.
I'm reminded of the Labour leaflet that just came through my door, discussing the 'extreme cuts' that the Tories are apparently planning in the NHS. Apparently bare-faced lies are fine when you're repeating them on behalf of Ed.
Using the current state of play just seems common sense.. prob why it isn't used
No, it's not common sense at all. It would mean you are not comparing like with like. Imagine two very similar seats next door to each other, both won at the last GE by party X, which was the government party. One of them happened to have a by-election mid-term, and, as often happens, was won at the by-election by the opposition. When it comes to the next GE, if they both go back to the same party which won them last time, it's misleading to say that party X has made a 'gain' in the seat which held the by-election but not in the other, because this 'gain' is actually just a reflection of the random event of the by-election being held, not of progress by the party in one seat but not in the other.
It is complete common sense which is possibly why the political anoraks think it is wrong
Its only common sense if you decide to ignore what the voters did at the last General Election.
Why not compare against Council elections? Or European ones? We look from General election to General election as those are the consistent points.
Babies are innocent children, people that behead others deserve extreme punishment
You equate killing babies and revelling in the act of describing it with punishing criminals. Prob best you see a psychiatrist sometime soon
Killing born babies is murder. Abortion isn't about babies, its about foetuses. Though the two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye.
What is the difference between a foetus and a baby, other than physical location? Should physical location really be the determining factor in whether a killing is murder or not?
What's the difference between a zygote or a foetus? What's the difference between an egg and a single ejaculate? Is menstruation murder? Is jacking one off?
A foetus is still part of the mother's body, a baby isn't
Because of the umbilical cord? Would you be ok with the termination of a baby outside the womb who has not had the cord yet cut?
This is simply scientifically inaccurate. The body of the foetus and the body of the mother are not the same body. Ask any doctor.
The relationship is symbiotic. An unborn foetus is a parasite.
Newborn babies are also entirely dependent on their parents. Peter Singer uses this as a justification for infanticide.
Bullshit. He uses it as justification for the lack of equivalence between killing a newborn and killing a rationale, thinking person. It's a philosophical distinction and absolutely not the same thing as your willfully-false and inflammatory interpretation.
It's not a false interpretation. Singer has indeed argued that infanticide should be lawful in limited circumstances.
Medically justfied euthanasia in extreme situations. You were one small step from implying that Singer would happily go around slaying babies because they are dependent on their mothers. Disingenuous at best.
I wonder when Ed will resign. Will he give himself the weekend?
He has surprised me and I suspect plenty of others during this campaign. I thought he would be a six week car crash, but he has actually done well. However, the bottom line is that despite having four years to make a mark he has failed to deliver a coherent, credible set of policies to put in front of the electorate. On top of which he has presided over Labour's total collapse in Scotland. That is not a prospectus for continued leadership after an election in which Labour will stand still in seat numbers, at best. So, farewell Ed - you fought a decent campaign, but you were a desperately poor leader.
Having spent the last two weekends initiating a discussion with candidates in the street and gathering a crowd of listeners, I have been amazed at how gullible the public are and how ready they are to accept the glibbest and flimsiest of promises (or wish lists) that look good to them. Only when the snags and unlikelihood of it ever being achieved are pointed out do the scales fall from their eyes. So expect unexpected results followed by disappointments.
When you listen to TV or radio , it is amazing the amount of idiots there are in the general public , you then realise how these stupid politicians manage to survive , they are a bit more cunning and savvy than the lumpen stupid public. I despair at times.
I wonder when Ed will resign. Will he give himself the weekend?
He has surprised me and I suspect plenty of others during this campaign. I thought he would be a six week car crash, but he has actually done well. However, the bottom line is that despite having four years to make a mark he has failed to deliver a coherent, credible set of policies to put in front of the electorate. On top of which he has presided over Labour's total collapse in Scotland. That is not a prospectus for continued leadership after an election in which Labour will stand still in seat numbers, at best. So, farewell Ed - you fought a decent campaign, but you were a desperately poor leader.
Ah cheer up you old bugger.
I thought the Tories might pull a bit clear in the final couple of weeks. It hasn't happened. Every time the Tories looked to pull away, the Labour share firmed up.
The Tories *may* get most seats, but not by much. And certainly by not enough.
I'm much more hopeful now that Cameron and his cronies are close to being justifiably defenestrated.
Miliband is not beholden to the rightwing press and it'll slosh around in impotent fits of anger while he puts his loose Labour / SNP arrangement together in the commons.
The next election will then be 5 years hence.
Once 2016 elections are out of the way, what advantage is there for the SNP to keep a by then unpopular Labour minority government in power?
There is none. The SNP will want any reasonable excuse to get an indy referendum and if they can't get that yet, and maybe even if they can any reasonable excuse to get the Tories back into Westminster (preferably keeping their hands clean).
Using the current state of play just seems common sense.. prob why it isn't used
No, it's not common sense at all. It would mean you are not comparing like with like. Imagine two very similar seats next door to each other, both won at the last GE by party X, which was the government party. One of them happened to have a by-election mid-term, and, as often happens, was won at the by-election by the opposition. When it comes to the next GE, if they both go back to the same party which won them last time, it's misleading to say that party X has made a 'gain' in the seat which held the by-election but not in the other, because this 'gain' is actually just a reflection of the random event of the by-election being held, not of progress by the party in one seat but not in the other.
It is complete common sense which is possibly why the political anoraks think it is wrong
Its only common sense if you decide to ignore what the voters did at the last General Election.
Why not compare against Council elections? Or European ones? We look from General election to General election as those are the consistent points.
Why not just use the current state of play in the seats that are being contested?
I wonder when Ed will resign. Will he give himself the weekend?
He has surprised me and I suspect plenty of others during this campaign. I thought he would be a six week car crash, but he has actually done well. However, the bottom line is that despite having four years to make a mark he has failed to deliver a coherent, credible set of policies to put in front of the electorate. On top of which he has presided over Labour's total collapse in Scotland. That is not a prospectus for continued leadership after an election in which Labour will stand still in seat numbers, at best. So, farewell Ed - you fought a decent campaign, but you were a desperately poor leader.
Ah cheer up you old bugger.
I thought the Tories might pull a bit clear in the final couple of weeks. It hasn't happened. Every time the Tories looked to pull away, the Labour share firmed up.
The Tories *may* get most seats, but not by much. And certainly by not enough.
I'm much more hopeful now that Cameron and his cronies are close to being justifiably defenestrated.
Miliband is not beholden to the rightwing press and it'll slosh around in impotent fits of anger while he puts his loose Labour / SNP arrangement together in the commons.
The next election will then be 5 years hence.
Once 2016 elections are out of the way, what advantage is there for the SNP to keep a by then unpopular Labour minority government in power?
1) Avoids a new Westminster election where they could only lose seats (assuming they have them all already) 2) Avoids potential brand damage if there's an election and the Tories get back in. 3) Preserves a situation where they have leverage.
Using the current state of play just seems common sense.. prob why it isn't used
No, it's not common sense at all. It would mean you are not comparing like with like. Imagine two very similar seats next door to each other, both won at the last GE by party X, which was the government party. One of them happened to have a by-election mid-term, and, as often happens, was won at the by-election by the opposition. When it comes to the next GE, if they both go back to the same party which won them last time, it's misleading to say that party X has made a 'gain' in the seat which held the by-election but not in the other, because this 'gain' is actually just a reflection of the random event of the by-election being held, not of progress by the party in one seat but not in the other.
It is complete common sense which is possibly why the political anoraks think it is wrong
Its only common sense if you decide to ignore what the voters did at the last General Election.
Why not compare against Council elections? Or European ones? We look from General election to General election as those are the consistent points.
Why not just use the current state of play in the seats that are being contested?
Because we're looking at votes. How the public is voting now, how the public voted last time.
Everything else is redundant on election night. It is the voters that matter. Why would you not look at the votes?
The election battle in London is set for a sensational climax, with all three of the biggest parties putting on support, an exclusive new poll reveals today.
Ed Miliband enters his final day of campaigning with Labour 13 points ahead among Londoners, according to research conducted by YouGov for the Evening Standard. Labour is up two points in a fortnight to hit 46 per cent — its best share since November 2013.
David Cameron’s Conservatives are up one point to 33 per cent, while Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats are up one point to be third with nine per cent.
The three parties’ gains come at the expense of Ukip and the Greens — both squeezed hard in the run-up to polling day, which could produce some surprise results in key battlegrounds.
Nigel Farage’s Ukip is down two points to eight — which could make all the difference in seats such as Croydon Central and Harrow East, where thousands of Ukippers hold the balance.
Natalie Bennett’s Greens have suffered the biggest squeeze, down two to stand at three per cent — the party’s lowest level since last August. That could make a crucial difference in seats such as Bermondsey & Old Southwark, where the Labour v Lib-Dem battle is on a knife-edge.
Labour’s poll lead, according to the research conducted from April 29 to May 1, is its biggest since last May when it had its best local election results for a generation. The result marks a swing of 5.5 per cent from the Conservatives since the 2010 election.
That would be the equivalent of Lab 40%, Con 36%, if repeated nationally. Clearly, London's politics is very different to the rest of the UK.
Labour would gain six from the Conservatives, and three from the Lib Dems on UNS. The Conservatives would gain two from the Lib Dems. In reality, some of these seats will be very tough nuts to crack.
London is now Labour ground-zero. I wouldn't be surprised if they cleaned up.
The only thing that can save the Tories now in some of those seats is turnout. I'm not holding my breath.
The anecdote I got about Labour being "very confident" in Ilford North was from a Conservative councillor friend of mine. He reckons if they're 10 pts ahead in London it'll drop. He had Finchley down as a Con Hold, and Battersea well out of reach. Had Enfield Southgate as a possible Lab gain, but that is obviously a longshot.
Ironically as the whole Cameron policy has aimed to do better amongst such voters. Fail.
My final pre-election suggested Bet of the Week, as if to prove that when it comes to punting I try not to let my heart rule my head, is that the Tories will win a grand total of NO seats in Scotland tomorrow, available from those nice folk at Ladbrokes at generous odds of evens. That's nil, none, nought, zero, zip, zippo seats for the Blue Team in Scotland ..... there's really nothing further to add on the subject! DYOR.
Using the current state of play just seems common sense.. prob why it isn't used
No, it's not common sense at all. It would mean you are not comparing like with like. Imagine two very similar seats next door to each other, both won at the last GE by party X, which was the government party. One of them happened to have a by-election mid-term, and, as often happens, was won at the by-election by the opposition. When it comes to the next GE, if they both go back to the same party which won them last time, it's misleading to say that party X has made a 'gain' in the seat which held the by-election but not in the other, because this 'gain' is actually just a reflection of the random event of the by-election being held, not of progress by the party in one seat but not in the other.
It is complete common sense which is possibly why the political anoraks think it is wrong
Bless.
Enoch Powell would have done it the right way.
Blimey what an idiot you've become!
I'm worried that the twist in your knickers is restricting the flow of oxygen to your brain.
Everyone's getting very premature about the result,Labour or more likely the Tories might just win by enough that the only choice possible is do they go for a minority or are the Lib Dems back in the cabinet office.
Whilst the whole Lab 270 Con 280, LD 25, SNP 55 problem is delicious it'll probably be a fair bit more clear cut than that.
I wonder when Ed will resign. Will he give himself the weekend?
He has surprised me and I suspect plenty of others during this campaign. I thought he would be a six week car crash, but he has actually done well. However, the bottom line is that despite having four years to make a mark he has failed to deliver a coherent, credible set of policies to put in front of the electorate. On top of which he has presided over Labour's total collapse in Scotland. That is not a prospectus for continued leadership after an election in which Labour will stand still in seat numbers, at best. So, farewell Ed - you fought a decent campaign, but you were a desperately poor leader.
You are too fatalistic, SO. Ed could easily be on his way to shake hands with the Queen in 48 hours.
You, Dan Hodges and Rogerdamus all predicting a Tory win is the worst news I've had all week!
we've got labourites thinking Ed's a gonner , and PB tories thinking he's next PM..
What a bizzare election.
I expected consistent Tory leads of 4-5% in the phone polls by now, and 1-2% in the online polls.
That hasn't happened, and we're now out of time, so I've changed my mind.
Although I've put my money on EICIPM, I still half expect that Ben Page of IPSO (?) will turn out to be right and there will be a very very late swing to Tories on the actual day itself.
Your money's in the right place. Rather like Ed's narrow win over his brother he will just make it over the line tomorrow. Right wing Tory backbenchers like Rees Mogg blew this election by not agreeing HoL reform and thereby boundary reform and a reduced HoC.
Cameron will resign if the numbers are bad for the Tories, but if we end up (as is likely) with a grey area where it is not clear whether a Tory or coalition Queens Speech would fail then Cameron would be entitled to give it a shot - for the sake of the country, etc. It would also buy some time to enable Labour and the SNP to show their hands and allow the press to rant about a possible losers coalition involving Labour
Using the current state of play just seems common sense.. prob why it isn't used
No, it's not common sense at all. It would mean you are not comparing like with like. Imagine two very similar seats next door to each other, both won at the last GE by party X, which was the government party. One of them happened to have a by-election mid-term, and, as often happens, was won at the by-election by the opposition. When it comes to the next GE, if they both go back to the same party which won them last time, it's misleading to say that party X has made a 'gain' in the seat which held the by-election but not in the other, because this 'gain' is actually just a reflection of the random event of the by-election being held, not of progress by the party in one seat but not in the other.
It is complete common sense which is possibly why the political anoraks think it is wrong
Its only common sense if you decide to ignore what the voters did at the last General Election.
Why not compare against Council elections? Or European ones? We look from General election to General election as those are the consistent points.
Why not just use the current state of play in the seats that are being contested?
Because we're looking at votes. How the public is voting now, how the public voted last time.
Everything else is redundant on election night. It is the voters that matter. Why would you not look at the votes?
Look we will go round in circles all day on this.. I disagree with you
If the Tories win Clacton, Rochester or Corby I will consider them gains, as they don't currently have the MP in those seats. Feel free to disagree, it wont change my view
I wonder when Ed will resign. Will he give himself the weekend?
He has surprised me and I suspect plenty of others during this campaign. I thought he would be a six week car crash, but he has actually done well. However, the bottom line is that despite having four years to make a mark he has failed to deliver a coherent, credible set of policies to put in front of the electorate. On top of which he has presided over Labour's total collapse in Scotland. That is not a prospectus for continued leadership after an election in which Labour will stand still in seat numbers, at best. So, farewell Ed - you fought a decent campaign, but you were a desperately poor leader.
Having spent the last two weekends initiating a discussion with candidates in the street and gathering a crowd of listeners, I have been amazed at how gullible the public are and how ready they are to accept the glibbest and flimsiest of promises (or wish lists) that look good to them. Only when the snags and unlikelihood of it ever being achieved are pointed out do the scales fall from their eyes. So expect unexpected results followed by disappointments.
When you listen to TV or radio , it is amazing the amount of idiots there are in the general public ...
..and, of course, 50% of people are even more stupid than that...
If the seat numbers are what they think they will be, what the Tories should do is, to put only FFA in the Queen's speech, and dare the Nats to vote it down.
Question for those who know - we need to have boundary reforms as the current boundaries are 15 years out of date now and reforms were due this Parliament but were postponed.
What happens with boundary reforms after this election. Will we see a new process of getting boundaries start again from scratch? How soon would that start and how long would it take until these come to a vote in the Commons? Is this set already or would the new government need to decide on the timetable?
Most of the work of the boundaries commission was done in the last Parliament, although this did include a reduction to 600 seats from 650. The vote against it in the Commons was actually a vote for the boundary commission to postpone their report until 2016, so that should happen without further political interference, although the report may be amended by Parliament and must be voted on in order to take effect.
I imagine that this will form part of a constitutional reform package that also covers further devolution, addresses the West Lothian question and Barnett formula. I would think Labour and Conservative would both be in favour so it should pass.
One of the characteristics of the next Parliament of whatever colour will be the need for consensus on bringing any bills to the House, in the absence of a majority or formal coalition.
Using the current state of play just seems common sense.. prob why it isn't used
No, it's not common sense at all. It would mean you are not comparing like with like. Imagine two very similar seats next door to each other, both won at the last GE by party X, which was the government party. One of them happened to have a by-election mid-term, and, as often happens, was won at the by-election by the opposition. When it comes to the next GE, if they both go back to the same party which won them last time, it's misleading to say that party X has made a 'gain' in the seat which held the by-election but not in the other, because this 'gain' is actually just a reflection of the random event of the by-election being held, not of progress by the party in one seat but not in the other.
It is complete common sense which is possibly why the political anoraks think it is wrong
Its only common sense if you decide to ignore what the voters did at the last General Election.
Why not compare against Council elections? Or European ones? We look from General election to General election as those are the consistent points.
Why not just use the current state of play in the seats that are being contested?
Because we're looking at votes. How the public is voting now, how the public voted last time.
Everything else is redundant on election night. It is the voters that matter. Why would you not look at the votes?
Look we will go round in circles all day on this.. I disagree with you
If the Tories win Clacton, Rochester or Corby I will consider them gains, as they don't currently have the MP in those seats. Feel free to disagree, it wont change my view
Using the current state of play just seems common sense.. prob why it isn't used
No, it's not common sense at all. It would mean you are not comparing like with like. Imagine two very similar seats next door to each other, both won at the last GE by party X, which was the government party. One of them happened to have a by-election mid-term, and, as often happens, was won at the by-election by the opposition. When it comes to the next GE, if they both go back to the same party which won them last time, it's misleading to say that party X has made a 'gain' in the seat which held the by-election but not in the other, because this 'gain' is actually just a reflection of the random event of the by-election being held, not of progress by the party in one seat but not in the other.
It is complete common sense which is possibly why the political anoraks think it is wrong
Bless.
Enoch Powell would have done it the right way.
Blimey what an idiot you've become!
I'm worried that the twist in your knickers is restricting the flow of oxygen to your brain.
I wonder when Ed will resign. Will he give himself the weekend?
He has surprised me and I suspect plenty of others during this campaign. I thought he would be a six week car crash, but he has actually done well. However, the bottom line is that despite having four years to make a mark he has failed to deliver a coherent, credible set of policies to put in front of the electorate. On top of which he has presided over Labour's total collapse in Scotland. That is not a prospectus for continued leadership after an election in which Labour will stand still in seat numbers, at best. So, farewell Ed - you fought a decent campaign, but you were a desperately poor leader.
Having spent the last two weekends initiating a discussion with candidates in the street and gathering a crowd of listeners, I have been amazed at how gullible the public are and how ready they are to accept the glibbest and flimsiest of promises (or wish lists) that look good to them. Only when the snags and unlikelihood of it ever being achieved are pointed out do the scales fall from their eyes. So expect unexpected results followed by disappointments.
When you listen to TV or radio , it is amazing the amount of idiots there are in the general public , you then realise how these stupid politicians manage to survive , they are a bit more cunning and savvy than the lumpen stupid public. I despair at times.
1. Said with a straight face? You sound just like the Labour Party you loathe. 2. Irony? Good one.
Using the current state of play just seems common sense.. prob why it isn't used
No, it's not common sense at all. It would mean you are not comparing like with like. Imagine two very similar seats next door to each other, both won at the last GE by party X, which was the government party. One of them happened to have a by-election mid-term, and, as often happens, was won at the by-election by the opposition. When it comes to the next GE, if they both go back to the same party which won them last time, it's misleading to say that party X has made a 'gain' in the seat which held the by-election but not in the other, because this 'gain' is actually just a reflection of the random event of the by-election being held, not of progress by the party in one seat but not in the other.
It is complete common sense which is possibly why the political anoraks think it is wrong
Its only common sense if you decide to ignore what the voters did at the last General Election.
Why not compare against Council elections? Or European ones? We look from General election to General election as those are the consistent points.
Why not just use the current state of play in the seats that are being contested?
Because we're looking at votes. How the public is voting now, how the public voted last time.
Everything else is redundant on election night. It is the voters that matter. Why would you not look at the votes?
Look we will go round in circles all day on this.. I disagree with you
If the Tories win Clacton, Rochester or Corby I will consider them gains, as they don't currently have the MP in those seats. Feel free to disagree, it wont change my view
Rochester is one of the very toughest seats to call. I think it's UKIP's 4th potential - Thurrock and Thanet are the top 3.
If the seat numbers are what they think they will be, what the Tories should do is, to put only FFA in the Queen's speech, and dare the Nats to vote it down.
A fine plan only slightly ruined by the existence of Conservative back benchers. After HoL reform went the way of the dodo no-one will believe they would vote through FFA for Scotland.
Mr. G, they'll take their tax revenue with them. And jobs.
There is always work for the industrious Morris, and the sooner we liberate the working men and women of the UK from global corporate yoke, the sooner we can forge ahead, together. Small businesses and small people are the backbone of a small and enduring state.
A large number of small businesses rely on trade with the larger corporations. So let's remove all aircraft, arms, vehicle and steel, manufacture plus oil and gas companies from the UK, as well as large retailers and banks - are you suggesting going back to the time when every village had its own farmer, bootmaker, butcher, etc?
That would be a good step.
Hmm
I hope you can afford a £3 loaf...
If it tasted decent, or bake my own. They seem to manage it in Europe a lot better than we do. Bread is cheap and fresh from local shops , no plastic overpriced cotton wool stuff there.
If the seat numbers are what they think they will be, what the Tories should do is, to put only FFA in the Queen's speech, and dare the Nats to vote it down.
A fine plan only slightly ruined by the existence of Conservative back benchers. After HoL reform went the way of the dodo no-one will believe they would vote through FFA for Scotland.
Still doesn't mean it can't be in the Queen's Speech!
Using the current state of play just seems common sense.. prob why it isn't used
No, it's not common sense at all. It would mean you are not comparing like with like. Imagine two very similar seats next door to each other, both won at the last GE by party X, which was the government party. One of them happened to have a by-election mid-term, and, as often happens, was won at the by-election by the opposition. When it comes to the next GE, if they both go back to the same party which won them last time, it's misleading to say that party X has made a 'gain' in the seat which held the by-election but not in the other, because this 'gain' is actually just a reflection of the random event of the by-election being held, not of progress by the party in one seat but not in the other.
It is complete common sense which is possibly why the political anoraks think it is wrong
Its only common sense if you decide to ignore what the voters did at the last General Election.
Why not compare against Council elections? Or European ones? We look from General election to General election as those are the consistent points.
Why not just use the current state of play in the seats that are being contested?
Because we're looking at votes. How the public is voting now, how the public voted last time.
Everything else is redundant on election night. It is the voters that matter. Why would you not look at the votes?
Look we will go round in circles all day on this.. I disagree with you
If the Tories win Clacton, Rochester or Corby I will consider them gains, as they don't currently have the MP in those seats. Feel free to disagree, it wont change my view
Fair enough. I can see the merit in both methods but my final thought on this is that since there is a merit in both methods I think the most important issue for me is that the media is consistent. If the media cherry picked which method to use depending upon what suited their own agenda that would be bad.
Mr. G, they'll take their tax revenue with them. And jobs.
There is always work for the industrious Morris, and the sooner we liberate the working men and women of the UK from global corporate yoke, the sooner we can forge ahead, together. Small businesses and small people are the backbone of a small and enduring state.
A large number of small businesses rely on trade with the larger corporations. So let's remove all aircraft, arms, vehicle and steel, manufacture plus oil and gas companies from the UK, as well as large retailers and banks - are you suggesting going back to the time when every village had its own farmer, bootmaker, butcher, etc?
That would be a good step.
Hmm
I hope you can afford a £3 loaf...
If it tasted decent, or bake my own. They seem to manage it in Europe a lot better than we do. Bread is cheap and fresh from local shops , no plastic overpriced cotton wool stuff there.
Mr. G, they'll take their tax revenue with them. And jobs.
There is always work for the industrious Morris, and the sooner we liberate the working men and women of the UK from global corporate yoke, the sooner we can forge ahead, together. Small businesses and small people are the backbone of a small and enduring state.
A large number of small businesses rely on trade with the larger corporations. So let's remove all aircraft, arms, vehicle and steel, manufacture plus oil and gas companies from the UK, as well as large retailers and banks - are you suggesting going back to the time when every village had its own farmer, bootmaker, butcher, etc?
That would be a good step.
Hmm
I hope you can afford a £3 loaf...
My home town, with a population of around 2500, has 3 bakers & 2 butchers and certainly doesn't have £3 loaves.
If the seat numbers are what they think they will be, what the Tories should do is, to put only FFA in the Queen's speech, and dare the Nats to vote it down.
They'll vote down any QS, short of full independence with no referendum. I was the first poster on the whole site who considered that Labour might abstain a CON QS, though that looks doubtful with today's smoke signal. The key question is - how much support does Chuka have ?
If the seat numbers are what they think they will be, what the Tories should do is, to put only FFA in the Queen's speech, and dare the Nats to vote it down.
A fine plan only slightly ruined by the existence of Conservative back benchers. After HoL reform went the way of the dodo no-one will believe they would vote through FFA for Scotland.
Still doesn't mean it can't be in the Queen's Speech!
It would also be a touch discordant to have spent the last 2 months screaming about the dangers of Lab doing a deal with the SNP and then doing a deal with the SNP.
If the seat numbers are what they think they will be, what the Tories should do is, to put only FFA in the Queen's speech, and dare the Nats to vote it down.
A fine plan only slightly ruined by the existence of Conservative back benchers. After HoL reform went the way of the dodo no-one will believe they would vote through FFA for Scotland.
I wonder when Ed will resign. Will he give himself the weekend?
He has surprised me and I suspect plenty of others during this campaign. I thought he would be a six week car crash, but he has actually done well. However, the bottom line is that despite having four years to make a mark he has failed to deliver a coherent, credible set of policies to put in front of the electorate. On top of which he has presided over Labour's total collapse in Scotland. That is not a prospectus for continued leadership after an election in which Labour will stand still in seat numbers, at best. So, farewell Ed - you fought a decent campaign, but you were a desperately poor leader.
Having spent the last two weekends initiating a discussion with candidates in the street and gathering a crowd of listeners, I have been amazed at how gullible the public are and how ready they are to accept the glibbest and flimsiest of promises (or wish lists) that look good to them. Only when the snags and unlikelihood of it ever being achieved are pointed out do the scales fall from their eyes. So expect unexpected results followed by disappointments.
When you listen to TV or radio , it is amazing the amount of idiots there are in the general public ...
..and, of course, 50% of people are even more stupid than that...
Patrick, very true , it is truly amazing how stupid and ill educated the majority are.
If the seat numbers are what they think they will be, what the Tories should do is, to put only FFA in the Queen's speech, and dare the Nats to vote it down.
A fine plan only slightly ruined by the existence of Conservative back benchers. After HoL reform went the way of the dodo no-one will believe they would vote through FFA for Scotland.
I think Tory backbenchers would be happy with FFA so long as it was fair and addressed the WLQ.
If the seat numbers are what they think they will be, what the Tories should do is, to put only FFA in the Queen's speech, and dare the Nats to vote it down.
A fine plan only slightly ruined by the existence of Conservative back benchers. After HoL reform went the way of the dodo no-one will believe they would vote through FFA for Scotland.
Question for those who know - we need to have boundary reforms as the current boundaries are 15 years out of date now and reforms were due this Parliament but were postponed.
What happens with boundary reforms after this election. Will we see a new process of getting boundaries start again from scratch? How soon would that start and how long would it take until these come to a vote in the Commons? Is this set already or would the new government need to decide on the timetable?
Once a Commission has completed a review, it makes a report to the appropriate Secretary of State who puts legislation to the Parliament implementing the recommendations. Parliament may approve or reject these recommendations, but may not amend them. If Parliament approves the recommendations, then the sovereign makes an Order formalising the boundary changes which are used at the next general election. Any by-elections use the pre-existing boundaries.
This is from Wikipedia - usual caveats apply - but as far as I can see the Boundary commission has to report by 2018 (5 years from when the rules were amended) - but can you really see a labour minority government implementing them when they will be so damaging to the party - especially as the SNP will not relish losing 6 or 7 seats (as the last report suggested they would.) One thing. the tories will make hay on this in 2020 about labour gerrymandering the election.
If the seat numbers are what they think they will be, what the Tories should do is, to put only FFA in the Queen's speech, and dare the Nats to vote it down.
A fine plan only slightly ruined by the existence of Conservative back benchers. After HoL reform went the way of the dodo no-one will believe they would vote through FFA for Scotland.
Still doesn't mean it can't be in the Queen's Speech!
It would also be a touch discordant to have spent the last 2 months screaming about the dangers of Lab doing a deal with the SNP and then doing a deal with the SNP.
If the seat numbers are what they think they will be, what the Tories should do is, to put only FFA in the Queen's speech, and dare the Nats to vote it down.
A fine plan only slightly ruined by the existence of Conservative back benchers. After HoL reform went the way of the dodo no-one will believe they would vote through FFA for Scotland.
Whether Cameron would have the guts to put together FFA and EVEL, *and* Miliband would refuse the EVEL element and try to persuade the SNP to go along with FFA-only are serious questions, though.
I wonder when Ed will resign. Will he give himself the weekend?
He has surprised me and I suspect plenty of others during this campaign. I thought he would be a six week car crash, but he has actually done well. However, the bottom line is that despite having four years to make a mark he has failed to deliver a coherent, credible set of policies to put in front of the electorate. On top of which he has presided over Labour's total collapse in Scotland. That is not a prospectus for continued leadership after an election in which Labour will stand still in seat numbers, at best. So, farewell Ed - you fought a decent campaign, but you were a desperately poor leader.
You are too fatalistic, SO. Ed could easily be on his way to shake hands with the Queen in 48 hours.
You, Dan Hodges and Rogerdamus all predicting a Tory win is the worst news I've had all week!
we've got labourites thinking Ed's a gonner , and PB tories thinking he's next PM..
What a bizzare election.
I expected consistent Tory leads of 4-5% in the phone polls by now, and 1-2% in the online polls.
That hasn't happened, and we're now out of time, so I've changed my mind.
Although I've put my money on EICIPM, I still half expect that Ben Page of IPSO (?) will turn out to be right and there will be a very very late swing to Tories on the actual day itself.
Your money's in the right place. Rather like Ed's narrow win over his brother he will just make it over the line tomorrow. Right wing Tory backbenchers like Rees Mogg blew this election by not agreeing HoL reform and thereby boundary reform and a reduced HoC.
Er, no. It was the LDs and only the duplicitous LDs who voted down the boundaries, for their own self-centered reasons.
Except that for the current season we've already started tallying the points which can't change now. For this Parliament the same can't be said we haven't got a single result yet unlike the Premier League.
That was the current state of play before the first results of this season. By elections etc are not games from this season they are more like pre season friendlies. Nobody counts a pre season friendly in the state of play.
If the seat numbers are what they think they will be, what the Tories should do is, to put only FFA in the Queen's speech, and dare the Nats to vote it down.
A fine plan only slightly ruined by the existence of Conservative back benchers. After HoL reform went the way of the dodo no-one will believe they would vote through FFA for Scotland.
Still doesn't mean it can't be in the Queen's Speech!
It would also be a touch discordant to have spent the last 2 months screaming about the dangers of Lab doing a deal with the SNP and then doing a deal with the SNP.
Seems like it might be helpful for Labour for the Tories to hang around for a couple of weeks trying to do a deal with the SNP before giving up or losing a confidence vote. That makes it much easier for Labour to subsequently do their own deal with the SNP.
I wonder when Ed will resign. Will he give himself the weekend?
He has surprised me and I suspect plenty of others during this campaign. I thought he would be a six week car crash, but he has actually done well. However, the bottom line is that despite having four years to make a mark he has failed to deliver a coherent, credible set of policies to put in front of the electorate. On top of which he has presided over Labour's total collapse in Scotland. That is not a prospectus for continued leadership after an election in which Labour will stand still in seat numbers, at best. So, farewell Ed - you fought a decent campaign, but you were a desperately poor leader.
Having spent the last two weekends initiating a discussion with candidates in the street and gathering a crowd of listeners, I have been amazed at how gullible the public are and how ready they are to accept the glibbest and flimsiest of promises (or wish lists) that look good to them. Only when the snags and unlikelihood of it ever being achieved are pointed out do the scales fall from their eyes. So expect unexpected results followed by disappointments.
When you listen to TV or radio , it is amazing the amount of idiots there are in the general public , you then realise how these stupid politicians manage to survive , they are a bit more cunning and savvy than the lumpen stupid public. I despair at times.
1. Said with a straight face? You sound just like the Labour Party you loathe. 2. Irony? Good one.
Topping nearer 2. However there are a lot of really stupid/uneducated/whatever people about, I do wonder if some of them should be allowed to vote in reality. I fail to understand how any person in Scotland can say they are voting Labour as they are progressive when they have had 50 years in Scotland and wrecked the place. Tories at least you know they are going to soak the poor and give their pals loads of dosh but at least they don't often try to kid on that they are indeed nice and that "we are all in it together".
Using the current state of play just seems common sense.. prob why it isn't used
No, it's not common sense at all. It would mean you are not comparing like with like. Imagine two very similar seats next door to each other, both won at the last GE by party X, which was the government party. One of them happened to have a by-election mid-term, and, as often happens, was won at the by-election by the opposition. When it comes to the next GE, if they both go back to the same party which won them last time, it's misleading to say that party X has made a 'gain' in the seat which held the by-election but not in the other, because this 'gain' is actually just a reflection of the random event of the by-election being held, not of progress by the party in one seat but not in the other.
It is complete common sense which is possibly why the political anoraks think it is wrong
Its only common sense if you decide to ignore what the voters did at the last General Election.
Why not compare against Council elections? Or European ones? We look from General election to General election as those are the consistent points.
Why not just use the current state of play in the seats that are being contested?
Because we're looking at votes. How the public is voting now, how the public voted last time.
Everything else is redundant on election night. It is the voters that matter. Why would you not look at the votes?
Look we will go round in circles all day on this.. I disagree with you
If the Tories win Clacton, Rochester or Corby I will consider them gains, as they don't currently have the MP in those seats. Feel free to disagree, it wont change my view
Rochester is one of the very toughest seats to call. I think it's UKIP's 4th potential - Thurrock and Thanet are the top 3.
Mr. G, they'll take their tax revenue with them. And jobs.
There is always work for the industrious Morris, and the sooner we liberate the working men and women of the UK from global corporate yoke, the sooner we can forge ahead, together. Small businesses and small people are the backbone of a small and enduring state.
A large number of small businesses rely on trade with the larger corporations. So let's remove all aircraft, arms, vehicle and steel, manufacture plus oil and gas companies from the UK, as well as large retailers and banks - are you suggesting going back to the time when every village had its own farmer, bootmaker, butcher, etc?
That would be a good step.
Hmm
I hope you can afford a £3 loaf...
If it tasted decent, or bake my own. They seem to manage it in Europe a lot better than we do. Bread is cheap and fresh from local shops , no plastic overpriced cotton wool stuff there.
Does that apply in the big dreary suburbs around Paris as ell as the Dordogne?
2010 Liberal Democrat Vote Share in Labour Held seats;
Walthamstow 28.7% Leyton 27.6% Hackney N 23.9% Hackney S 22.4% Bethnal Green 20.1% Ilford S 17.0% East Ham 11.6% West Ham 11.5% Poplar 11.2% Dagenham 8.6% Barking 8.2%
ComRes Current LD share in East London = 4%
Once we start dipping into Islington, Vauxhall, Lewisham 20-35% LD becomes commonplace.
There has to be a massive chance that Labour are piling on votes in places they already hold.
Mr. G, they'll take their tax revenue with them. And jobs.
There is always work for the industrious Morris, and the sooner we liberate the working men and women of the UK from global corporate yoke, the sooner we can forge ahead, together. Small businesses and small people are the backbone of a small and enduring state.
A large number of small businesses rely on trade with the larger corporations. So let's remove all aircraft, arms, vehicle and steel, manufacture plus oil and gas companies from the UK, as well as large retailers and banks - are you suggesting going back to the time when every village had its own farmer, bootmaker, butcher, etc?
That would be a good step.
Hmm
I hope you can afford a £3 loaf...
If it tasted decent, or bake my own. They seem to manage it in Europe a lot better than we do. Bread is cheap and fresh from local shops , no plastic overpriced cotton wool stuff there.
You can buy freshly baked bread in the shops.
Rob, only a handful of decent ones though , not in general. Really depends where you live and nothing like Europe.
Owen Jones@OwenJones84·2 mins2 minutes ago The Tories only have a shot in this election because of a campaign of fear and smear. I wonder how their supporters privately feel about it
And Labour's sole campaign policy is: The Tories will destroy the NHS
No fear or smear there.
Recent academic research (no, can't cite, sorry - DYOR) published on one of the big websites showed user satisfaction with the NHS at an historic high, order of 85% IIRC. Not a bloody word about that from the geniuses at CCHQ, AFAICS. One can only weep.
Sounds like WIngs Over Scotland put a Scottish VI poll with supplementals out there and will be reporting results today.
It will be the Panelbase one. It explains why there were questions about Rangers.
Sevco.
Just seen the likely reason ...
Wings Over Scotland @WingsScotland Snippet from our coming poll: large majorities of both Celtic and "Rangers" fans support the Offensive Behaviour (Football) Act.
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pre-persons
It just indicates it wasn't good - much as ones in Inverness and Ross can't be good either.
http://tinyurl.com/ItIsABloodyCoup
There will be I think 3 seats at the election that are held by a different party than in 2010, the two UKIP defections and Corby, which was a genuine Con>Lab swing in a marginal seat where the sitting MP resigned. That's a surprisingly small number of changes over the past 5 years.
Enoch Powell would have done it the right way.
What happens with boundary reforms after this election. Will we see a new process of getting boundaries start again from scratch? How soon would that start and how long would it take until these come to a vote in the Commons? Is this set already or would the new government need to decide on the timetable?
The Tories will destroy the NHS
No fear or smear there.
I hope you can afford a £3 loaf...
I'm reminded of the Labour leaflet that just came through my door, discussing the 'extreme cuts' that the Tories are apparently planning in the NHS. Apparently bare-faced lies are fine when you're repeating them on behalf of Ed.
Why not compare against Council elections? Or European ones? We look from General election to General election as those are the consistent points.
2) Avoids potential brand damage if there's an election and the Tories get back in.
3) Preserves a situation where they have leverage.
Everything else is redundant on election night. It is the voters that matter. Why would you not look at the votes?
My final pre-election suggested Bet of the Week, as if to prove that when it comes to punting I try not to let my heart rule my head, is that the Tories will win a grand total of NO seats in Scotland tomorrow, available from those nice folk at Ladbrokes at generous odds of evens. That's nil, none, nought, zero, zip, zippo seats for the Blue Team in Scotland ..... there's really nothing further to add on the subject!
DYOR.
90% of Irish people to be overweight within 15 years:
http://www.thejournal.ie/who-obesity-ireland-2086191-May2015/
Whilst the whole Lab 270 Con 280, LD 25, SNP 55 problem is delicious it'll probably be a fair bit more clear cut than that.
If the Tories win Clacton, Rochester or Corby I will consider them gains, as they don't currently have the MP in those seats. Feel free to disagree, it wont change my view
Winston Churchill
I imagine that this will form part of a constitutional reform package that also covers further devolution, addresses the West Lothian question and Barnett formula. I would think Labour and Conservative would both be in favour so it should pass.
One of the characteristics of the next Parliament of whatever colour will be the need for consensus on bringing any bills to the House, in the absence of a majority or formal coalition.
2. Irony? Good one.
I think that's why the expression is wisdom of crowds, rather than individuals.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/01/europe/uk-election-issues/index.html
Democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the others that have been tried from time to time.
They aren't the Mos Eisley of politics.
http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/matchday/league-table.html?season=2014-2015&timelineView=played&matchNo=9&tableView=CURRENT_STANDINGS
This is from Wikipedia - usual caveats apply - but as far as I can see the Boundary commission has to report by 2018 (5 years from when the rules were amended) - but can you really see a labour minority government implementing them when they will be so damaging to the party - especially as the SNP will not relish losing 6 or 7 seats (as the last report suggested they would.) One thing. the tories will make hay on this in 2020 about labour gerrymandering the election.
Whether Cameron would have the guts to put together FFA and EVEL, *and* Miliband would refuse the EVEL element and try to persuade the SNP to go along with FFA-only are serious questions, though.
That was the current state of play before the first results of this season. By elections etc are not games from this season they are more like pre season friendlies. Nobody counts a pre season friendly in the state of play.
I fail to understand how any person in Scotland can say they are voting Labour as they are progressive when they have had 50 years in Scotland and wrecked the place. Tories at least you know they are going to soak the poor and give their pals loads of dosh but at least they don't often try to kid on that they are indeed nice and that "we are all in it together".
Walthamstow 28.7%
Leyton 27.6%
Hackney N 23.9%
Hackney S 22.4%
Bethnal Green 20.1%
Ilford S 17.0%
East Ham 11.6%
West Ham 11.5%
Poplar 11.2%
Dagenham 8.6%
Barking 8.2%
ComRes Current LD share in East London = 4%
Once we start dipping into Islington, Vauxhall, Lewisham 20-35% LD becomes commonplace.
There has to be a massive chance that Labour are piling on votes in places they already hold.
Wings Over Scotland
@WingsScotland Snippet from our coming poll: large majorities of both Celtic and "Rangers" fans support the Offensive Behaviour (Football) Act.