I only finally dipped my toes into the betting market in the last two months, and in a very modest way. I didn't do well in my individual constituency betting, but really glad I followed my gut instinct about the overall outcome of the GE despite the polls. So in the end I was well in profit after placing a few bets on a Conservative majority and the Conservatives winning 326-350 seats.
I wonder when the "Buy 1.06 NOM, safest bet ever" crowd will show up...
So happy I did not take safe NOM, or good trading bet Lab Most Seats 4/1.
Hmm I was on Lab seats and votes in the end, but still had £20 or so profit on the Cons. One thing I'm glad I did do though was bend the shape of my seat band/OM book so a big SNP score would aid it. The 226-250 Labour band bets combined with stacks of Conservative and SNP constituency bets meant it was a very decent nights. Of course some errors and I emphatically didn't call it right, by the end of the polling I'd just lost all faith in how the Lib Dems would do in particular (The ashcroft and Comres marginal polls simply couldn't be reconciled) so fortunately covered the 0-10 band. I thought 16-1 looked a touch large, just a tenner on...
Ed M should take a leaf out of IDS's book. Rather than leaving parliament, he set up, with the help of others, a think tank (CSJ) that has done valuable research into the causes of poverty and the solutions. He then made it his mission to use the opportunity of government to put that work into practice, to benefit the people he went into politics to serve. Come on, Ed, don't wander off, don't sulk. Find your mission. Work at it. Make it happen.
P.S. Maybe Miss Apocalypse should try listening to IDS sometime.
Trouble is I'd hardly say what IDS had actually done in government has helped the less well off and the poor; it's made their lives even more difficult. And IDS is living proof of what I said previously; that the Conservatives think self-reliance is achieved by cutting benefits, when that is only 50% of the story.
You said you never heard Tories talking about such matters... well, IDS and others prove you wrong. No, Conservatives do not just rely on cutting benefits. They work to create jobs, fight debt, fight drug abuse, fight family breakdown and all the other issues that create and worsen poverty. But they do understand that if benefits reward you with more cash than any job available, then you are unlikely to take that job.
'The problem with the Liberal Democrats is that they are in no way a liberal party'
Electorally they were fine as long as they had no record to defend and the exclusivity of the 'protest party' that of course all changed in 2010 plus the emergence of the SNP ,UKIP & Greens which gave voters a selection of protest parties.
It was brave to join the coalition but not clever to try and be in government and opposition at the same time.
The Liberal Democrats are a Norwegian Blue. And not in a comic sense, they really are finished. I'm pretty sure that the party is insolvent now without Short Money, they have some big outstanding bills and no way to pay the,
Electorally they cannot recover from here. In the 70s they had the option as they were the only third party. Now they are not. They are finished, probably forever.
There's really no point in arguing with you if you genuinely believe Tories don't care about, and never talk about, social mobility and opportunities for the poor and helping the less well off, and so on and so forth. If you do think that you are either stupid, or terminally blinkered.
Why have the Tories gone to enormous pains to reform welfare benefits? Is it because they want to see beggars screaming for crusts of bread on Bayswater Road, or is it because they sincerely think that the best way out of entrenched poverty is to get people into paying work? Really? What do you reckon?
If they don't care about the the very poorest why do they pour billions into foreign aid (too much, to my mind)? If they hate the disabled and the sick how come they have ringfenced and increased spending on the NHS?
If they never talk about opportunity how come they want Free Schools, and more right to buy, and....
Ach, what's the point. Feel free to reply or not, I'm done!
If there's not point in arguing with me, why respond? It's not like you argued anyway, you just sorted of ranted at me.
On welfare reforms - the Conservatives appear to think anyone on welfare is an evil scrounger, and an awful lot of their reform has been based on that. And given how their welfare reform has affected the sick and disabled, I'd pretty much say they at least are ambivalent towards them.
You're pretty much making SeanT's point for him.
And another non-argument. Given I'm on a forum full of Tories, I guess I should expect that.
#MikeK said: » show previous quotes I don't think a simple in or out EU referendum will ever take place under this second Cameron government. And heres £100 evens says it won't. Are you on?
I'll do that for £50.
Ok! agreed
Now how do I send you the £25 I now owe you: your wording below.
"Do you want to frame a bet on that: let's say a central point of 18% [mid way between Survation's 24% and the top end of my range] and any figure up to £5 per point on the UKIP vote share."
Thanks: one point to clarify I suppose is how do you define "a simple In-Out referendum". My view is that Cameron will renegotiate and come back with something like "do you approve staying in the EU on the renegotiated terms" - would that win the bet (for me) in your view?
£25 it is. I'll PM you my bank details.
No matter how you frame it you are onto free money. Cameron has a lot of leverage in the negotiations and no matter what anyone things of the rsult of them there will be a referendum which says something like 'Following renegotiated terms of membership, to you apprive staying in or leaving the EU'
We should remember that the vast majority of commentators betray few indicators of any perception of what is happening in the real world. The total misreading of the election campaign and Cameron being cases in point. The preconceived idea that we cannot get anywhere with the negotiations is a case in point. We do have leverage - the EU itself needs to adapt re the Eurozone. We do not want to be in a closer union and we can certainly stake out an acceptable place in the EU whilst most of them coalesce together. As part of that we can modify the movement of labour rules and protect our interests as the EU/Eurozone changes its own rules. I can only repeat that the danger of a straight EU walk out is that we end up in Schengen as part of the (very difficult) subsequent trade deal.
The voters can then decide. But kippers will always howl that any vote is 'unfair'.
Nope. Schengen and EU/EFTA/EEA membership are all entirely separate. This is another of the myths you Europhiles like to peddle.
Ed M should take a leaf out of IDS's book. Rather than leaving parliament, he set up, with the help of others, a think tank (CSJ) that has done valuable research into the causes of poverty and the solutions. He then made it his mission to use the opportunity of government to put that work into practice, to benefit the people he went into politics to serve. Come on, Ed, don't wander off, don't sulk. Find your mission. Work at it. Make it happen.
P.S. Maybe Miss Apocalypse should try listening to IDS sometime.
Trouble is I'd hardly say what IDS had actually done in government has helped the less well off and the poor; it's made their lives even more difficult. And IDS is living proof of what I said previously; that the Conservatives think self-reliance is achieved by cutting benefits, when that is only 50% of the story.
You said you never heard Tories talking about such matters... well, IDS and others prove you wrong. No, Conservatives do not just rely on cutting benefits....
Really? What are the Conservatives doing to fight family breakdown? The problem with the Conservative party is that think any job will do. Any job will ensure self-reliance. And that was the point I was making; that you need to make work pay, and by that people need to have a decent wage. Given that the Conservatives don't appear to be trying to achieve that - and simply feel any old job, and cutting benefits will do the trick, it's no wonder so many are dependent on food banks. They clearly are struggling to be self-reliant.
There's really no point in arguing with you if you genuinely believe Tories don't care about, and never talk about, social mobility and opportunities for the poor and helping the less well off, and so on and so forth. If you do think that you are either stupid, or terminally blinkered.
Why have the Tories gone to enormous pains to reform welfare benefits? Is it because they want to see beggars screaming for crusts of bread on Bayswater Road, or is it because they sincerely think that the best way out of entrenched poverty is to get people into paying work? Really? What do you reckon?
If they don't care about the the very poorest why do they pour billions into foreign aid (too much, to my mind)? If they hate the disabled and the sick how come they have ringfenced and increased spending on the NHS?
If they never talk about opportunity how come they want Free Schools, and more right to buy, and....
Ach, what's the point. Feel free to reply or not, I'm done!
If there's not point in arguing with me, why respond? It's not like you argued anyway, you just sorted of ranted at me.
On welfare reforms - the Conservatives appear to think anyone on welfare is an evil scrounger, and an awful lot of their reform has been based on that. And given how their welfare reform has affected the sick and disabled, I'd pretty much say they at least are ambivalent towards them.
You're pretty much making SeanT's point for him.
And another non-argument. Given I'm on a forum full of Tories, I guess I should expect that.
The Lefties are temporarily in retreat having just been thrashed in the recent battle.
No doubt they'll be back.
You do sound like you are at the "young enough to know everything" stage of your life. The world is not as black and white as you make out.
Apocalypse you are marvelously illustrating why labour lost. Good work. Far better than any Tory could have done. Sweeping, blinkered generalizations. Ignorance of fact. Virtue signaling.
There's really no point in arguing with you if you genuinely believe Tories don't care about, and never talk about, social mobility and opportunities for the poor and helping the less well off, and so on and so forth. If you do think that you are either stupid, or terminally blinkered.
Why have the Tories gone to enormous pains to reform welfare benefits? Is it because they want to see beggars screaming for crusts of bread on Bayswater Road, or is it because they sincerely think that the best way out of entrenched poverty is to get people into paying work? Really? What do you reckon?
If they don't care about the the very poorest why do they pour billions into foreign aid (too much, to my mind)? If they hate the disabled and the sick how come they have ringfenced and increased spending on the NHS?
If they never talk about opportunity how come they want Free Schools, and more right to buy, and....
Ach, what's the point. Feel free to reply or not, I'm done!
If there's not point in arguing with me, why respond? It's not like you argued anyway, you just sorted of ranted at me.
On welfare reforms - the Conservatives appear to think anyone on welfare is an evil scrounger, and an awful lot of their reform has been based on that. And given how their welfare reform has affected the sick and disabled, I'd pretty much say they at least are ambivalent towards them.
You're pretty much making SeanT's point for him.
And another non-argument. Given I'm on a forum full of Tories, I guess I should expect that.
I suspect at this time when Tories are exulting in an unexpected win, the Tory quotient will remain higher than usual for a few days. Swings and roundabouts - the forum of depressed Tories and (some) smug labour supporters was much in evidence just before the exit poll.
Seconded. It is one of the main reasons - coupled with the Leveson proposals and Labour's stance on civil liberties - which is why I am delighted that they have been so heavily defeated. I really hope that some of the more thoughtful Labourites within the party go back to first principles and really think hard about where they went wrong in this area.
If a left of centre social democratic party does not stand up for free speech, for equal treatment under the law, for Western liberal values, what the hell is the point of it?
Remember also that the "Liberal" Democrats supported the Leveson Report, and forced the passage of ss. 34-42 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, a bizarre attempt at statutory regulation of the press, which fortunately remains ignored and unimplemented.
There's really no point in arguing with you if you genuinely believe Tories don't care about, and never talk about, social mobility and opportunities for the poor and helping the less well off, and so on and so forth. If you do think that you are either stupid, or terminally blinkered.
Why have the Tories gone to enormous pains to reform welfare benefits? Is it because they want to see beggars screaming for crusts of bread on Bayswater Road, or is it because they sincerely think that the best way out of entrenched poverty is to get people into paying work? Really? What do you reckon?
If they don't care about the the very poorest why do they pour billions into foreign aid (too much, to my mind)? If they hate the disabled and the sick how come they have ringfenced and increased spending on the NHS?
If they never talk about opportunity how come they want Free Schools, and more right to buy, and....
Ach, what's the point. Feel free to reply or not, I'm done!
If there's not point in arguing with me, why respond? It's not like you argued anyway, you just sorted of ranted at me.
On welfare reforms - the Conservatives appear to think anyone on welfare is an evil scrounger, and an awful lot of their reform has been based on that. And given how their welfare reform has affected the sick and disabled, I'd pretty much say they at least are ambivalent towards them.
You're pretty much making SeanT's point for him.
And another non-argument. Given I'm on a forum full of Tories, I guess I should expect that.
The Lefties are temporarily in retreat having just been thrashed in the recent battle.
No doubt they'll be back.
You do sound like you are at the "young enough to know everything" stage of your life. The world is not as black and white as you make out.
I don't think the world is black and white; I hardly argued Labour were the bastion of morality; if anything I condemned both parties'.
The big problem is that one of the countries has 10 times the population of the second most populous country and several times the population of all the others combined. English regionalisation isn't the way and has already been rejected in much of the English north anyway. ... A full-scale English parliament also isn't the way. Either it would be a useless body or it would make the British parliament increasingly irrelevant, which wouldn't be helpful at all
I really don't get this argument.
Federalism is the answer. Then the size of the English state doesn't matter relative to other matters. And it would give you the opportunity to recentre the British state by moving the English parliament elsewhere. Personally, I'd prefer Winchester, but I doubt I'd get away with that so probably Birmingham, Manchester or possibly York.
National issues would be handled by a UK parliament at Westminster. Yes, England would have a disproportionate input into national affairs, but no more than they do at the moment. And you could substantially reduce the number of politicians - let's say 300 in the House of Commons and a further 400 in the House of Lords (of whom 75 are elected by each federal state, and 100 comprising certain individuals who's input would be useful - Archbishops, the Chief Rabbi, Chief of General Staff, Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls, etc etc)
I see that after the 2010 election there were opinion polls done about a week later. I guess that won't happen this time, but when do we think we will get polls again?
Apocalypse you are marvelously illustrating why labour lost. Good work. Far better than any Tory could have done. Sweeping, blinkered generalizations. Ignorance of fact. Virtue signaling.
Wow what an argument, just a list full of insults....
There's really no point in arguing with you if you genuinely believe Tories don't care about, and never talk about, social mobility and opportunities for the poor and helping the less well off, and so on and so forth. If you do think that you are either stupid, or terminally blinkered.
Why have the Tories gone to enormous pains to reform welfare benefits? Is it because they want to see beggars screaming for crusts of bread on Bayswater Road, or is it because they sincerely think that the best way out of entrenched poverty is to get people into paying work? Really? What do you reckon?
If they don't care about the the very poorest why do they pour billions into foreign aid (too much, to my mind)? If they hate the disabled and the sick how come they have ringfenced and increased spending on the NHS?
If they never talk about opportunity how come they want Free Schools, and more right to buy, and....
Ach, what's the point. Feel free to reply or not, I'm done!
If there's not point in arguing with me, why respond? It's not like you argued anyway, you just sorted of ranted at me.
On welfare reforms - the Conservatives appear to think anyone on welfare is an evil scrounger, and an awful lot of their reform has been based on that. And given how their welfare reform has affected the sick and disabled, I'd pretty much say they at least are ambivalent towards them.
You're pretty much making SeanT's point for him.
And another non-argument. Given I'm on a forum full of Tories, I guess I should expect that.
I suspect at this time when Tories are exulting in an unexpected win, the Tory quotient will remain higher than usual for a few days. Swings and roundabouts - the forum of depressed Tories and (some) smug labour supporters was much in evidence just before the exit poll.
Thanks for not biting at me kle4. It looks like some Conservatives are in smug/condescending mode after their victory. Usually when I'm in debate with others, including some friends who do vote Tory, they aren't anywhere near this condescending.
Indeed. The SNP want FFA alright, but not just now, and not before they have another Indy Referendum in the bag. I am personal planning my future according. If the SNP got FFA now, it would screw their whole end game up, and they know it. So expect to see Sturgeon back tracking on it while then trying to make the argument about why bother with FFA at all when we can just go for full Independence instead.
@Aidan_Kerr1: Despite tactical voting the Scottish Conservatives are up 20,000 votes and finish 3rd for the 1st time since 1992.
It doesn't seem to me there is any need for a major rebranding just yet.
Scottish turnout was up a lot so adding 20,000 votes is moving backwards.
Not in Scott's Tory dreamland though.
330/650 isn't dreamland in your ideas?
Maybe you'd rather 58/650? Yeah that's "winning". Oh no, its not. You'll be sitting on the losers side of the house.
I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again. Winning is not about numbers; it's about power. And the SNP have it massively, not because they can bring down the government but because if they're not recognised, they can (or might) bring down the Union.
This is the core of things and seems to be completely lost on a lot of southern Unionists. I think Unionists in Scotland are far more aware of this. Westminster is no longer the only source of power in these islands. Holyrood competes with Westminster, is more popular with Scotland and it's will cannot be ignored without consequences. The SNP have the game in the bag, all they need to do is squeeze in the right places.
They're already set up to get complete and utter capitulation over FFA.
Unless I've misread you - you've just done it - I've bolded it. So George Osborne is one step down from a baby eater along with lots of Tories? How many do you know? 11m voted Tory only last Thursday. It's a most peculiar way to view a very large section of the population.
I only campaigned for the Tories in 1987 because I felt Labour were still dangerous to the economy - and without a good one, we were all effed. There's no money to help anyone if the economy is buggered.
Same again now. IMHO, far too many on the Left want to spend money we don't have, and are far too emotionally soft to bleeding hearts when there needs to be some looking at the purse first at Christmas. Buying prezzies to *be nice* with borrowed money is daft. We spend more on debt interest now than IIRC all of Education and Defence put together. And those in your age bracket are paying for it.
It's terribly easy to spend other people's money, buy people off and bribe others with sweeties. Most people are self-interested and will do what makes them better off. So those who can get £26k a year NET sitting on benefits whilst fit for work will do so - why not? It's sensible behaviour that was encouraged by The State through hand-outs.
I've been in the Eat or Heat bracket and know how hard it is. That hasn't changed my view that being self-reliant whenever possible is good for one's dignity and future. I'm more your Frank Field type of Tory. I currently know 5 long term unemployed in Eastbourne who have bought 36"+ TVs in the last year using just their HMG benefits.
Now, maybe I'm a bit parsimonious - but that doesn't strike me as a good use of your taxes and hard work. It's not like finding a job round here is hard.
Re *inequality* - to my mind, it's about equality of opportunity. If you choose to screw around in class in a good school - well that's up to you. I'd hope your parents would put you straight. If not, what can HMG do about it if you and your parents can't be bothered?
While I don't doubt that there Conservatives who genuinely do care, I wonder how many of them actually do? I have my sincerest doubts George Osborne lays there awake at night thinking of the poorest in society, the homeless, the mentally ill.
Though I got the result badly wrong. I did point out that the Brand interview and the Policy Obelisk were not the actions of a party contemplating victory. Quite the opposite. They showed a party in panic, and worried about defeat. So there WAS truth in those rumours about "bad canvass returns", and "disappointing postal votes".
Incidentally, another big loser from all this is... Russell Brand. I see that following the election he has now hastily withdrawn his endorsement of Miliband, saying "hey I'm just a comedian".
Well, quite.
I like Russell. He's always nice to me when I see him. But he deserves to be spanked with an inflated puffer fish for:
1. his hideously ungallant revealing of bedroom secrets about his ex-wife Katy Perry
2. getting in the mix with Ed Miliband this election.
The problem is that you argued that Conservatives are not interested in these issues. I illustrated that they are, so you shift the argument to how effective they are.
If you look at the manifesto, it was very clear about the need to raise the minimum wage as the economy recovers. Raising the income tax threshold puts cash directly into the pockets of working families. Freezing council tax is of most benefit to those with the lowest incomes. The benefits cap is set at the median family income; hardly draconian, but a signal to those that work hard that others are not swinging the lead. If you look at the marriage tax allowance, it is a small, but clear, message about the importance of families and marriage as their glue. There is, of course, more.
Feel free to disagree with the effectiveness of such policies, but please do not fall into the trap of assuming that people disagree with your policy prescriptions because they don't care or are somehow 'immoral'.
Yvette Cooper @YvetteCooper_MP · 3 hrs3 hours ago At this time we as a party need to pause, reflect & take time to consider what our plans are to address the 65m owls I have stored in a barn
Yvette Cooper @YvetteCooper_MP · 2 hrs2 hours ago FYI Ed B is not "unemployed" on May 7th he was placed on a zero hours contact by the electorate and Tories
First off Plato, I'd like to thank you for engaging with me (and not being a bit rude!)
I don't think Osborne is a baby eater, but he seems to be someone completely consumed by short-term political strategy more than anything else. I don't sense that he grew up, wanting to go in politics to made the world better, but more for the power of it. For the record, I don't think this is the case for other Tories, namely Theresa May, who I thought was quite a good Home Secretary.
I don't view 11m, as cold-hearted, evil people or anything like that. And equally, given what many on here think about lefties, while this total wasn't enough to win the election 9m voted Labour, 1m voted SNP, and 2m voted LD. 12m people aren't all insane, deluded lefties. LIfe is more nuanced than that, and people come in all shapes and sizes with different views and opinions. I think 11m voted Conservative because they didn't like Ed Miliband, didn't have much trust in Labour, and trusted the Tories economically.
I think both parties were interested in 'buying prezzies' and 'spending others money' at the last election - look at all the unfunded pledges the Conservatives made, despite making the argument there's no money left?
And for all the talk on national debt I actually think it'll be personal debt - garnered from tuition fees, and most likely only being able to get a mortgage after the age of 30, that will most hurt young people.
I also don't think there is anywhere near the amount of people 'scrounging' as many people seem to think. For many people, work is a key part of their identity; their self esteem. Unemployment is a humiliating process. I understand you know those people, but equally I've know many genuinely unemployed people who are not messing with the system. I agree equality is largely one of opportunity - but that means creating a system of opportunity, where everyone has the best chance to succeed as much as possible.
Plato - a very large section of the population = 24% of those registered. And that excludes the millions who aren't even registered. I suppose if you add together the rich, the anti-social and some of the stupid you get somewhere near there.
What the election has proved is that when one side has a very soft edge to it's vote (Labour due to Miliband effect) and other parties have shy voters (some Tories, but probably in this campaign moreso, red-kippers, which is really what hurt Labour) then the opinion polls are useless.
Throughout the campaign, I always held a suspicion that the pattern resembled 1992 and if anything it was more dramatic. At least in 1992, the polls showed a very late swing to the tories.
What was quite bizarre was how the polls converged so late to a virtual tie. Just makes me think whether there was some gerrymandering going on behind the scenes as polling companies desperately tried not to have a huge outlier that was so far wrong that it damaged it's reputation.
In terms of the parties, unless the Tories do very, very badly in government, then Labour has a mountain to climb. 100 seats behind, I cannot see them regaining many seats in Scotland quickly (I think the Tories have actually better prospects in Scotland than Labour, albeit limited to a very small number seats). If they do start to make gains in England, then this could be beaten down by the spectre of a Labour/SNP government rearing it's head again.
In fact, if there is a fairly large minority (30%-35%) that vote to leave the EU in 2017, which is the sort of result that I would expect, UKIP could gain traction and far from winning seats in the next election, Labour might be more concerned with defending seats to UKIP in it's northern heartlands.
As for the Lib Dems, they look like having minor party status for some time. It will be very difficult to rebuild in the areas it has lost incumbency. I do admire them a little however, for putting self-interest aside in 2010 for the good of the country.
Yvette Cooper @YvetteCooper_MP · 3 hrs3 hours ago At this time we as a party need to pause, reflect & take time to consider what our plans are to address the 65m owls I have stored in a barn
Yvette Cooper @YvetteCooper_MP · 2 hrs2 hours ago FYI Ed B is not "unemployed" on May 7th he was placed on a zero hours contact by the electorate and Tories /blockquote>
I wonder when the "Buy 1.06 NOM, safest bet ever" crowd will show up...
So happy I did not take safe NOM, or good trading bet Lab Most Seats 4/1.
Hmm I was on Lab seats and votes in the end, but still had £20 or so profit on the Cons. One thing I'm glad I did do though was bend the shape of my seat band/OM book so a big SNP score would aid it. The 226-250 Labour band bets combined with stacks of Conservative and SNP constituency bets meant it was a very decent nights. Of course some errors and I emphatically didn't call it right, by the end of the polling I'd just lost all faith in how the Lib Dems would do in particular (The ashcroft and Comres marginal polls simply couldn't be reconciled) so fortunately covered the 0-10 band. I thought 16-1 looked a touch large, just a tenner on...
I took the Lab most seats at 5.0/10.0 (in respectively England/the UK) three days ago but hedged with Tory constituency bets. I used the list on ukpolling reports. I expected Labour to do slightly less well in Wales - it's in government - so if in doubt I took Welsh seats at the same odds.
The 1.06 was too low to be useful in an arb. so I ignored it. I think by that time Christchurch at over 1.10 was safer.
I did like the brief opportunity to bet at 2.5 on Labour and 2.5 on SNP in two horse races!
What the election has proved is that when one side has a very soft edge to it's vote (Labour due to Miliband effect) and other parties have shy voters (some Tories, but probably in this campaign moreso, red-kippers, which is really what hurt Labour) then the opinion polls are useless.
Throughout the campaign, I always held a suspicion that the pattern resembled 1992 and if anything it was more dramatic. At least in 1992, the polls showed a very late swing to the tories.
What was quite bizarre was how the polls converged so late to a virtual tie. Just makes me think whether there was some gerrymandering going on behind the scenes as polling companies desperately tried not to have a huge outlier that was so far wrong that it damaged it's reputation.
In terms of the parties, unless the Tories do very, very badly in government, then Labour has a mountain to climb. 100 seats behind, I cannot see them regaining many seats in Scotland quickly (I think the Tories have actually better prospects in Scotland than Labour, albeit limited to a very small number seats). If they do start to make gains in England, then this could be beaten down by the spectre of a Labour/SNP government rearing it's head again.
In fact, if there is a fairly large minority (30%-35%) that vote to leave the EU in 2017, which is the sort of result that I would expect, UKIP could gain traction and far from winning seats in the next election, Labour might be more concerned with defending seats to UKIP in it's northern heartlands.
As for the Lib Dems, they look like having minor party status for some time. It will be very difficult to rebuild in the areas it has lost incumbency. I do admire them a little however, for putting self-interest aside in 2010 for the good of the country.
I think you can add another category of shy voters - those who felt it unsavoury to be too hard on Miliband, thereby inflating his leadership numbers. Regardless of how wrong it is, I for one could not look at him or hear him speak without thinking 'how on earth can he be Prime Minister' - and that's before I even processed what he was saying and his policies.
The big problem is that one of the countries has 10 times the population of the second most populous country and several times the population of all the others combined. English regionalisation isn't the way and has already been rejected in much of the English north anyway. ... A full-scale English parliament also isn't the way. Either it would be a useless body or it would make the British parliament increasingly irrelevant, which wouldn't be helpful at all
I really don't get this argument.
Federalism is the answer. Then the size of the English state doesn't matter relative to other matters. And it would give you the opportunity to recentre the British state by moving the English parliament elsewhere. Personally, I'd prefer Winchester, but I doubt I'd get away with that so probably Birmingham, Manchester or possibly York.
National issues would be handled by a UK parliament at Westminster. Yes, England would have a disproportionate input into national affairs, but no more than they do at the moment.
England has a disproportionately small input in Westminster. It sends fewer MPs to Westminster per million population than Scotland does, and a lot fewer than Wales. Not that that's a problem as it stands.
Federalism doesn't in itself solve the 'England is big' problem.
At one end of the federalist scale, you'd have British-level issues handled by a cabinet containing equal numbers of representatives from each of the four countries, not British MPs but appointed or delegated from the four assemblies. Not workable. Why should 3 milion people in Wales have a say over British foreign policy that's equal to the say of 53 million people in England?
At the other, you'd have 5 full-scale parliaments. How will you sell that to people in England, whether they vote to send people to the English and British parliaments on the same day or on different days. (If it started out as the same day, it'd soon get out of sync.) Ditto if you just take the Westminster MPs representing English constituencies and call them the English parliament. Many will just see it as politicians pissing about. And how will you construct a marketable demarcation line between English and British issues? If only foreign policy, defence and monetary policy were handled by Britgov (and there would be little more than that left), the turnout in Brit GEs would be low.
There has to be a middle way, a bodge. Not full federalism, not a full English parliament, but an English dimension which takes in some ways a different form from the Scottish, Welsh and NI ones and in other ways an equivalent form.
The big issue is symbolic. Solve that with vision and the rest will follow and majorities will vote for the change in all four countries.
I can't say more. An idea is in preparation which is pretty sound and will get splashed later this year.
Comments
No, Conservatives do not just rely on cutting benefits. They work to create jobs, fight debt, fight drug abuse, fight family breakdown and all the other issues that create and worsen poverty. But they do understand that if benefits reward you with more cash than any job available, then you are unlikely to take that job.
Electorally they cannot recover from here. In the 70s they had the option as they were the only third party. Now they are not. They are finished, probably forever.
Mahyar Tousi
@MahyarTousi
Extremely proud of the Conservatives for now having more female & Asian MPs than Labour or any other party in the UK
V interesting, again the tories just getting on which equality, rather than bleating on about it and doing nothing.
'I had to turn it off within 6 mins of the start - it was so bitter and angry.'
You missed the best bit where Julia Hatley Brewer put her arms around Ashdown trying to comfort him which wound him up even more.
The Lefties are temporarily in retreat having just been thrashed in the recent battle.
No doubt they'll be back.
You do sound like you are at the "young enough to know everything" stage of your life. The world is not as black and white as you make out.
new thread
Federalism is the answer. Then the size of the English state doesn't matter relative to other matters. And it would give you the opportunity to recentre the British state by moving the English parliament elsewhere. Personally, I'd prefer Winchester, but I doubt I'd get away with that
National issues would be handled by a UK parliament at Westminster. Yes, England would have a disproportionate input into national affairs, but no more than they do at the moment. And you could substantially reduce the number of politicians - let's say 300 in the House of Commons and a further 400 in the House of Lords (of whom 75 are elected by each federal state, and 100 comprising certain individuals who's input would be useful - Archbishops, the Chief Rabbi, Chief of General Staff, Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls, etc etc)
Scotland
SNP 47.5%
Lab 26.2%
Con 15.1%
LD 6.1%
GB
Lab 33.5%
Con 33.4%
UKIP 13.2%
LD 9.4%
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YBumQHPAeU
Unless I've misread you - you've just done it - I've bolded it. So George Osborne is one step down from a baby eater along with lots of Tories? How many do you know?
11m voted Tory only last Thursday. It's a most peculiar way to view a very large section of the population.
I only campaigned for the Tories in 1987 because I felt Labour were still dangerous to the economy - and without a good one, we were all effed. There's no money to help anyone if the economy is buggered.
Same again now. IMHO, far too many on the Left want to spend money we don't have, and are far too emotionally soft to bleeding hearts when there needs to be some looking at the purse first at Christmas. Buying prezzies to *be nice* with borrowed money is daft. We spend more on debt interest now than IIRC all of Education and Defence put together. And those in your age bracket are paying for it.
It's terribly easy to spend other people's money, buy people off and bribe others with sweeties. Most people are self-interested and will do what makes them better off. So those who can get £26k a year NET sitting on benefits whilst fit for work will do so - why not? It's sensible behaviour that was encouraged by The State through hand-outs.
I've been in the Eat or Heat bracket and know how hard it is. That hasn't changed my view that being self-reliant whenever possible is good for one's dignity and future. I'm more your Frank Field type of Tory. I currently know 5 long term unemployed in Eastbourne who have bought 36"+ TVs in the last year using just their HMG benefits.
Now, maybe I'm a bit parsimonious - but that doesn't strike me as a good use of your taxes and hard work. It's not like finding a job round here is hard.
Re *inequality* - to my mind, it's about equality of opportunity. If you choose to screw around in class in a good school - well that's up to you. I'd hope your parents would put you straight. If not, what can HMG do about it if you and your parents can't be bothered?
BREAKING: A military plane has crashed near a coca-cola factory in Spain http://bit.ly/1ciuGGZ
They say Military but it's an Airbus. I'm getting worried about flying on Airbus.
The problem is that you argued that Conservatives are not interested in these issues. I illustrated that they are, so you shift the argument to how effective they are.
If you look at the manifesto, it was very clear about the need to raise the minimum wage as the economy recovers.
Raising the income tax threshold puts cash directly into the pockets of working families.
Freezing council tax is of most benefit to those with the lowest incomes.
The benefits cap is set at the median family income; hardly draconian, but a signal to those that work hard that others are not swinging the lead.
If you look at the marriage tax allowance, it is a small, but clear, message about the importance of families and marriage as their glue.
There is, of course, more.
Feel free to disagree with the effectiveness of such policies, but please do not fall into the trap of assuming that people disagree with your policy prescriptions because they don't care or are somehow 'immoral'.
First off Plato, I'd like to thank you for engaging with me (and not being a bit rude!)
I don't think Osborne is a baby eater, but he seems to be someone completely consumed by short-term political strategy more than anything else. I don't sense that he grew up, wanting to go in politics to made the world better, but more for the power of it. For the record, I don't think this is the case for other Tories, namely Theresa May, who I thought was quite a good Home Secretary.
I don't view 11m, as cold-hearted, evil people or anything like that. And equally, given what many on here think about lefties, while this total wasn't enough to win the election 9m voted Labour, 1m voted SNP, and 2m voted LD. 12m people aren't all insane, deluded lefties. LIfe is more nuanced than that, and people come in all shapes and sizes with different views and opinions. I think 11m voted Conservative because they didn't like Ed Miliband, didn't have much trust in Labour, and trusted the Tories economically.
I think both parties were interested in 'buying prezzies' and 'spending others money' at the last election - look at all the unfunded pledges the Conservatives made, despite making the argument there's no money left?
And for all the talk on national debt I actually think it'll be personal debt - garnered from tuition fees, and most likely only being able to get a mortgage after the age of 30, that will most hurt young people.
I also don't think there is anywhere near the amount of people 'scrounging' as many people seem to think. For many people, work is a key part of their identity; their self esteem. Unemployment is a humiliating process. I understand you know those people, but equally I've know many genuinely unemployed people who are not messing with the system. I agree equality is largely one of opportunity - but that means creating a system of opportunity, where everyone has the best chance to succeed as much as possible.
I've replied to you on the new thread.
Throughout the campaign, I always held a suspicion that the pattern resembled 1992 and if anything it was more dramatic. At least in 1992, the polls showed a very late swing to the tories.
What was quite bizarre was how the polls converged so late to a virtual tie. Just makes me think whether there was some gerrymandering going on behind the scenes as polling companies desperately tried not to have a huge outlier that was so far wrong that it damaged it's reputation.
In terms of the parties, unless the Tories do very, very badly in government, then Labour has a mountain to climb. 100 seats behind, I cannot see them regaining many seats in Scotland quickly (I think the Tories have actually better prospects in Scotland than Labour, albeit limited to a very small number seats). If they do start to make gains in England, then this could be beaten down by the spectre of a Labour/SNP government rearing it's head again.
In fact, if there is a fairly large minority (30%-35%) that vote to leave the EU in 2017, which is the sort of result that I would expect, UKIP could gain traction and far from winning seats in the next election, Labour might be more concerned with defending seats to UKIP in it's northern heartlands.
As for the Lib Dems, they look like having minor party status for some time. It will be very difficult to rebuild in the areas it has lost incumbency. I do admire them a little however, for putting self-interest aside in 2010 for the good of the country.
I took the Lab most seats at 5.0/10.0 (in respectively England/the UK) three days ago but hedged with Tory constituency bets. I used the list on ukpolling reports. I expected Labour to do slightly less well in Wales - it's in government - so if in doubt I took Welsh seats at the same odds.
The 1.06 was too low to be useful in an arb. so I ignored it. I think by that time Christchurch at over 1.10 was safer.
I did like the brief opportunity to bet at 2.5 on Labour and 2.5 on SNP in two horse races!
Federalism doesn't in itself solve the 'England is big' problem.
At one end of the federalist scale, you'd have British-level issues handled by a cabinet containing equal numbers of representatives from each of the four countries, not British MPs but appointed or delegated from the four assemblies. Not workable. Why should 3 milion people in Wales have a say over British foreign policy that's equal to the say of 53 million people in England?
At the other, you'd have 5 full-scale parliaments. How will you sell that to people in England, whether they vote to send people to the English and British parliaments on the same day or on different days. (If it started out as the same day, it'd soon get out of sync.) Ditto if you just take the Westminster MPs representing English constituencies and call them the English parliament. Many will just see it as politicians pissing about. And how will you construct a marketable demarcation line between English and British issues? If only foreign policy, defence and monetary policy were handled by Britgov (and there would be little more than that left), the turnout in Brit GEs would be low.
There has to be a middle way, a bodge. Not full federalism, not a full English parliament, but an English dimension which takes in some ways a different form from the Scottish, Welsh and NI ones and in other ways an equivalent form.
The big issue is symbolic. Solve that with vision and the rest will follow and majorities will vote for the change in all four countries.
I can't say more. An idea is in preparation which is pretty sound and will get splashed later this year.