politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Clegg’s general election pitch: “The biggest threat to econ

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Clegg’s general election pitch: “The biggest threat to economic recovery is..single party government”

“Actually, if you look at some of the polls, there’s polls suggesting more people want another coalition of one description or another than they want a single party government. And by the way, I think they’re right, because I think right now for this country, the biggest risk to our economic recovery is a single party government of either left or right.,,”

Read the full story here

AlastairMeeks

The conclusion from this is that you should bet against minority governments of either red or blue flavours, because the Lib Dems are preparing for further coalition government rather than refresh themselves in opposition or through supply and confidence. That must make a minority government that much less likely.

rcs1000

Socrates said:

anotherDave said:

Unusual poll: surveying 7 muslim countries, on what is appropriate attire for women to wear in public.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/368203/heres-how-muslim-world-believes-women-should-dress-daniel-pipes

And once again we get evidence of how backwards Pakistan is. Even by the standards of Muslim countries, it comes out at the conservative end. More than a third think women should only show their eyes in public. Can you imagine if large numbers of these reactionaries were allowed to immigrate here?

I would point out that there are two Pakistans. The people I've met from Lahore (and I work with a very young Muslim LSE grad from there) are typical international and about as Christian as someone who makes it to church once a year.

But once you get up into the tribal areas, and the countryside, then it looks more like Afghanistan

Richard_Tyndall

FPT:

malcolmg said:


Fox, stick to the pertinent point , Scottish student can study in Romania for free whilst they are charged circa £9K to study in England. So you are telling me you cannot see fairness in the reciprocation of this principle. That it is fair for England to charge Scottish students a huge amount and yet expect Scotland to pay for all English students education. You seriously do not expect me to think that your are not intelligent enoug hto work out what is fair and proper given above circumstances. Can you name any other EU country that charges Scottish students for education.

...

Sorry Malcolm but you are utterly wrong on this. The issue is not whether other countries charge students - Scottish or otherwise - nor is it a matter of reciprocation. That is not the way the EU works. You can have different costs and charges in different countries. The important point under EU law is that within that country all EU citizens must be treated the same. So if education is free in Romania then Romanians may not charge Scottish (or other EU) students. If it costs 500 Euros a semester in Germany then that charge must be levied equally on German and other EU students. You cannot charge non Germans more as long as they are EU citizens.

The UK had a very strange internal arrangement because of devolution whereby it was possible for the Scots to charge English because they were part of the same state but not other EU citizens. If Scotland becomes independent that will end and you will no longer be allowed under EU law to charge English students whilst not charging students from any other EU country.

Socrates

rcs1000 said:

Socrates said:

anotherDave said:

Unusual poll: surveying 7 muslim countries, on what is appropriate attire for women to wear in public.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/368203/heres-how-muslim-world-believes-women-should-dress-daniel-pipes

And once again we get evidence of how backwards Pakistan is. Even by the standards of Muslim countries, it comes out at the conservative end. More than a third think women should only show their eyes in public. Can you imagine if large numbers of these reactionaries were allowed to immigrate here?

I would point out that there are two Pakistans. The people I've met from Lahore (and I work with a very young Muslim LSE grad from there) are typical international and about as Christian as someone who makes it to church once a year.

But once you get up into the tribal areas, and the countryside, then it looks more like Afghanistan

I entirely agree! James Caan is another Lahori. I've also known a few young grads who come from the Lahori population who have also been relatively modern. However, Lahore is only 5% of the population of Pakistan, and a large number of our immigrants come from Pakistani Kashmir.

The obvious conclusion to all this is that we should better filter our immigrants so we get more of the Lahori business types and less of the Kashmiri extended families. Bringing back the primary purpose rule would be one good way of doing it, although David Cameron is probably too much of a hand-wringer to do it. Raising the income requirement would be another way. Unfortunately there's a host of other changes where the ECHR stops us from doing it, so we need to opt out of that.

TheScreamingEagles

antifrank said:

The conclusion from this is that you should bet against minority governments of either red or blue flavours, because the Lib Dems are preparing for further coalition government rather than refresh themselves in opposition or through supply and confidence. That must make a minority government that much less likely.

Except this is the one thing that hasn't been much discussed, it was announced last month, but IMHO makes a coalition less likely in 2015, despite what Nick Clegg wants or hopes for.

On Conservative Home’s website, the chairman of the backbench 1922 Committee has said quite firmly that there will be a protocol that requires Tory MPs to vote on whether the party can join any coalition in the future.

http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/tory-mps-claim-veto-future-coalition/27209

kle4

I like the idea of coalition governments (where you don't need 4-5+ different parties to make up the numbers), although as I've stated before, having another party as a viable coalition partner would be nice, as well as taking away the accusation that coalition means the LDs always being in government,

Paul_Mid_Beds

The problem Libdems have is that a coalition only works if the coalition majority is 50-70 ie enough for both sides to ignore their wilder backbenchers as is the case with this one. A coalition with a majority of less than 30 and certainly less than 20 between them would be a bumpy ride.

Meanwhile the Gruaniad is shocked to discover childcare costs went up by 19% last year. No who would have thought if you tightly regulate childcare (which has the effect of reducing the number of childcare providers) and then give the taxpayers money to pay for it, the childcare providers would have put their fees up. Fancy that.

foxinsoxuk

I agree with Nick.

If Jacks ARSE is right, no coalition could confirm a working majority.

Look on the bright side, a six month govt followed by an autumn election would give us all further betting opportunities!

Socrates

TheScreamingEagles said:

antifrank said:

The conclusion from this is that you should bet against minority governments of either red or blue flavours, because the Lib Dems are preparing for further coalition government rather than refresh themselves in opposition or through supply and confidence. That must make a minority government that much less likely.

Except this is the one thing that hasn't been much discussed, it was announced last month, but IMHO makes a coalition less likely in 2015, despite what Nick Clegg wants or hopes for.

On Conservative Home’s website, the chairman of the backbench 1922 Committee has said quite firmly that there will be a protocol that requires Tory MPs to vote on whether the party can join any coalition in the future.

http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/tory-mps-claim-veto-future-coalition/27209

The Conservatives won't be part of the coalition he's describing.

edmundintokyo

TheScreamingEagles said:

antifrank said:

The conclusion from this is that you should bet against minority governments of either red or blue flavours, because the Lib Dems are preparing for further coalition government rather than refresh themselves in opposition or through supply and confidence. That must make a minority government that much less likely.

Except this is the one thing that hasn't been much discussed, it was announced last month, but IMHO makes a coalition less likely in 2015, despite what Nick Clegg wants or hopes for.

On Conservative Home’s website, the chairman of the backbench 1922 Committee has said quite firmly that there will be a protocol that requires Tory MPs to vote on whether the party can join any coalition in the future.

http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/tory-mps-claim-veto-future-coalition/27209

Does that really make a coalition less likely? The MPs just got reelected, they're not going to want to give up power to the opposition, and even less end up with a new election where they might lose their jobs.

It's a good idea to do it, though. It forces the backbenchers to face up to the strategic choice their leaders are lumbered with, and makes it harder for them to destabilize it later.

rcs1000

Socrates said:

Unfortunately there's a host of other changes where the ECHR stops us from doing it, so we need to opt out of that.

But we could move to an explicit point-scoring system for non-EU immigration, if we wanted, right?

tpfkar

1. Just because the LDs want a coalition doesn't mean there will be one in a hung parliament. My reading is that Labour are desperate to get back into power so would definitely deal, but the Tories hate the idea of power-sharing and are chastened by coalition. The Brady/Nutjob wing of the Tories could well vote a deal down and plough into a minority government.

2. The Lib Dems will target more than 6 seats seriously; just because of where activists and held seats are. Based on target seats in my area I think there will be fully resources campaigns in 25 or so target seats.

TheScreamingEagles

tpfkar said:

1. Just because the LDs want a coalition doesn't mean there will be one in a hung parliament. My reading is that Labour are desperate to get back into power so would definitely deal, but the Tories hate the idea of power-sharing and are chastened by coalition. The Brady/Nutjob wing of the Tories could well vote a deal down and plough into a minority government.

2. The Lib Dems will target more than 6 seats seriously; just because of where activists and held seats are. Based on target seats in my area I think there will be fully resources campaigns in 25 or so target seats.

The Brady wing of the party may also be concurrently issuing a vote of no confidence in Dave at the same time as they try and vote a coalition deal down.

Exciting times.

Socrates

rcs1000 said:

Socrates said:

Unfortunately there's a host of other changes where the ECHR stops us from doing it, so we need to opt out of that.

But we could move to an explicit point-scoring system for non-EU immigration, if we wanted, right?

Not for family migration.

TheScreamingEagles

edmundintokyo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

antifrank said:

The conclusion from this is that you should bet against minority governments of either red or blue flavours, because the Lib Dems are preparing for further coalition government rather than refresh themselves in opposition or through supply and confidence. That must make a minority government that much less likely.

Except this is the one thing that hasn't been much discussed, it was announced last month, but IMHO makes a coalition less likely in 2015, despite what Nick Clegg wants or hopes for.

On Conservative Home’s website, the chairman of the backbench 1922 Committee has said quite firmly that there will be a protocol that requires Tory MPs to vote on whether the party can join any coalition in the future.

http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/tory-mps-claim-veto-future-coalition/27209

Does that really make a coalition less likely? The MPs just got reelected, they're not going to want to give up power to the opposition, and even less end up with a new election where they might lose their jobs.

It's a good idea to do it, though. It forces the backbenchers to face up to the strategic choice their leaders are lumbered with, and makes it harder for them to destabilize it later.

It does, rightly or wrongly, there's a perception that the Lib Dems have stopped the Tories from doing what they really want to do/that Dave's doing too much deference to Nick.

Do not misunderestimate the Tory Party's preference to be ideologically pure rather than be in power.

Cf the time we chose IDS as leader over Ken Clarke.

tpfkar

TheScreamingEagles said:

tpfkar said:

1. Just because the LDs want a coalition doesn't mean there will be one in a hung parliament. My reading is that Labour are desperate to get back into power so would definitely deal, but the Tories hate the idea of power-sharing and are chastened by coalition. The Brady/Nutjob wing of the Tories could well vote a deal down and plough into a minority government.

2. The Lib Dems will target more than 6 seats seriously; just because of where activists and held seats are. Based on target seats in my area I think there will be fully resources campaigns in 25 or so target seats.

The Brady wing of the party may also be concurrently issuing a vote of no confidence in Dave at the same time as they try and vote a coalition deal down.

Exciting times.

Just imagine if the deal included a joint refendum bill for PR, HoL reform and an EU referendum. What would Brady do? There's a dilemma for you.

If it is to be the LDs and Cons again, they could do worse than putting the areas they just can't agree (Europe, Trident, welfare, Lords, Heathrow) to referendums (referenda?) in May 2016 to allow a deal to be done which both sides will pass.

TheScreamingEagles

tpfkar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tpfkar said:

1. Just because the LDs want a coalition doesn't mean there will be one in a hung parliament. My reading is that Labour are desperate to get back into power so would definitely deal, but the Tories hate the idea of power-sharing and are chastened by coalition. The Brady/Nutjob wing of the Tories could well vote a deal down and plough into a minority government.

2. The Lib Dems will target more than 6 seats seriously; just because of where activists and held seats are. Based on target seats in my area I think there will be fully resources campaigns in 25 or so target seats.

The Brady wing of the party may also be concurrently issuing a vote of no confidence in Dave at the same time as they try and vote a coalition deal down.

Exciting times.

Just imagine if the deal included a joint refendum bill for PR, HoL reform and an EU referendum. What would Brady do? There's a dilemma for you.

If it is to be the LDs and Cons again, they could do worse than putting the areas they just can't agree (Europe, Trident, welfare, Lords, Heathrow) to referendums (referenda?) in May 2016 to allow a deal to be done which both sides will pass.

He'd take that deal.

We've established on PB that the plural of referendum is plebiscites.

Socrates

@TSE

It wasn't the need to be "ideologically pure" that rejected Ken Clarke. It was simply not wanting to be a europhile party at a time of critical importance. If Leader of the Opposition Ken Clarke was personally supporting the Euro, and the Tory party was neutral on it, Blair would have pushed heavily on it, and could have won a referendum. Unemployment right now would likely be at Irish levels.

Slackbladder

Rather sad events happening in france it seems...

TheScreamingEagles

Socrates said:

@TSE

It wasn't the need to be "ideologically pure" that rejected Ken Clarke. It was simply not wanting to be a europhile party at a time of critical importance. If Leader of the Opposition Ken Clarke was personally supporting the Euro, and the Tory party was neutral on it, Blair would have pushed heavily on it, and could have won a referendum. Unemployment right now would likely be at Irish levels.

No.

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

antifrank said:

The conclusion from this is that you should bet against minority governments of either red or blue flavours, because the Lib Dems are preparing for further coalition government rather than refresh themselves in opposition or through supply and confidence. That must make a minority government that much less likely.

Except this is the one thing that hasn't been much discussed, it was announced last month, but IMHO makes a coalition less likely in 2015, despite what Nick Clegg wants or hopes for.

On Conservative Home’s website, the chairman of the backbench 1922 Committee has said quite firmly that there will be a protocol that requires Tory MPs to vote on whether the party can join any coalition in the future.

http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/tory-mps-claim-veto-future-coalition/27209

The only minority Gov't that is going to have anywhere near like the numbers to do it's business is LAB minority. I simply can't see the Conservatives being able to form a minority Gov't as I predict the seat total will be too low if they get most seats...

MikeSmithson

TheScreamingEagles said:

tpfkar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tpfkar said:

1. Just because the LDs want a coalition doesn't mean there will be one in a hung parliament. My reading is that Labour are desperate to get back into power so would definitely deal, but the Tories hate the idea of power-sharing and are chastened by coalition. The Brady/Nutjob wing of the Tories could well vote a deal down and plough into a minority government.

2. The Lib Dems will target more than 6 seats seriously; just because of where activists and held seats are. Based on target seats in my area I think there will be fully resources campaigns in 25 or so target seats.

The Brady wing of the party may also be concurrently issuing a vote of no confidence in Dave at the same time as they try and vote a coalition deal down.

Exciting times.

Just imagine if the deal included a joint refendum bill for PR, HoL reform and an EU referendum. What would Brady do? There's a dilemma for you.

If it is to be the LDs and Cons again, they could do worse than putting the areas they just can't agree (Europe, Trident, welfare, Lords, Heathrow) to referendums (referenda?) in May 2016 to allow a deal to be done which both sides will pass.

He'd take that deal.

We've established on PB that the plural of referendum is plebiscites.

The plural of referendum is referenda which is how we did it in the late 1970s when I was writing the BBC news. It worked ok on Radio 3 and 4 but not on Radio 1 & 2 where it justs sounded poncy. So to get round it we would write that on xxxx there will be a devolution referendum in Scotland and a referendum in Wales

MikeSmithson

Socrates said:

@TSE

It wasn't the need to be "ideologically pure" that rejected Ken Clarke. It was simply not wanting to be a europhile party at a time of critical importance. If Leader of the Opposition Ken Clarke was personally supporting the Euro, and the Tory party was neutral on it, Blair would have pushed heavily on it, and could have won a referendum. Unemployment right now would likely be at Irish levels.

So the Tory party was prepared accept IDS, a clearly defective leader, rather than Clarke who had the look of a vote winner, over an issue that had little salience.

I thought you were barmy then and that you are barmy now.

Carnyx

Richard_Tyndall said:

FPT:

malcolmg said:


Fox, stick to the pertinent point , Scottish student can study in Romania for free whilst they are charged circa £9K to study in England. So you are telling me you cannot see fairness in the reciprocation of this principle. That it is fair for England to charge Scottish students a huge amount and yet expect Scotland to pay for all English students education. You seriously do not expect me to think that your are not intelligent enoug hto work out what is fair and proper given above circumstances. Can you name any other EU country that charges Scottish students for education.

...

Sorry Malcolm but you are utterly wrong on this. The issue is not whether other countries charge students - Scottish or otherwise - nor is it a matter of reciprocation. That is not the way the EU works. You can have different costs and charges in different countries. The important point under EU law is that within that country all EU citizens must be treated the same. So if education is free in Romania then Romanians may not charge Scottish (or other EU) students. If it costs 500 Euros a semester in Germany then that charge must be levied equally on German and other EU students. You cannot charge non Germans more as long as they are EU citizens.

The UK had a very strange internal arrangement because of devolution whereby it was possible for the Scots to charge English because they were part of the same state but not other EU citizens. If Scotland becomes independent that will end and you will no longer be allowed under EU law to charge English students whilst not charging students from any other EU country.

In any case all this depends on whether the likely European Court case happens before EWNI leaves the EU, which would be that much more likely after Scottish indy given differential levels of pro-EU thinking (whther that is enough I dunno).

Re the problem of the fees story as per @foxinsoxuk and @malcolmg and @Socrates inter aliis - I checked back and confirmed my memory that the often told story of Scottish and by implication SNP separatist MPs burdening the poor masses of England is almost complete, but not quite, mince, but put it in the last thread in error, for those who are interested. The SNP and the LDs (some) come out clean - not so the LDs (some) and above all Labour, logically enough for a One Nation party. The big surprise was the sole Scottish Tory MP in 2004!

Danny565

Why is the assumption that a hung parliament will mean the Lib Dems being in coalition? Especially if Labour are the biggest party, they would almost certainly be able to govern as a minority if they got 300+ seats - most of the small parties in the Commons are centre-left who would be killed by their voters if they allowed a Tory government in unnecessarily.

And even if the Tories are the biggest party in a hung parliament, I think even then it would probably be a minority government instead. I certainly think the Lib Dems would be doing much better in the polls right now had they let the Tories form a minority govt in 2010 -- then, their line that "we've stopped the Tories being as nasty as they want to be" might actually have some traction, whereas now, when they parrot that line, it just begs the question "if you think they're so nasty, why are you in government with them? "

Pulpstar

Bloody Hell My luck's been in these last few days.

Pepe Mel produces a nice £80 profit, £5 free bet lands on Black 29 at Paddy's roulette wheel and 12-1 and 18-1 winners on the horses today ^^;;

rcs1000

Socrates said:

rcs1000 said:

Socrates said:

Unfortunately there's a host of other changes where the ECHR stops us from doing it, so we need to opt out of that.

But we could move to an explicit point-scoring system for non-EU immigration, if we wanted, right?

Not for family migration.

Are we obliged to take people because their son / brother / aunt etc. is British?

Scrapheap_as_was

Phew - no a/c with Bet Victor....

AlastairMeeks

Danny565 said:

Why is the assumption that a hung parliament will mean the Lib Dems being in coalition? Especially if Labour are the biggest party, they would almost certainly be able to govern as a minority if they got 300+ seats - most of the small parties in the Commons are centre-left who would be killed by their voters if they allowed a Tory government in unnecessarily.

And even if the Tories are the biggest party in a hung parliament, I think even then it would probably be a minority government instead. I certainly think the Lib Dems would be doing much better in the polls right now had they let the Tories form a minority govt in 2010 -- then, their line that "we've stopped the Tories being as nasty as they want to be" might actually have some traction, whereas now, when they parrot that line, it just begs the question "if you think they're so nasty, why are you in government with them? "

A minority government can hold the reins of power, but it can do less with them than a full coalition can do. For all the carping from the Conservative benches, this has been a much more stable government achieving much more than a minority Conservative government would have achieved.

That lesson will not be lost on any party leader.

Socrates

rcs1000 said:

Socrates said:

rcs1000 said:

Socrates said:

Unfortunately there's a host of other changes where the ECHR stops us from doing it, so we need to opt out of that.

But we could move to an explicit point-scoring system for non-EU immigration, if we wanted, right?

Not for family migration.

Are we obliged to take people because their son / brother / aunt etc. is British?

In some cases, yes.

MikeSmithson

Danny565 said:

Why is the assumption that a hung parliament will mean the Lib Dems being in coalition? Especially if Labour are the biggest party, they would almost certainly be able to govern as a minority if they got 300+ seats - most of the small parties in the Commons are centre-left who would be killed by their voters if they allowed a Tory government in unnecessarily.

And even if the Tories are the biggest party in a hung parliament, I think even then it would probably be a minority government instead. I certainly think the Lib Dems would be doing much better in the polls right now had they let the Tories form a minority govt in 2010 -- then, their line that "we've stopped the Tories being as nasty as they want to be" might actually have some traction, whereas now, when they parrot that line, it just begs the question "if you think they're so nasty, why are you in government with them? "

A minority government of whatever colour has to get its Queens Speech through parliament. It if doesn't then the PM has to resign and the other lot be given a chance.

The LDs will give no promises to support a minority government with a supply & confidence arrangement.

If the Tories want to stay in power without the yellows then they need 326 seats

foxinsoxuk

The 2004 vote on Tuition fes was won by 5 votes, including a lot of Scots.

Carnyx said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FPT:

malcolmg said:


Fox, stick to the pertinent point , Scottish student can study in Romania for free whilst they are charged circa £9K to study in England. So you are telling me you cannot see fairness in the reciprocation of this principle. That it is fair for England to charge Scottish students a huge amount and yet expect Scotland to pay for all English students education. You seriously do not expect me to think that your are not intelligent enoug hto work out what is fair and proper given above circumstances. Can you name any other EU country that charges Scottish students for education.

...

Sorry Malcolm but you are utterly wrong on this. The issue is not whether other countries charge students - Scottish or otherwise - nor is it a matter of reciprocation. That is not the way the EU works. You can have different costs and charges in different countries. The important point under EU law is that within that country all EU citizens must be treated the same. So if education is free in Romania then Romanians may not charge Scottish (or other EU) students. If it costs 500 Euros a semester in Germany then that charge must be levied equally on German and other EU students. You cannot charge non Germans more as long as they are EU citizens.

The UK had a very strange internal arrangement because of devolution whereby it was possible for the Scots to charge English because they were part of the same state but not other EU citizens. If Scotland becomes independent that will end and you will no longer be allowed under EU law to charge English students whilst not charging students from any other EU country.

In any case all this depends on whether the likely European Court case happens before EWNI leaves the EU, which would be that much more likely after Scottish indy given differential levels of pro-EU thinking (whther that is enough I dunno).

Re the problem of the fees story as per @foxinsoxuk and @malcolmg and @Socrates inter aliis - I checked back and confirmed my memory that the often told story of Scottish and by implication SNP separatist MPs burdening the poor masses of England is almost complete, but not quite, mince, but put it in the last thread in error, for those who are interested. The SNP and the LDs (some) come out clean - not so the LDs (some) and above all Labour, logically enough for a One Nation party. The big surprise was the sole Scottish Tory MP in 2004!

dr_spyn

Hollande's little escapade still hasn't run its course.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25706037

Pulpstar

Lib-Lab coalition is the one bet I'd like to have in my portfolio but don't.

5.5 (9/2) though... is the price any good ?

You need LAB most seats (1.82), but not LAB majority (2.66)

Anyone know how to correctly compute those odds/events together to get probability of LAB most seats/NOM ?

Also there is a chance of a minority Lab Gov't too given those events.

Pulpstar

I'm not betting on it, but anyone with a Suarez FGS bet will have a winner, despite it being the second goal...

Danny565

MikeSmithson said:

Danny565 said:

Why is the assumption that a hung parliament will mean the Lib Dems being in coalition? Especially if Labour are the biggest party, they would almost certainly be able to govern as a minority if they got 300+ seats - most of the small parties in the Commons are centre-left who would be killed by their voters if they allowed a Tory government in unnecessarily.

And even if the Tories are the biggest party in a hung parliament, I think even then it would probably be a minority government instead. I certainly think the Lib Dems would be doing much better in the polls right now had they let the Tories form a minority govt in 2010 -- then, their line that "we've stopped the Tories being as nasty as they want to be" might actually have some traction, whereas now, when they parrot that line, it just begs the question "if you think they're so nasty, why are you in government with them? "

A minority government of whatever colour has to get its Queens Speech through parliament. It if doesn't then the PM has to resign and the other lot be given a chance.

The LDs will give no promises to support a minority government with a supply & confidence arrangement.

If the Tories want to stay in power without the yellows then they need 326 seats

But it's very possible Labour wouldn't NEED the Lib Dems to get a Queen's Speech through Parliament, in a hung parliament.

As for the Tories, isn't it feasible that the Lib Dems could just let a Queen's Speech through, but then make the Tories haggle for their support on each and every issue (which happened with the SNP in the Scottish Parliament in 2007-11, which far from being "unstable" proved to make such effective governance and made the SNP wildly popular)? If they had done that in 2010, I certainly think we would've had a more moderate Tory government than what we ended up with, if the Lib Dems had got an effective veto over everything. But it's hard to escape the impression that the Lib Dems chose to trade in real influence for the illusory trappings of "power", traded in the chance to actually shape policy for ceremonial job titles and ministerial perks.

Pulpstar

Broken sleazy Liverpool on the slide

AndreaParma_82

Labour shortlist for Leeds East (28.2% majority)

Richard Burgon (trade union lawyer, GMB. From Cross Gates) www.richardburgon.com/
Judith Cummins (local Cllr) www.judithcummins.co.uk/
Mohammed Iqbal (Leeds Central Cllr) democracy.leeds.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=198
Katie White (Leeds activist, charity worker) www.katiejwhite.org

JackW

foxinsoxuk said:

I agree with Nick.

If Jacks ARSE is right, no coalition could confirm a working majority.

Look on the bright side, a six month govt followed by an autumn election would give us all further betting opportunities!

Not quite so.

The latest 2015 ARSE general election projection published on 7th Jan indicated :

Con 296 .. Lab 283 .. LibDem 37

Accordingly a Con/LibDem majority of 16 and with SF absent more likely 20+

MikeSmithson

@Danny565 There was never any moment in 2010 when a CON minority government was possible. A key part of Cameron's coalition offer was to get Gord out of Number 10. If there'd been no coalition Brown would have just sat tight - he had no obligation to go to the palace.

The sitting PM, Gordon, has all the cards in his hands in such a situation as we will likely see next year. If Ed doesn't get 326 seats Dave can sit tight

Life_ina_market_town

MikeSmithson said:

If there'd been no coalition Brown would have just sat tight - he had no obligation to go to the palace.

That's inaccurate. Brown resigned as Prime Minister before the coalition had been finalised, likely with the intent of impeding its formation. Cameron, on the steps of Downing Street, could only claim that he "aim[ed] to form a proper and full coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats."

Innocent_Abroad

Some thoughts on a Parliament in which Labour s just short of a majority:-

(1) Ed M would surely tell Her Majesty that he could form a government, just as Wilson did forty years ago.

(2) He would enact those parts of his manifesto which were either also in the LibDem one or at least not contradicted by it. Why shouldn't the Lib Dems abstain, which would be enough for their passage?

(3) He would seek an early election. Focus groups would tell him whether to go when he thought the weather fair, or whether alternatively to create a short fixed-term Parliament - if that idea was preferred by the groups. If the economy continued to behave in a way most people disliked (i.e. either no growth or the benefits of growth being restricted to the top 1% or 2%, as most Tory Peebies seem to want) he could even offer the Tory leader a Grand Coalition.

(4) After a second election, a Grand Coalition would almost be the only option, since the UKIP Parliamentary caucus would - and righty so - want its feet from the opposition benches before entering government. Indeed, it would hope to become the largest single party after a third election.

JackW

tpfkar said:

1. Just because the LDs want a coalition doesn't mean there will be one in a hung parliament. My reading is that Labour are desperate to get back into power so would definitely deal, but the Tories hate the idea of power-sharing and are chastened by coalition. The Brady/Nutjob wing of the Tories could well vote a deal down and plough into a minority government.

2. The Lib Dems will target more than 6 seats seriously; just because of where activists and held seats are. Based on target seats in my area I think there will be fully resources campaigns in 25 or so target seats.

Should the numbers indicate a numerically feasible Con/LibDem coalition then both parties will have to decide whether they are more chastened by power, albeit shared, or chastened by the prospect of opposition or the uncertainties of a weak minority government, especially so with the markets looking over their shoulder.

A couple of points on interest rates and soaring mortgage cost will have the combined opposition itching to turf a minority Conservative government out.

foxinsoxuk

I cannot see that being a safe working majority for a coalition, though it may just about be for single party government.

JackW said:

foxinsoxuk said:

I agree with Nick.

If Jacks ARSE is right, no coalition could confirm a working majority.

Look on the bright side, a six month govt followed by an autumn election would give us all further betting opportunities!

Not quite so.

The latest 2015 ARSE general election projection published on 7th Jan indicated :

Con 296 .. Lab 283 .. LibDem 37

Accordingly a Con/LibDem majority of 16 and with SF absent more likely 20+

foxinsoxuk

The UKIP parliamentary caucus could all fit in the back of a cab. Indeed Farage would make a good cabbie, he has the right manner for it.

Innocent_Abroad said:

Some thoughts on a Parliament in which Labour s just short of a majority:-

(1) Ed M would surely tell Her Majesty that he could form a government, just as Wilson did forty years ago.

(2) He would enact those parts of his manifesto which were either also in the LibDem one or at least not contradicted by it. Why shouldn't the Lib Dems abstain, which would be enough for their passage?

(3) He would seek an early election. Focus groups would tell him whether to go when he thought the weather fair, or whether alternatively to create a short fixed-term Parliament - if that idea was preferred by the groups. If the economy continued to behave in a way most people disliked (i.e. either no growth or the benefits of growth being restricted to the top 1% or 2%, as most Tory Peebies seem to want) he could even offer the Tory leader a Grand Coalition.

(4) After a second election, a Grand Coalition would almost be the only option, since the UKIP Parliamentary caucus would - and righty so - want its feet from the opposition benches before entering government. Indeed, it would hope to become the largest single party after a third election.

rcs1000

Socrates said:

In some cases, yes.

Specifically (now having done a little work), Article 8 of the ECHR.

This is very interesting on it, and has taught me a lot: http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06355.pdf

MikeK

My bi-monthly forecast for UKIP seats/wins at the 2015GE.

is....................................................33 seats. Up 4 from November.

rcs1000

rcs1000 said:

Socrates said:

In some cases, yes.

Specifically (now having done a little work), Article 8 of the ECHR.

This is very interesting on it, and has taught me a lot: http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06355.pdf

Intriguingly, the Swiss are signatories to the EHCR (as we are), yet seem not to have this problem. I wonder how they've gotten around it.

rcs1000

By the way, the EU regards itself as "not bound by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights".

Which seems a little odd.

Pulpstar

MikeK said:

My bi-monthly forecast for UKIP seats/wins at the 2015GE.

is....................................................33 seats. Up 4 from November.

You need to lay off the Hooch !

RodCrosby

Pulpstar said:

Lib-Lab coalition is the one bet I'd like to have in my portfolio but don't.

5.5 (9/2) though... is the price any good ?

You need LAB most seats (1.82), but not LAB majority (2.66)

Anyone know how to correctly compute those odds/events together to get probability of LAB most seats/NOM ?

Also there is a chance of a minority Lab Gov't too given those events.

Factoring in overround,

P(Lab majority) = 37.02%

P(Lab most seats) = 54.63%

Therefore, P(Lab most seats, not a majority) = 54.63%-37.02% = 17.61% or about 14/3...

Of course the Lib-Lab coalition chance will be somewhat greater (Lib-Lab coalition even if Lab not largest, or Lab have a tiny majority).

rcs1000

MikeK said:

My bi-monthly forecast for UKIP seats/wins at the 2015GE.

is....................................................33 seats. Up 4 from November.

Want a bet? :-)

Pulpstar

RodCrosby said:

Pulpstar said:

Lib-Lab coalition is the one bet I'd like to have in my portfolio but don't.

5.5 (9/2) though... is the price any good ?

You need LAB most seats (1.82), but not LAB majority (2.66)

Anyone know how to correctly compute those odds/events together to get probability of LAB most seats/NOM ?

Also there is a chance of a minority Lab Gov't too given those events.

Factoring in overround,

P(Lab majority) = 37.02%

P(Lab most seats) = 54.63%

Therefore, P(Lab most seats, not a majority) = 54.63%-37.02% = 17.61% or about 14/3...

Of course the Lib-Lab coalition chance will be somewhat greater (Lib-Lab coalition even if Lab not largest, or Lab have a tiny majority).

No chance of a Labour minority Gov't if they hit 320ish seats ?

JackW

foxinsoxuk said:

I cannot see that being a safe working majority for a coalition, though it may just about be for single party government.

JackW said:

foxinsoxuk said:

I agree with Nick.

If Jacks ARSE is right, no coalition could confirm a working majority.

Look on the bright side, a six month govt followed by an autumn election would give us all further betting opportunities!

Not quite so.

The latest 2015 ARSE general election projection published on 7th Jan indicated :

Con 296 .. Lab 283 .. LibDem 37

Accordingly a Con/LibDem majority of 16 and with SF absent more likely 20+

John Major worked with similar for five years and that was with a host of bast*rds in and out of the Cabinet and the Coalition is somewhat more united than the Brown administration for all of its highly secure majority.

RodCrosby

Life_ina_market_town said:

MikeSmithson said:

If there'd been no coalition Brown would have just sat tight - he had no obligation to go to the palace.

That's inaccurate. Brown resigned as Prime Minister before the coalition had been finalised, likely with the intent of impeding its formation. Cameron, on the steps of Downing Street, could only claim that he "aim[ed] to form a proper and full coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats."

That does not negate Mike's point. Brown was perfectly entitled to meet parliament...

JackW

MikeK said:

My bi-monthly forecast for UKIP seats/wins at the 2015GE.

is....................................................33 seats. Up 4 from November.

More like bi-polar forecast !!

RodCrosby

Pulpstar said:

No chance of a Labour minority Gov't if they hit 320ish seats ?

The chance of a coalition or minority government is subjective, and not directly calculable from the seat odds. If you want to factor in the above, OK...

RichardNabavi

Interesting that no-one has actually addressed Nick Clegg's point: "the biggest risk to our economic recovery is a single party government of either left or right."

It's a good line, but completely wrong in my view. I'd rank the effect of various possibilities on the economy as follow (1 = best)

1: Con Maj, the progress made towards fiscal sanity continues

2: Continuation of the Con/LD coalition, provided the combined seat total is sufficient to form a stable government

3: Adequate Labour majority: there would be an early panic but I have sufficient faith in Ed Ball's dishonesty to hope that he'd be more sensible than he sounds

4: Lab/LD coalition, with a combined seat total sufficient to form a stable government. This would be financially profligate because the two parties would be vying with each other to waste dosh.

5. Conservative minority: very hard to govern well with two leftish parties able to block and cause trouble

6. Labour minority or any unstable coalition/arrangement: impossible to govern well.

The indications are that the bottom three of those are quite likely, so be prepared.

rcs1000

RichardNabavi said:

Interesting that no-one has actually addressed Nick Clegg's point: "the biggest risk to our economic recovery is a single party government of either left or right."

It's a good line, but completely wrong in my view. I'd rank the effect of various possibilities on the economy as follow (1 = best)

1: Con Maj, the progress made towards fiscal sanity continues

2: Continuation of the Con/LD coalition, provided the combined seat total is sufficient to form a stable government

3: Adequate Labour majority: there would be an early panic but I have sufficient faith in Ed Ball's dishonesty to hope that he'd be more sensible than he sounds

4: Lab/LD coalition, with a combined seat total sufficient to form a stable government. This would be financially profligate because the two parties would be vying with each other to waste dosh.

5. Conservative minority: very hard to govern well with two leftish parties able to block and cause trouble

6. Labour minority or any unstable coalition/arrangement: impossible to govern well.

The indications are that the bottom three of those are quite likely, so be prepared.

Wait: where's UKIP majority in there?
And UKIP / LibDem coalition?

RichardNabavi

rcs1000 said:

Wait: where's UKIP majority in there?
And UKIP / LibDem coalition?

I think option 6 covers that!

MikeK

Pulpstar said:

MikeK said:

My bi-monthly forecast for UKIP seats/wins at the 2015GE.

is....................................................33 seats. Up 4 from November.

You need to lay off the Hooch !

They all laughed at Christopher Columbus when he said the world was round......................

Richard_Tyndall

rcs1000 said:

By the way, the EU regards itself as "not bound by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights".

Which seems a little odd.

It is indeed odd although legally correct. Until such times as the documents are signed and the EU becomes a siganatory to the ECHR in its own right, rulings from the ECHR do not affect it. That is all planned to be finalised in 2014.

smithersjones2013

The real problem with Clegg's pitch is simply:

"How do the electorate vote for a Coalition?"

The answer of course is they don't. In a FPTP scenario it is a freak of nature. The political equivalent of a lightning strike. Consequently isn't saying "Vote Libdem, Get Coalition" a wholly dishonest pitch?

Pulpstar

Damn, looks like my 1.01 lay of Liverpool won't come off. Reckon I had value on my 20p though.

smithersjones2013

unstable coalition/arrangement: impossible to govern well.

Hmmmm I thought that most sounded like the Tory Party.

Now whats was that about a letter from a hundred MPs that turned William Hague into a rather poor impersonation of Barroso?

Sunil_Prasannan

Looks like another 787 with a technical glitch? Qatar Airways at Heathrow still on the ground three hours after scheduled departure time, according to my brother who's on board and just called me.

RodCrosby

smithersjones2013 said:

The real problem with Clegg's pitch is simply:

"How do the electorate vote for a Coalition?"

The answer of course is they don't. In a FPTP scenario it is a freak of nature. The political equivalent of a lightning strike. Consequently isn't saying "Vote Libdem, Get Coalition" a wholly dishonest pitch?

Voting for third parties in general increases the chance of a hung parliament, and therefore a coalition.

So it's a fair comment.

Clegg should go further:- "The only way to reign in the profligacy of Labour on the one hand, and the heartlessness of the Tories on the other is to deny either an outright victory. Voting LibDem is the best way to achieve this..."

RichardNabavi

RodCrosby said:

Voting for third parties in general increases the chance of a hung parliament, and therefore a coalition.

So it's a fair comment.

Clegg should go further:- "The only way to reign in the profligacy of Labour on the one hand, and the heartlessness of the Tories on the other is to deny either an outright victory. Voting LibDem is the best way to achieve this..."

Yes, that is spot-on. In effect that was the pitch in 2010, and it's a good pitch, playing to people who have doubts about both big parties and also trying to go for the reasonable-sounding middle option. It should get some traction, although I think the LibDems have not done a good job in claiming credit for the coalition, which (from the LibDem point of view) has been a mistake in my view.

RodCrosby

Alumnus of my school finally gets his red hat...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25703940
Fidem vita fateri

smithersjones2013

RodCrosby said:

smithersjones2013 said:

The real problem with Clegg's pitch is simply:

"How do the electorate vote for a Coalition?"

The answer of course is they don't. In a FPTP scenario it is a freak of nature. The political equivalent of a lightning strike. Consequently isn't saying "Vote Libdem, Get Coalition" a wholly dishonest pitch?

Voting for third parties in general increases the chance of a hung parliament, and therefore a coalition.

So it's a fair comment.

Clegg should go further:- "The only way to reign in the profligacy of Labour on the one hand, and the heartlessness of the Tories on the other is to deny either an outright victory. Voting LibDem is the best way to achieve this..."

No it's not fair comment for the simple reason under FPTP (as the Libdems have complained perpetually for the last 40 years virtually) getting more votes is not enough, winning more seats is what makes coalition more likely and given the Libdems apparently are only going to contest 60 or so seats its unlikely they are going to do anywhere near enough to fulfil such a claim. Its a dishonest pitch

JosiasJessop

MikeK said:

My bi-monthly forecast for UKIP seats/wins at the 2015GE.

is....................................................33 seats. Up 4 from November.

You are either:
1) Joking.
2) Hopeful beyond reason.
3) A genius.

I'm still thinking that UKIP will not get any seats in 2015. I may change my mind a few months after the Euros, *if* UKIP can maintain progress. And that's a big ask.

But good on you for being positive!

Life_ina_market_town

RodCrosby said:

Alumnus of my school finally gets his red hat...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25703940
Fidem vita fateri

This latest act of papal aggression will not pass unnoticed among loyal subjects of the Crown. Perhaps it is time we brought the Ecclesiastical Titles Act 1851 back into force.

JosiasJessop

This is going to end well ...

The Police Federation says it wants a judicial review of the police watchdog's decision to investigate three officers who met the MP at the centre of the "plebgate" row.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25705250

smithersjones2013

If Clegg wants to campaign for another Coalition then he and Cameron (or Miliband if he fancies it) should do a deal and campaign under the Coalition banner. At least then voters can vote for what Clegg is offering

NickPalmer

It doesn't sound a very compelling argument to me - too easily interpreted as "Your economic prosperity depends on some stuff that happens in Westminster which happens to benefit my party". Insofar as most people have a view of coalitions, they're mildly against them now. And Clegg's statement is actually false: the poll shows 35% wanting a coalition to 65% preferring a single-party government. It is of course clearly true that most people would rather have their party + LibDems than the other lot, but that's not what he said.

Sunil_Prasannan

smithersjones2013 said:

If Clegg wants to campaign for another Coalition then he and Cameron (or Miliband if he fancies it) should do a deal and campaign under the Coalition banner. At least then voters can vote for what Clegg is offering

"COA 46
LAB 40"

anotherDave

If the LDs get the awful result in the May EU elections everyone seems to be expecting, won't that make their proposition look fanciful?

The LDs are the 4th/5th/6th choice of the nation. Vote LD: only the LDs can stop single party government!

EPG

Coalitions may well beget coalitions. The taboo against single-party majorities is very strong in Ireland these days. In one interview during the last general election, the leader of the opposition had to deny that he was looking for a majority! Given that the last single-party majority was elected 35 years ago, it is not clear why this is the case, but there you are! However, it's much easier to vote for a coalition in a PR electoral system.

MarkSenior

anotherDave said:

If the LDs get the awful result in the May EU elections everyone seems to be expecting, won't that make their proposition look fanciful?

The LDs are the 4th/5th/6th choice of the nation. Vote LD: only the LDs can stop single party government!

No more than it did after the 2009 EU elections

Sunil_Prasannan

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Looks like another 787 with a technical glitch? Qatar Airways at Heathrow still on the ground three hours after scheduled departure time, according to my brother who's on board and just called me.

Thankfully, looks like the plane has begun taxiing... This is the only Qatari 787 flight from Heathrow, their other four daily flights are operated by A330/A340 or the 777.

AndyJS

Early 80s classic — The Whispers with "It's A Love Thing", which spent 4 weeks at number 9 in the UK charts in May/June 1981:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG3IHGytNF8&amp

Sunil_Prasannan

AndyJS said:

Early 80s classic — The Whispers with "It's A Love Thing", which spent 4 weeks at number 9 in the UK charts in May/June 1981:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG3IHGytNF8&amp

BBC2 showed "Synth Britannia" late last night:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00n93c6/Synth_Britannia_at_the_BBC/

AlastairMeeks

MikeK said:

Pulpstar said:

MikeK said:

My bi-monthly forecast for UKIP seats/wins at the 2015GE.

is....................................................33 seats. Up 4 from November.

You need to lay off the Hooch !

They all laughed at Christopher Columbus when he said the world was round......................

Thats a myth. It was well known before then that the world was round. Chaucer makes reference to the fact.

HurstLlama

Avast Cap'n Doc,

Are you saying the wretched airline got the passengers on board and then had them sit there for three plus hours whilst they sorted out a problem? Piss poor customer service if so. No need to remind me never to fly Qatar Airways as I shall never set foot on a commercial aeroplane again but such poor quality needs to be advertised lest others fall into their clutches.

Belike

Sunil_Prasannan

HurstLlama said:

Avast Cap'n Doc,

Are you say the wretched airline got the passengers on board and then had them sit there for three plus hours whilst they sorted out a problem? Piss poor customer service if so. No need to remind me never to fly Qatar Airways as I shall never set foot on a commercial aeroplane again but such poor quality needs to be advertised lest others fall into their clutches.

Ahoy there, Mr. Llama! It was probably the aircraft more than anything. The 787 has had countless problems since being introduced worldwide a couple of years back. Unfortunately, my brother is voyaging to the great pirate seaport of Calicut on India's Malabar Coast - Qatar have only one flight daily from Doha so he will miss his connection...

Aaaarrrrrgh, belike and all that!

AveryLP

antifrank said:

MikeK said:

Pulpstar said:

MikeK said:

My bi-monthly forecast for UKIP seats/wins at the 2015GE.

is....................................................33 seats. Up 4 from November.

You need to lay off the Hooch !

They all laughed at Christopher Columbus when he said the world was round......................

Thats a myth. It was well known before then that the world was round. Chaucer makes reference to the fact.

Perhaps Columbus was being laughed at for peddling the certainties of the past as the solution for the future?

Can happen.

Sunil_Prasannan

antifrank said:

MikeK said:

Pulpstar said:

MikeK said:

My bi-monthly forecast for UKIP seats/wins at the 2015GE.

is....................................................33 seats. Up 4 from November.

You need to lay off the Hooch !

They all laughed at Christopher Columbus when he said the world was round......................

Thats a myth. It was well known before then that the world was round. Chaucer makes reference to the fact.

It is theorised that Columbus's faith was based on the Behaim Globe that was produced a decade earlier than his voyage. Besides, Ptolemy in the 1st Century AD reckoned the world was a globe though without knowledge of America he overestimated the size of Asia. His work is thought to have been based on a lost "primer" by Marinus of Tyre.

Aaaaargh, me hearties!

JosiasJessop

Sunil_Prasannan said:

antifrank said:

MikeK said:

Pulpstar said:

MikeK said:

My bi-monthly forecast for UKIP seats/wins at the 2015GE.

is....................................................33 seats. Up 4 from November.

You need to lay off the Hooch !

They all laughed at Christopher Columbus when he said the world was round......................

Thats a myth. It was well known before then that the world was round. Chaucer makes reference to the fact.

It is theorised that Columbus's faith was based on the Behaim Globe that was produced a decade earlier than his voyage. Besides, Ptolemy in the 1st Century AD reckoned the world was a globe though without knowledge of America he overestimated the size of Asia. His work is thought to have been based on a lost "primer" by Marinus of Tyre.

Aaaaargh, me hearties!

It's one thing to think the world is round, or even estimate its circumference, as Eratosthenes did.

It is quite another thing to ignore conventional wisdom and sail your small ship as if it was true. For years I never quite decided if it was bravery or stupidity; then I sailed on a tall ship and decided it was definitely the latter.

I'd probably have been on the quayside laughing at him.

Quincel

About Columbus, Wikipedia's 'List of common misconceptions' says the following:

Christopher Columbus's efforts to obtain support for his voyages were not hampered by a European belief in a flat Earth. Sailors and navigators of the time knew that the Earth was roughly spherical, but (correctly) disagreed with Columbus's estimate of the distance to India, which was approximately one-sixth of the actual distance. If the Americas did not exist, and had Columbus continued to India, he would have run out of supplies before reaching it at the rate he was traveling. Without the ability to determine longitude at sea, he would not have learned that his estimate was an error in time to return. Many of the educated classes believed the Earth was spherical since the works of the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle. Eratosthenes made an accurate estimate of the Earth's diameter in approximately 240 BC. See also Myth of the Flat Earth.

HurstLlama

Sunil_Prasannan said:

antifrank said:

MikeK said:

Pulpstar said:

MikeK said:

My bi-monthly forecast for UKIP seats/wins at the 2015GE.

is....................................................33 seats. Up 4 from November.

You need to lay off the Hooch !

They all laughed at Christopher Columbus when he said the world was round......................

Thats a myth. It was well known before then that the world was round. Chaucer makes reference to the fact.

It is theorised that Columbus's faith was based on the Behaim Globe that was produced a decade earlier than his voyage. Besides, Ptolemy in the 1st Century AD reckoned the world was a globe though without knowledge of America he overestimated the size of Asia. His work is thought to have been based on a lost "primer" by Marinus of Tyre.

Aaaaargh, me hearties!

Belay there Cap'n

Eratosthenes, a Greek but that doesn't make him a bad man, demonstrated that the Earth was a sphere in about 200BC. He also calculated its circumference (with surprising accuracy), its tilt and the distance to the Sun. Clever bloke.

Yo ho ho! Fifteen men and a bottle of rum, belike aaaargh.

tpfkar

MikeK said:

My bi-monthly forecast for UKIP seats/wins at the 2015GE.

is....................................................33 seats. Up 4 from November.

Which 33 seats do you like the look of?

MikeK

antifrank said:

MikeK said:

Pulpstar said:

MikeK said:

My bi-monthly forecast for UKIP seats/wins at the 2015GE.

is....................................................33 seats. Up 4 from November.

You need to lay off the Hooch !

They all laughed at Christopher Columbus when he said the world was round......................

Thats a myth. It was well known before then that the world was round. Chaucer makes reference to the fact.

Oh my! Don't be such a po face. They all laughed...... is the first line of a song written by Gershwin, I believe:

They all laughed at Christopher Columbus
When he said the world was round
They all laughed when Edison recorded sound
They all laughed at Wilbur and his brother
When they said that man could fly ... Etcetera....

Sunil_Prasannan

HurstLlama said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

antifrank said:

MikeK said:

Pulpstar said:

MikeK said:

My bi-monthly forecast for UKIP seats/wins at the 2015GE.

is....................................................33 seats. Up 4 from November.

You need to lay off the Hooch !

They all laughed at Christopher Columbus when he said the world was round......................

Thats a myth. It was well known before then that the world was round. Chaucer makes reference to the fact.

It is theorised that Columbus's faith was based on the Behaim Globe that was produced a decade earlier than his voyage. Besides, Ptolemy in the 1st Century AD reckoned the world was a globe though without knowledge of America he overestimated the size of Asia. His work is thought to have been based on a lost "primer" by Marinus of Tyre.

Aaaaargh, me hearties!

Belay there Cap'n

Eratosthenes, a Greek but that doesn't make him a bad man, demonstrated that the Earth was a sphere in about 200BC. He also calculated its circumference (with surprising accuracy), its tilt and the distance to the Sun. Clever bloke.

Yo ho ho! Fifteen men and a bottle of rum, belike aaaargh.

Avast, indeed Mr. Llama, forgot about Eratosthenes. Also, Martin Behaim built his globe the same year as Columbus's voyage 1492.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MartinBehaim1492.png

smithersjones2013

Sunil_Prasannan said:

smithersjones2013 said:

If Clegg wants to campaign for another Coalition then he and Cameron (or Miliband if he fancies it) should do a deal and campaign under the Coalition banner. At least then voters can vote for what Clegg is offering

"COA 46
LAB 40"

perhaps on current figures (are the Coalition parties that high?) but can you imagine if Cameron announced that the Coalition was going to fight the election as a Coalition (and Cameron managed to survive the inevitable challenge from within his party), I suspect then the polls would say something like:

LAB 43
COA 28
UKIP 23

dr_spyn

"They all laughed" was banned in Germany by Nazis, degenerate composer of degenerate music and all that.

Sunil_Prasannan

Speculation: Columbus was guided by maps that showed parts of Asia superimposed onto where America is now.

Smarmeron

@Sunil_Prasannan

Google the "Brendan Voyage" as well ;-)

volcanopete

Not my type of bet but the 1/8 Ladbrokes are offering for a Labour win at Wythenshawe is not going to get any better value with them as the only possible money will be for Labour as long as it's UKIP no offers due to the liabilities taken in the plunge from 20s to 4s.Paddy Power is offering 1/20.There is no Betfair market but those on UKIP at big odds have a lay marker in the 11/2 offered by PP so the potential for future arbing privately.Even if the 11/2 is taken,I cannot see PP going any longer than the 1-8 on offer from Ladbrokes.

Carnyx

Absolutely right. But (a) they were Scottish Labour MPs led from London Labour HQ in a government led by Gordon Brown, which was pretty unionist, so the concept of a Scpttish MP is perhaps a bit of an oxymoron in that context (there being no such thing as the Scottish Labour Party); and (b) as I point out on the other thread, contrary to popular myth the vote also affected the Scots directly, because of the Barnett consequentials arising from the supposedly English-only budget changes, so it was perfectly legitimate for the Scottish MPs to vote in that division, as did the SNPs and LDs. The Scots as we all know ended up losing the money and had to keep the status quo by doing without something else, which is what happened in due course. I suspect Westminster and Whitehall just assumed the Scots would roll over and play dead, and had not considered the implications of devolution.

Incidentally, I mentioned this just now to my partner who works in universities and she instantly pointed out what si of course obvious on a little reflection, that it's a myth that the English tuition fees have been taken off the public budget - an unknown but significant proportion will end up as bad debt thanks to people never earning over the qualifying limit to start paying back, emigrating, etc. etc. So when you add that and the admin costs of the Student Loan Company I really wonder how much of a saving it makes to the public budget in the long run, especially given the concerns expressed of late about the SLC being a future Northern Rock or Co-op. In this sense, I suppose, the SNP policy could be seen, like its policy on PPP and PFI, as one of fiscal rectitude.

foxinsoxuk said:

The 2004 vote on Tuition fes was won by 5 votes, including a lot of Scots.

<blockquote class="Quote"

dr_spyn

Some Tweeters appear to imply that Le President's actress lives in a block owned by some shady characters from Corsica who aren't Bonapartists. Might only be gossip, but if there was any truth in the inferences, then it is no wonder that Hollande is wanting to use the courts.