I'm a simple chap, so I wonder why Lab Most Seats is available at 5.0 when the Con/Lab contests which Labour are very unlikely to win if they don't get most seats are available at 1.4 to 1.67 (or even more) or the Tories - we are talking about seats 50 or 60 down the list of Con-held Labour targets.
Although for the Tories to win most seats effectively means that they can't afford to lose more than 40 seats net to Labour, I suppose there may well be a few seats further down the target list which may fall prey to the Red Team for whatever reason, including, although barely credible I know, the differing quality of the respective candidates.
But Cameron is very far away from the seats needed to remain in place with Clegg, about 25 away, with 22 hours to go.
You and the BBC are both talking about this as though performance in the polls is the race and the vote itself is just the minor matter of breaking the finishing tape.
Please can people note the following very carefully:
- the Sun is telling people in England to vote TORY (one reason being to "stop SNP running the country")
- the Sun in Scotland is telling people in Scotland to vote SNP
The Tories have lost the campaign, and will probably be the smaller party tomorrow.
On the upside, Labour are nowhere NEAR a majority and will be forced to eat crow by Sturgeon, possibly killing the Labour party long term.
Lose lose lose lose. Everyone loses. LOSE. The Loser Election.
Normally would bow to your wisdom, but wouldn't be so sure, as long as Labour are the largest party. If they are, then Clegg or no, the Lib Dems basically have to support some form of Labour government - the Tory numbers wouldn't work, and any 'legitimacy questions' work against Cameron. They both agree a Lab-Lib deal which is basically steady as she goes on the economy, with the most totemic cuts scrapped (bedroom tax etc) using the flexibility given by not needing to reach a surplus so soon, but continuing the squeeze on departmental spending in the short term while it can be blamed on inherited plans. The centrepiece though would be electoral and constitutional reform - Clegg gets another chance to change FPTP, the house of Lords is replaced and, the clever bit would be to offer the Nats far more powers, but in a way which also devolves power away from Westminster to the English to make a more federal UK, selling it as giving more powers to everyone not just the Scots. You tie this into the same program as part of sorting out our constitutional mess. The Nats are offered it on a take-it-or leave it basis and would have to vote for it, or at least abstain - as they're being offered what they supposedly want and the alternative is a) a Tory government, or b) no government at all. The Tories would be left arguing for a system which apparently created their nightmare outcome, and Ed's a 'reforming PM' on the cheap, getting a few manifesto pledges through before going to the country having fallen out with the SNP providing the economy hasn't hit another iceberg. Optimistic, yes - but doable with a fair wind, as long as you're the largest party.
The real problems for Labour occur if it's just behind the Tories but can block them forming a government - then the Lib Dems become more reticent about any deal, and the SNP put Labour into the impossible position of choosing between this 'lock the Tories out of power' stuff and the realisation that doing so upon a shaky SNP mandate would be suicide in England, and that the SNP would be free to pull the rug out and blame Labour for being too Tory.
If Lab get most seats, it's possible to see a strategic way out of things, if not things get deeply problematic.
agree. even if labour can get a QS through with SNP support, if they are not largest party then Labour will lose all credibility in England after the statements Edm has made pre election, political suicide for labour, better to bring about a second GE and ask the british people to give them a decisive victory
The Tories have lost the campaign, and will probably be the smaller party tomorrow.
On the upside, Labour are nowhere NEAR a majority and will be forced to eat crow by Sturgeon, possibly killing the Labour party long term.
Lose lose lose lose. Everyone loses. LOSE. The Loser Election.
Normally would bow to your wisdom, but wouldn't be so sure, as long as Labour are the largest party. If they are, then Clegg or no, the Lib Dems basically have to support some form of Labour government - the Tory numbers wouldn't work, and any 'legitimacy questions' work against Cameron. They both agree a Lab-Lib deal which is basically steady as she goes on the economy, with the most totemic cuts scrapped (bedroom tax etc) using the flexibility given by not needing to reach a surplus so soon, but continuing the squeeze on departmental spending in the short term while it can be blamed on inherited plans. The centrepiece though would be electoral and constitutional reform - Clegg gets another chance to change FPTP, the house of Lords is replaced and, the clever bit would be to offer the Nats far more powers, but in a way which also devolves power away from Westminster to the English to make a more federal UK, selling it as giving more powers to everyone not just the Scots. You tie this into the same program as part of sorting out our constitutional mess. The Nats are offered it on a take-it-or leave it basis and would have to vote for it, or at least abstain - as they're being offered what they supposedly want and the alternative is a) a Tory government, or b) no government at all. The Tories would be left arguing for a system which apparently created their nightmare outcome, and Ed's a 'reforming PM' on the cheap, getting a few manifesto pledges through before going to the country having fallen out with the SNP providing the economy hasn't hit another iceberg. Optimistic, yes - but doable with a fair wind, as long as you're the largest party.
The real problems for Labour occur if it's just behind the Tories but can block them forming a government - then the Lib Dems become more reticent about any deal, and the SNP put Labour into the impossible position of choosing between this 'lock the Tories out of power' stuff and the realisation that doing so upon a shaky SNP mandate would be suicide in England, and that the SNP would be free to pull the rug out and blame Labour for being too Tory.
If Lab get most seats, it's possible to see a strategic way out of things, if not things get deeply problematic.
I think the problem with this is -- even if I accept Ed Mili is a great reforming politician (doubtful! ) -- I don’t think he would be able to convince all his party.
For example, the block of 30 odd Welsh Labour party don’t want PR or a more federal UK. They’re happy as they are. FPTP works very nicely for them
Speedy Anti war anti Blair leftwingers had already switched from Labour to LD or to a lesser extent Respect and Green in 2005, it was voters who backed Blair in 2005 and switched to Cameron in 2005 who were responsible for the rise in Tory voteshare
Davis would probably have won not much more than Howard got in 2005, maybe 33-35%, Labour would still have been on 29%, however Clegg may have got to 27% or so. Davis would certainly have been in no position to win a majority straight away
But Cameron is very far away from the seats needed to remain in place with Clegg, about 25 away, with 22 hours to go.
You and the BBC are both talking about this as though performance in the polls is the race and the vote itself is just the minor matter of breaking the finishing tape.
Please can people note the following very carefully:
- the Sun is telling people in England to vote TORY (one reason being to "stop SNP running the country")
- the Sun in Scotland is telling people in Scotland to vote SNP
I know that the Sun is telling its readers to vote Tory&SNP, it always does. How can the same endorsement in 2015 as in 2010 affect the polls differently this time in favour of the Tories?
I think the market is greatly undervaluing labour at largest party. All the forecast models are using >1% Tory lead in popular vote. The polls are not showing that.
I think the market is greatly undervaluing labour at largest party. All the forecast models are using >1% Tory lead in popular vote. The polls are not showing that.
todays polls maybe, but the trend of recent polls esp. phone polls has shown tory leads from 1 - 6%
Daniel Finkelstein (@Dannythefink) 06/05/2015 07:57 Re @LucyMPowell comment. Obvious she meant it wasn't the stone itself that meant he would keep his promise. Not the gaffe it's portrayed as.
Although for the Tories to win most seats effectively means that they can't afford to lose more than 40 seats net to Labour, I suppose there may well be a few seats further down the target list which may fall prey to the Red Team for whatever reason, including, although barely credible I know, the differing quality of the respective candidates.
Sure, but they can't ALL be exceptions. So if you bet on a basket of them, you can diversify away any seat-specific risk.
Don't let's too carried away just yet. Here and now the Tories are 1/5 or even shorter to win the most seats. Labour on the other hand are 4/1. The betting markets very evidently believe the Blue team are set to win this election comfortably. We'll find out soon enough.
Its an interesting read. The one thing I definitely do agree with their analysis on is the local election and bye election results over the last 2 years. Labour have simply not performed as well as an opposition should.
Speedy Anti war anti Blair leftwingers had already switched from Labour to LD or to a lesser extent Respect and Green in 2005, it was voters who backed Blair in 2005 and switched to Cameron in 2005 who were responsible for the rise in Tory voteshare
Davis would probably have won not much more than Howard got in 2005, maybe 33-35%, Labour would still have been on 29%, however Clegg may have got to 27% or so. Davis would certainly have been in no position to win a majority straight away
I though the rise of the Tory vote share had something to do with the financial crash of 2008 and the massive recession that followed, or was I mistaken?
And for the love of God I cannot believe that a Blairite would have voted for the LD in 2010, back then it was almost official LD policy to lynch Tony Blair.
What makes a leader successful are two things, brains and the common touch, Cameron has neither, Davis is not perfect but he has more of those than Cameron, Brown or Clegg.
Daniel Finkelstein (@Dannythefink) 06/05/2015 07:57 Re @LucyMPowell comment. Obvious she meant it wasn't the stone itself that meant he would keep his promise. Not the gaffe it's portrayed as.
It took the best brains of the Labour spin-meisters three days to come up with that ludicrously unconvincing gloss on the gaffe?
If Lab get most seats, it's possible to see a strategic way out of things, if not things get deeply problematic.
With Labour in a strong minority, I feel like most policies they'd have somewhere to go. For anything with a multi-party consensus or rUK vs. Scotland (e.g. Trident), they have Con and LD. For something more left-leaning, they have SNP.
That still leaves more middling things where in theory the other parties could all work together to cause trouble (though in a lot of cases this would require strong whipping to keep down the number of rebels/abstentions). But by their nature these wouldn't be extreme, so they'd probably be well within reach of quid pro quo deals with other parties. And not necessarily exciting, newsworthy deals, either.
All of that can be done with Miliband clearly sticking to his pre-election stance on deals. SNP can't vote down a Lab queen's speech, because that would so utterly undermine their position that I don't think even their voters would stand for it.
I think the main concern would be if the SNP started causing trouble in policies they should naturally support just to damage Labour, or in order to try to force negotiation. I guess it remains to be seen how much their voters would forgive that.
Daniel Finkelstein (@Dannythefink) 06/05/2015 07:57 Re @LucyMPowell comment. Obvious she meant it wasn't the stone itself that meant he would keep his promise. Not the gaffe it's portrayed as.
It took the best brains of the Labour spin-meisters three days to come up with that ludicrously unconvincing gloss on the gaffe?
Daniel Finkelstein (@Dannythefink) 06/05/2015 07:57 Re @LucyMPowell comment. Obvious she meant it wasn't the stone itself that meant he would keep his promise. Not the gaffe it's portrayed as.
It took the best brains of the Labour spin-meisters three days to come up with that ludicrously unconvincing gloss on the gaffe?
That clearly is what she meant. That doesn't excuse her from the unforgivable stupidity of saying it the way she did.
Daniel Finkelstein (@Dannythefink) 06/05/2015 07:57 Re @LucyMPowell comment. Obvious she meant it wasn't the stone itself that meant he would keep his promise. Not the gaffe it's portrayed as.
It took the best brains of the Labour spin-meisters three days to come up with that ludicrously unconvincing gloss on the gaffe?
I'm sure they have a 'Lucy Powell' department to handle these...
Daniel Finkelstein (@Dannythefink) 06/05/2015 07:57 Re @LucyMPowell comment. Obvious she meant it wasn't the stone itself that meant he would keep his promise. Not the gaffe it's portrayed as.
It took the best brains of the Labour spin-meisters three days to come up with that ludicrously unconvincing gloss on the gaffe?
The Fink is hardly on Labour's payroll!
No, but presumably he's reporting what he is being told, rather than making it up himself.
Alternatively, Labour should hire him, if they couldn't think of that one themselves!
Wondering whether the coalition should have gone for four year fixed terms rather than five.
It's simply too long.
I think the Tories would have done worse if the election were held after four years, rather than the five, given the economic recovery.
If the election were held last year Labour would have been on course for a large majority, back then there was no SNP surge, but it is debatable if UKIP would have had a greater impact as they hadn't yet win the Euro's or any By-elections back then.
Don't let's too carried away just yet. Here and now the Tories are 1/5 or even shorter to win the most seats. Labour on the other hand are 4/1. The betting markets very evidently believe the Blue team are set to win this election comfortably. We'll find out soon enough.
Its an interesting read. The one thing I definitely do agree with their analysis on is the local election and bye election results over the last 2 years. Labour have simply not performed as well as an opposition should.
I'm sorry to say that I disagree, for the reasons in the cartoon I linked: Nobody ever breaks a precedent, until they do. In this case, no party ever does much worse in locals than generals... until Ukip shows up as the voice of protest in local elections.
Daniel Finkelstein (@Dannythefink) 06/05/2015 07:57 Re @LucyMPowell comment. Obvious she meant it wasn't the stone itself that meant he would keep his promise. Not the gaffe it's portrayed as.
It took the best brains of the Labour spin-meisters three days to come up with that ludicrously unconvincing gloss on the gaffe?
The Fink is hardly on Labour's payroll!
No, but presumably he's reporting what he is being told, rather than making it up himself.
Alternatively, Labour should hire him, if they couldn't think of that one themselves!
Or it could be true....
(I know what they're talking about because of the hundreds of posts about it here but I havent actually seen or heard the interview so I have no idea whether it's a plausible explanation.)
Speedy May well have been, but those voters may well have voted for Major in '92, then Blair, then Cameron in 2010, they were not leftwingers
Most Blairites were not staunch Iraq Warites but centrists, they may well have voted for Clegg given the alternative of Brown and Davis. I would also add judgement and charisma to your criteria
I know that the Sun is telling its readers to vote Tory&SNP, it always does.
Really?
Does it all end for Cam in 24hrs Rich?
Who knows? To be honest I've not given it much thought, since if, God forbid, we do end up with Ed Miliband in No 10, there will be much more important things to worry about than David Cameron.
In any case his place in history as one of the very best post-war PMs is already assured.
If Lab get most seats, it's possible to see a strategic way out of things, if not things get deeply problematic.
With Labour in a strong minority, I feel like most policies they'd have somewhere to go. For anything with a multi-party consensus or rUK vs. Scotland (e.g. Trident), they have Con and LD. For something more left-leaning, they have SNP.
That still leaves more middling things where in theory the other parties could all work together to cause trouble (though in a lot of cases this would require strong whipping to keep down the number of rebels/abstentions). But by their nature these wouldn't be extreme, so they'd probably be well within reach of quid pro quo deals with other parties. And not necessarily exciting, newsworthy deals, either.
All of that can be done with Miliband clearly sticking to his pre-election stance on deals. SNP can't vote down a Lab queen's speech, because that would so utterly undermine their position that I don't think even their voters would stand for it.
I think the main concern would be if the SNP started causing trouble in policies they should naturally support just to damage Labour, or in order to try to force negotiation. I guess it remains to be seen how much their voters would forgive that.
The tricky part would be budgets, since there's inevitably going to be plenty to attack from a leftward direction and the Tories are unlikely to be prepared to vote with the government to keep the policy direction in the centre.
I know that the Sun is telling its readers to vote Tory&SNP, it always does.
Really?
Does it all end for Cam in 24hrs Rich?
Who knows? To be honest I've not given it much thought, since if, God forbid, we do end up with Ed Miliband in No 10, there will be much more important things to worry about than David Cameron.
In any case his place in history as one of the very best post-war PMs is already assured.
We should have a pretty good idea this time tomorrow I imagine...
That clearly is what she meant. That doesn't excuse her from the unforgivable stupidity of saying it the way she did.
If that is what she meant, why on earth didn't she and the Labour spin-doctors immediately make that clear, rather than trying to pretend that she hadn't said it?
I know that the Sun is telling its readers to vote Tory&SNP, it always does.
Really?
Does it all end for Cam in 24hrs Rich?
Who knows? To be honest I've not given it much thought, since if, God forbid, we do end up with Ed Miliband in No 10, there will be much more important things to worry about than David Cameron.
In any case his place in history as one of the very best post-war PMs is already assured.
We should have a pretty good idea this time tomorrow I imagine...
Actually we might not, if it looks like an indecisive result.
Daniel Finkelstein (@Dannythefink) 06/05/2015 07:57 Re @LucyMPowell comment. Obvious she meant it wasn't the stone itself that meant he would keep his promise. Not the gaffe it's portrayed as.
It took the best brains of the Labour spin-meisters three days to come up with that ludicrously unconvincing gloss on the gaffe?
The Fink is hardly on Labour's payroll!
No, but presumably he's reporting what he is being told, rather than making it up himself.
Alternatively, Labour should hire him, if they couldn't think of that one themselves!
Or it could be true....
(I know what they're talking about because of the hundreds of posts about it here but I havent actually seen or heard the interview so I have no idea whether it's a plausible explanation.)
Here it was discussed as the 7,896th gaffe that cost Labour the election. We nearly got up to eight thousand. Should have tried a bit harder. Maybe there was more mileage in the sandwich.
i'm surprised the tories haven't used the comparison of failing France under a socialist President to successful UK under tories during the election campaign esp. as Hollande was held up as Milibands like minded friend when he got elected on a no austerity agenda
Too busy to post before now. A friend made an excellent point to me tonight. Will the local elections tomorrow in England and Wales leave some minor party voters to vote for the minor party in the locals and tory or labour in the general? Thereby pushing up labour tory shares at the expense of green ukip and lib dem? not a consideration in Scotland obviously! I think it will push up the labour and tory votes.
i'm surprised the tories haven't used the comparison of failing France under a socialist President to successful UK under tories during the election campaign esp. as Hollande was held up as Milibands like minded friend when he got elected on a no austerity agenda
"Britain could end up like France on 'Fallout Friday' if Labour wins, says Osborne'"
Don't let's too carried away just yet. Here and now the Tories are 1/5 or even shorter to win the most seats. Labour on the other hand are 4/1. The betting markets very evidently believe the Blue team are set to win this election comfortably. We'll find out soon enough.
Its an interesting read. The one thing I definitely do agree with their analysis on is the local election and bye election results over the last 2 years. Labour have simply not performed as well as an opposition should.
I'm sorry to say that I disagree, for the reasons in the cartoon I linked: Nobody ever breaks a precedent, until they do. In this case, no party ever does much worse in locals than generals... until Ukip shows up as the voice of protest in local elections.
RodCrosby has modelled how well you have to do in by-elections, and according to that Labour have performed well enough to expect to lead by 0.5%.
i'm surprised the tories haven't used the comparison of failing France under a socialist President to successful UK under tories during the election campaign esp. as Hollande was held up as Milibands like minded friend when he got elected on a no austerity agenda
There are so many angles the Tories could have gone with, and really for 5 out of the 6 weeks they had no real strategy.
Can you really remember any of the Tories manifesto pledges? I can remember a couple, but that is about it. There was no real focus or giving a really good reason to vote for them...it was all very confused.
I mean even the free 30hrs of childcare, which should be super attractive to families, they mentioned it for a day or so and then that was it.
They had a couple of good days with the business letter backing them, they then needed to build on that with coherent follow up with business backs up, our economic plan is working and thus we can promise x, y and z.
They probably got a good week out of the SNP angle, but then didn't take it anywhere....just screaming Labour SNP for 3 weeks just becomes noise after a while. They needed to move the story on while continuing that underlying theme of vote UKIP, you will get Labour SNP.
Labour are far better at focus on some promises, even if they are nonsense e.g. I bet loads of people will think Labour are promising to spend more on the NHS than Tories or Lib Dems.
Broadcast moratorium? If so, congratulations to all parties. You escaped without any real gaffes, ones that Sky News runs with for a day or two; as opposed to PB Labour Gaffes which are inevitable. This strategy involved clever moves like not publicising any reasons to vote for you, campaigning in industrial estates where the workers are being monitored by the boss who invited you, and holding rallies in empty locked-down buildings comparable in size to the former aircraft hangar that hosted The Crystal Maze. The successful outcome has been no movement in national opinion polling.
Brave brave Kellner you Gov projection. I'm tory 277 labour 265 snp 55 LD 26 ni 18 ukip 3 pc 3 respect 1 green 1 speaker 1.no confidence in my prediction though!
As for Lords reform, considering it failed in 2003 and 2007 and 2012, what chance is there of getting something through in a fragmented parliament? It would just be a legislative time sink.
In any case his place in history as one of the very best post-war PMs is already assured.
Only if future historians take a decidedly Heathite turn... Peacetime governments which bequeath a fiscal deficit of £90.2 billion to their successor, having promised to bequeath one of zero, tend to be judged negatively with the benefit of hindsight.
Daniel Finkelstein (@Dannythefink) 06/05/2015 07:57 Re @LucyMPowell comment. Obvious she meant it wasn't the stone itself that meant he would keep his promise. Not the gaffe it's portrayed as.
It took the best brains of the Labour spin-meisters three days to come up with that ludicrously unconvincing gloss on the gaffe?
Broadcast moratorium? If so, congratulations to all parties. You escaped without any real gaffes, ones that Sky News runs with for a day or two; as opposed to PB Labour Gaffes which are inevitable. This strategy involved clever moves like not publicising any reasons to vote for you, campaigning in industrial estates where the workers are being monitored by the boss who invited you, and holding rallies in empty locked-down buildings comparable in size to the former aircraft hangar that hosted The Crystal Maze. The successful outcome has been no movement in national opinion polling.
Speedy Anti war anti Blair leftwingers had already switched from Labour to LD or to a lesser extent Respect and Green in 2005, it was voters who backed Blair in 2005 and switched to Cameron in 2005 who were responsible for the rise in Tory voteshare
Davis would probably have won not much more than Howard got in 2005, maybe 33-35%, Labour would still have been on 29%, however Clegg may have got to 27% or so. Davis would certainly have been in no position to win a majority straight away
I though the rise of the Tory vote share had something to do with the financial crash of 2008 and the massive recession that followed, or was I mistaken?
And for the love of God I cannot believe that a Blairite would have voted for the LD in 2010, back then it was almost official LD policy to lynch Tony Blair.
What makes a leader successful are two things, brains and the common touch, Cameron has neither, Davis is not perfect but he has more of those than Cameron, Brown or Clegg.
Goodnight.
Ridiculous and implausible rewriting of history there. There is a reason we rejected Davis by 2 to 1 in the leadership vote.
i'm surprised the tories haven't used the comparison of failing France under a socialist President to successful UK under tories during the election campaign esp. as Hollande was held up as Milibands like minded friend when he got elected on a no austerity agenda
There are so many angles the Tories could have gone with, and really for 5 out of the 6 weeks they had no real strategy.
Can you really remember any of the Tories manifesto pledges? I can remember a couple, but that is about it. There was no real focus or giving a really good reason to vote for them...it was all very confused.
I mean even the free 30hrs of childcare, which should be super attractive to families, they mentioned it for a day or so and then that was it.
They had a couple of good days with the business letter backing them, they then needed to build on that with coherent follow up with business backs up, our economic plan is working and thus we can promise x, y and z.
They probably got a good week out of the SNP angle, but then didn't take it anywhere....just screaming Labour SNP for 3 weeks just becomes noise after a while. They needed to move the story on while continuing that underlying theme of vote UKIP, you will get Labour SNP.
Labour are far better at focus on some promises, even if they are nonsense e.g. I bet loads of people will think Labour are promising to spend more on the NHS than Tories or Lib Dems.
yes considering they have had five years to prepare for this event a poor show really, not that labours done that much better, labour manifesto was a non event, the stone grave was a disaster and both campaigns have been too stage managed, with no real voter contact, the end result a tie?? this was the tories to lose and I think they have done just that, they had so many strong cards to play and failed to use them
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the eve of poll SUPER ARSE with added SUPER APLOMB 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Changes From 5th May Projection) :
Con 302 (-2) .. Lab 251 (+2) .. LibDem 28 (NC) .. SNP 42 (NC) .. PC 3 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 3 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Broadcast moratorium? If so, congratulations to all parties. You escaped without any real gaffes, ones that Sky News runs with for a day or two; as opposed to PB Labour Gaffes which are inevitable. This strategy involved clever moves like not publicising any reasons to vote for you, campaigning in industrial estates where the workers are being monitored by the boss who invited you, and holding rallies in empty locked-down buildings comparable in size to the former aircraft hangar that hosted The Crystal Maze. The successful outcome has been no movement in national opinion polling.
LOL...
So sad for democracy though.
Sad for politics as entertainment. For democracy it is fine. Everybody knows the distinctions in democratic and political sentiment among Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Farage, so pick your favourite team. This is part of the professionalisation of politics, and the making manifest of the fact that people aren't voting for a PM. YouTube is just too powerful an oppositional tool to offer hostages to fortune to the extent that happened even in the early 2000s, and the papers on either side would have cleaved to any gaffe ruthlessly.
Broadcast moratorium? If so, congratulations to all parties. You escaped without any real gaffes, ones that Sky News runs with for a day or two; as opposed to PB Labour Gaffes which are inevitable. This strategy involved clever moves like not publicising any reasons to vote for you, campaigning in industrial estates where the workers are being monitored by the boss who invited you, and holding rallies in empty locked-down buildings comparable in size to the former aircraft hangar that hosted The Crystal Maze. The successful outcome has been no movement in national opinion polling.
LOL...
So sad for democracy though.
Sad for politics as entertainment. For democracy it is fine. Everybody knows the distinctions in democratic and political sentiment among Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Farage, so pick your favourite team. This is part of the professionalisation of politics, and the making manifest of the fact that people aren't voting for a PM. YouTube is just too powerful an oppositional tool to offer hostages to fortune to the extent that happened even in the early 2000s, and the papers on either side would have cleaved to any gaffe ruthlessly.
They also know that they can't reliably promise anything to anyone because of the likely need for a tripartite pact to comprise a Commons majority.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the eve of poll SUPER ARSE with added SUPER APLOMB 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Changes From 5th May Projection) :
Con 302 (-2) .. Lab 251 (+2) .. LibDem 28 (NC) .. SNP 42 (NC) .. PC 3 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 3 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Conservatives 24 seats short of a majority
Turnout Projection .. 68% (+0.5)
Sorry.. you may call me Pat Mustard, but you've gotta be up very early in the morning to catch me...
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the eve of poll SUPER ARSE with added SUPER APLOMB 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Changes From 5th May Projection) :
Con 302 (-2) .. Lab 251 (+2) .. LibDem 28 (NC) .. SNP 42 (NC) .. PC 3 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 3 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
But Cameron is very far away from the seats needed to remain in place with Clegg, about 25 away, with 22 hours to go.
You and the BBC are both talking about this as though performance in the polls is the race and the vote itself is just the minor matter of breaking the finishing tape.
Please can people note the following very carefully:
- the Sun is telling people in England to vote TORY (one reason being to "stop SNP running the country")
- the Sun in Scotland is telling people in Scotland to vote SNP
I know that the Sun is telling its readers to vote Tory&SNP, it always does. How can the same endorsement in 2015 as in 2010 affect the polls differently this time in favour of the Tories?
When the Sun backed the Tories in 2010, that was the first time they'd backed CON since 1992. In 1997, 2001 and 2005 they backed LAB. Since 1979 they've always backed the winner.
To answer your question,one big difference between this time and 2005 is the atmosphere of possible instability that's been whipped up. Which is reminiscent of 1992 and "will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights".
Interesting that the Sun is blatantly capitalising for the Tories on the birth of a baby in the royal family.
i'm surprised the tories haven't used the comparison of failing France under a socialist President to successful UK under tories during the election campaign esp. as Hollande was held up as Milibands like minded friend when he got elected on a no austerity agenda
There are so many angles the Tories could have gone with, and really for 5 out of the 6 weeks they had no real strategy.
Can you really remember any of the Tories manifesto pledges? I can remember a couple, but that is about it. There was no real focus or giving a really good reason to vote for them...it was all very confused.
I mean even the free 30hrs of childcare, which should be super attractive to families, they mentioned it for a day or so and then that was it.
They had a couple of good days with the business letter backing them, they then needed to build on that with coherent follow up with business backs up, our economic plan is working and thus we can promise x, y and z.
They probably got a good week out of the SNP angle, but then didn't take it anywhere....just screaming Labour SNP for 3 weeks just becomes noise after a while. They needed to move the story on while continuing that underlying theme of vote UKIP, you will get Labour SNP.
Labour are far better at focus on some promises, even if they are nonsense e.g. I bet loads of people will think Labour are promising to spend more on the NHS than Tories or Lib Dems.
yes considering they have had five years to prepare for this event a poor show really, not that labours done that much better, labour manifesto was a non event, the stone grave was a disaster and both campaigns have been too stage managed, with no real voter contact, the end result a tie?? this was the tories to lose and I think they have done just that, they had so many strong cards to play and failed to use them
The Tories problem is bigger than just the past 6 weeks (or though that certainly hasn't done them any good). With all the wind behind them they only managed 36% in 2010. For all Cameron's "modernization", the Tories don't seem to be able to convince the kind of people who voted for Thatcher, the [lower] middle class regular folk to vote Tory again e.g Your regular joe, who works hard, saves their pennies, just wants a modest house, the 2 point 4 kids and the dog, and generally just wants to get on.
The Tories used to win seats in the North and even..shock horror...Scotland. The Tories are overly concentrated among the old and the southern voters outside of inner London.
In about 30 hours I will know whether I have done my dough or not.
Am on Conservatives in 40 constituencies, mostly defences between 50-100 (although 5 are currently Lib Dem seats, I expect to be CON gains).
If all 40 come in, I should make a return of nearly 60% on my money. I can take about 11-13 hits (depending on the odds) before I start to lose money.
With tories at most seats at 1-5, the average of around 4-7 that these bets offer, seemed like a opportunity too good to miss.
With the polls converging late in the day, I did think about a small saver on Labour most seats, however I am a conviction punter and I still believe the polls will slightly understate the tories and overstate Labour as has been convention in most elections.
Will be happy if I show profit to be honest as a fair bit of my capital is tied up in this.
In about 30 hours I will know whether I have done my dough or not.
Am on Conservatives in 40 constituencies, mostly defences between 50-100 (although 5 are currently Lib Dem seats, I expect to be CON gains).
If all 40 come in, I should make a return of nearly 60% on my money. I can take about 11-13 hits (depending on the odds) before I start to lose money.
With tories at most seats at 1-5, the average of around 4-7 that these bets offer, seemed like a opportunity too good to miss.
With the polls converging late in the day, I did think about a small saver on Labour most seats, however I am a conviction punter and I still believe the polls will slightly understate the tories and overstate Labour as has been convention in most elections.
Will be happy if I show profit to be honest as a fair bit of my capital is tied up in this.
Based in my read of the cross tabs the Ashcroft polls include an adjustment to correct the Tory understatement.
And it looks like the SNP is about to roll over the opposition.
I have been on this site for about four months. In that time I have noted dozens of outbreaks of wishfull thinking from contributers determined to show that the SNP surge was a temporary spasm, the result of bad pollling by people with Scottish accents, about to be reversed by Salmond's over confidence, the Scots just being silly, Sturgeon's temporary honeymoon etc etc etc.
Will the results have to come in befoire there is a general acceptance of the inevitable, that the SNP move forward is totally logical, that their campaign deserves to ouclass the rest for its organisation and the leadership style of Nicola Sturgeon.
So Kellner said there would be swingback and predicted 281/261.Now that there has been no swingback,he still goes for the same result.Interesting.
Does he give any specific reason why he thinks this, more than just it "feels right". I would presume somebody of such standing and experience does have a really good reason for this.
Will be voting Conservative in tomorrows election as they are likely to be 2nd place in my safe Labour constituency and the nearer it becomes to be a marginal the better for democracy.
Would probably voted Lib Dem if they had a chance here. Wish I lived 2 miles west and could vote for Simon Hughes as he will need every vote he can get.
Can't consider Labour at present until they prove themselves on the economy - might consider them next time if Ed does become PM and proves not to be crap (very doubtful!)
Of the smaller parties, I resonate with a few of the policies of UKIP and quite admire Farage, however they seem to be looking to the past more than the future and there still a bit of a nasty far right whiff on their fringes.
The Greens have some interesting policies but apart from a couple, they are mostly insane.
Brave brave Kellner you Gov projection. I'm tory 277 labour 265 snp 55 LD 26 ni 18 ukip 3 pc 3 respect 1 green 1 speaker 1.no confidence in my prediction though!
Well there's a thing! Based on this Kellner prediction, giving the Tories a final 8 seat lead over Labour, OGH would precisely break even on his Con/Lab supremacy bet with Sporting.
By my own calulations, I reckon Labour needs to win 47 seats net from the Tories to end up with 270 seats vs the Tories' 269 seats.
That's a big ask, it's small wonder the bookies have it as being a 4/1 shot, with the Tories priced at 1/5 to win the most seats.
By the same token it's difficult to see the Tories losing only 26 seats net to Labour, which I reckon would result in them having a final tally of 290 seats, which is what Sporting's seat market is suggesting will be the case.
Sorry, no Scots predictions from me this time around after the crap that some of us received for the last five years. I decided to just put my money where my mouth was in a well mixed Scottish selection of seats instead.
So Kellner said there would be swingback and predicted 281/261.Now that there has been no swingback,he still goes for the same result.Interesting.
Does he give any specific reason why he thinks this, more than just it "feels right". I would presume somebody of such standing and experience does have a really good reason for this.
He`s predicting a 2.5% swing in the marginals unlike the 4% swing seen nationally.
In about 30 hours I will know whether I have done my dough or not.
Am on Conservatives in 40 constituencies, mostly defences between 50-100 (although 5 are currently Lib Dem seats, I expect to be CON gains).
If all 40 come in, I should make a return of nearly 60% on my money. I can take about 11-13 hits (depending on the odds) before I start to lose money.
With tories at most seats at 1-5, the average of around 4-7 that these bets offer, seemed like a opportunity too good to miss.
With the polls converging late in the day, I did think about a small saver on Labour most seats, however I am a conviction punter and I still believe the polls will slightly understate the tories and overstate Labour as has been convention in most elections.
Will be happy if I show profit to be honest as a fair bit of my capital is tied up in this.
Based in my read of the cross tabs the Ashcroft polls include an adjustment to correct the Tory understatement.
That doesn't explain the market disconnect.
It could be that 1-5 on tories most seats is exceptionally poor value, or that my average of 4-7 (I have cherry picked best prices with different bookies also) is great value.
Somewhere in the middle, I probably still make money.
In about 30 hours I will know whether I have done my dough or not.
Am on Conservatives in 40 constituencies, mostly defences between 50-100 (although 5 are currently Lib Dem seats, I expect to be CON gains).
If all 40 come in, I should make a return of nearly 60% on my money. I can take about 11-13 hits (depending on the odds) before I start to lose money.
With tories at most seats at 1-5, the average of around 4-7 that these bets offer, seemed like a opportunity too good to miss.
With the polls converging late in the day, I did think about a small saver on Labour most seats, however I am a conviction punter and I still believe the polls will slightly understate the tories and overstate Labour as has been convention in most elections.
Will be happy if I show profit to be honest as a fair bit of my capital is tied up in this.
Fair enough, but I'd say it was a no-brainer to take the opportunity to hedge your risk with a saver on labour most seats. Each to his own, eh?
btw, has anyone else really struggled to find conservative value bets outside of the constituency markets? There have been pitiful odds on pretty much every bet where the tories do better than the polls. Con most seats, labour most votes has offered reasonable value - as have the lower labour seat bands - but only tonight have I been able to cover ConMaj at anything approaching fair value (£40 @ 25/1).
The difference on the "amount matched" on the betfair markets for labour seats vs tory seats tells the betting story of the election.
Comments
Don't expel me from the Dry but not obsessed with the gays, Europe and immigrants New Tory Party, but I've been backing Reckless to win.
For the same reason, I back Liverpool's opponent to win.
Please can people note the following very carefully:
- the Sun is telling people in England to vote TORY (one reason being to "stop SNP running the country")
- the Sun in Scotland is telling people in Scotland to vote SNP
Click here for the two front pages.
But she forced me to give it up, when she heard about the dangers of swapping needles.
It's simply too long.
For example, the block of 30 odd Welsh Labour party don’t want PR or a more federal UK. They’re happy as they are. FPTP works very nicely for them
Davis would probably have won not much more than Howard got in 2005, maybe 33-35%, Labour would still have been on 29%, however Clegg may have got to 27% or so. Davis would certainly have been in no position to win a majority straight away
How can the same endorsement in 2015 as in 2010 affect the polls differently this time in favour of the Tories?
Daniel Finkelstein (@Dannythefink)
06/05/2015 07:57
Re @LucyMPowell comment. Obvious she meant it wasn't the stone itself that meant he would keep his promise. Not the gaffe it's portrayed as.
And for the love of God I cannot believe that a Blairite would have voted for the LD in 2010, back then it was almost official LD policy to lynch Tony Blair.
What makes a leader successful are two things, brains and the common touch, Cameron has neither, Davis is not perfect but he has more of those than Cameron, Brown or Clegg.
Goodnight.
That still leaves more middling things where in theory the other parties could all work together to cause trouble (though in a lot of cases this would require strong whipping to keep down the number of rebels/abstentions). But by their nature these wouldn't be extreme, so they'd probably be well within reach of quid pro quo deals with other parties. And not necessarily exciting, newsworthy deals, either.
All of that can be done with Miliband clearly sticking to his pre-election stance on deals. SNP can't vote down a Lab queen's speech, because that would so utterly undermine their position that I don't think even their voters would stand for it.
I think the main concern would be if the SNP started causing trouble in policies they should naturally support just to damage Labour, or in order to try to force negotiation. I guess it remains to be seen how much their voters would forgive that.
Alternatively, Labour should hire him, if they couldn't think of that one themselves!
(I know what they're talking about because of the hundreds of posts about it here but I havent actually seen or heard the interview so I have no idea whether it's a plausible explanation.)
Most Blairites were not staunch Iraq Warites but centrists, they may well have voted for Clegg given the alternative of Brown and Davis. I would also add judgement and charisma to your criteria
His surname is Campbell and his first name rhymes with Lol
In any case his place in history as one of the very best post-war PMs is already assured.
Daily Mirror ✔ @DailyMirror
UKIP leader Nigel Farage 'filmed using word 'fag' in Best Man speech' http://bit.ly/1RebmLg pic.twitter.com/4ajkjs1XPw
Will it hit his chances tomorrow.
We nearly got up to eight thousand. Should have tried a bit harder. Maybe there was more mileage in the sandwich.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3070242/Britain-end-like-France-Fallout-Friday-Labour-wins-says-Osborne-warning-five-years-work-repair-economy-evaporate-five-minutes.html
Out of context it's not much of a warning. Obviously he wasn't referring to their superior health system.
Can you really remember any of the Tories manifesto pledges? I can remember a couple, but that is about it. There was no real focus or giving a really good reason to vote for them...it was all very confused.
I mean even the free 30hrs of childcare, which should be super attractive to families, they mentioned it for a day or so and then that was it.
They had a couple of good days with the business letter backing them, they then needed to build on that with coherent follow up with business backs up, our economic plan is working and thus we can promise x, y and z.
They probably got a good week out of the SNP angle, but then didn't take it anywhere....just screaming Labour SNP for 3 weeks just becomes noise after a while. They needed to move the story on while continuing that underlying theme of vote UKIP, you will get Labour SNP.
Labour are far better at focus on some promises, even if they are nonsense e.g. I bet loads of people will think Labour are promising to spend more on the NHS than Tories or Lib Dems.
This strategy involved clever moves like not publicising any reasons to vote for you, campaigning in industrial estates where the workers are being monitored by the boss who invited you, and holding rallies in empty locked-down buildings comparable in size to the former aircraft hangar that hosted The Crystal Maze.
The successful outcome has been no movement in national opinion polling.
I think you are overestimating the LDs negotiating position if they have 20-30 seats. Besides the LDs don't even mention it as one of their 6 red lines: http://www.libdems.org.uk/liberal-democrats-set-out-six-red-lines
As for Lords reform, considering it failed in 2003 and 2007 and 2012, what chance is there of getting something through in a fragmented parliament? It would just be a legislative time sink.
So sad for democracy though.
The roundings and the weightings turn the raw data into a tie. It looks pretty different without.
BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS ****
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the eve of poll SUPER ARSE with added SUPER APLOMB 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Changes From 5th May Projection) :
Con 302 (-2) .. Lab 251 (+2) .. LibDem 28 (NC) .. SNP 42 (NC) .. PC 3 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 3 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Conservatives 24 seats short of a majority
Turnout Projection .. 68% (+0.5)
To answer your question,one big difference between this time and 2005 is the atmosphere of possible instability that's been whipped up. Which is reminiscent of 1992 and "will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights".
Interesting that the Sun is blatantly capitalising for the Tories on the birth of a baby in the royal family.
The Tories used to win seats in the North and even..shock horror...Scotland. The Tories are overly concentrated among the old and the southern voters outside of inner London.
In about 30 hours I will know whether I have done my dough or not.
Am on Conservatives in 40 constituencies, mostly defences between 50-100 (although 5 are currently Lib Dem seats, I expect to be CON gains).
If all 40 come in, I should make a return of nearly 60% on my money. I can take about 11-13 hits (depending on the odds) before I start to lose money.
With tories at most seats at 1-5, the average of around 4-7 that these bets offer, seemed like a opportunity too good to miss.
With the polls converging late in the day, I did think about a small saver on Labour most seats, however I am a conviction punter and I still believe the polls will slightly understate the tories and overstate Labour as has been convention in most elections.
Will be happy if I show profit to be honest as a fair bit of my capital is tied up in this.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/596099984069697539
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/596099797536280577
And it looks like the SNP is about to roll over the opposition.
I have been on this site for about four months. In that time I have noted dozens of outbreaks of wishfull thinking from contributers determined to show that the SNP surge was a temporary spasm, the result of bad pollling by people with Scottish accents, about to be reversed by Salmond's over confidence, the Scots just being silly, Sturgeon's temporary honeymoon etc etc etc.
Will the results have to come in befoire there is a general acceptance of the inevitable, that the SNP move forward is totally logical, that their campaign deserves to ouclass the rest for its organisation and the leadership style of Nicola Sturgeon.
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lta21gPm3U1qhy4uu.gif
Will be voting Conservative in tomorrows election as they are likely to be 2nd place in my safe Labour constituency and the nearer it becomes to be a marginal the better for democracy.
Would probably voted Lib Dem if they had a chance here. Wish I lived 2 miles west and could vote for Simon Hughes as he will need every vote he can get.
Can't consider Labour at present until they prove themselves on the economy - might consider them next time if Ed does become PM and proves not to be crap (very doubtful!)
Of the smaller parties, I resonate with a few of the policies of UKIP and quite admire Farage, however they seem to be looking to the past more than the future and there still a bit of a nasty far right whiff on their fringes.
The Greens have some interesting policies but apart from a couple, they are mostly insane.
By my own calulations, I reckon Labour needs to win 47 seats net from the Tories to end up with 270 seats vs the Tories' 269 seats.
That's a big ask, it's small wonder the bookies have it as being a 4/1 shot, with the Tories priced at 1/5 to win the most seats.
By the same token it's difficult to see the Tories losing only 26 seats net to Labour, which I reckon would result in them having a final tally of 290 seats, which is what Sporting's seat market is suggesting will be the case.
DYOR
It could be that 1-5 on tories most seats is exceptionally poor value, or that my average of 4-7 (I have cherry picked best prices with different bookies also) is great value.
Somewhere in the middle, I probably still make money.
btw, has anyone else really struggled to find conservative value bets outside of the constituency markets? There have been pitiful odds on pretty much every bet where the tories do better than the polls. Con most seats, labour most votes has offered reasonable value - as have the lower labour seat bands - but only tonight have I been able to cover ConMaj at anything approaching fair value (£40 @ 25/1).
The difference on the "amount matched" on the betfair markets for labour seats vs tory seats tells the betting story of the election.
If Labour are above this, assuming Scotland goes as we think, Ed will try and govern.
Anything below 285 i expect Dave to walk pretty much instantly, above that he'll try and put together somethng