At the election Labour closed the national share gap slightly from 7.3% to 6.6%. But the swing needed for them to win the necessary marginals has increased from 4.7% to 8.7%. (Gains required now 94 instead of 68).
Presumably because the areas dependent on Government money (North East in Particular) voted to continue getting that money - whilst the marginals (squeezed middle, hard-working families) said 'get stuffed'. Result - Labour increased vote share where it would do them no good. (And in the North East and in certain other areas will now be under attack from UKIP - who at last know where their support is.)
Is London also a recipient of government assistance ? We kept on hearing how much the Mansion Tax would affect the Labour vote. Sod all happened. Labour won more than expected. It has more seats in London compared to 2005.
Abellio Greater Anglia "Metro" service from London Liverpool Street to Stratford, Ilford, Romford and Brentwood is to be officially rebranded CrossRail on 31st May. (though the new tunnels from Stratford to Paddington won't open till 2018!)
I haven't been that far south since 2008. Haven't been to London since 2006. Just sniped advance tickets to go to Newbury for my grandparents' 70th wedding anniversary. My kids have never been to the deep south before, although I'm sure my eldest could confirm all that you've posted here.
In other news I'm off to Thurso, the most northerly of all stations, in June. Probably going to get skuaed.
Twitter Mark Pack @markpack now6 seconds ago Norman Lamb will decide 'by Monday' whether to run for Lib Dem leadership http://bit.ly/1FYcTAR
I was surprised how much Lamb's majority had fallen. 4,000, with 39% of the vote. I much prefer him to Fallon, but Fallon looks to still be in the Commons after the next election. None of the other 7 can say that.
And yet, up in Scotland our very own Anti-Austerity Queen has just been voted a salary increase that makes her the highest paid politician in the UK without so much as a whinge. Yet if Cameron gets a pay rise it will be all over the news.
Isn't there going to be a vote on this extremely soon?
I know Cameron and many MPs will vote against but if it goes through the Government will be blamed by voters.
Why is public sector pay so bizarrely F'ed.. how did we end up in a position where the First Minister is paid more than the PM?
That was a result of Gordon Brown's gift to David Cameron. Gordo decided to drop the PMs pay by 25% just before leaving office.
It is still astonishing that we have so many in the public sector who are paid more than the PM.
Supply and demand, it's a free market. Look at all the people who want to be PM. There's no shortage, so why pay up?
This is true, but only because small-minded voters and candidate rules needlessly restrict the talent pool to inexperienced people. In a more rational system a high salary would be worth paying to attract talented, experienced leaders like Bill Clinton or Angela Merkel.
Quite right. Dan Jarvis should be sent trotting to gain some lower-league experience managing Luxembourg, or maybe Belgium, before he pitches for the top job in London. Yvette Cooper can tackle Albania, Stella Creasy should take on Liechtenstein and Andy Burnham should try his hand at Belize.
Holyrood still awarded her that pay rise, and she is still taking a pay rise while constantly banging on about ending austerity measures. Talk about leading from the front on that issue!
'But a ministerial pay freeze, in place since 2009, means Sturgeon will only take home £135,605.'
Feel free to provide a link to Sturgeon 'taking a pay rise'. No rush..
I presume the poster is referring to this...with the 3rd and 4th paragraph the important bit.
Holyrood has voted through a pay rise for MSPs that would give the first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, the highest salary of any politician in the UK.
The Scottish parliament voted unanimously on Tuesday to increase basic salaries for MSPs by 0.7%, pushing the official overall salary for Scotland’s first minister to £144,687 – outstripping the prime minister’s overall pay of £142,500 and that of Boris Johnson, the London mayor, who earns £143,911.
However, Sturgeon’s officials played down the significance of the pay rise, pointing out that Scottish ministers were still enforcing a voluntary pay freeze introduced under Alex Salmond’s leadership in 2008.
That meant Sturgeon’s overall pay would remain at £135,605 since she will continue voluntarily repaying the £8,306 difference, putting that sum into general public spending along with all other SNP ministers.
Just a question. As SNP have the power, why not just legislate to reduce their pay rather than go through this voluntary repayment business?
So no pocketing of pay rise then? Thanks for confirming it.
Interesting that the rise was voted through unanimously by MSPs, presumably including Tory poster girl Davidson.
You didn't answer my question....I genuinely don't know why.
I don't think the question was there in your original post, though in fact I have no idea. Obviously it appears MSPs en masse would rather have the 0.7% rise. Perhaps it's too fiddly not to have it applied across the board.
Holyrood still awarded her that pay rise, and she is still taking a pay rise while constantly banging on about ending austerity measures. Talk about leading from the front on that issue!
She deserves every pence she gets. If she was on a performance related pay, she should have got a million.
Yes and this is why she doesn't get any criticism for it from the public (sure Labourite media commentators but no-one cares what they think). The problem with MPs salaries is not that people think they are fundamentally too high. It is that people do not think MPs are worth what they get paid.
At the election Labour closed the national share gap slightly from 7.3% to 6.6%. But the swing needed for them to win the necessary marginals has increased from 4.7% to 8.7%. (Gains required now 94 instead of 68).
Presumably because the areas dependent on Government money (North East in Particular) voted to continue getting that money - whilst the marginals (squeezed middle, hard-working families) said 'get stuffed'. Result - Labour increased vote share where it would do them no good. (And in the North East and in certain other areas will now be under attack from UKIP - who at last know where their support is.)
Is London also a recipient of government assistance ? We kept on hearing how much the Mansion Tax would affect the Labour vote. Sod all happened. Labour won more than expected. It has more seats in London compared to 2005.
Labour won more than expected? You're the first person I've heard to say that! Prime Minister Miliband must be delighted with having won so much more...
At the election Labour closed the national share gap slightly from 7.3% to 6.6%. But the swing needed for them to win the necessary marginals has increased from 4.7% to 8.7%. (Gains required now 94 instead of 68).
Thanks Andy
So they now need almost as much as Blair got in 1997 for a majority of one...!
And he didn't have the spectre of Lab/SNP shafting them if Lab seem likely to fall short.
Labour are so f***ed.
Labour needs to win fewer seats than Cammo got in 2010. I am not sure how 1997 comes into play. 413 from 271 in 1992. I make that a gain of 142.
At the election Labour closed the national share gap slightly from 7.3% to 6.6%. But the swing needed for them to win the necessary marginals has increased from 4.7% to 8.7%. (Gains required now 94 instead of 68).
Presumably because the areas dependent on Government money (North East in Particular) voted to continue getting that money - whilst the marginals (squeezed middle, hard-working families) said 'get stuffed'. Result - Labour increased vote share where it would do them no good. (And in the North East and in certain other areas will now be under attack from UKIP - who at last know where their support is.)
Is London also a recipient of government assistance ? We kept on hearing how much the Mansion Tax would affect the Labour vote. Sod all happened. Labour won more than expected. It has more seats in London compared to 2005.
Labour won more than expected? You're the first person I've heard to say that! Prime Minister Miliband must be delighted with having won so much more...
The EU referendum is rather different from most. In the campaign for the original Common Market referendum, the government of the day (PM Edward Heath) lied to the electorate about the implications of voting Yes.
I rarely use the word 'lie', but in this case it is justified. The Conservative party's divisions over Europe is a legacy bequeathed by Mr Heath.
How is that different from most referendums? The Scottish campaign wasn't exactly a model of truthfulness, and in the AV referendum the main arguments used by both sides were almost entirely bogus.
Holyrood still awarded her that pay rise, and she is still taking a pay rise while constantly banging on about ending austerity measures. Talk about leading from the front on that issue!
She deserves every pence she gets. If she was on a performance related pay, she should have got a million.
Yes and this is why she doesn't get any criticism for it from the public (sure Labourite media commentators but no-one cares what they think). The problem with MPs salaries is not that people think they are fundamentally too high. It is that people do not think MPs are worth what they get paid.
'At the election Labour closed the national share gap slightly from 7.3% to 6.6%. But the swing needed for them to win the necessary marginals has increased from 4.7% to 8.7%. (Gains required now 94 instead of 68).'
And that's before boundary changes which should be worth another 8-10 seats for the Tories ?
My preliminary figures show that Labour needs a swing of 8.72% to win an overall majority on the current boundaries, which is equivalent to a vote share lead of 10.84% on UNS.
The magical 94th seat they need to win the majority is Watford.
Oddly enough, target no. 93 is Thanet South, and incidentally no. 96 is Southport of all places.
Difficult to believe your results. Where is the spreadsheet ?
Are you counting Scotland ? That is a waste of time. You should only work with England and Wales.
Holyrood still awarded her that pay rise, and she is still taking a pay rise while constantly banging on about ending austerity measures. Talk about leading from the front on that issue!
She deserves every pence she gets. If she was on a performance related pay, she should have got a million.
Yes and this is why she doesn't get any criticism for it from the public (sure Labourite media commentators but no-one cares what they think). The problem with MPs salaries is not that people think they are fundamentally too high. It is that people do not think MPs are worth what they get paid.
Is the problem with salaries or expenses?
The whole system at Holyrood is completely different.
MSPs seldom get criticised for their salaries because, generally, Holyrood is viewed favourably - and since the SNP came to power, very favourably. MSPs are considered worth what they get.
Expenses are less of an issue because Staffers are not employed by MSPs, an MSPs staff comes from a central pool and are effectively Civil Servants (with party affiliations), paid and hired centrally by the parliament itself. Also about 75% of MSPs live within commuting distance of Holyrood.
In Holyrood the rules are different too, a First Minister had to resign over a (genuin error) in a £10 taxi bill claim. It's just not become the problem that it is at Westminster. It's not a second stream of income and a way to give cushy jobs to your family.
At the election Labour closed the national share gap slightly from 7.3% to 6.6%. But the swing needed for them to win the necessary marginals has increased from 4.7% to 8.7%. (Gains required now 94 instead of 68).
Presumably because the areas dependent on Government money (North East in Particular) voted to continue getting that money - whilst the marginals (squeezed middle, hard-working families) said 'get stuffed'. Result - Labour increased vote share where it would do them no good. (And in the North East and in certain other areas will now be under attack from UKIP - who at last know where their support is.)
Is London also a recipient of government assistance ? We kept on hearing how much the Mansion Tax would affect the Labour vote. Sod all happened. Labour won more than expected. It has more seats in London compared to 2005.
Labour won more than expected? You're the first person I've heard to say that! Prime Minister Miliband must be delighted with having won so much more...
Yes, Labour won more than expected in London.
Yes I think I heard the new Labour MP for Battersea say that when he was elected.
My preliminary figures show that Labour needs a swing of 8.72% to win an overall majority on the current boundaries, which is equivalent to a vote share lead of 10.84% on UNS.
The magical 94th seat they need to win the majority is Watford.
Oddly enough, target no. 93 is Thanet South, and incidentally no. 96 is Southport of all places.
Difficult to believe your results. Where is the spreadsheet ?
Are you counting Scotland ? That is a waste of time. You should only work with England and Wales.
They're correct I'm afraid. I'm constructing the spreadsheet at the moment.
Just look at all the former marginals where Labour now needs a swing of more than 8%: Stafford, Burton, Tamworth, Harlow, Kingswood, Cleethorpes, Watford.
In theory, the Scottish government backed by Holyrood could call a referendum any time. The UK government doesn't have to abide by the result, of course. But it would create constitutional bad feeling. Another issue for the Scots to blame the English.
If such a situation were to happen, no matter its constitutional validity, it would be difficult for the UK government to ignore.
In theory and in fact, the Scottish Government and the Holyrood Parliament are not sovereign and their powers, being defined, are limited (AXA General Insurance Ltd v Lord Advocate [2012] 1 AC 868, 941 (SC)). Anything that the Scottish Parliament and Government do which is outside their defined powers is ultra vires the Scottish Parliament and Government, and null, void and of no effect from the moment it is done (Boddington v British Transport Police [1999] 2 AC 143 (HL); McLaughlin v Governor of the Cayman Islands [2007] 1 WLR 2839 (PC)).
The constitution (including the Crown, the Union, and the powers of the Westminster Parliament) is a reserved matter (see para 1 of the schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998). An Act of the Scottish Parliament cannot alter the law on reserved matter (see para 2(4) of schedule 4 to the Scotland Act 1998). An Act of the Scottish Parliament is outside its legislative competence if it relates to reserved matters (Scotland Act 1998, s. 29(2)(b)).
The argument is simple. Scottish independence, and a referendum thereon, are matters which would affect the constitution, including the Union and the powers of the Westminster Parliament. A Referendum Bill therefore relates to the law on reserved matters, and is outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. Accordingly, such a Bill would be void, and an interdict would be granted against its implementation by the Court of Session. A referendum cannot therefore be called by Holyrood at any time, unless the Scottish Government, Scottish civil servants and local authorities are prepared to risk acting outside the law.
At the election Labour closed the national share gap slightly from 7.3% to 6.6%. But the swing needed for them to win the necessary marginals has increased from 4.7% to 8.7%. (Gains required now 94 instead of 68).
Thanks Andy
So they now need almost as much as Blair got in 1997 for a majority of one...!
And he didn't have the spectre of Lab/SNP shafting them if Lab seem likely to fall short.
Labour are so f***ed.
Labour needs to win fewer seats than Cammo got in 2010. I am not sure how 1997 comes into play. 413 from 271 in 1992. I make that a gain of 142.
Labour needs around 90.
Swing. To win by one Labour need an unheard of (except '97) swing.
And if they don't look like getting it, the SNP nightmare (from England's perspective) comes back into play.
In fact the SNP problem will be ever-present for Labour from here on in...
'At the election Labour closed the national share gap slightly from 7.3% to 6.6%. But the swing needed for them to win the necessary marginals has increased from 4.7% to 8.7%. (Gains required now 94 instead of 68).'
And that's before boundary changes which should be worth another 8-10 seats for the Tories ?
That's right. However the new boundaries may not give the Tories a huge improvement because the current boundaries are now so "good" for them. So the difference between the two won't be nearly as large as everyone had assumed hitherto.
Holyrood still awarded her that pay rise, and she is still taking a pay rise while constantly banging on about ending austerity measures. Talk about leading from the front on that issue!
'But a ministerial pay freeze, in place since 2009, means Sturgeon will only take home £135,605.'
Feel free to provide a link to Sturgeon 'taking a pay rise'. No rush..
I presume the poster is referring to this...with the 3rd and 4th paragraph the important bit.
Holyrood has voted through a pay rise for MSPs that would give the first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, the highest salary of any politician in the UK.
The Scottish parliament voted unanimously on Tuesday to increase basic salaries for MSPs by 0.7%, pushing the official overall salary for Scotland’s first minister to £144,687 – outstripping the prime minister’s overall pay of £142,500 and that of Boris Johnson, the London mayor, who earns £143,911.
However, Sturgeon’s officials played down the significance of the pay rise, pointing out that Scottish ministers were still enforcing a voluntary pay freeze introduced under Alex Salmond’s leadership in 2008.
That meant Sturgeon’s overall pay would remain at £135,605 since she will continue voluntarily repaying the £8,306 difference, putting that sum into general public spending along with all other SNP ministers.
Just a question. As SNP have the power, why not just legislate to reduce ministerial pay rather than go through this voluntary repayment business?
I'm guessing it means that once the austerity ends and they stop repaying it then they can keep the pay going forwards rather than having to vote through eg a 10% pay rise to make up for all those years.
Surbiton: most of Labour's former Scottish seats aren't in the target list anyway. 24 of the 40 now require a swing of more than 10% for Labour to win back. A further 10 are in the 8-10% range. Just 6 are less than 8%.
If you don't include those few Scottish targets, the swing required will be more than 9%.
At the election Labour closed the national share gap slightly from 7.3% to 6.6%. But the swing needed for them to win the necessary marginals has increased from 4.7% to 8.7%. (Gains required now 94 instead of 68).
Presumably because the areas dependent on Government money (North East in Particular) voted to continue getting that money - whilst the marginals (squeezed middle, hard-working families) said 'get stuffed'. Result - Labour increased vote share where it would do them no good. (And in the North East and in certain other areas will now be under attack from UKIP - who at last know where their support is.)
Is London also a recipient of government assistance ? We kept on hearing how much the Mansion Tax would affect the Labour vote. Sod all happened. Labour won more than expected. It has more seats in London compared to 2005.
Labour won more than expected? You're the first person I've heard to say that! Prime Minister Miliband must be delighted with having won so much more...
Yes, Labour won more than expected in London.
Yes I think I heard the new Labour MP for Battersea say that when he was elected.
Labour achieved a majority of 465 in Brentford and Isleworth.
That was a 1-3 shot, in London one of the most demographically favourable shifting seats for them.
Ilford North was an excellent result for Labour, but they ended up 8% in Hendon, that was supposed to be a CERT at the GE. Labour made gains, but missing out on Hendon, Harrow East and Finchley, and scraping home in Brentford mean it can only be described as bang average to poor for them in London.
At the election Labour closed the national share gap slightly from 7.3% to 6.6%. But the swing needed for them to win the necessary marginals has increased from 4.7% to 8.7%. (Gains required now 94 instead of 68).
Thanks Andy
So they now need almost as much as Blair got in 1997 for a majority of one...!
And he didn't have the spectre of Lab/SNP shafting them if Lab seem likely to fall short.
Labour are so f***ed.
Labour needs to win fewer seats than Cammo got in 2010. I am not sure how 1997 comes into play. 413 from 271 in 1992. I make that a gain of 142.
Labour needs around 90.
Swing. To win by one Labour need an unheard of (except '97) swing.
And if they don't look like getting it, the SNP nightmare (from England's perspective) comes back into play.
In fact the SNP problem will be ever-present for Labour from here on in...
At the election Labour closed the national share gap slightly from 7.3% to 6.6%. But the swing needed for them to win the necessary marginals has increased from 4.7% to 8.7%. (Gains required now 94 instead of 68).
Thanks Andy
So they now need almost as much as Blair got in 1997 for a majority of one...!
And he didn't have the spectre of Lab/SNP shafting them if Lab seem likely to fall short.
Labour are so f***ed.
Labour needs to win fewer seats than Cammo got in 2010. I am not sure how 1997 comes into play. 413 from 271 in 1992. I make that a gain of 142.
Labour needs around 90.
Swing. To win by one Labour need an unheard of (except '97) swing.
And if they don't look like getting it, the SNP nightmare (from England's perspective) comes back into play.
In fact the SNP problem will be ever-present for Labour from here on in...
They need to be at 50% in the polls coming into the next GE to stand a prayer don't they :P
At the election Labour closed the national share gap slightly from 7.3% to 6.6%. But the swing needed for them to win the necessary marginals has increased from 4.7% to 8.7%. (Gains required now 94 instead of 68).
Presumably because the areas dependent on Government money (North East in Particular) voted to continue getting that money - whilst the marginals (squeezed middle, hard-working families) said 'get stuffed'. Result - Labour increased vote share where it would do them no good. (And in the North East and in certain other areas will now be under attack from UKIP - who at last know where their support is.)
Is London also a recipient of government assistance ? We kept on hearing how much the Mansion Tax would affect the Labour vote. Sod all happened. Labour won more than expected. It has more seats in London compared to 2005.
Labour won more than expected? You're the first person I've heard to say that! Prime Minister Miliband must be delighted with having won so much more...
Yes, Labour won more than expected in London.
Yes I think I heard the new Labour MP for Battersea say that when he was elected.
Labour achieved a majority of 465 in Brentford and Isleworth.
That was a 1-3 shot, in London one of the most demographically favourable shifting seats for them.
Ilford North was an excellent result for Labour, but they ended up 8% in Hendon, that was supposed to be a CERT at the GE. Labour made gains, but missing out on Hendon, Harrow East and Finchley, and scraping home in Brentford mean it can only be described as bang average to poor for them in London.
They had a far worse night than expected in London indeed. Only in the context of how dreadful the entire night was does London look slightly less than dreadful. The forecasts were for major gains in London and instead just a small number of gains transpired.
Surbiton claiming Labour won more than expected is laughable.
We have Alex Salmond writing in the Press & Journal this morning about why Cameron should abolish the Scottish Office while the SNP are 'to demand' control of the Commons Scottish Committee....
Twitter Scotsman News @scotsmannews 18m18 minutes ago SNP to demand control of Commons Scots committee: THE SNP is to demand control of the Commons Scottish affairs... http://bit.ly/1cnlJvY
Have only been able to dip in and out of some PB threads over the weekend. Has there been any focus on the much better than expected Conservative results were in Wales, and what kind of impact that might have in the Welsh Assemble elections next year?
At the election Labour closed the national share gap slightly from 7.3% to 6.6%. But the swing needed for them to win the necessary marginals has increased from 4.7% to 8.7%. (Gains required now 94 instead of 68).
Presumably because the areas dependent on Government money (North East in Particular) voted to continue getting that money - whilst the marginals (squeezed middle, hard-working families) said 'get stuffed'. Result - Labour increased vote share where it would do them no good. (And in the North East and in certain other areas will now be under attack from UKIP - who at last know where their support is.)
Is London also a recipient of government assistance ? We kept on hearing how much the Mansion Tax would affect the Labour vote. Sod all happened. Labour won more than expected. It has more seats in London compared to 2005.
Labour won more than expected? You're the first person I've heard to say that! Prime Minister Miliband must be delighted with having won so much more...
Yes, Labour won more than expected in London.
Yes I think I heard the new Labour MP for Battersea say that when he was elected.
Labour achieved a majority of 465 in Brentford and Isleworth.
That was a 1-3 shot, in London one of the most demographically favourable shifting seats for them.
Ilford North was an excellent result for Labour, but they ended up 8% in Hendon, that was supposed to be a CERT at the GE. Labour made gains, but missing out on Hendon, Harrow East and Finchley, and scraping home in Brentford mean it can only be described as bang average to poor for them in London.
They had a far worse night than expected in London indeed. Only in the context of how dreadful the entire night was does London look slightly less than dreadful. The forecasts were for major gains in London and instead just a small number of gains transpired.
Surbiton claiming Labour won more than expected is laughable.
We have Alex Salmond writing in the Press & Journal this morning about why Cameron should abolish the Scottish Office while the SNP are 'to demand' control of the Commons Scottish Committee....
Twitter Scotsman News @scotsmannews 18m18 minutes ago SNP to demand control of Commons Scots committee: THE SNP is to demand control of the Commons Scottish affairs... http://bit.ly/1cnlJvY
And perhaps the SNP should be at the dispatch box for Scottish Office Questions and everyone else should move to the Opposition benches for that session?
[Aargh, note to self: don't feed ideas to the monkeys]
Pulpstar If Labour get a 7% swing they will be largest party and if Farron wins back some seats from the Tories they can do a deal with him, if they win back a few from the nationalists they may not even need the SNP. Much will also depend on whether post indyref the Tories are losing votes to UKIP
Very good move if true, it would cut down period of economic uncertainty while also concentrating minds in EU thus giving Cameron a much stronger position in negotiations. If they are planning the Referendum next year, would expect it to be on same day as the devolved and local elections?
Twitter Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound now2 minutes ago Gracious me, there might be an EU referendum in 2016 it is being briefed tonight. Just as p1 of the Sunday Times revealed months ago.
It's very odd how there was a small swing to Labour overall yet in a large number of Labour's target seats there was a swing against them. I don't think that scenario has happened before in a British election. In 1987 a few Labour targets swung against them but not many.
Pulpstar If Labour get a 7% swing they will be largest party and if Farron wins back some seats from the Tories they can do a deal with him, if they win back a few from the nationalists they may not even need the SNP. Much will also depend on whether post indyref the Tories are losing votes to UKIP
If, if, if...
It makes no difference.
Every general election campaign in the foreseeable future is going to be dominated by the SNP-propping-up-Labour question...
Not to Labour's advantage, in England, I'd surmise.
We have Alex Salmond writing in the Press & Journal this morning about why Cameron should abolish the Scottish Office while the SNP are 'to demand' control of the Commons Scottish Committee....
It would be absurd if the SNP were given 2/11 seats on the Committee, which is what the LibDems had in the last Parliament. At least 5 seats seems sensible.
At the election Labour closed the national share gap slightly from 7.3% to 6.6%. But the swing needed for them to win the necessary marginals has increased from 4.7% to 8.7%. (Gains required now 94 instead of 68).
Thanks Andy
So they now need almost as much as Blair got in 1997 for a majority of one...!
And he didn't have the spectre of Lab/SNP shafting them if Lab seem likely to fall short.
Labour are so f***ed.
Labour needs to win fewer seats than Cammo got in 2010. I am not sure how 1997 comes into play. 413 from 271 in 1992. I make that a gain of 142.
Labour needs around 90.
Swing. To win by one Labour need an unheard of (except '97) swing.
And if they don't look like getting it, the SNP nightmare (from England's perspective) comes back into play.
In fact the SNP problem will be ever-present for Labour from here on in...
They need to be at 50% in the polls coming into the next GE to stand a prayer don't they :P
Very good move if true, it would cut down period of economic uncertainty while also concentrating minds in EU thus giving Cameron a much stronger position in negotiations. If they are planning the Referendum next year, would expect it to be on same day as the devolved and local elections?
The Electoral Commission would be up in arms against combined polls, although it would be sure to boost turn out in the elections for provincial parliaments and local authorities. Holding the referendum sooner will make claims of a genuine renegotiation even more transparently false.
It's very odd how there was a small swing to Labour overall yet in a large number of Labour's target seats there was a swing against them. I don't think that scenario has happened before in a British election. In 1987 a few Labour targets swung against them but not many.
There was effectively zero overall swing.
We know from previous variation that this would most likely result in seats moving in both directions between Tory and Labour.
I mentioned this possibility several time over the past couple of years.
RC No, once Scotland has got more powers and maybe is passed that will be less of an issue could well be the EU that dominates the next election post EU ref, and if it is a narrow In with Cameron leading the IN campaign the Tories risk losing votes to UKIP in significant numbers. If Labour voters start tactically voting LD again under a more leftwing LD leader like Farron the LDs could pick up quite a lot of seats without a massive drop in the Tory vote in Tory-LD marginals
It's very odd how there was a small swing to Labour overall yet in a large number of Labour's target seats there was a swing against them. I don't think that scenario has happened before in a British election. In 1987 a few Labour targets swung against them but not many.
I disagree, I think that we have to look at the fact that Labour's vote is now fracturing to both SNP in Scotland and Ukip in its English heartlands. I was always of the opinion that the Conservatives could not win another majority without regaining former seats from the Libdems in particular, and I was proved right. Labour didn't just lose the GE on Thursday, their chances of winning the next GE are far slimmer as a result too. Just look to those awful Labour local election results which should have delivered a wee consolation prize that they could start to rebuild around.
Pulpstar If Labour get a 7% swing they will be largest party and if Farron wins back some seats from the Tories they can do a deal with him, if they win back a few from the nationalists they may not even need the SNP. Much will also depend on whether post indyref the Tories are losing votes to UKIP
And yet, up in Scotland our very own Anti-Austerity Queen has just been voted a salary increase that makes her the highest paid politician in the UK without so much as a whinge. Yet if Cameron gets a pay rise it will be all over the news.
Isn't there going to be a vote on this extremely soon?
I know Cameron and many MPs will vote against but if it goes through the Government will be blamed by voters.
Why is public sector pay so bizarrely F'ed.. how did we end up in a position where the First Minister is paid more than the PM?
I would argue that MPs and ministers are underpaid. Alot of chief executives of councils for example are getting paid twice as much as Cameron. If MPs were paid alot more they would probably attract a better quality of candidates for the job. For example a head teacher at a secondary school would probably looking at a healthy pay cut if they became a MP. But the HoC would probably benefit from some insight from people from the teaching profession when it comes to making education policies.
MPs should get £100k a year. How much does a TD get in Ireland ? Basically, we do not value public work in this country.
We shouldn't. We have 20 year old students as MPs. Their contribution isn't worth £100k. It's not worth £10k. They just vote as whipped without thinking.
MPs are hugely well paid when you factor in everything they always carefully forget, from the tax-free food allowance to the incredible pension.
They should be paid £35k a year - a good graduate salary - fund their own pension and get a second job.
Pulpstar If Labour get a 7% swing they will be largest party and if Farron wins back some seats from the Tories they can do a deal with him, if they win back a few from the nationalists they may not even need the SNP. Much will also depend on whether post indyref the Tories are losing votes to UKIP
If, if, if...
It makes no difference.
Every general election campaign in the foreseeable future is going to be dominated by the SNP-propping-up-Labour question...
Not to Labour's advantage, in England, I'd surmise.
Too late now, but I think a good Labour leader could've done a much better job of neutralising this scare tactic. Has Cameron been in Clegg's pocket for the last five years? No, the effect of the LibDems on the govt was negligible. (Not strictly true, but that's how it seemed.) What exactly could the SNP hold Labour to ransom on? Trident? The Tories would abstain on that would they?! And so on. If Labour had written off their Scottish seats they could've gone on the offensive and convinced enough of the electorate that they were in control of the situation.
Pulpstar If Labour get a 7% swing they will be largest party and if Farron wins back some seats from the Tories they can do a deal with him, if they win back a few from the nationalists they may not even need the SNP. Much will also depend on whether post indyref the Tories are losing votes to UKIP
If, if, if...
It makes no difference.
Every general election campaign in the foreseeable future is going to be dominated by the SNP-propping-up-Labour question...
Not to Labour's advantage, in England, I'd surmise.
Too late now, but I think a good Labour leader could've done a much better job of neutralising this scare tactic. Has Cameron been in Clegg's pocket for the last five years? No, the effect of the LibDems on the govt was negligible. (Not strictly true, but that's how it seemed.) What exactly could the SNP hold Labour to ransom on? Trident? The Tories would abstain on that would they?! And so on. If Labour had written off their Scottish seats they could've gone on the offensive and convinced enough of the electorate that they were in control of the situation.
I presume they'd just demand lots of English money for Scotland or they'll support a no confidence vote. Labour would capitulate, of course.
There is a structural problem with your hypothetical "good Labour leader": he'd be unable to get elected leader.
Dan Jarvis has been spoken of as someone who'd be a good atypical Labour leader with his army backstory. Unfortunately for Labour, his backstory makes him hated and despised by a large proportion of the Labour party (remember Mandelson sneering at "chinless wonders"?). He knows this and therefore isn't running.
Labour's manner of leader selection leaves them unable to choose anyone with a prayer, and they have no such candidate, anyway.
Fitaalass The next election is 5 years away, the Tories will be without Cameron and likely deeply divided post EU ref and it will again be the Tories who face the greater threat from UKIP. Labour voters are also more likely to vote tactically for LD candidates in Tory-LD marginals led by a leader like Farron
If you restrict Labour's targets to just England and Wales, they require a swing of 9.36% to win an overall majority. That would be a vote share lead of 12.12% with UNS.
AndyJS Labour are likely to need the LDs at least to get into government again initially, as Cameron did, Farron will probably pick up a few leftwingers back for them, Labour may also pick up a few seats from the SNP. Much also depends on EUref and if that leads to Tory voters leaking to UKIP if a narrow In
Again, its a very big assumption that the Conservative party will be deeply divided after finally being in a position to offer that much sought after EU referendum, what ever the result. I think that Conservative majority win on Thursday has delivered a goodwill factor within the Parliamentary party that is currently being ignored by some outside the Conservative party. Especially, as has been indicated over the weekend, Conservative Ministers and MP's will be free to campaign for either camp. I thought it quite interesting tonight that IDS has accepted his previous Ministerial position in light of an upcoming EU Referendum, John Redwood and Graham Brady were positively purring when interviewed over the weekend now that the party is a position to deliver on this Conservative pledge.
Question is now, can Ukip now manage to garner the same amount of votes they managed in last years Euro's to help deliver an Out vote in the referendum, I am not sure they can. Ukip's domestic political campaigning over the last year has further damaged their brand and made them more toxic to a lot of voters, and as some have already suggested, there is a real risk that it has already hurt the BOO brand before the campaign even kicks off.
I am happy to predict that Ukip are going to become more of a problem for the Labour party over the next five years than the Conservatives as they move on from being an anti-EU party to become more of an Nationalist party instead. That will draw in more Labour voters than previous anti EU Conservatives voters once the Referendum is over.
Fitaalass The next election is 5 years away, the Tories will be without Cameron and likely deeply divided post EU ref and it will again be the Tories who face the greater threat from UKIP. Labour voters are also more likely to vote tactically for LD candidates in Tory-LD marginals led by a leader like Farron
Pulpstar If Labour get a 7% swing they will be largest party and if Farron wins back some seats from the Tories they can do a deal with him, if they win back a few from the nationalists they may not even need the SNP. Much will also depend on whether post indyref the Tories are losing votes to UKIP
If, if, if...
It makes no difference.
Every general election campaign in the foreseeable future is going to be dominated by the SNP-propping-up-Labour question...
Not to Labour's advantage, in England, I'd surmise.
Too late now, but I think a good Labour leader could've done a much better job of neutralising this scare tactic. Has Cameron been in Clegg's pocket for the last five years? No, the effect of the LibDems on the govt was negligible. (Not strictly true, but that's how it seemed.) What exactly could the SNP hold Labour to ransom on? Trident? The Tories would abstain on that would they?! And so on. If Labour had written off their Scottish seats they could've gone on the offensive and convinced enough of the electorate that they were in control of the situation.
I suspect the other problem is that it played right into Milibands weaknesses. He was considered weak, not a good manager of the economy and so on. Had they had a strong, confident Blair style leader the pocket remarks could have been laughed off. For Miliband though they struck a nerve.
Is there any chance Cameron will have another go at House of Lords reform? It seems to me that having a second chamber that the SNP would consider legitimate enough to send representatives to would be a big symbolic victory and is a necessary step if a federal solution is not to be just a stop-gap on the way to independence.
Fitalass Nope, as soon as Cameron campaigns for In alongside the leaders of the LDs and Labour it will be seen by many eurosceptic Tories as as much of a betrayal as Miliband and Murphy were seen to have betrayed leftwing Labour voters by campaigning with the Tories. It could well lead to rightwing eurosceptics moving to UKIP as much as leftwing Scots moved to the SNP, especially if it ends up a narrow In. If Labour voters did not move to UKIP under Miliband I doubt they ever will. Tories may be united for now to get the referendum, once the referendum starts all hell could break lose
It is of course also possible that the rise of the SNP has led English and Welsh voters to swing in greater numbers to get the government they want, they swung to the Tories last Thursday, if they want a Labour government which looks like it has a credible PM candidate they could swing even more so to ensure it gets a majority or at least can do a deal with the LDs, night
@Dadge Ed Miliband and Ed Balls made a fundamental mistake when it came to Scotland and the SNP threat five years ago, they simple didn't even try to connect, never mind win over the previously loyal Labour heartlands vote up there in the last five years. They also failed time and again to realise just how dangerous the SNP were to their previously nailed on heartlands, and they never ever really tried to fight back. Oddly enough, this was not a mistake that Brown made while he was PM.
Just look at how strong and dominant a Scottish presence there was in Blair and Brown's Governments, Murphy & Co were sidelined to a large extent in the Shadow Cabinet for the last five years. time and time again we also saw Scottish Labour MSP's who simple saw Holyrood as a stepping stone to getting a candidate spot in a 'safe' Labour Westminster constituency. Said it before, they kept sending their talent to Westminster rather than realising that their biggest foe in Scotland was gathering and setting their tanks locally in those heartland seats.
Then came the Independence Referendum, Cameron stepped up to the plate as Westminster spokesman for the Better Together campaign, but I thought it so noticeable that both Clegg and Miliband sat back almost invisible for two years as if it was nothing to do with them.
But we also shouldn't underestimate the lingering damage caused by the fall out from the Falkirk/Grangemouth row, and the Labour/Unite row that was behind it and that damn near cost a lot of jobs up here. While Labour and Unite were bickering in public, the Westminster Coalition and SNP Governments were at the forefront of trying to save Grangemouth from shutting. When Johann Lamont resigned, it opened up yet more internal divisions within the Scottish Labour party, and it also led to yet another Leadership contest that brought that lingering bitterness between the Unite Leadership and Jim Murphy back to the forefront of an attempted fresh start to finally try to take on the SNP.
To give Jim Murphy his due, he did see the dangers of the SNP threat post Indy Referendum and he made a last valiant attempt to try to stem the oncoming tide. But he did so with sod all support from Miliband and Balls, and while the Unite Union tried to use his Leadership challenge to settle old scores. And now the Scottish Labour party have lost an extremely valuable politician to a candidate that doesn't even understand what FFA or the Barnett is, never mind how they work. I spent a bit of time really looking at the candidates in each of the Scottish Constituencies, and I am in utter despair at some of the superb ones put forward by various parties that didn't make it.
I disagree, did you catch the John Redwood interview on SkyNews over the weekend? He was extremely relaxed about this issue, and he seemed to be looking forward to the fact that due cross part support for both camps he was going to be sharing a platform with other politicians who were normally opponents like Kate Hoey whom he mentioned by name.
Now here is a thought, Sturgeon and the SNP are totally against leaving the EU, will they be able to swallow their anti Tory rhetoric and share a stage with Cameron to campaign for an In vote?
Fitalass Nope, as soon as Cameron campaigns for In alongside the leaders of the LDs and Labour it will be seen by many eurosceptic Tories as as much of a betrayal as Miliband and Murphy were seen to have betrayed leftwing Labour voters by campaigning with the Tories. It could well lead to rightwing eurosceptics moving to UKIP as much as leftwing Scots moved to the SNP, especially if it ends up a narrow In. If Labour voters did not move to UKIP under Miliband I doubt they ever will. Tories may be united for now to get the referendum, once the referendum starts all hell could break lose
It is of course also possible that the rise of the SNP has led English and Welsh voters to swing in greater numbers to get the government they want, they swung to the Tories last Thursday, if they want a Labour government which looks like it has a credible PM candidate they could swing even more so to ensure it gets a majority or at least can do a deal with the LDs, night
I disagree, did you catch the John Redwood interview on SkyNews over the weekend? He was extremely relaxed about this issue, and he seemed to be looking forward to the fact that due cross part support for both camps he was going to be sharing a platform with other politicians who were normally opponents like Kate Hoey whom he mentioned by name.
Now here is a thought, Sturgeon and the SNP are totally against leaving the EU, will they be able to swallow their anti Tory rhetoric and share a stage with Cameron to campaign for an In vote?
If the majority of Scotland voted to leave, and the rest of the UK to stay, the nationalists would probably attempt to call another referendum on independence, such is their dishonesty. The right of the Conservative Party will not be happy if Cameron engages in the artifice which is to be expected from him. Claims of a substantial renegotiation or repatriation of powers without a treaty change will be seen for the disingenuous nonsense that they are.
I disagree, did you catch the John Redwood interview on SkyNews over the weekend? He was extremely relaxed about this issue, and he seemed to be looking forward to the fact that due cross part support for both camps he was going to be sharing a platform with other politicians who were normally opponents like Kate Hoey whom he mentioned by name.
Now here is a thought, Sturgeon and the SNP are totally against leaving the EU, will they be able to swallow their anti Tory rhetoric and share a stage with Cameron to campaign for an In vote?
Fitalass Nope, as soon as Cameron campaigns for In alongside the leaders of the LDs and Labour it will be seen by many eurosceptic Tories as as much of a betrayal as Miliband and Murphy were seen to have betrayed leftwing Labour voters by campaigning with the Tories. It could well lead to rightwing eurosceptics moving to UKIP as much as leftwing Scots moved to the SNP, especially if it ends up a narrow In. If Labour voters did not move to UKIP under Miliband I doubt they ever will. Tories may be united for now to get the referendum, once the referendum starts all hell could break lose
It is of course also possible that the rise of the SNP has led English and Welsh voters to swing in greater numbers to get the government they want, they swung to the Tories last Thursday, if they want a Labour government which looks like it has a credible PM candidate they could swing even more so to ensure it gets a majority or at least can do a deal with the LDs, night
Why do we have to have wholly unnecessary "Campaigns" and shared platforms for In and Out, except to enrich the advertising industry.? I cannot believe that Better Together and Al Darling won a single No vote - possibly the opposite, and its main side effect of erasing SLAB was arguably beneficial but not what the organisers had in mind.
The areas (in terms of Lab v Con) that were good for Labour in London were those experiencing rapid demographic change (growing BME populations); elsewhere I am not convinced that their London performance was significantly better than outside of the capital?
Fitalass Nope, as soon as Cameron campaigns for In alongside the leaders of the LDs and Labour it will be seen by many eurosceptic Tories as as much of a betrayal as Miliband and Murphy were seen to have betrayed leftwing Labour voters by campaigning with the Tories. It could well lead to rightwing eurosceptics moving to UKIP as much as leftwing Scots moved to the SNP, especially if it ends up a narrow In. If Labour voters did not move to UKIP under Miliband I doubt they ever will. Tories may be united for now to get the referendum, once the referendum starts all hell could break lose
It is of course also possible that the rise of the SNP has led English and Welsh voters to swing in greater numbers to get the government they want, they swung to the Tories last Thursday, if they want a Labour government which looks like it has a credible PM candidate they could swing even more so to ensure it gets a majority or at least can do a deal with the LDs, night
Why are you making up this fantasy? Cameron has always said he'd want In so why would anyone remotely see it as a betrayal?
Also still peddling this myth that the SNP surged due to the referendum when the reality is that there was a referendum due to the SNP surging. Try getting cause and effect the right way around. The SNP polled 46% in 2011.
Comments
In other news I'm off to Thurso, the most northerly of all stations, in June. Probably going to get skuaed.
Labour needs around 90.
'At the election Labour closed the national share gap slightly from 7.3% to 6.6%. But the swing needed for them to win the necessary marginals has increased from 4.7% to 8.7%. (Gains required now 94 instead of 68).'
And that's before boundary changes which should be worth another 8-10 seats for the Tories ?
Are you counting Scotland ? That is a waste of time. You should only work with England and Wales.
MSPs seldom get criticised for their salaries because, generally, Holyrood is viewed favourably - and since the SNP came to power, very favourably. MSPs are considered worth what they get.
Expenses are less of an issue because Staffers are not employed by MSPs, an MSPs staff comes from a central pool and are effectively Civil Servants (with party affiliations), paid and hired centrally by the parliament itself. Also about 75% of MSPs live within commuting distance of Holyrood.
In Holyrood the rules are different too, a First Minister had to resign over a (genuin error) in a £10 taxi bill claim. It's just not become the problem that it is at Westminster. It's not a second stream of income and a way to give cushy jobs to your family.
Just look at all the former marginals where Labour now needs a swing of more than 8%: Stafford, Burton, Tamworth, Harlow, Kingswood, Cleethorpes, Watford.
By the way congratulations on your forecast (2010 & now 2015) although you left your swing until the last possible moment.
One of the recent comments I heard was that Labour was too right wing for Scotland and too left wing for England !
The constitution (including the Crown, the Union, and the powers of the Westminster Parliament) is a reserved matter (see para 1 of the schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998). An Act of the Scottish Parliament cannot alter the law on reserved matter (see para 2(4) of schedule 4 to the Scotland Act 1998). An Act of the Scottish Parliament is outside its legislative competence if it relates to reserved matters (Scotland Act 1998, s. 29(2)(b)).
The argument is simple. Scottish independence, and a referendum thereon, are matters which would affect the constitution, including the Union and the powers of the Westminster Parliament. A Referendum Bill therefore relates to the law on reserved matters, and is outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. Accordingly, such a Bill would be void, and an interdict would be granted against its implementation by the Court of Session. A referendum cannot therefore be called by Holyrood at any time, unless the Scottish Government, Scottish civil servants and local authorities are prepared to risk acting outside the law.
And if they don't look like getting it, the SNP nightmare (from England's perspective) comes back into play.
In fact the SNP problem will be ever-present for Labour from here on in...
If you don't include those few Scottish targets, the swing required will be more than 9%.
That was a 1-3 shot, in London one of the most demographically favourable shifting seats for them.
Ilford North was an excellent result for Labour, but they ended up 8% in Hendon, that was supposed to be a CERT at the GE. Labour made gains, but missing out on Hendon, Harrow East and Finchley, and scraping home in Brentford mean it can only be described as bang average to poor for them in London.
Surbiton claiming Labour won more than expected is laughable.
Twitter
Scotsman News @scotsmannews 18m18 minutes ago
SNP to demand control of Commons Scots committee: THE SNP is to demand control of the Commons Scottish affairs... http://bit.ly/1cnlJvY
[Aargh, note to self: don't feed ideas to the monkeys]
Twitter
Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound now2 minutes ago
Gracious me, there might be an EU referendum in 2016 it is being briefed tonight. Just as p1 of the Sunday Times revealed months ago.
It makes no difference.
Every general election campaign in the foreseeable future is going to be dominated by the SNP-propping-up-Labour question...
Not to Labour's advantage, in England, I'd surmise.
We know from previous variation that this would most likely result in seats moving in both directions between Tory and Labour.
I mentioned this possibility several time over the past couple of years.
MPs are hugely well paid when you factor in everything they always carefully forget, from the tax-free food allowance to the incredible pension.
They should be paid £35k a year - a good graduate salary - fund their own pension and get a second job.
There is a structural problem with your hypothetical "good Labour leader": he'd be unable to get elected leader.
Dan Jarvis has been spoken of as someone who'd be a good atypical Labour leader with his army backstory. Unfortunately for Labour, his backstory makes him hated and despised by a large proportion of the Labour party (remember Mandelson sneering at "chinless wonders"?). He knows this and therefore isn't running.
Labour's manner of leader selection leaves them unable to choose anyone with a prayer, and they have no such candidate, anyway.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dGZQUmFIb0xPaURkeGdubVBCRHJkbmc#gid=0
Question is now, can Ukip now manage to garner the same amount of votes they managed in last years Euro's to help deliver an Out vote in the referendum, I am not sure they can. Ukip's domestic political campaigning over the last year has further damaged their brand and made them more toxic to a lot of voters, and as some have already suggested, there is a real risk that it has already hurt the BOO brand before the campaign even kicks off.
I am happy to predict that Ukip are going to become more of a problem for the Labour party over the next five years than the Conservatives as they move on from being an anti-EU party to become more of an Nationalist party instead. That will draw in more Labour voters than previous anti EU Conservatives voters once the Referendum is over.
It is of course also possible that the rise of the SNP has led English and Welsh voters to swing in greater numbers to get the government they want, they swung to the Tories last Thursday, if they want a Labour government which looks like it has a credible PM candidate they could swing even more so to ensure it gets a majority or at least can do a deal with the LDs, night
Just look at how strong and dominant a Scottish presence there was in Blair and Brown's Governments, Murphy & Co were sidelined to a large extent in the Shadow Cabinet for the last five years. time and time again we also saw Scottish Labour MSP's who simple saw Holyrood as a stepping stone to getting a candidate spot in a 'safe' Labour Westminster constituency. Said it before, they kept sending their talent to Westminster rather than realising that their biggest foe in Scotland was gathering and setting their tanks locally in those heartland seats.
Then came the Independence Referendum, Cameron stepped up to the plate as Westminster spokesman for the Better Together campaign, but I thought it so noticeable that both Clegg and Miliband sat back almost invisible for two years as if it was nothing to do with them.
But we also shouldn't underestimate the lingering damage caused by the fall out from the Falkirk/Grangemouth row, and the Labour/Unite row that was behind it and that damn near cost a lot of jobs up here. While Labour and Unite were bickering in public, the Westminster Coalition and SNP Governments were at the forefront of trying to save Grangemouth from shutting. When Johann Lamont resigned, it opened up yet more internal divisions within the Scottish Labour party, and it also led to yet another Leadership contest that brought that lingering bitterness between the Unite Leadership and Jim Murphy back to the forefront of an attempted fresh start to finally try to take on the SNP.
To give Jim Murphy his due, he did see the dangers of the SNP threat post Indy Referendum and he made a last valiant attempt to try to stem the oncoming tide. But he did so with sod all support from Miliband and Balls, and while the Unite Union tried to use his Leadership challenge to settle old scores. And now the Scottish Labour party have lost an extremely valuable politician to a candidate that doesn't even understand what FFA or the Barnett is, never mind how they work. I spent a bit of time really looking at the candidates in each of the Scottish Constituencies, and I am in utter despair at some of the superb ones put forward by various parties that didn't make it.
Now here is a thought, Sturgeon and the SNP are totally against leaving the EU, will they be able to swallow their anti Tory rhetoric and share a stage with Cameron to campaign for an In vote?
Also still peddling this myth that the SNP surged due to the referendum when the reality is that there was a referendum due to the SNP surging. Try getting cause and effect the right way around. The SNP polled 46% in 2011.