Syriza has, so far, been all mouth and no trousers. I cannot see it changing unless an internal coup provides that change.
Greece is bankrupt. If they want to borrow money from someone then that someone's insistence that they implement deep reform as a condition of lending matters. The Greeks want the money but not the reform. Syriza is, along with 90%+ of the Greek population, in Lalaland.
What's extraordinary, at least to me, is that despite the very disappointing final polls for the Blue team, Sporting's Seats spread prices have remained rock solid all day with the Tories on 290 seats and Labour 24 seats behind on 266.
What's extraordinary, at least to me, is that despite the very disappointing polls for the Blue team, Sporting's Seats spread prices have remained rock solid all day with the Tories on 290 seats and Labour 24 seats behind on 266.
But wasn't SPIN market massively out last time? My feeling generally with politicial betting markets, too many people betting with heart rather than head and also because the massive liquidity isn't there it doesn't attract the sort of professional market moving bettors that now exist in many sports betting markets.
Syriza has, so far, been all mouth and no trousers. I cannot see it changing unless an internal coup provides that change.
Greece is bankrupt. If they want to borrow money from someone then that someone's insistence that they implement deep reform as a condition of lending matters. The Greeks want the money but not the reform. Syriza is, along with 90%+ of the Greek population, in Lalaland.
Given what the polls say people want, a fair percentage of our country is in LaLaland too.
100 years ago almost to the minute, the waters closed over the Lusitania....
Just days before the sinking Woodrow Wilson's eminence grise 'Colonel' Edward House, met the British Foreign Minister Edward Grey. House later wrote: "We spoke of the probability of an ocean liner being sunk, and I told him that if this were done a flame of indignation would sweep across America, which would in itself probably carry us into the war." The pair then met King George V who also raised the subject, asking 'suppose they sink the Lusitania, with American passengers on board?"
James Parker, the Green candidate for the south London marginal of Eltham, has told his supporters they should give their votes to Labour, Jessica Elgot reports.
Parker, whose south London constituency is a Labour seat with a slim marginal of under 1,700 votes, told the Guardian he wanted to see Ed Miliband as prime minister.
“If you are voting Green in Eltham as a protest, do vote for Clive Efford, the Labour candidate,” Parker said. “If you really feel Green in your heart, then vote for me, but it is more important that we don’t have a Conservative government.”
Parker, who said he was genuinely still torn as to whether he would vote for himself, said he was hoping for Green victories in some of the closer seats, like Brighton Pavilion and Bristol West, but said he did not want people to vote Green where candidates, like him, could not win and where Labour was battling Tories.
Wow! That's extraordinary. I wonder what Green HQ make of that?I'm relieved that the worst thing a Green candidate has said is to vote for another party. While embarrassing it's not as bad as the worst things said by candidates for other parties.
I must say I thought things with move towards the Tories at this point and I would've bet my house on the Tories being 3%-4% ahead in the national vote share.
Doesn't look likely now.
I think they will be 3% to 4% ahead on the national vote share. Whether that's enough to save us from Ed is unclear.
If Cameron is 3-4% ahead on votes he will be well ahead on seats (20-30?), in that situation I'd say he is highly likely to be PM: the Legitimacy Question.
However, as may be clear - ! - I doubt the Tories will even be 2% ahead (at most) and Labour will probably have the edge in seats.
One of us is going to be wrong. Your prediction is interesting to me, as you were so accurate on the indyref. But I remain despondent about Dave's chances.
And now I am going to go and see my girlfriend the policewoman, who is guarding the Polling Station at Primrose hill! I may bribe her to bar a few shifty, unsavoury, dishevelled local types from entering- playwrights, actors, musicians, Labour bigwigs, etc.
If Labour are only 20 seats behind then EICIPM:
Lab - 266 Con - 286 LD - 25 SNP - 50 Oth - 5 NI - 18
Lab+SNP+PC+Grn+SDLP=320, which will be enough.
If Labour is 30 seats behind, that does then enter knife-edge territory and at that point legitimacy does come into play.
Do you really think a five party coalition that still doesn't have a majority, let alone a working majority, is going to be a goer? It would be an absolute disaster and would barely last a few months.
It doesn't have to be a coalition. The question is Ed or Dave. Look at it the other way round: that 320 is a guaranteed blocker for Dave. He would need virtually every other MP in the house, every time. And that's what would guarantee Ed the office. You're right that it wouldn't be very stable (though don't forget the Lib Dems, on offer to either side), but it would be more stable than the alternative and that's all that would matter.
Quite so. It'll be hell at times for ed on those numbers, but there's enough who just want Cameron gone at all costs even if he cannot count on them easily at other times. Cameron will find it hard to find numbers to prevent that.
In light of your astute observation we should just declare Ed as PM right now and save all those people staying up all night counting voting slips.
Not at all - there are several different permutations of EICIPM that we might end up with depending on the exact results, which could take days to sort out, so we can still count the votes.
The UK seems to want to test tax and spend to destruction. Despite all the evidence it doesn't work it appears like they want to give it one last go. See the "Labour didn't really increase spending or even if they did it didn't affect the deficit" meme going around on all social media that everyone is unquestionably lapping up.
Over 5 years the coalition really hasn't done that badly considering the mess that they inherited. If anyone thinks a Labour/SNP coalition will be as disciplined, grown up and reasonable then they'll be in for a very nasty surprise.
Bah humbug yourself. The difference this time is that any Coalition that puts Ed in power, formal or otherwise, must, by definition, include a party whose primary purpose is the partition and destruction of the UK as we know it. What's more, that same separatist party is hellbent on destroying Labour, forever, in its heartland, Scotland - and is halfway there.
This is no small thing. It's not like the Tories disliking Lib Dem policy on PR, but compromising on a referendum, it's an outright contradiction in terms.
Labour and the SNP are opposed in the most fundamental way, constitutionally and politically (and they cordially despise each other, as well, probably more than any other two parties).
You think a "Coalition" like that can last? Pah. I doubt it will get beyond Holyrood 2016. It might not even get off the ground.
That is worst case scenario for Labour because if they don't vote down a Tory Queen's Speech with the SNP that is basically the end of them in Scotland. But very difficult for them to govern as well.
He generally thinks the Lib Dems are a bunch of wet lettuces, and has voted Tory since 1987 but Clegg's done fine.
So came as a real shock.
Your Dad is a wise man, sir.
I think there's an interesting changing of the guard happening in the Lib Dems. The left-wing brigade are in the main, well into their fifties and sixties. Yet the younger generation seem to be smarter and more economically dry. Another term of coalition would cement this demographic change; after all the future of the party is a relfection of its current intake.
The UK seems to want to test tax and spend to destruction. Despite all the evidence it doesn't work it appears like they want to give it one last go. See the "Labour didn't really increase spending or even if they did it didn't affect the deficit" meme going around on all social media that everyone is unquestionably lapping up.
Over 5 years the coalition really hasn't done that badly considering the mess that they inherited. If anyone thinks a Labour/SNP coalition will be as disciplined, grown up and reasonable then they'll be in for a very nasty surprise.
What we haven't had is the reality of interest rates and thus a proper correction. When they finally return to historical norms of 4-5%, there are going to be hell to pay for who ever is in charge. The coalition have just kicked lots of tough decisions into the long grass, now claiming they will take them if they win today...where as Labour are just going to kick them even further down the line.
The correction will come, as no functioning banking system can lend money at basically 0%, and no amount of mansion taxing and banker bonus taxes will really sort out the underlying issues.
What's extraordinary, at least to me, is that despite the very disappointing final polls for the Blue team, Sporting's Seats spread prices have remained rock solid all day with the Tories on 290 seats and Labour 24 seats behind on 266.
I cannot remember ANY election (or any vote - referendum, etc) where the betting odds and the polls have been so opposed.
All the polls now imply a Miliband plurality, all the polls show an anti-Tory majority. The betting markets entirely disagree.
Can any pb-er recall a disparity of this magnitude?
What's extraordinary, at least to me, is that despite the very disappointing final polls for the Blue team, Sporting's Seats spread prices have remained rock solid all day with the Tories on 290 seats and Labour 24 seats behind on 266.
I cannot remember ANY election (or any vote - referendum, etc) where the betting odds and the polls have been so opposed.
All the polls now imply a Miliband plurality, all the polls show an anti-Tory majority. The betting markets entirely disagree.
Can any pb-er recall a disparity of this magnitude?
Not sure about magnitude, but last UK GE and last 2 US presidential elections had a similar distinctly right-leaning difference between the polls and the betting, didn't they?
Syriza has, so far, been all mouth and no trousers. I cannot see it changing unless an internal coup provides that change.
Greece is bankrupt. If they want to borrow money from someone then that someone's insistence that they implement deep reform as a condition of lending matters. The Greeks want the money but not the reform. Syriza is, along with 90%+ of the Greek population, in Lalaland.
Syriza refuses to cut pensions, but the cold reality is that very shortly Greece won't have the money to pay *any* pensions.
Why have we heard almost nothing about the unions from the tories? Why nothing at all even however small, as mentioned downthread, about such things as tackling tax avoidance, raising more somehow form Amazon etc? Why almost nothing about education standards which has been a real strong point for them IMHO? And above all why so half-hearted in their attack on labour's abysmal record?
It's depressing to think that in all my adult life (and I'm 39), I have had the last 4 years of a weak Tory Government as a self-destructing Tory Party was desperately held together by Major (or not), 13 years of Blair-Brown sovietising the UK, and 5 years of a pretty weak Conservative-led coalition government which largely failed on its main task of eliminating the deficit - and now I'm being plunged back into at least 5 years of an even more socialist administration than the one Blair-Brown helmed, and if the Tories do self-destruct in the wake of today's defeat, Labour might be in for another 10-15 years.
Didn't they used to say the Tories were the natural party of government? I might never see a right of centre administration again!
Bah, it's not like 2010 when they were clearly exhausted, and the way politics is moving if they won't govern without a near-majority then they may never govern again. If they've got the numbers Ed will be PM.
Bah humbug yourself. The difference this time is that any Coalition that puts Ed in power, formal or otherwise, must, by definition, include a party whose primary purpose is the partition and destruction of the UK as we know it. What's more, that same separatist party is hellbent on destroying Labour, forever, in its heartland, Scotland - and is halfway there.
This is no small thing. It's not like the Tories disliking Lib Dem policy on PR, but compromising on a referendum, it's an outright contradiction in terms.
Labour and the SNP are opposed in the most fundamental way, constitutionally and politically (and they cordially despise each other, as well, probably more than any other two parties).
You think a "Coalition" like that can last? Pah. I doubt it will get beyond Holyrood 2016. It might not even get off the ground.
Dunno whether it would last or not, and as you say they may not even get a deal - Miliband may try to ram a concession-free Queen's Speech, let the SNP vote it down and then try his luck in a new election. But the suggestion up-thread was that people within _Labour_ wouldn't let him try. And as I understand the argument, it was based on a legitimacy issue to do with how far behind Con they are. What I'm saying is that pretty much the only consideration here is parliamentary arithmetic. If Ed Miliband can make the numbers add up he'll be PM, and if he can't, he won't.
What's extraordinary, at least to me, is that despite the very disappointing final polls for the Blue team, Sporting's Seats spread prices have remained rock solid all day with the Tories on 290 seats and Labour 24 seats behind on 266.
Sheer weight of blue money.
If I had bigger balls (and a spare £100k) I'd sell the tories on SPIN's tory/labour seat margin. Seeing as I don't have the cash, i'll do a paper trade on here. £1000/seat, selling @ 20.
100 years ago almost to the minute, the waters closed over the Lusitania....
Just days before the sinking Woodrow Wilson's eminence grise 'Colonel' Edward House, met the British Foreign Minister Edward Grey. House later wrote: "We spoke of the probability of an ocean liner being sunk, and I told him that if this were done a flame of indignation would sweep across America, which would in itself probably carry us into the war." The pair then met King George V who also raised the subject, asking 'suppose they sink the Lusitania, with American passengers on board?"
Bah, it's not like 2010 when they were clearly exhausted, and the way politics is moving if they won't govern without a near-majority then they may never govern again. If they've got the numbers Ed will be PM.
Bah humbug yourself. The difference this time is that any Coalition that puts Ed in power, formal or otherwise, must, by definition, include a party whose primary purpose is the partition and destruction of the UK as we know it. What's more, that same separatist party is hellbent on destroying Labour, forever, in its heartland, Scotland - and is halfway there.
This is no small thing. It's not like the Tories disliking Lib Dem policy on PR, but compromising on a referendum, it's an outright contradiction in terms.
Labour and the SNP are opposed in the most fundamental way, constitutionally and politically (and they cordially despise each other, as well, probably more than any other two parties).
You think a "Coalition" like that can last? Pah. I doubt it will get beyond Holyrood 2016. It might not even get off the ground.
Hmm, and of course we have the Holyrood 2016 return derby to come too for Labour vs SNP.
But I just wonder a little (although my personal prediction is very similar to yours, if slightly less optimistic for the SNP).
What puzzles me is that for decades Labour have been happy to work with - effectively be in coalition with - the SDLP. Who are just as keen on the 'destruction', sensu SeanT, of the UK. (It would however be a quibble too far to argue that the UUs had also participated in the 'partition' of the UK as the word is usually used ...).
Yet I've seen very little objection to this SDLP involvement, from Tories or others. Or am I just too young to remember the years when parly arithmetic meant that it might have mattered?.
My friend "in the know" says that Labour think it will be interesting. No idea if they're getting overexcited or not.</blockquoteHinckley Ilford N and Enfield S but not Battersea!
Philip Cowley@philipjcowley·2 mins2 minutes ago Either 2015 joins 1992 and 1970 as polling disasters - or Ed Miliband is going to become Prime Minister.
The UK seems to want to test tax and spend to destruction. Despite all the evidence it doesn't work it appears like they want to give it one last go. See the "Labour didn't really increase spending or even if they did it didn't affect the deficit" meme going around on all social media that everyone is unquestionably lapping up.
Peston has a shameful article on it masquerading as a "neutral" one respecting the broadcaster's rules.
"Did labour spend too much?" he then says some say they do, on some measures they did, on some they didn't... blah blah, then makes an entirely laughable and false comparison between the good years of 2001-07 with the early 80's recession and says that the deficits in those years were similar (well duh...). there was no comparison of deficits in developed economies in the same years (you know, a fair comparison)
Uninformed voters (most of them) will have concluded that the accusation of overspending was just a Tory debating point. AAARGGHHH
With 54% of Scots feeling the UK MSM and UK Politicians have become more hostile, the bizarre thing is that they may well have just killed off the Union. The constant demonising of the SNP by the Tories and the MSM has effectively done the SNPs work for them. History may yet judge David Cameron as the man who first saved and then destroyed the UK by putting party before country.
I think irrespective of todays results in Scotland, the SNP surge is about to get super charged. Holyrood 2016 is likely to result in the 3 "mainstream parties" being squeezed in a pincer movement by the SNP, Greens and rather bizarrely UKIP.
I'd be surprised if a poll of the English showed different results to that picture.
I also think Labour will stage a resurgence in Scotland over the next 9 months to draw neck-and-neck with the Nats by early next year.
I'd be interested to know a little about why you forecast that resurgence. Of course, the voting system in itself is so different that Labour will inevitably show a 'resurgence' which is real if only in terms of seats in Holyrood compared to Westminster. Remember that the Holyrood system uses the list vote to compensate losers in the FPTP constituency element.
I think that the dominance of the SNP will increasingly be seen as unhealthy. I think the shine will start to wear off Nicola. I also think the behaviour of SNP Westminster MPs as they bargain for pork will taint the party a little and show them as "the same as the rest". This will lead to a return to previous allegiances and Labour will be the key beneficiary. The inability of the SNP MPs to have enough influence to "end austerity" will also push people away from them.
I could easily be wrong, but that's my reasoning (backed up by my gut).
Thanks for that food for thought. I suppose that that perceived dominance - if it happens - is very much unique to Westminster where it is in any case a small part of the UK pool. Holyrood is visibly very different - it would not take many deaths or defections for the SNP to become a minority government again. But, anyway, we will certainly see.
It's depressing to think that in all my adult life (and I'm 39), I have had the last 4 years of a weak Tory Government as a self-destructing Tory Party was desperately held together by Major (or not), 13 years of Blair-Brown sovietising the UK, and 5 years of a pretty weak Conservative-led coalition government which largely failed on its main task of eliminating the deficit - and now I'm being plunged back into at least 5 years of an even more socialist administration than the one Blair-Brown helmed, and if the Tories do self-destruct in the wake of today's defeat, Labour might be in for another 10-15 years.
Didn't they used to say the Tories were the natural party of government? I might never see a right of centre administration again!
What a black day today is!
Labour are also a dying party, though, aren't they? Barely a heartbeat in Scotland, having to contend with the rise of UKIP in their English bastions, no presence whatsoever (in all levels of government) in many shires. They have London, and are an increasingly London party.
Politics has become more fragmented and localised. There will be no strong governments for the forseeable.
Philip Cowley@philipjcowley·2 mins2 minutes ago Either 2015 joins 1992 and 1970 as polling disasters - or Ed Miliband is going to become Prime Minister.
I'm not sure I going to sleep tonight, thats for sure.
The UK seems to want to test tax and spend to destruction. Despite all the evidence it doesn't work it appears like they want to give it one last go. See the "Labour didn't really increase spending or even if they did it didn't affect the deficit" meme going around on all social media that everyone is unquestionably lapping up.
Peston has a shameful article on it masquerading as a "neutral" one respecting the broadcaster's rules.
"Did labour spend too much?" he then says some say they do, on some measures they did, on some they didn't... blah blah, then makes an entirely laughable and false comparison between the good years of 2001-07 with the early 80's recession and says that the deficits in those years were similar (well duh...). there was no comparison of deficits in developed economies in the same years (you know, a fair comparison)
Uninformed voters (most of them) will have concluded that the accusation of overspending was just a Tory debating point. AAARGGHHH
Yep. I see multiple articles of how Labour didn't really increase spending despite it nominally doubling in a decade.
It was all the banks wot did it and as everyone knows they are Tory even though it was Labour deregulation that caused the the problems. But I suppose Labour were just being Tory at the time or some crap.
My friend "in the know" says that Labour think it will be interesting. No idea if they're getting overexcited or not.
Not sure whether the excitement (overexcitment ) on twitter has much to do with the real world, Ashcroft firmly suggests tory though do agree there is a feeling around london labour circles that this might just go, though I am a little dubious. Will Martinadale is clearly an exceptionally good candidate and could well be someone to watch if he actually gets elected.
Currently you can get 6.8 on betfair which feels to me to be far too generous. The tories are favourites but perhaps labour not quite the 8/1 or 6.8 outsiders .
What's extraordinary, at least to me, is that despite the very disappointing final polls for the Blue team, Sporting's Seats spread prices have remained rock solid all day with the Tories on 290 seats and Labour 24 seats behind on 266.
Sheer weight of blue money.
If I had bigger balls (and a spare £100k) I'd sell the tories on SPIN's tory/labour seat margin. Seeing as I don't have the cash, i'll do a paper trade on here. £1000/seat, selling @ 20.
Lets see how much of a paper profit I make.
The divergence between polls and SPIN is striking. However I would beware of concluding that this is all the doing of foolish optimists with more money than sense. I do not bet on political outcomes (FX trading is much easier), but if I did bet in serious size I would look for information beneath the radar, such as cultivating contacts at the campaign centres. Perhaps campaign insiders are doing the betting! The polls may be seriously wrong. If you have time try reading this:
Bah, it's not like 2010 when they were clearly exhausted, and the way politics is moving if they won't govern without a near-majority then they may never govern again. If they've got the numbers Ed will be PM.
Bah humbug yourself. The difference this time is that any Coalition that puts Ed in power, formal or otherwise, must, by definition, include a party whose primary purpose is the partition and destruction of the UK as we know it. What's more, that same separatist party is hellbent on destroying Labour, forever, in its heartland, Scotland - and is halfway there.
This is no small thing. It's not like the Tories disliking Lib Dem policy on PR, but compromising on a referendum, it's an outright contradiction in terms.
Labour and the SNP are opposed in the most fundamental way, constitutionally and politically (and they cordially despise each other, as well, probably more than any other two parties).
You think a "Coalition" like that can last? Pah. I doubt it will get beyond Holyrood 2016. It might not even get off the ground.
Hmm, and of course we have the Holyrood 2016 return derby to come too for Labour vs SNP.
But I just wonder a little (although my personal prediction is very similar to yours, if slightly less optimistic for the SNP).
What puzzles me is that for decades Labour have been happy to work with - effectively be in coalition with - the SDLP. Who are just as keen on the 'destruction', sensu SeanT, of the UK. (It would however be a quibble too far to argue that the UUs had also participated in the 'partition' of the UK as the word is usually used ...).
Yet I've seen very little objection to this SDLP involvement, from Tories or others. Or am I just too young to remember the years when parly arithmetic meant that it might have mattered?.
Various answers to that, 1. Lab/Con didn't have seats to lose in NI, 2. A lot of Labourites/lefties sympathised with Troops Out/United Ireland. 3. The numbers were too small to matter. 4. The history and violence made NI a special case. Etc.
None of this applies vis-a-vis the SNP.
Thanks - there's some good points there. But even so one would have expected some Tory (etc) objection to the Labour-SDLP alliance as a more fundamental matter of principle, in just the way in which they are today - as indeed you do in your posting. Puzzling.
In homage to Avery, here's a yellow box with the latest forecasts from various academics/pundits, and a slection of PB regulars. Apologies for any mistakes (in a couple of cases I've had to guess the PC/Respect figures):
It's depressing to think that in all my adult life (and I'm 39), I have had the last 4 years of a weak Tory Government as a self-destructing Tory Party was desperately held together by Major (or not), 13 years of Blair-Brown sovietising the UK, and 5 years of a pretty weak Conservative-led coalition government which largely failed on its main task of eliminating the deficit - and now I'm being plunged back into at least 5 years of an even more socialist administration than the one Blair-Brown helmed, and if the Tories do self-destruct in the wake of today's defeat, Labour might be in for another 10-15 years.
Didn't they used to say the Tories were the natural party of government? I might never see a right of centre administration again!
What a black day today is!
Calm down. The arithmetic is almost as bad for Labour (perhaps even worse, in the long run). If, as looks likely, they have to go into "Coalition" with the SNP it will cripple Labour in England (they are already screwed in Scotland), and the government might not last 5 months, let alone 5 years.
The Left and the Right are fragmenting. The future is Coalitions. There will be rightwing coalitions and leftwing coalitions. We'd better get used to it.
Indeed, Ed will be labour's worst ever leader if he loses them Scotland.
Camerons' time may be up, but it's not looking too bad in the longer run for the blues.They are still the natural party of England.
"So many Cabinet ministers have now told me the ‘surge’ will come only today that I think they really believe it. Note that the PM and George Osborne themselves use this oddly quasi-religious phrase that ‘I have faith in the common sense of the British people’. And it does feel like blind faith, a something-in-my-waters, bunion-feeling sentiment. The one thing the pollsters may fall back on is that they simply can’t be blamed for not picking up a last minute, on-the-day ‘surge’. But failing to pick up any underlying movement in the final week of the campaign would be problematic for their reputations."
It's less a surge, more a rally. And it's around Labour, not the Tories.
None of it makes sense. I simply can't work this election out.
My notoriously unreliable gut says that a surprising number of people did not seen to believe Labour could win, but the reality of the coalition mathetmatics and lack of movement in the polls seems to have finally convinced people in the past day or so, and now perhaps Lab people considering staying at home because what's the point, are now realising they could help tip Lab from a good result to a great result.
What movement there is does appear to be toward Labour, in general.
I wonder if the attempted character assassination of Ed Miliband has backfired; generated sympathy with the public and, some ways, might have benefited Labour.
It seems to me that it is Nicola Sturgeon who has firmed the labour vote if that is the case. There are many who want to end austerity and would view an Ed Miliband government as being forced along this path and that to vote Ed Miliband would de facto get Nicola S
What i don't understand is how a consistent and clear trend to the Tories in the phone polls since Jan/Feb would level out and all return to Labour in the last 36 hours.
Makes no sense to me at all.
Casino, you are one of the more realistic Tory-inclined posters on here, and for that you have my respect. It is the phone pollsters that seem to me to have a lot of explaining to do. If the final polls are right, how were they ever showing 5 & 6% Tory leads a week ago? If the Tories do win big tonight then why did they swing back to a tie at the end?
Any fair minded person would admit that if the final polls are accurate (still a big "if" at this stage) then it is the online polls that have been the most stable and accurate and all the explanations as to why the phone polls were the gold standard last week were, to put it bluntly, bollox.
I assume the intimation is that these "burly blokes" are SNP.
If there's even a smidgin of truth to that (and one would suspect there is for Ruth Davidson to be tweeting it) I would hope the polling officers called the police in pronto.
In homage to Avery, here's a yellow box with the latest forecasts from various academics/pundits, and a slection of PB regulars. Apologies for any mistakes (in a couple of cases I've had to guess the PC/Respect figures):
Philip Cowley@philipjcowley·2 mins2 minutes ago Either 2015 joins 1992 and 1970 as polling disasters - or Ed Miliband is going to become Prime Minister.
It's probably linked to some sort of sunspot activity and happens about every 22.5 years!
In homage to Avery, here's a yellow box with the latest forecasts from various academics/pundits, and a slection of PB regulars. Apologies for any mistakes (in a couple of cases I've had to guess the PC/Respect figures):
Just me, antifrank, and NPXMP on our own predicting a Labour plurality.
rcs100's prediction of CON 311, Lab 248 is especially piquant.
Er, I predicted 300 seats for Labour this morning.
On the pb contest I was Con 288 Lab 270. I would reverse those now.
Adherents of my ARSE need to hold it and their nerve tight.
No gibbering or lip wobbling will be allowed.
has the last batch of polls forced you to rethink your ARSE or are you still holding it tight?
Suffice to say ....
Ed Miliband Will Never be Prime Minister
Fair play for sticking to your guns. At what (clearly imaginary) point would your ARSE go into reverse (now there's a mental image I could do without)?
It's depressing to think that in all my adult life (and I'm 39), I have had the last 4 years of a weak Tory Government as a self-destructing Tory Party was desperately held together by Major (or not), 13 years of Blair-Brown sovietising the UK, and 5 years of a pretty weak Conservative-led coalition government which largely failed on its main task of eliminating the deficit - and now I'm being plunged back into at least 5 years of an even more socialist administration than the one Blair-Brown helmed, and if the Tories do self-destruct in the wake of today's defeat, Labour might be in for another 10-15 years.
Didn't they used to say the Tories were the natural party of government? I might never see a right of centre administration again!
What a black day today is!
Calm down. The arithmetic is almost as bad for Labour (perhaps even worse, in the long run). If, as looks likely, they have to go into "Coalition" with the SNP it will cripple Labour in England (they are already screwed in Scotland), and the government might not last 5 months, let alone 5 years.
The Left and the Right are fragmenting. The future is Coalitions. There will be rightwing coalitions and leftwing coalitions. We'd better get used to it.
Cameron could seal the deal on coalition 2.0 straight away by offering STV for Westminster. I think he'd rather take his Christian Democrat Pragmatists into an arrangement with the Orange Bookers and one or two of the more right wing Labour lot (Umuna?) in any case.
The UK seems to want to test tax and spend to destruction. Despite all the evidence it doesn't work it appears like they want to give it one last go. See the "Labour didn't really increase spending or even if they did it didn't affect the deficit" meme going around on all social media that everyone is unquestionably lapping up.
Peston has a shameful article on it masquerading as a "neutral" one respecting the broadcaster's rules.
"Did labour spend too much?" he then says some say they do, on some measures they did, on some they didn't... blah blah, then makes an entirely laughable and false comparison between the good years of 2001-07 with the early 80's recession and says that the deficits in those years were similar (well duh...). there was no comparison of deficits in developed economies in the same years (you know, a fair comparison)
Uninformed voters (most of them) will have concluded that the accusation of overspending was just a Tory debating point. AAARGGHHH
Yep. I see multiple articles of how Labour didn't really increase spending despite it nominally doubling in a decade.
It was all the banks wot did it and as everyone knows they are Tory even though it was Labour deregulation that caused the the problems. But I suppose Labour were just being Tory at the time or some crap.
There's about to be a massive dose of reality coming for the social media generation of lefties, most of whom think that only 1% of the population need to pay any more in taxes for everyone to have more sweeties.
My wife's boss in the Council (a Union rep) told her and her colleagues this morning they'd better vote Labour all they'll all be out of work under the Tories.
Lol. Her boss is a cock too - gives it the big one to his staff but shits himself whenever the husband's are at social gatherings. Last time I met him he was telling me how fast his car is
Anyway, my wife doesn't vote. The minute she starts we'll know there's a crisis on. She wouldn't even know what a polling card is. I asked her if she'd lost her job over the last five years when the Tories were in power? She didn't even know the Tories were in power.... doh.
Just goes to show the level of fear-mongering which goes on in Councils though, towards naïve, dopey non-voters like my wife.
The UK seems to want to test tax and spend to destruction. Despite all the evidence it doesn't work it appears like they want to give it one last go. See the "Labour didn't really increase spending or even if they did it didn't affect the deficit" meme going around on all social media that everyone is unquestionably lapping up.
Peston has a shameful article on it masquerading as a "neutral" one respecting the broadcaster's rules.
"Did labour spend too much?" he then says some say they do, on some measures they did, on some they didn't... blah blah, then makes an entirely laughable and false comparison between the good years of 2001-07 with the early 80's recession and says that the deficits in those years were similar (well duh...). there was no comparison of deficits in developed economies in the same years (you know, a fair comparison)
Uninformed voters (most of them) will have concluded that the accusation of overspending was just a Tory debating point. AAARGGHHH
Yep. I see multiple articles of how Labour didn't really increase spending despite it nominally doubling in a decade.
It was all the banks wot did it and as everyone knows they are Tory even though it was Labour deregulation that caused the the problems. But I suppose Labour were just being Tory at the time or some crap.
There's about to be a massive dose of reality coming for the social media generation of lefties, most of whom think that only 1% of the population need to pay any more in taxes for everyone to have more sweeties.
You'd think they'd have noticed that it didn't work in France, but apparently not.
In homage to Avery, here's a yellow box with the latest forecasts from various academics/pundits, and a slection of PB regulars. Apologies for any mistakes (in a couple of cases I've had to guess the PC/Respect figures):
He generally thinks the Lib Dems are a bunch of wet lettuces, and has voted Tory since 1987 but Clegg's done fine.
So came as a real shock.
The LD late surge is on. The only significant movement in the polls during the campaign.
What odds on LD > UKIP votes?
Ah!!! The Dead Russian - the Liberal's friend, he is usually seen at about this time
Sergei is a meerkat these days .... are you buying a ticket for Twickenham (sans Vince) at the end of the month, Icarus? You despatch Saints and we put Saracens to the sword - then a repeat of our meeting in September ;-)
In homage to Avery, here's a yellow box with the latest forecasts from various academics/pundits, and a slection of PB regulars. Apologies for any mistakes (in a couple of cases I've had to guess the PC/Respect figures):
Just me, antifrank, and NPXMP on our own predicting a Labour plurality.
rcs100's prediction of CON 311, Lab 248 is especially piquant.
Er, I predicted 300 seats for Labour this morning.
On the pb contest I was Con 288 Lab 270. I would reverse those now.
Adherents of my ARSE need to hold it and their nerve tight.
No gibbering or lip wobbling will be allowed.
has the last batch of polls forced you to rethink your ARSE or are you still holding it tight?
Suffice to say ....
Ed Miliband Will Never be Prime Minister
Fair play for sticking to your guns. At what (clearly imaginary) point would your ARSE go into reverse (now there's a mental image I could do without)?
Comments
I know which one I'm happier to live with.
Pretty quiet, and voters giving nothing away. I was sat with a Labour chap and neither of us had a clue which way the seat will go.
Given what the polls say people want, a fair percentage of our country is in LaLaland too.
http://buchanan.org/blog/behind-sinking-lusitania-6935
By George, they've got it. Finally.
In light of your astute observation we should just declare Ed as PM right now and save all those people staying up all night counting voting slips.
Steam coming out of PB Tories ears at final polls.
No chickens till the big poll,the only one that counts confirms EICIPM or otherwise.
Over 5 years the coalition really hasn't done that badly considering the mess that they inherited. If anyone thinks a Labour/SNP coalition will be as disciplined, grown up and reasonable then they'll be in for a very nasty surprise.
I think there's an interesting changing of the guard happening in the Lib Dems. The left-wing brigade are in the main, well into their fifties and sixties. Yet the younger generation seem to be smarter and more economically dry. Another term of coalition would cement this demographic change; after all the future of the party is a relfection of its current intake.
Will knock turnout though - down to 105%?
The correction will come, as no functioning banking system can lend money at basically 0%, and no amount of mansion taxing and banker bonus taxes will really sort out the underlying issues.
http://campaignwatch.co.uk/bob-backs-cam/
Why nothing at all even however small, as mentioned downthread, about such things as tackling tax avoidance, raising more somehow form Amazon etc?
Why almost nothing about education standards which has been a real strong point for them IMHO?
And above all why so half-hearted in their attack on labour's abysmal record?
Why, in short, has their campaign been so crap?
Didn't they used to say the Tories were the natural party of government? I might never see a right of centre administration again!
What a black day today is!
Of the two stupid policies, one is more easily borne by the victim than the other.
grrrrr
If I had bigger balls (and a spare £100k) I'd sell the tories on SPIN's tory/labour seat margin. Seeing as I don't have the cash, i'll do a paper trade on here. £1000/seat, selling @ 20.
Lets see how much of a paper profit I make.
Was there ever a war where we were in the right and the ruskies were in the wrong?
But I just wonder a little (although my personal prediction is very similar to yours, if slightly less optimistic for the SNP).
What puzzles me is that for decades Labour have been happy to work with - effectively be in coalition with - the SDLP. Who are just as keen on the 'destruction', sensu SeanT, of the UK. (It would however be a quibble too far to argue that the UUs had also participated in the 'partition' of the UK as the word is usually used ...).
Yet I've seen very little objection to this SDLP involvement, from Tories or others. Or am I just too young to remember the years when parly arithmetic meant that it might have mattered?.
Philip Cowley@philipjcowley·2 mins2 minutes ago
Either 2015 joins 1992 and 1970 as polling disasters - or Ed Miliband is going to become Prime Minister.
"Did labour spend too much?" he then says some say they do, on some measures they did, on some they didn't... blah blah, then makes an entirely laughable and false comparison between the good years of 2001-07 with the early 80's recession and says that the deficits in those years were similar (well duh...). there was no comparison of deficits in developed economies in the same years (you know, a fair comparison)
Uninformed voters (most of them) will have concluded that the accusation of overspending was just a Tory debating point. AAARGGHHH
from
http://politicalbetting.com/
to
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussions
No problems now!
Politics has become more fragmented and localised. There will be no strong governments for the forseeable.
It was all the banks wot did it and as everyone knows they are Tory even though it was Labour deregulation that caused the the problems. But I suppose Labour were just being Tory at the time or some crap.
Currently you can get 6.8 on betfair which feels to me to be far too generous. The tories are favourites but perhaps labour not quite the 8/1 or 6.8 outsiders .
http://www.ncpolitics.uk/2015/05/shy-tory-factor-2015.html/
I have no idea if it is valid but it is interesting.
Ed Miliband Will Never be Prime Minister
I assume the intimation is that these "burly blokes" are SNP.
Camerons' time may be up, but it's not looking too bad in the longer run for the blues.They are still the natural party of England.
But don't worry too much about Ed! There's also a Russian spacecraft to keep an eye on.
https://twitter.com/dgcouncil/status/596302016416247810
Any fair minded person would admit that if the final polls are accurate (still a big "if" at this stage) then it is the online polls that have been the most stable and accurate and all the explanations as to why the phone polls were the gold standard last week were, to put it bluntly, bollox.
If there's even a smidgin of truth to that (and one would suspect there is for Ruth Davidson to be tweeting it) I would hope the polling officers called the police in pronto.
Exit poll? Fri am? Coalition formed by Labour?
[O/T I've bought your latest on the twins]
Lol. Her boss is a cock too - gives it the big one to his staff but shits himself whenever the husband's are at social gatherings. Last time I met him he was telling me how fast his car is
Anyway, my wife doesn't vote. The minute she starts we'll know there's a crisis on. She wouldn't even know what a polling card is. I asked her if she'd lost her job over the last five years when the Tories were in power? She didn't even know the Tories were in power.... doh.
Just goes to show the level of fear-mongering which goes on in Councils though, towards naïve, dopey non-voters like my wife.
https://twitter.com/dgcouncil/status/596302016416247810
tom_watson@tom_watson·20 secs21 seconds ago
We can do this
The most shocking thing about that photo is it appears there is a man in Scotland wearing a Conservative rosette.
#megaTick
Wow, well that'll go down as the smear of the campaign then.
Armed feds there too, so I've been very reliably informed.
https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/596247743556886528