Watching GOD on the TV (and earlier hearing him on the radio) the following strikes me:
If, after Cons get more votes than Lab but we are in no-mans land (ie Cons 270-290, LD 20-25) so Dave + Nick don't have enough votes for a majority, why should Dave accept that Ed can form or even try to form a govt when Ed has specifically ruled out an SNP pact?
Dave can point out that Lab + SNP is, according to Ed, a no-no; while Ed can’t say “but we’ve got the SNP.”
Or can he?
I think in that situation Cameron is entitled to stick around and give it a go, so I don't think in that situation he'd go immediately. I'd expect some sort of arrangement between Lab and the SNP would be made in the next week (short of a 'deal' they would try to say) which makes clear the SNP would vote down the Tories and not abstain or vote against an Ed government. At which point even though there's no formal coalition agreement between Ed and the SNP on the cards, Cameron will see that he doesn't have the votes and will resign - I don't think he'll try or be allowed by his own team knifing him to take it to a humiliating vote which they will lose - and Ed will be called.
I think that if the Tories are the largest party Cameron will insist on putting it to the vote - he will want everyone to see that there is a deal between Miliband and the SNP. If there's a second election Labour will be as screwed in England as they are about to be in Scotland.
The palace had already indicated nobody should be approaching the Queen unless they have formal arrangements to get a QS passed. It would be unacceptable to politicise HMQ in this way if there is a chance if a nay vote, and the Tories would pay a heavy price for it.
If and as largest party the onus must be on the tories to seek to form a govt. If they cannot then they would tell HMQ so. The PM then has to advise the next choice. If this is the 2nd and 3rd largest then that is their bed to lie on if they chose to. When the LOTO presumably kisses hands to accept, it can only be on the premise of SNP support. He could not do his if the SNP are publicly saying they will not formally offer support. This is the same if Labour are largest party. The SNP would have to formally make clear their support.
There is a definite UKIP vote down here in Pembs, despite a complete lack of campaigning by them. We suspect that much of the vote are people who may not have voted in the past, or used the Libs as a protest vote. We also expect the main 2 parties to lose some votes to them.
Similar thing happening in the Valleys. Random displays of UKIP signs. Like if somebody in a household likes UKIP, they are willing to put twelve signs and posters up on the house.
I can't remember ever seeing UKIP stuff in previous elections.
Watching GOD on the TV (and earlier hearing him on the radio) the following strikes me:
If, after Cons get more votes than Lab but we are in no-mans land (ie Cons 270-290, LD 20-25) so Dave + Nick don't have enough votes for a majority, why should Dave accept that Ed can form or even try to form a govt when Ed has specifically ruled out an SNP pact?
Dave can point out that Lab + SNP is, according to Ed, a no-no; while Ed can’t say “but we’ve got the SNP.”
Or can he?
I think in that situation Cameron is entitled to stick around and give it a go, so I don't think in that situation he'd go immediately. I'd expect some sort of arrangement between Lab and the SNP would be made in the next week (short of a 'deal' they would try to say) which makes clear the SNP would vote down the Tories and not abstain or vote against an Ed government. At which point even though there's no formal coalition agreement between Ed and the SNP on the cards, Cameron will see that he doesn't have the votes and will resign - I don't think he'll try or be allowed by his own team knifing him to take it to a humiliating vote which they will lose - and Ed will be called.
I think that if the Tories are the largest party Cameron will insist on putting it to the vote - he will want everyone to see that there is a deal between Miliband and the SNP. If there's a second election Labour will be as screwed in England as they are about to be in Scotland.
The palace had already indicated nobody should be approaching the Queen unless they have formal arrangements to get a QS passed. It would be unacceptable to politicise HMQ in this way if there is a chance if a nay vote, and the Tories would pay a heavy price for it.
If and as largest party the onus must be on the tories to seek to form a govt. If they cannot then they would tell HMQ so. The PM then has to advise the next choice. If this is the 2nd and 3rd largest then that is their bed to lie on if they chose to. When the LOTO presumably kisses hands to accept, it can only be on the premise of SNP support. He could not do his if the SNP are publicly saying they will not formally offer support. This is the same if Labour are largest party. The SNP would have to formally make clear their support.
Yep. If nobody can do it, HMQ must appoint a caretaker PM (leader of the largest party) to exercise her prerogatives and dissolve parliament.
There is a definite UKIP vote down here in Pembs, despite a complete lack of campaigning by them. We suspect that much of the vote are people who may not have voted in the past, or used the Libs as a protest vote. We also expect the main 2 parties to lose some votes to them.
Similar thing happening in the Valleys. Random displays of UKIP signs. Like if somebody in a household likes UKIP, they are willing to put twelve signs and posters up on the house.
I can't remember ever seeing UKIP stuff in previous elections.
UKIP will get votes in Wales. Will give those who believe UKIP should focus on being an 'English party' pause for thought.
Just had Greens push through the same leaflet as the one which arrived yesterday am. Another generic vote for what you believe in stuff. Had more than enough of woolly utopian socialism in the past, and have no intention of voting for that sort of platform.
They might eat at the Labour vote in Bristol West, but rickshaws stunts, and charity stalls on Gloucester Rd are not substitutes for data gathering and analysis. LDs & Labour appear to profile the seat, the Greens on the basis of what I have had don't.
Examples of leaflets can be found on www.electionleaflets.org/
So much euphoria at polls that show Labour narrowly behind or tied
Maybe people are looking at the direction of movement this week. You are also seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that the Tories need to be several points ahead of Labour in order to even get the same number of seats.
Not sure that is true anymore.
Why, please explain ? I am pretty sure it is because of differential turnouts in safe seats etc.
Labour will rack up several million votes in Scotland for almost no return. The 35% strategy should mean Labour voters should be more attracted where they are already strong, and total left wing vote against them ha dropped since the last election, but the efficiency of SNP and lib dems should mean that their 70 seats will come from around the same votes as approx Ukip and possibly 5 seats max.
Former Rhondda MP Allan Rogers is the president of our rugby club - he's 80 now and in good nick. He has good old parliament stories to tell.
Yesterday his grandson became the youngest player to play for our 1st team, at the tender age of 17. Good player too; a strong, tall, skilful centre - already signed to the Dragons development squad.
Allan has a Labour poster up in his window, flying the flag for his old party.
I agree thats the only explantion. What I can't work out is whether the data is wrong and they are incompetent or the data is right and they are in the sh1t. Where Cameron has been campaigning makes me think the latter. Would be nice to have leak or two from cchq...actually maybe that there is no leaks tells a story on its own.
I agree with you that the second explanation is more likely: we are told Labour has a superior ground operation and intelligence, which helped them in 2010, so I doubt it is because the data is sh1t.
On CCHQ, their big ace is fear amongst Conservative voters of an Ed Government. You certainly would not want to be encouraging them that it is safe to not vote Tory.
As far as the Conservatives are concerned, if the aim was to stun the Labour heart and brain with innovative policies the reality has been they've hacked at limbs and often missed. This should have been an easy election for the Conservatives with the huge advantages of an improving economy, a weak Labour leader (apparently), a popular Prime Minister and a huge war chest with which to fight the election.
This election may be several PhD theses waiting to happen. Cameron is better loved than Ed but do we vote for parties or presidents? The economy is improving but is it enough to offset Plan A's flatlining the recovery? Has money spent voter-targeting via social media seen the Tories home?
But it is hard to escape the conclusion that both main parties know sod all about politics.
I'm not sure PBers do either. I think there is an increasing disconnect between everybody and reality. The PhD theses should be on why.
For those interested in taking their minds of the whole thing - I note that the Avengers episode on 'True Entertainment' in 5 mins time is that one about the Hellfire Club. I think perhaps I will watch Salvage Hunters.
They know they are narrowly ahead on seats but not by enough to make it without the SNP and possibly Liberals? Therefore they know it's going to go tittius verticus?
That fits the polling, many of the predictions of narrow Labour plurality, and the marginals polling.
Tories relieved because they have the South in the bag, Labour have lost Scotland and they stand to mop up in any possible GE2?
Something like that hmmmm?
Go with the simplest explanation i.e. that they are indeed worried from what they are hearing back. Ever since that Labour Uncut article, the mood music has changed from Labour.
There is something in the argument that Labour are ALWAYS very pessimistic, though, especially from opposition. There were tons of seats in 1997 where resources were pulled because they assumed they had no chance, which they ended up winning.
That doesn't mean that their pessimism is definitely not well-founded this time, of course.
The key difference with 1997 is that this time Labour started being optimistic overall but that optimism has faded. One of the things that gets missed about Ed is that he is a big numbers geek: he knows the data inside out and he would have been more aware than anyone that, despite what the press said, the numbers favoured him on seat distribution. Hence how he has brushed off the insults. But that has now changed -you do not rush to Russell Brand or do #EdStone if you think you are on course to win, which opinion poll numbers suggest. The most likeliest explanation is that the data they are getting back is not what they predicted.
I agree thats the only explantion. What I can't work out is whether the data is wrong and they are incompetent or the data is right and they are in the sh1t. Where Cameron has been campaigning makes me think the latter. Would be nice to have leak or two from cchq...actually maybe that there is no leaks tells a story on its own.
It's now got to the point where I've given up speculating and am preparing for the worst case scenario where the pols are right while also preparing for the potential pleasant surprise of them being significantly off.
Tories relieved because they have the South in the bag, Labour have lost Scotland and they stand to mop up in any possible GE2?
Something like that hmmmm?
Go with the simplest explanation i.e. that they are indeed worried from what they are hearing back. Ever since that Labour Uncut article, the mood music has changed from Labour.
Possibly yes, but what makes Labour gloomy and what we might expect would make them gloomy in terms of expectations are not interchangeable integers!
They know they are narrowly ahead on seats but not by enough to make it without the SNP and possibly Liberals? Therefore they know it's going to go tittius verticus?
That fits the polling, many of the predictions of narrow Labour plurality, and the marginals polling.
Tories relieved because they have the South in the bag, Labour have lost Scotland and they stand to mop up in any possible GE2?
Something like that hmmmm?
Go with the simplest explanation i.e. that they are indeed worried from what they are hearing back. Ever since that Labour Uncut article, the mood music has changed from Labour.
There is something in the argument that Labour are ALWAYS very pessimistic, though, especially from opposition. There were tons of seats in 1997 where resources were pulled because they assumed they had no chance, which they ended up winning.
That doesn't mean that their pessimism is definitely not well-founded this time, of course.
The key difference with 1997 is that this time Labour started being optimistic overall but that optimism has faded. One of the things that gets missed about Ed is that he is a big numbers geek: he knows the data inside out and he would have been more aware than anyone that, despite what the press said, the numbers favoured him on seat distribution. Hence how he has brushed off the insults. But that has now changed -you do not rush to Russell Brand or do #EdStone if you think you are on course to win, which opinion poll numbers suggest. The most likeliest explanation is that the data they are getting back is not what they predicted.
I agree thats the only explantion. What I can't work out is whether the data is wrong and they are incompetent or the data is right and they are in the sh1t. Where Cameron has been campaigning makes me think the latter. Would be nice to have leak or two from cchq...actually maybe that there is no leaks tells a story on its own.
Watching GOD on the TV (and earlier hearing him on the radio) the following strikes me:
Dave can point out that Lab + SNP is, according to Ed, a no-no; while Ed can’t say “but we’ve got the SNP.”
Or can he?
I think in that situation Cameron is entitled to stick around and give it a go, so I don't think in that situation he'd go immediately. I'd expect some sort of arrangement between Lab and the SNP would be made in the next week (short of a 'deal' they would try to say) which makes clear the SNP would vote down the Tories and not abstain or vote against an Ed government. At which point even though there's no formal coalition agreement between Ed and the SNP on the cards, Cameron will see that he doesn't have the votes and will resign - I don't think he'll try or be allowed by his own team knifing him to take it to a humiliating vote which they will lose - and Ed will be called.
I think that if the Tories are the largest party Cameron will insist on putting it to the vote - he will want everyone to see that there is a deal between Miliband and the SNP. If there's a second election Labour will be as screwed in England as they are about to be in Scotland.
The palace had already indicated nobody should be approaching the Queen unless they have formal arrangements to get a QS passed. It would be unacceptable to politicise HMQ in this way if there is a chance if a nay vote, and the Tories would pay a heavy price for it.
If and as largest party the onus must be on the tories to seek to form a govt. If they cannot then they would tell HMQ so. The PM then has to advise the next choice. If this is the 2nd and 3rd largest then that is their bed to lie on if they chose to. When the LOTO presumably kisses hands to accept, it can only be on the premise of SNP support. He could not do his if the SNP are publicly saying they will not formally offer support. This is the same if Labour are largest party. The SNP would have to formally make clear their support.
The SNP would not have to formally make clear anything. They have the right to vote whichever way they want.
If Cameron resigns, the Queen will ask Miliband to form a government. The QS does not have to put to the House immediately. Miliband may assure the Queen that he has the numbers. After all, no one can ever prove it before a vote.
By the way, Harold Wilson, in his book clarified that a resigning PM does not advise the Queen of his/her successor nor is the Queen bound by it.
What's the worst possible result (for everyone)? I'd suggest some result where LAB+SNP is just bigger than Con+LD+UKIP+DUP, and where Lab+LD is less than Con. Maybe something like
Con 284, Lab 264, LD 20. SNP 57, UKIP 7, DUP 9
Sod's law being the only universal certainty I guess that's what we'll get!
Watching GOD on the TV (and earlier hearing him on the radio) the following strikes me:
Dave can point out that Lab + SNP is, according to Ed, a no-no; while Ed can’t say “but we’ve got the SNP.”
Or can he?
I think in that situation Cameron is entitled to stick around and give it a go, so I don't think in that situation he'd go immediately. I'd expect some sort of arrangement between Lab and the SNP would be made in the next week (short of a 'deal' they would try to say) which makes clear the SNP would vote down the Tories and not abstain or vote against an Ed government. At which point even though there's no formal coalition agreement between Ed and the SNP on the cards, Cameron will see that he doesn't have the votes and will resign - I don't think he'll try or be allowed by his own team knifing him to take it to a humiliating vote which they will lose - and Ed will be called.
I think that if the Tories are the largest party Cameron will insist on putting it to the vote - he will want everyone to see that there is a deal between Miliband and the SNP. If there's a second election Labour will be as screwed in England as they are about to be in Scotland.
The palace had already indicated nobody should be approaching the Queen unless they have formal arrangements to get a QS passed. It would be unacceptable to politicise HMQ in this way if there is a chance if a nay vote, and the Tories would pay a heavy price for it.
If and as largest party the onus must be on the tories to seek to form a govt. If they cannot then they would tell HMQ so. The PM then has to advise the next choice. If this is the 2nd and 3rd largest then that is their bed to lie on if they chose to. When the LOTO presumably kisses hands to accept, it can only be on the premise of SNP support. He could not do his if the SNP are publicly saying they will not formally offer support. This is the same if Labour are largest party. The SNP would have to formally make clear their support.
The SNP would not have to formally make clear anything. They have the right to vote whichever way they want.
If Cameron resigns, the Queen will ask Miliband to form a government. The QS does not have to put to the House immediately. Miliband may assure the Queen that he has the numbers. After all, no one can ever prove it before a vote.
By the way, Harold Wilson, in his book clarified that a resigning PM does not advise the Queen of his/her successor nor is the Queen bound by it.
Convention dictates he should have the numbers. Lying to HMQ would be the end of him and Labour, so he can go for it if he wishes for sure.
Watching GOD on the TV (and earlier hearing him on the radio) the following strikes me:
If, after Cons get more votes than Lab but we are in no-mans land (ie Cons 270-290, LD 20-25) so Dave + Nick don't have enough votes for a majority, why should Dave accept that Ed can form or even try to form a govt when Ed has specifically ruled out an SNP pact?
Dave can point out that Lab + SNP is, according to Ed, a no-no; while Ed can’t say “but we’ve got the SNP.”
Or can he?
I think in that situation Cameron is entitled to stick around and give it a go, so I don't think in that situation he'd go immediately. I'd expect some sort of arrangement between Lab and the SNP would be made in the next week (short of a 'deal' they would try to say) which makes clear the SNP would vote down the Tories and not abstain or vote against an Ed government. At which point even though there's no formal coalition agreement between Ed and the SNP on the cards, Cameron will see that he doesn't have the votes and will resign - I don't think he'll try or be allowed by his own team knifing him to take it to a humiliating vote which they will lose - and Ed will be called.
I think that if the Tories are the largest party Cameron will insist on putting it to the vote - he will want everyone to see that there is a deal between Miliband and the SNP. If there's a second election Labour will be as screwed in England as they are about to be in Scotland.
The palace had already indicated nobody should be approaching the Queen unless they have formal arrangements to get a QS passed. It would be unacceptable to politicise HMQ in this way if there is a chance if a nay vote, and the Tories would pay a heavy price for it.
If there has to be a formal arrangement then Edstone will have to talk to the SNP. If there are not enough libs to bail him out. I suspect this where cam tries to go minority government.
Quite. Dave will try for a minority government if the numbers mean that the only alternative is a pact between SNP and Labour. They will have to talk to each other, which Ed has made clear he won't do. The politics of it from there could be hilarious, as Salmond basically has Ed by the balls if Mili wants power, he'll keep him in place either for a few months or until the Scottish election then force GEII with Labour being slaughtered in England for doing the deal. Ed's best plan for his party if not for himself is to go for the quick GEII or even a grand coalition.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 37s37 seconds ago Polling Observatory seat forecast LAB 273 CON 271 LD 24 SNP 55 UKIP 2
LAB most seats 5.1 Betfair
People finally waking up to Lab most seats. Will history record it as a late swing to the possibility of Lab most seats, even though it should have been seen as much more likely than it has been from the start?
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 37s37 seconds ago Polling Observatory seat forecast LAB 273 CON 271 LD 24 SNP 55 UKIP 2
LAB most seats 5.1 Betfair
People finally waking up to Lab most seats. Will history record it as a late swing to the possibility of Lab most seats, even though it should have been seen as much more likely than it has been from the start?
Lol, pollsters have been split all along on it, and political pundits
Someone summon Compouter2. He foresaw the ICM Poll (whether it was a prediction or inside info)....what do you think YouGov will be?
Oh, he knew the contents of that ICM poll and is very quick off the mark with yougov. I imagine he's a journo (Toilets McGuire would be fun) or a senior Labour hack.
He's far too amusing to be MacGuire
The figures were very good from CCHQ 4 days ago. There is no doubt that Labour voters are feeling galvanised now so squeaky bum time. Reds claim they 1,000 going to Battersea tomorrow. Pointless really but hey ho. If polls are correct then Labour most seats
Someone summon Compouter2. He foresaw the ICM Poll (whether it was a prediction or inside info)....what do you think YouGov will be?
Oh, he knew the contents of that ICM poll and is very quick off the mark with yougov. I imagine he's a journo (Toilets McGuire would be fun) or a senior Labour hack.
He's far too amusing to be MacGuire
The figures were very good from CCHQ 4 days ago. There is no doubt that Labour voters are feeling galvanised now so squeaky bum time. Reds claim they 1,000 going to Battersea tomorrow. Pointless really but hey ho. If polls are correct then Labour most seats
Someone summon Compouter2. He foresaw the ICM Poll (whether it was a prediction or inside info)....what do you think YouGov will be?
Oh, he knew the contents of that ICM poll and is very quick off the mark with yougov. I imagine he's a journo (Toilets McGuire would be fun) or a senior Labour hack.
He's far too amusing to be MacGuire
The figures were very good from CCHQ 4 days ago. There is no doubt that Labour voters are feeling galvanised now so squeaky bum time. Reds claim they 1,000 going to Battersea tomorrow. Pointless really but hey ho. If polls are correct then Labour most seats
Of course they would be - they wanted to motivate the troops.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 37s37 seconds ago Polling Observatory seat forecast LAB 273 CON 271 LD 24 SNP 55 UKIP 2
LAB most seats 5.1 Betfair
People finally waking up to Lab most seats. Will history record it as a late swing to the possibility of Lab most seats, even though it should have been seen as much more likely than it has been from the start?
Lol, pollsters have been split all along on it, and political pundits
It is possible I may be overreacting a tad, I'll admit.
Just picked up the latest (and probably last) election communication from my letterbox in Ealing Central and Acton. It's from the Lib-Dems, whose candidate concludes, 'P.S. Remember we live in a 3-way marginal ...'
One note for people going to bed (or wanting to bet) after Sunderland results.
There are a lot more Labour Voters than Tory voters in 2010 - so there is a good chance that in absolute numbers there are more red kippers than blue kippers. I would discount a modest swing Lab- Con in those seats. If there is no swing (unless UKIP do phenomenally well) it will look good for Ed.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn 6m6 minutes ago Wow. We now have the final @YouGov poll for #GE2015; 10,000 asked. Peter Kellner's final seat projection also revealed at 10pm on #SunNation
TND ramping has to be good for CON one presumes but its only an internet poll so assume PB Tories will ignore it!!
An Internet poll that's good for CON, Tory majority nailed on
Blues can't keep dreaming that next poll will be good. Momentum is with reds. Hopefully, that will change.
Sigh. It isn't. Not in general. Polls over the last day gave been split on movement to or from the big two. The three largest moves have been Ashcroft and ICM to red and ComRes to blue. The depression over a single, partial, poll is almost hilarious! Get some backbone and back your horses home, people. This is fun!
Thank you and you are right. The Dalai Lama said 'fun is imperative' to paraphrase and mis-spell the great man.
If neither party can guarantee a QS, pressure will be brought to bear for national government
Would there still be a leader of the opposition (SNP?) on only 40 or so seats?
Probably a breakaway of one of the two main parties. You could see up to 100 saying no way and refusing the whip. There would be one though, yes
That's make PMQs fun if it is Alex v Dave.
Depending on who led the national government, the junior partner might well see 50-100 breakaway as 'independent Con or Lab' and become the largest group in opposition which would make them LOTO. Step forward, John Redwood!
If neither party can guarantee a QS, pressure will be brought to bear for national government
I do not think Labour would be bound to bring forward a Queen's Speech, if they took office after a Tory QS was defeated.
MacDonald didn't in 1924.
The point is, the palace have been clear that HMQ will not tolerate being put in the position of delivering a QS that may not pass. They are overplaying their hand a bit but there is the possibility of an existential crisis for the current constitutional settlement/monarchy if the result is deadlock
Edit - after a failed QS the failing leader will have to explain how and why HMQ was put in this position and deal with the consequences of parliament expressly denying the will of the monarch as set out in her speech, as well as take the blame for it and the ensuing constitutional meltdown. But no, no need for a second QS, indeed it's unthinkable
If neither party can guarantee a QS, pressure will be brought to bear for national government
Would there still be a leader of the opposition (SNP?) on only 40 or so seats?
Probably a breakaway of one of the two main parties. You could see up to 100 saying no way and refusing the whip. There would be one though, yes
That's make PMQs fun if it is Alex v Dave.
Depending on who led the national government, the junior partner might well see 50-100 breakaway as 'independent Con or Lab' and become the largest group in opposition which would make them LOTO. Step forward, John Redwood!
I could see an enlarged 'awkward squad' (75?) breaking off the Tories in a National Government while a party obliterates Labor from the left (Loony Unity?).
Blocking EU referendum a 'top priority' for Lib Dems - Vince Cable http://polho.me/1dNbzpw pic.twitter.com/A47qAmX6d7
Not very liberal or democratic party.
Continued membership of the EU is not without its risks. Something many europhiles seem to forget when they bang on about a referendum causing damage to the UK economy.
If neither party can guarantee a QS, pressure will be brought to bear for national government
Would there still be a leader of the opposition (SNP?) on only 40 or so seats?
Probably a breakaway of one of the two main parties. You could see up to 100 saying no way and refusing the whip. There would be one though, yes
That's make PMQs fun if it is Alex v Dave.
Depending on who led the national government, the junior partner might well see 50-100 breakaway as 'independent Con or Lab' and become the largest group in opposition which would make them LOTO. Step forward, John Redwood!
I could see an enlarged 'awkward squad' (75?) breaking off the Tories in a National Government while a party obliterates Labor from the left (Loony Unity?).
Both parties would suffer horribly for uniting in the national interest. Politics can be cruel as well as profitable they would find.
If neither party can guarantee a QS, pressure will be brought to bear for national government
Would there still be a leader of the opposition (SNP?) on only 40 or so seats?
Probably a breakaway of one of the two main parties. You could see up to 100 saying no way and refusing the whip. There would be one though, yes
Lots of silly speculation again. We are not at war. Mrs Thatcher once said she would be happy with Helmut Schmidt in her cabinet he was such a moderate. That kind of SDP politics makes a grand coalition easier in Germany. There would be little practical a Con/Lab coalition could do. No point to one.
If neither party can guarantee a QS, pressure will be brought to bear for national government
I do not think Labour would be bound to bring forward a Queen's Speech, if they took office after a Tory QS was defeated.
MacDonald didn't in 1924.
The point is, the palace have been clear that HMQ will not tolerate being put in the position of delivering a QS that may not pass. They are overplaying their hand a bit but there is the possibility of an existential crisis for the current constitutional settlement/monarchy if the result is deadlock
Edit - after a failed QS the failing leader will have to explain how and why HMQ was put in this position and deal with the consequences of parliament expressly denying the will of the monarch as set out in her speech, as well as take the blame for it and the ensuing constitutional meltdown. But no, no need for a second QS, indeed it's unthinkable
This seems rather highflown. A 'QS' may be passed easily, but any individual bill in it may be defeated - indeed it may even be defeated in the Lords. The Queens Speech has nothing to do with the 'will of the monarch'. She is reading a speech given to her by the govt. Its given to her on the day by the Lord Chancellor.
Stig Abell @StigAbell 23m23 minutes ago Tories to lead coalition on weekdays; Labour at weekends and on holidays. Shared custody of Nick Clegg, obviously.
YouGov is definitely looking like a 10,000 sample tie.
Probably not HP, although it's just possible that I might put in a guest appearance around midnight. I sort of gave up on this event because there has been so little promotion of it and I assumed that it had been called off - the odd routine beer evening gets mentioned time and time again on PB.com, but there you go, not very well organised. How about your good self?
The real poll starts in nine hours and will say what it says. It will be fascinating and I think that we are all (and the Pollsters too) in uncharted waters.
To everyone on PB who is taking an active part in these elections, good luck to you all and remember that while there is much that divides us, there is more that unites us and at least we all care enough to get involved!
We shall see who has egg on their faces very soon now!
Comments
This is the same if Labour are largest party. The SNP would have to formally make clear their support.
I can't remember ever seeing UKIP stuff in previous elections.
They might eat at the Labour vote in Bristol West, but rickshaws stunts, and charity stalls on Gloucester Rd are not substitutes for data gathering and analysis. LDs & Labour appear to profile the seat, the Greens on the basis of what I have had don't.
Examples of leaflets can be found on www.electionleaflets.org/
Former Rhondda MP Allan Rogers is the president of our rugby club - he's 80 now and in good nick. He has good old parliament stories to tell.
Yesterday his grandson became the youngest player to play for our 1st team, at the tender age of 17. Good player too; a strong, tall, skilful centre - already signed to the Dragons development squad.
Allan has a Labour poster up in his window, flying the flag for his old party.
I agree thats the only explantion. What I can't work out is whether the data is wrong and they are incompetent or the data is right and they are in the sh1t. Where Cameron has been campaigning makes me think the latter. Would be nice to have leak or two from cchq...actually maybe that there is no leaks tells a story on its own.
I agree with you that the second explanation is more likely: we are told Labour has a superior ground operation and intelligence, which helped them in 2010, so I doubt it is because the data is sh1t.
On CCHQ, their big ace is fear amongst Conservative voters of an Ed Government. You certainly would not want to be encouraging them that it is safe to not vote Tory.
For those interested in taking their minds of the whole thing - I note that the Avengers episode on 'True Entertainment' in 5 mins time is that one about the Hellfire Club. I think perhaps I will watch Salvage Hunters.
Polling Observatory seat forecast
LAB 273
CON 271
LD 24
SNP 55
UKIP 2
LAB most seats 5.1 Betfair
If Cameron resigns, the Queen will ask Miliband to form a government. The QS does not have to put to the House immediately. Miliband may assure the Queen that he has the numbers. After all, no one can ever prove it before a vote.
By the way, Harold Wilson, in his book clarified that a resigning PM does not advise the Queen of his/her successor nor is the Queen bound by it.
Down from 4.5% in the mayoral election to 3%.
Con 284, Lab 264, LD 20. SNP 57, UKIP 7, DUP 9
Sod's law being the only universal certainty I guess that's what we'll get!
3333 seconds
The politics of it from there could be hilarious, as Salmond basically has Ed by the balls if Mili wants power, he'll keep him in place either for a few months or until the Scottish election then force GEII with Labour being slaughtered in England for doing the deal. Ed's best plan for his party if not for himself is to go for the quick GEII or even a grand coalition.
That's a pretty messy outcome.
Ah, bless, he's still using the present tense.
There are a lot more Labour Voters than Tory voters in 2010 - so there is a good chance that in absolute numbers there are more red kippers than blue kippers. I would discount a modest swing Lab- Con in those seats. If there is no swing (unless UKIP do phenomenally well) it will look good for Ed.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/may/06/election-2015-live-controversial-welfare-cuts-revealed-campaign-final-day
easyodds.com
new thread btw
Bad result for my betting bank, but a perfectly plausible one.
MacDonald didn't in 1924.
Edit - after a failed QS the failing leader will have to explain how and why HMQ was put in this position and deal with the consequences of parliament expressly denying the will of the monarch as set out in her speech, as well as take the blame for it and the ensuing constitutional meltdown.
But no, no need for a second QS, indeed it's unthinkable
PoliticsHome ✔ @politicshome
Blocking EU referendum a 'top priority' for Lib Dems - Vince Cable http://polho.me/1dNbzpw pic.twitter.com/A47qAmX6d7
Not very liberal or democratic party.
EXCLUSIVE: Union bosses tell Miliband: Offer Lib Dems voting reform to keep Cameron out http://news.channel4.com/election2015/05/06/ … by @MichaelLCrick
Chuka Ummanna dissed it.
Mrs Thatcher once said she would be happy with Helmut Schmidt in her cabinet he was such a moderate. That kind of SDP politics makes a grand coalition easier in Germany. There would be little practical a Con/Lab coalition could do. No point to one.
I however will be asleep.
Sportingindex: 316 (290+26)
Spreadex: 314.5 (289+25.5)
'Video of people queuing up to see Ed in Leeds now.'
All carefully vetted Labour party members.
Tories to lead coalition on weekdays; Labour at weekends and on holidays. Shared custody of Nick Clegg, obviously.
YouGov is definitely looking like a 10,000 sample tie.
Will OGH be topping up his SELL bet?
'Political party in members only audience shocker.'
So why do they pretend they are ordinary people ?
I sort of gave up on this event because there has been so little promotion of it and I assumed that it had been called off - the odd routine beer evening gets mentioned time and time again on PB.com, but there you go, not very well organised.
How about your good self?
To everyone on PB who is taking an active part in these elections, good luck to you all and remember that while there is much that divides us, there is more that unites us and at least we all care enough to get involved!
We shall see who has egg on their faces very soon now!