politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Ashcroft phone poll, like Populus this morning, has CON

ThomasNashe said:

Alanbrooke.

just total bollocks.

If the structural deficit were down we'd be in surplus as this is the up side of the cycle.

I think that really gets to the heart of the matter. This government came in to power promising to eliminate the deficit, and they haven't. That has been due to declining tax revenues (as well as a failure to take on such unnecessary spend such as the whole panoply of OAP benefits). Instead we have had tax cuts at both ends of the scale (for the rich who already vote Con, and for the poor who'll probably vote either Lab or Ukip). The pensioners who've escaped the cuts aren't showing their gratitude either, as they head off into the arms of Farage. If they'd gone for genuine austerity, they'd have a coherent message to put across, and could in fact be doing a lot better than they are.

Although still - just - a Conservative supporter, Alanbrooke has this right. Why Osborne increased benefits by more than 5% in his first budget beats me. The mistakes started in 2010 and since then he's added complexity to the tax code in most areas. Age allowance is one honourable exception.

AndyJS said:

Difficult not to feel depressed about the state of things after May's speech today. No wonder people are turning to UKIP in this downbeat climate. No one in politics seems to have anything positive to say.

Theresa May will not become Conservative Party leader.

MarkHopkins said:

Alanbrooke said:

MarkHopkins said:

ThomasNashe said:

Alanbrooke.

just total bollocks.

If the structural deficit were down we'd be in surplus as this is the up side of the cycle.

---

I think that really gets to the heart of the matter. This government came in to power promising to eliminate the deficit, and they haven't. That has been due to declining tax revenues (as well as a failure to take on such unnecessary spend such as the whole panoply of OAP benefits). Instead we have had tax cuts at both ends of the scale (for the rich who already vote Con, and for the poor who'll probably vote either Lab or Ukip). The pensioners who've escaped the cuts aren't showing their gratitude either, as they head off into the arms of Farage. If they'd gone for genuine austerity, they'd have a coherent message to put across, and could in fact be doing a lot better than they are.

They'd never have got "genuine austerity" past the Lib Dems.

oh really that's just so pathetic.

are you saying the LDs don't want things, that they won't cut a deal on things they value?

simply put camerons crap at politics as he could have haggled better with his partners and had something to show for it..

Of course the LDs want things, but the point was about genuine austerity. By the nature of compromise the Tories could never have delivered that in a coalition.

How does spending £13bn a year on aid equate to austerity ? Cameron's spending it. That's about 16% of the deficit. The LDs aren't forcing him to do it.

There is no austerity and that's because Cameron likes to play dame bountiful while telling us all about his tough decisions.

HurstLlama said:

@FlightPath

"The structural deficit is down considerably. "

I have always understood the term structural deficit to mean that element that remained after stripping out payments for one-off or temporary events (e.g. increased welfare spending during a recession). Given that the economy is in a period of growth and employment has never been so high one wonders what one-off or temporary effects are still present in HMG spending? Most of the current deficit looks structural.

That's broadly right.

I think the problems are (a) the amount of leakage from the tax network through aggressive corporate planning (b) the generousity of the massive increases in personal allowances (c) the wholesale embedding of tax credits - and the misaccounting of them as negative revenue (bad data leads to bad decisions) and (d) the failure to take a lot of tough decisions/willingness to give out freebies

In mitigation on (d), they have been bold on things like education and welfare which will have a longer term payback. But they haven't addressed the generosity of many of the biggest items, nor addressed housing costs (benefits) etc. And have still found a lot of money for ODA and free school meals.

In my view the Coalition probably merits a B+ (on the Oxford scale - roughly equivalent to a poor 2:1). But given where they started, and the risk of disaster, it's a reasonable performance

Alanbrooke said:

MarkHopkins said:

Alanbrooke said:

MarkHopkins said:

ThomasNashe said:

Alanbrooke.

just total bollocks.

If the structural deficit were down we'd be in surplus as this is the up side of the cycle.

---

I think that really gets to the heart of the matter. This government came in to power promising to eliminate the deficit, and they haven't. That has been due to declining tax revenues (as well as a failure to take on such unnecessary spend such as the whole panoply of OAP benefits). Instead we have had tax cuts at both ends of the scale (for the rich who already vote Con, and for the poor who'll probably vote either Lab or Ukip). The pensioners who've escaped the cuts aren't showing their gratitude either, as they head off into the arms of Farage. If they'd gone for genuine austerity, they'd have a coherent message to put across, and could in fact be doing a lot better than they are.

They'd never have got "genuine austerity" past the Lib Dems.

oh really that's just so pathetic.

are you saying the LDs don't want things, that they won't cut a deal on things they value?

simply put camerons crap at politics as he could have haggled better with his partners and had something to show for it..

Of course the LDs want things, but the point was about genuine austerity. By the nature of compromise the Tories could never have delivered that in a coalition.

How does spending £13bn a year on aid equate to austerity ? Cameron's spending it. That's about 16% of the deficit. The LDs aren't forcing him to do it.

There is no austerity and that's because Cameron likes to play dame bountiful while telling us all about his tough decisions.

"There is no austerity"

Many people would disagree with that claim.

Whether there should be more, and of what kind, and whether Cameron would actually do it, is a separate question.

surbiton said:

The 7% to the Greens is a concern. If we take the leakage to UKIP [ agreed more from the Tories than from Labour ], then the overall leakage out of Labour is roughly the same as what the Tories are losing. It is due to these two factors taht Labour numbers are not in the high 30's despite the Red Liberals coming to Labour.

Every time the Greens select a candidate in a constituency in which they didn't stand in 2010, they probably take at least 500 votes from Labour.

AndyJS said:

surbiton said:

The 7% to the Greens is a concern. If we take the leakage to UKIP [ agreed more from the Tories than from Labour ], then the overall leakage out of Labour is roughly the same as what the Tories are losing. It is due to these two factors taht Labour numbers are not in the high 30's despite the Red Liberals coming to Labour.

Every time the Greens select a candidate in a constituency in which they didn't stand in 2010, they probably take at least 500 votes from Labour.

There should be at least 160 of those by the time your spreadsheet is finalised

Neil said:

Casino_Royale said:

Danny565 said:

taffys said:

Latest forecast update: Con 283, Lab 284, LD 24, SNP 33, UKIP 4

Election forecast UK have just forecast this (via twitter).

That looks like an ideal result to me. Complete gridlock, which will result in no further spending cuts being able to get through.

You seem to view spending cuts as a policy choice, rather than a necessity.

What do you say to the fact out national debt is approaching £1.5tn and increasing at almost £100bn a year?

Do you think we should raise taxes? Ignore it? Renege on it?

Tbf to Danny565 he has answered this question numerous times. He thinks we should run 10%+ deficits. What happens when the debts are called in he has never been able to explain but you cant have everything.

Thanks. I must have missed that. If true, that's a ludicrous position.

Clegg and Miliband should really just be thankful that Caroline Lucas isn't still Green leader. They might be consistently getting 10%+ if she was.

Danny565 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Danny565 said:

taffys said:

Latest forecast update: Con 283, Lab 284, LD 24, SNP 33, UKIP 4

Election forecast UK have just forecast this (via twitter).

That looks like an ideal result to me. Complete gridlock, which will result in no further spending cuts being able to get through.

You seem to view spending cuts as a policy choice, rather than a necessity.

What do you say to the fact out national debt is approaching £1.5tn and increasing at almost £100bn a year?

Do you think we should raise taxes? Ignore it? Renege on it?

I think we should prioritise helping OUR schools and OUR health service and OUR poor people, rather than thinking the main priority is paying random dudes on trading floors in Shanghai.

When the bond market goes tits up there will be no money to spend on anything.

Danny565 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Danny565 said:

taffys said:

Latest forecast update: Con 283, Lab 284, LD 24, SNP 33, UKIP 4

Election forecast UK have just forecast this (via twitter).

That looks like an ideal result to me. Complete gridlock, which will result in no further spending cuts being able to get through.

You seem to view spending cuts as a policy choice, rather than a necessity.

What do you say to the fact out national debt is approaching £1.5tn and increasing at almost £100bn a year?

Do you think we should raise taxes? Ignore it? Renege on it?

I think we should prioritise helping OUR schools and OUR health service and OUR poor people, rather than thinking the main priority is paying random dudes on trading floors in Shanghai.

Point of information. You seem a bit confused about the direction in which money flows.

The random dudes on trading floors in Shanghai (and Chicago, and Wall Street, and Docklands) are PROVIDING THE MONEY which goes to our schools and health services and our poor people. About £100bn of it each year.

Danny565 said:

taffys said:

Latest forecast update: Con 283, Lab 284, LD 24, SNP 33, UKIP 4

Election forecast UK have just forecast this (via twitter).

That looks like an ideal result to me. Complete gridlock, which will result in no further spending cuts being able to get through.

Got a mortgage? I wonder if you'll be so keen on soaring interest rates? Or if a tenant, rents?

Morris_Dancer said:

Dr. Prasannan, well, quite.

Miss Cyclefree, perhaps because Turkey is sliding away from being an example of how country can be both modern and Muslim. It seems to be drifting from secular democracy towards an increasingly Islamist approach.

Commendably, the world's largest Muslim nation, Indonesia, is moving in the opposite direction. In South East Asia it's the only one no one has a clue who will be the next president (tho many hope the newly inaugurated will enjoy a second, and final, term).

Stuart_Dickson said:

taffys said:

Latest forecast update: Con 283, Lab 284, LD 24, SNP 33, UKIP 4

Election forecast UK have just forecast this (via twitter).

You mean: Lab 284, Con 283, SNP 33, LD 24, UKIP 4

Well, taffys order was alphabetical, which avoids any question of political bias

Casino_Royale said:

Danny565 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Danny565 said:

taffys said:

Latest forecast update: Con 283, Lab 284, LD 24, SNP 33, UKIP 4

Election forecast UK have just forecast this (via twitter).

That looks like an ideal result to me. Complete gridlock, which will result in no further spending cuts being able to get through.

You seem to view spending cuts as a policy choice, rather than a necessity.

What do you say to the fact out national debt is approaching £1.5tn and increasing at almost £100bn a year?

Do you think we should raise taxes? Ignore it? Renege on it?

I think we should prioritise helping OUR schools and OUR health service and OUR poor people, rather than thinking the main priority is paying random dudes on trading floors in Shanghai.

I'm sure most people would agree with you. It still doesn't answer the question of how we will pay for it.

Burying your head in the sand, and refusing to face reality, isn't going to make the problem go away.

We can pay for it the same way as now. I'm not actually proposing INCREASES in spending, just maintaining at the levels we have now. If we can be running a deficit of this size now without the sky falling in and the bailiffs coming round to declare us bankrupt, we can self-evidently continue to do so.

Danny565 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Danny565 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Danny565 said:

taffys said:

Latest forecast update: Con 283, Lab 284, LD 24, SNP 33, UKIP 4

Election forecast UK have just forecast this (via twitter).

That looks like an ideal result to me. Complete gridlock, which will result in no further spending cuts being able to get through.

You seem to view spending cuts as a policy choice, rather than a necessity.

What do you say to the fact out national debt is approaching £1.5tn and increasing at almost £100bn a year?

Do you think we should raise taxes? Ignore it? Renege on it?

I think we should prioritise helping OUR schools and OUR health service and OUR poor people, rather than thinking the main priority is paying random dudes on trading floors in Shanghai.

I'm sure most people would agree with you. It still doesn't answer the question of how we will pay for it.

Burying your head in the sand, and refusing to face reality, isn't going to make the problem go away.

We can pay for it the same way as now. I'm not actually proposing INCREASES in spending, just maintaining at the levels we have now. If we can be running a deficit of this size now without the sky falling in and the bailiffs coming round to declare us bankrupt, we can self-evidently continue to do so.

But you have in the past said that we can and should run 10%+ deficits.

But the beauty of your post (if it's not a spoof) is in the magnificent leaps of logic that make absolutely no sense but have obviously done the trick for you at least.

AndyJS said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

taffys said:

Latest forecast update: Con 283, Lab 284, LD 24, SNP 33, UKIP 4

Election forecast UK have just forecast this (via twitter).

You mean: Lab 284, Con 283, SNP 33, LD 24, UKIP 4

Looking at those figures, I don't think the English will tolerate the SNP deciding who runs their country. If they do it anyway UKIP's rating will go through the roof I imagine.

Would be quite sweet for the CyberNats if their defeat in the Indy ended up meaning the SNP ran the UK!

RobD said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

taffys said:

Latest forecast update: Con 283, Lab 284, LD 24, SNP 33, UKIP 4

Election forecast UK have just forecast this (via twitter).

You mean: Lab 284, Con 283, SNP 33, LD 24, UKIP 4

Well, taffys order was alphabetical, which avoids any question of political bias

Rob - on your spreadsheet you have got the numbers for the YouGov Sun on Sunday poll wrong.

Con and Lab are wrong way round and LD and UKIP are also wrong way round.

MikeL said:

RobD said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

taffys said:

Latest forecast update: Con 283, Lab 284, LD 24, SNP 33, UKIP 4

Election forecast UK have just forecast this (via twitter).

You mean: Lab 284, Con 283, SNP 33, LD 24, UKIP 4

Well, taffys order was alphabetical, which avoids any question of political bias

Rob - on your spreadsheet you have got the numbers for the YouGov Sun on Sunday poll wrong.

Con and Lab are wrong way round and LD and UKIP are also wrong way round.

oops! Ta muchly. Not sure why LD at 15% didn't ring alarm bells!!

Danny565 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Danny565 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Danny565 said:

taffys said:

Latest forecast update: Con 283, Lab 284, LD 24, SNP 33, UKIP 4

Election forecast UK have just forecast this (via twitter).

That looks like an ideal result to me. Complete gridlock, which will result in no further spending cuts being able to get through.

You seem to view spending cuts as a policy choice, rather than a necessity.

What do you say to the fact out national debt is approaching £1.5tn and increasing at almost £100bn a year?

Do you think we should raise taxes? Ignore it? Renege on it?

I think we should prioritise helping OUR schools and OUR health service and OUR poor people, rather than thinking the main priority is paying random dudes on trading floors in Shanghai.

I'm sure most people would agree with you. It still doesn't answer the question of how we will pay for it.

Burying your head in the sand, and refusing to face reality, isn't going to make the problem go away.

We can pay for it the same way as now. I'm not actually proposing INCREASES in spending, just maintaining at the levels we have now. If we can be running a deficit of this size now without the sky falling in and the bailiffs coming round to declare us bankrupt, we can self-evidently continue to do so.

There's a beautiful irony in your post there. The reason we've been able to maintain a deficit without the sky falling in and being declared bankrupt is precisely because the government's deficit reduction programme has market credibility.

Had you come to power in 2010 and said, 'we will do nothing about our 9%+ deficit because we think it's sustainable in the long-term'. You'd have seen a very different story.

taffys said:

About £100bn of it each year.

Hah! Finally, even RN admits the deficit isn't going down...

This is not something to be celebrating.

RobD said:

isam said:

AndyJS said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

taffys said:

Latest forecast update: Con 283, Lab 284, LD 24, SNP 33, UKIP 4

Election forecast UK have just forecast this (via twitter).

You mean: Lab 284, Con 283, SNP 33, LD 24, UKIP 4

Looking at those figures, I don't think the English will tolerate the SNP deciding who runs their country. If they do it anyway UKIP's rating will go through the roof I imagine.

Would be quite sweet for the CyberNats if their defeat in the Indy ended up meaning the SNP ran the UK!

Just imagining Lord Sidious.. "unlimited power!!!"

I'll get me coat.

"In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the United Kingdom will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society!"

Danny565 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Danny565 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Danny565 said:

taffys said:

Latest forecast update: Con 283, Lab 284, LD 24, SNP 33, UKIP 4

Election forecast UK have just forecast this (via twitter).

That looks like an ideal result to me. Complete gridlock, which will result in no further spending cuts being able to get through.

You seem to view spending cuts as a policy choice, rather than a necessity.

What do you say to the fact out national debt is approaching £1.5tn and increasing at almost £100bn a year?

Do you think we should raise taxes? Ignore it? Renege on it?

I think we should prioritise helping OUR schools and OUR health service and OUR poor people, rather than thinking the main priority is paying random dudes on trading floors in Shanghai.

I'm sure most people would agree with you. It still doesn't answer the question of how we will pay for it.

Burying your head in the sand, and refusing to face reality, isn't going to make the problem go away.

We can pay for it the same way as now. I'm not actually proposing INCREASES in spending, just maintaining at the levels we have now. If we can be running a deficit of this size now without the sky falling in and the bailiffs coming round to declare us bankrupt, we can self-evidently continue to do so.

How exactly is it self-evident that we can continue current spending levels for ever?

ThomasNashe said:

Alanbrooke.

just total bollocks.

If the structural deficit were down we'd be in surplus as this is the up side of the cycle.

I think that really gets to the heart of the matter. This government came in to power promising to eliminate the deficit, and they haven't. That has been due to declining tax revenues (as well as a failure to take on such unnecessary spend such as the whole panoply of OAP benefits). Instead we have had tax cuts at both ends of the scale (for the rich who already vote Con, and for the poor who'll probably vote either Lab or Ukip). The pensioners who've escaped the cuts aren't showing their gratitude either, as they head off into the arms of Farage. If they'd gone for genuine austerity, they'd have a coherent message to put across, and could in fact be doing a lot better than they are.

We shouldn't yet be in surplus - the economy is only been expanding for about 18 months. Even so, the deficit should ideally be about £40-50bn less than it is. Taking the decisions to have brought that about however would have probably pushed the economy back into recession in 2010-11, which wouldn't necessarily have been the wrong thing to do but would have been a very tight call. What it does mean is that significant spending reductions have to happen in the next 2-3 years to get things back on an even keel before the next global slowdown happens - if we have that long.

Yorkcity said:

Is #CameronMustGo trending on twitter because of these latest polls or
something else ?

Stop the presses, people on Twitter don't like Cameron.

Hmm, well this is a surprise, to me at least.

Owen Paterson's EU speech is a must-read - very, very interesting indeed. I could certainly argue against it on a number of points, but it is nonetheless the most intelligent advocacy for leaving the EU, and how we might do it, which I've seen in a very long time. In particular, he doesn't make the idiotic UKIP mistake of assuming that we could retain access to the Single Market without having to agree to a whole raft of regulations which would be outside our control, but instead he frames the debate more in terms of world trade regulations:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/is-owen-paterson-hoping-to-become-leader-of-the-out-camp-in-the-2017-referendum/

Of course the media see this all in terms of leadership challenges, which is to trivialise the issue.

Yorkcity said:

Is #CameronMustGo trending on twitter because of these latest polls or
something else ?

Is the logical conclusion of that trending then? #MilibandMustCome

"Meet the UKIP candidates hoping to change UK politics

There have been numerous studies and articles analysing the demographics of UKIP voters in the last few months, but virtually nothing has been written about the actual UKIP candidates who are hoping to change UK politics at the 2015 General Election. Looking at the 50 seats which are most talked about, identified as being possible targets or considered the most ‘UKIP friendly’, 38* of these UKIP Prospective Parliamentary Candidates (PPCs) have so far been selected to fight for a Westminster seat."

http://www.ge2015.co.uk/meet-the-ukip-candidates-hoping-to-change-uk-politics/#more-204

What the hell is going on. Labour have now been seriously in front on the last three polls. Are people mad?

isam said:

If I win Islington S and Finsbury, will I be your MP?

No (Jeremy Corbyn is), but you'd be the MP for my current workplace. So if I lose and you win I might write you letters about animal experiments. Maybe you'd be SeanT's. I wouldn't get your hopes too far up, though - Emily is popular locally, judging by the reception when I've helped in by-elections.

Have you already been selected, or are you just going for it?

Neil said:

Danny565 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Danny565 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Danny565 said:

taffys said:

Latest forecast update: Con 283, Lab 284, LD 24, SNP 33, UKIP 4

Election forecast UK have just forecast this (via twitter).

That looks like an ideal result to me. Complete gridlock, which will result in no further spending cuts being able to get through.

You seem to view spending cuts as a policy choice, rather than a necessity.

What do you say to the fact out national debt is approaching £1.5tn and increasing at almost £100bn a year?

Do you think we should raise taxes? Ignore it? Renege on it?

I think we should prioritise helping OUR schools and OUR health service and OUR poor people, rather than thinking the main priority is paying random dudes on trading floors in Shanghai.

I'm sure most people would agree with you. It still doesn't answer the question of how we will pay for it.

Burying your head in the sand, and refusing to face reality, isn't going to make the problem go away.

We can pay for it the same way as now. I'm not actually proposing INCREASES in spending, just maintaining at the levels we have now. If we can be running a deficit of this size now without the sky falling in and the bailiffs coming round to declare us bankrupt, we can self-evidently continue to do so.

But you have in the past said that we can and should run 10%+ deficits.

But the beauty of your post (if it's not a spoof) is in the magnificent leaps of logic that make absolutely no sense but have obviously done the trick for you at least.

It can be done because we've abolished boom and bust.
Haven't we? ...

OldKingCole said:

Danny565 said:

OldKingCole said:

Take your point about the Holyrood elections. However, I'm anticipating a Tory split over Europe, and anyway the FTP Act will still be in place.

The Fixed Term Parliaments Act makes no difference at all. If a government loses a vote of no confidence, then elections are automatically triggered anyway.

Not quite. There's a cooling off period, which gives time for a new government to be formed.

Ugh, I really dislike the Fixed Term Parliament Act!

Nick P,

I had an interesting weekend in Copenhagen.

As always, very quiet and very un-citylike, but they have a strong NOTA group which is growing, and more right wing than Ukip, despite the Scandinavian background.

Although feminism is much less strident because the battle was won decades ago.

High taxes, high cost of living and high benefits, but they're doing something right. And yet ... just the beginnings of an irritation with the status quo.

rolandhaines said:

What the hell is going on. Labour have now been seriously in front on the last three polls. Are people mad?

This country gets the governments it deserves rather than the ones it wants?

Ken Livingstone retweeted
Jon Trickett ‏@jon_trickett 2m2 minutes ago
Overheard Tory MPs in Commons. "2 polls today showing a 5%Labour lead" Reply "I worry somewhat about my 5000 majority"

MikeSmithson said:

Nobody seems to have raised this yet but 100% of UKIP's MPs are men.

Funny, I never noticed before.

FalseFlag said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Dr. Prasannan, well, quite.

Miss Cyclefree, perhaps because Turkey is sliding away from being an example of how country can be both modern and Muslim. It seems to be drifting from secular democracy towards an increasingly Islamist approach.

Well the army has stopped overthrowing democratically elected governments, not sure why this was seen as good thing or indeed democratic.

No-one said it was. Is it any better or worse or about the same as an Islamist government, assuming that's where Turkey ends up?

Erdogan is popular and also very very conservative, by Western European standards. It does not follow that he - or any subsequent government - will slide into Islamism, of course. But, as we've seen from Turkey's somewhat ambivalent approach to what has been going on in neighbouring countries, its views and policies may end up being a million miles away from our own.

At any event I simply do not see Turkey joining the EU at any time soon.

We need RobD to board a plane...

TheScreamingEagles said:

We need RobD to board a plane...

Alas, a couple of weeks to wait yet!

david_herdson said:

OldKingCole said:

david_herdson said:

OldKingCole said:

AndyJS said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

taffys said:

Latest forecast update: Con 283, Lab 284, LD 24, SNP 33, UKIP 4

Election forecast UK have just forecast this (via twitter).

You mean: Lab 284, Con 283, SNP 33, LD 24, UKIP 4

Looking at those figures, I don't think the English will tolerate the SNP deciding who runs their country. If they do it anyway UKIP's rating will go through the roof I imagine.

The SNP have reputation, deserved or otherwise, for being able to run their country effectively. Lab/LD/Nat might well last for long enough before the Tories irrevocably split over Europe.

Call me sceptical. Even if a Lab-LD-SNP deal could be put together with Holyrood elections 12 months away (presumably a minority Lab or Lab-LD government with either one or two C&S agreements), it wouldn't last 18 months and probably not 12. After which, Boris would lead the Tories to an outright win.

Take your point about the Holyrood elections. However, I'm anticipating a Tory split over Europe, and anyway the FTP Act will still be in place.

Why would there be a split over Europe? There may be a difference of opinion but it'll happen within one party. In any case, the whole party will be united in believing that Ed has got it wrong, paid too much and shown undue deference in return for platitudes.

The FTPA can be navigated. If a government falls and no new one can be put together, an election results. Putting a new one together would mean either the Lib Dems or SNP jumping ship to the Tories on the numbers suggested (plus a deal with UKIP, DUP or the like, unless *both* LD and SNP jump!).

Agree that the FTPA can be navigated but politicians don’t want to lose their seats. Surprising how the threat of doing so can concentrate the minds.

Yorkcity said:

RobD said:

Yorkcity said:

saddened said:

Yorkcity said:

Is #CameronMustGo trending on twitter because of these latest polls or
something else ?

It's displacement activity, people finally realising that Ed is truly an arsehat, feel they can achieve something by mindlessly tweeting. It's quite sweet really.

A comment on UK Polling Report says it has been trending for 3 days and is now at the top.

Cameron is DOOOOOMED.

Hardly but why now , thought it was all about flags over the last 3 days.

Probably a reaction to exactly that.

OldKingCole said:

david_herdson said:

OldKingCole said:

david_herdson said:

OldKingCole said:

AndyJS said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

taffys said:

Latest forecast update: Con 283, Lab 284, LD 24, SNP 33, UKIP 4

Election forecast UK have just forecast this (via twitter).

You mean: Lab 284, Con 283, SNP 33, LD 24, UKIP 4

Looking at those figures, I don't think the English will tolerate the SNP deciding who runs their country. If they do it anyway UKIP's rating will go through the roof I imagine.

The SNP have reputation, deserved or otherwise, for being able to run their country effectively. Lab/LD/Nat might well last for long enough before the Tories irrevocably split over Europe.

Call me sceptical. Even if a Lab-LD-SNP deal could be put together with Holyrood elections 12 months away (presumably a minority Lab or Lab-LD government with either one or two C&S agreements), it wouldn't last 18 months and probably not 12. After which, Boris would lead the Tories to an outright win.

Take your point about the Holyrood elections. However, I'm anticipating a Tory split over Europe, and anyway the FTP Act will still be in place.

Why would there be a split over Europe? There may be a difference of opinion but it'll happen within one party. In any case, the whole party will be united in believing that Ed has got it wrong, paid too much and shown undue deference in return for platitudes.

The FTPA can be navigated. If a government falls and no new one can be put together, an election results. Putting a new one together would mean either the Lib Dems or SNP jumping ship to the Tories on the numbers suggested (plus a deal with UKIP, DUP or the like, unless *both* LD and SNP jump!).

Agree that the FTPA can be navigated but politicians don’t want to lose their seats. Surprising how the threat of doing so can concentrate the minds.

True, however with such a waver-thin majority and with the financial markets likely to react nervously to the outcomes of both election and government composition, it would not take much at all to tip things over the edge.

MikeSmithson said:

Nobody seems to have raised this yet but 100% of UKIP's MPs are men.

How many LibDem cabinet ministers have we had since 2010 and how many are men ?

Tykejohnno said:

Christ,the Tories need a good YouGov poll from tonight.

What the Tories need more than anything else is for Ed Miliband to stay in charge of Labour.

UKIP aren't going away, they'll win nowt in Scotland, little in Wales and the economy is looking a bit flaky again. But even despite all that, with Ed MIliband in charge they have a great chance.

TGOHF said:

Does he mean they have a limited offering and are full of chavs ?

@TelegraphNews: Ukip is to politics what Aldi and Lidl are to supermarkets http://t.co/RYqXyG9ibo by @DouglasCarswell

In my experience they are full of oldies not a white van to be seen.

Particularly packed in Sheffield.

Avoiding TSE methinks