politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » So far at least the post-IndyRef SNP surge has barely been

Bit of mid-morning betting. I've taken a position on Lab/LD/SNP coalition. Probably a bit bonkers but then this whole election is looking a bit bonkers.

CarlottaVance said:

Dair said:

antifrank said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

antifrank said:

Since it's on topic, I'll repeat the point I noted yesterday about the Panelbase poll, courtesy of James Kelly (late of this parish):

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/and-ever-reliable-george-eaton-keeps.html

It appears that the voting intention question was not asked first, and followed a question about oil price. This may well have depressed the SNP voting intention figure:

http://www.panelbase.com/media/polls/F6581st.pdf

I am sure the price of oil will be mentioned before the actual poll in May.

I'm sure it will. And this poll tells us something useful (it seems that if Labour bang on about the price of oil, they will get merely hammered in Scotland rather potentially annihilated).

But as a poll it cannot be directly compared with other polls on Scottish voting intention nor with the previous Panelbase poll.

while the SNP run a traditionally positive campaign

Like they did in the closing eons of the neverendum?

Save the NHS!

And there's a difference between 'positive' and 'mendacious'.......

The referendum was a campaign by Yes Scotland with a cross party board and policies. Having said that, the closing weeks of the First Referendum were spun as how the NHS is better in Scotland not how it is worse in England. Your mileage may vary, as clearly you have opinions unlikely to change.

In manifesto and election work the SNP have always run particularly positive campaigns.

However, the rub is this. It doesn't matter what you think, or I think. It is the perception of the public at large which matters. In this the SNP are more popular today than when they first came to power and their leadership has very positive approval ratings. This is in stark contrast to any recent UK government or leaders and the LibLab Pact in Holyrood.

TheWatcher said:

Flightpath said:

isam said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

I knew Carswell would eventually fall out with Farage, but before the GE?

"Long-serving, more traditional, golf clubbing UKIP veterans are said to be “upset” by Carswell’s maverick modernising moves, and things are so bad that they sneeringly call him “that Tory” behind his back."
http://order-order.com/2015/01/20/ukip-hit-puberty-slam-doors-shouts-at-parentsfaragecarswell-fall-out-semi-denied-by-party/

Interesting about Aker too

"Between being an MEP and duffing up Labour in Thurrock, it was only a matter of time before Aker stepped back from his party role, but only a fool would suggest he’s not still a serious player within the party."

Are we to believe that this Alker was writing up ukip policy on his own? And now it's going to be dashed off in a jiffy. Who ever heard of not being able to finish a manifesto?
You do wonder at what goes on in Carswells head

Aker likely got fed up with Farage changing his mind on a daily basis about where they were heading, hence an inevitable falling out.

He never changed his mind, he was always heading to where [he thought] the next votes were. Trouble is that more votes were surprisingly elusive after the kipper share topped out at 18% or so and started to slide. Thus Nigel's frantic scrambling and socialist flirtation, ironically alienating a lot of the old guard. The table legs got ever shorter as he ran from corner to corner, policy saw in hand...

The SNP say they want to govern the uk with Labour, according to the Times.
I do not see how any region should hold the rest hostage. Pushing for a policy for the whole UK by a UK wide party is one thing. Can we stomach Labour peddling pork to the SNP to stay in power? With Salmond as deputy PM?

Flightpath said:

The SNP say they want to govern the uk with Labour, according to the Times.
I do not see how any region should hold the rest hostage. Pushing for a policy for the whole UK by a UK wide party is one thing. Can we stomach Labour peddling pork to the SNP to stay in power? With Salmond as deputy PM?

The public doesn't get a say, other than to vote in their individual constituency.

Plato said:

I looked 18 when I was 14. And remained fairly static until I turned 40 - then it all caught up with me. I look my age.

Funny how when you're young you want to look older, then when you're older - you're desperate to look young!

If only I knew Dorian Gray's artist.

Casino_Royale said:

Charles Kennedy and Damien McBride also do (or should I more accurately say 'did') look much older than their years.

I'm lucky: I'm in my 30s and can still get occasionally ID'ed if I have a close shave, a short haircut and wear casual clothes.

On the other hand, it sometimes means people treat me a little bit differently in person because they assume I'm young, inexperienced and naive.

Not sure if it's fate or fortune, but FWIW I've never smoked, don't drink very much, and virtually never binge, am not really overweight, although I could lose a few pounds, aim to balance my work and life where I can, and I try to get at least 6+ hours sleep a night during the week.

Plenty of the most unhealthy politicos I used to see at Tory conferences failed on all of those.

It's all in Baz Lurhmann: Enjoy the power and beauty of your youth. Oh, never mind.. You won't appreciate the power and beauty of your youth until they'd faded. But, trust me, when you look back in 20 years you'll appreciate how much possibility lay before you and just how fabulous you really looked.

Patrick said:

There aren't that many Tories in Scotland - but will we see tactical voting in favour of SNP from the ones there are trying to keep Labour out?

I'd vote labour to keep the SNP out.

Ms Plato,

"Methuselah is the man in the Hebrew Bible reported to have lived the longest."

An interesting quiz question.

But I'd answer 'Enoch' as he seemed to have been taken up to heaven without actually dying and there's no record of him plummeting from the sky since. So that could make him 2,500 plus.

Labour's Mansion Tax, Mandleson sticks the boot in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30890924

Good knock by James Taylor this morning in England's ODI win, reminds me of why Kevin Pietersen is such a self centred idiot

Last week on the big bash commentary pietersen said young English batsmen were texting him for advice and how he wishes he was at the other end to guide them etc

When Taylor made his test debut he struggled through to tea against South Africa batting with pietersen... When they walked back to the pavilion pietersen left Taylor on his own while he chatted and joked with his Saffer mates..

Action speaks louder than words, and his actions speak for him time and again

OGH & Moderator Suggestions for threads
1. What if EdM loses GE and has to resign - runners and riders based on current voting system.
2. What if DC loses GE and has to resign - runners and riders based on current voting system.

MarqueeMark said:

Wondering what chance there is of "that Tory" Carswell leaving UKIP before the election? Would be a knee to the balls for Farage and the Kippers if he did....

What odds were you thinking of?

Andrew Pierce @toryboypierce
Is Labour MP Chris Bryant MP, ex-£33,000-a-year Cheltenham College, best placed to criticise public school star James Blunt

Socrates said:

megalomaniacs4u said:

Indigo said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/harriet-harman/11356230/Labour-slams-Obama-after-endorsing-David-Cameron.html

Harperson making friends and influencing people, hope Labour dont want any favors from Obama in their first year if they win!

Yes and while Obama is a crap president, he probably knows more about our economy than Hatty...

Such a crap president that the US has had better growth than us over his time in office?

Be fair he has done nothing. He let the US Treasury & Fed do their thing with minimal interference

Flightpath said:

The SNP say they want to govern the uk with Labour, according to the Times.
I do not see how any region should hold the rest hostage. Pushing for a policy for the whole UK by a UK wide party is one thing. Can we stomach Labour peddling pork to the SNP to stay in power? With Salmond as deputy PM?

Under what passes for a constitution, it is only the MPs that count. And as a good Unionist you ought to be allowing all MPs equal status. No other option.

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

Good knock by James Taylor this morning in England's ODI win, reminds me of why Kevin Pietersen is such a self centred idiot

Last week on the big bash commentary pietersen said young English batsmen were texting him for advice and how he wishes he was at the other end to guide them etc

When Taylor made his test debut he struggled through to tea against South Africa batting with pietersen... When they walked back to the pavilion pietersen left Taylor on his own while he chatted and joked with his Saffer mates..

Action speaks louder than words, and his actions speak for him time and again

He did much worse than that

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2193892/Kevin-Pietersen-accused-making-derogatory-comments-James-Taylor.html

As a regular England & county cricket watcher I know of no-one who wants to see Pietersen back.

Carnyx said:

Flightpath said:

The SNP say they want to govern the uk with Labour, according to the Times.
I do not see how any region should hold the rest hostage. Pushing for a policy for the whole UK by a UK wide party is one thing. Can we stomach Labour peddling pork to the SNP to stay in power? With Salmond as deputy PM?

Under what passes for a constitution, it is only the MPs that count. And as a good Unionist you ought to be allowing all MPs equal status. No other option.

Besides the Tory party has areas of the country where it is strong and areas where it is weak and there have been accusations that they reward their strong areas (or even NI when they have been supported by NI Unionists)

Britain's most senior transgender soldier, 27 year-old Captain Hannah Winterbourne:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2916146/I-living-lie-says-British-Army-s-transgender-officer-Soldier-says-tour-Afghanistan-nudge-needed-change-way-life.html

OldKingCole said:

RodCrosby said:

AndyJS said:

According to Wikipedia Labour lost 6 seats in 1964 while taking power nationally. That figure may include by-elections though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1964

TheScreamingEagles said:

This is a work in progress, but by reckoning, no opposition party has lost more than 5 seats (that they held at the previous election) at a general election, and won that general election in terms of share of the vote.

So if Labour lose more than 5 in Scotland, they are unlikely to win the popular vote.

The closest they can hope for is Feb 1974, when they lost 14 MPs, lost the popular vote but won the most seats.

Labour lost 4 (excl. by-election regains) in 1964.

The Tories lost 8 in 1924!

Almost every incoming government has lost seats, except Labour in 1997.

Famously, the Tories lost Glasgow Cathcart in 1979 (their only loss, apart from odd by election “sports”) which resulted in the Glaswegian Teddy Taylor coming to Southend.

Amazing how Conservative/Unionist support in Glasgow Cathcart collapsed from c.72% in 1955 to c.13% in 2001, and its subsequent abolition. Then the legacy area solidly Labour, but may now well turn SNP.

Hard pressed to think of other UK consitutencies where the politics has changed so much (twice) in 60 years.

Peter Oborne — the future of Test Cricket is in doubt if India keep underperforming at the longer format of the game:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/11354547/Indias-defeats-in-Australia-and-England-spell-danger-for-Test-cricket.html

MarqueeMark said:

antifrank said:

MarqueeMark said:

Wondering what chance there is of "that Tory" Carswell leaving UKIP before the election? Would be a knee to the balls for Farage and the Kippers if he did....

What odds were you thinking of?

Fairly long, admittedly - probably 15-1. But there is also a slight nagging notion that maybe he was a Trojan Horse, admitted so readily into the UKIP camp.... He has already taken public positions that don't exactly paint much of the party in the best light. A resignation speech in say late March in which he said something along the lines of "with regret, it is clear they are not a serious political force but blown around on the whims of Farage's numerous mood swings - UKIP as the plaything of his ego..." - would be catastrophic for UKIP.

I'm sure the Tories would be forgiving in welcoming him back, having done sterling work. Reckless - not so much.

Shortly after Mr Carswell defected, Mr Hannan tweeted a link to an article that suggested Mr Carswell was motivated by the concern that the rise of UKIP was harming the 'out' polling.

That ties with his acceptance speech after the by-election being emphatically not anti-immigrant, but anti-EU.

Socrates said:

antifrank said:

Sort of on topic, a fascinating account of a lecture by Sir Nicholas Macpherson on Treasury attitudes to the independence referendum:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-the-treasury-backed-the-no-vote-in-the-scottish-referendum-its-top-mandarin-speaks-9989263.html

Lots to digest here, but perhaps the single most important line is buried deep in the article:

"At the time, Alex Salmond, the Scottish National Party leader, argued that the UK Government was bluffing when it said that it would not countenance a currency union with an independent Scotland. “Having spoken to the Chancellor, the Chief Secretay and the Shadow Chancellor (Ed Balls), I am absolutely certain that the UK would not have entered into a currency union,” Sir Nicholas said."

That was obvious to everyone but hardcore nationalists, wasn't it? Why on Earth would the UK put itself on the hook for Scotland?

I'm not sure that Joseph Stiglitz counts as a hardcore nationalist:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/25/opposition-currency-union-socltand-bluff-joseph-stiglitz

But I always believed the unionists on this one. It would have been electoral suicide to concede the point for any of them.

TheScreamingEagles said:

OldKingCole said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

Good knock by James Taylor this morning in England's ODI win, reminds me of why Kevin Pietersen is such a self centred idiot

Last week on the big bash commentary pietersen said young English batsmen were texting him for advice and how he wishes he was at the other end to guide them etc

When Taylor made his test debut he struggled through to tea against South Africa batting with pietersen... When they walked back to the pavilion pietersen left Taylor on his own while he chatted and joked with his Saffer mates..

Action speaks louder than words, and his actions speak for him time and again

He did much worse than that

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2193892/Kevin-Pietersen-accused-making-derogatory-comments-James-Taylor.html

As a regular England & county cricket watcher I know of no-one who wants to see Pietersen back.

Agreed.

I'd rather see Jade Dernbach play for England than Kevin Pietersen.

Is that before or after Boycott’s Granny and her stick of rhubarb?

Mr. X, yes, that might well be the chap.

Miss Plato, not that I'm aware of. There are some in Philip Matyszak's The Greek and Roman Myths.

TheWatcher said:

MarqueeMark said:

Wondering what chance there is of "that Tory" Carswell leaving UKIP before the election? Would be a knee to the balls for Farage and the Kippers if he did....

He'd have to stand as an Independent. Would he keep the seat under that banner?

He won't, but if he did... he would.

Hang on... It feels like the site Shrewdies are about to come to the conclusion that this is peak kipper

Again

I always go with the polls. I am sure they are an accurate snapshot of Scottish political opinion. In any case there is a steady 0.85 correlation between support for independence and the SNP as a party. We know from the referendum that the first is 45%, so these prospective voting figures are in line.

There are two things that might affect the actual figures. The bigger one is differential turnout. Far more people say they will vote in the GE than ever normally do. If we apply normal rules, older and more middle class people are more likely to vote and they are more likely to vote for a unionist party. However these are not normal times and many Yes voters are angry, Will that anger show itself in a committed vote for the SNP or will they stay at home in disgust?

The other factor is tactical voting. The SNP will benefit from Green party voters, but all the other tactical voting will go onto Labour I believe. Tactical voters will include Lib Dems, Tories (judgement call on whether they hate Milliband or the SNP more), ex Labour independence supporters who do actually prefer the UK Labour to the Convervatives and , funnily enough, SNP supporters too. In the past SNP voters have often voted Labour in UK elections. Apart from independence their policies are the same. SNP claims it's different this time, but the effect is still there in the opinion polls - the SNP vote share for Holyrood is even higher.

The SNP in my view are overcommitted to devo-max. Labour could hammer home the fact that revenues in post-oil times won't pay the bills for devo-max. A vote for SNP and devo-max is a vote for hospital and school closures and reduced welfare. The SNP would find it difficult to disown devo-max at this stage. OTOH Labour seem to be soft-pedalling on those sorts of issues so as not to irritate Yes voters.

It's in the UK Conservatives immediate interest to have the SNP take seats off Labour in Scotland. They are not going to help Scottish Labour attract voters that are worried about constitutional issues.

anotherDave said:

MarqueeMark said:

antifrank said:

MarqueeMark said:

Wondering what chance there is of "that Tory" Carswell leaving UKIP before the election? Would be a knee to the balls for Farage and the Kippers if he did....

What odds were you thinking of?

Fairly long, admittedly - probably 15-1. But there is also a slight nagging notion that maybe he was a Trojan Horse, admitted so readily into the UKIP camp.... He has already taken public positions that don't exactly paint much of the party in the best light. A resignation speech in say late March in which he said something along the lines of "with regret, it is clear they are not a serious political force but blown around on the whims of Farage's numerous mood swings - UKIP as the plaything of his ego..." - would be catastrophic for UKIP.

I'm sure the Tories would be forgiving in welcoming him back, having done sterling work. Reckless - not so much.

Shortly after Mr Carswell defected, Mr Hannan tweeted a link to an article that suggested Mr Carswell was motivated by the concern that the rise of UKIP was harming the 'out' polling.

That ties with his acceptance speech after the by-election being emphatically not anti-immigrant, but anti-EU.

Why should there be a contradiction?

If you are in favour of high immigration, but wish that to be for a sovereign matter for the UK people to decide, you can still join UKIP.

For instance, once we leave the EU, we will have full sovereignty over immigration policy and controls. We will also be able to assert much more independently, and clearly, the British concept of human rights. There will be nowhere for our politicians to hide on migration policy. Particularly if combined with a reform of the voting system.

A points-system and cap is likely to be implemented. However, sometimes a party/coalition of parties may be elected on the back of increasing that cap, and increasing the flexibility of the points system, arguing it will help the economy and plug skills gaps. At other times, an opposing coalition favouring a tighter cap and reduced flexibility in the points system may be elected to reduce net migration numbers. And, indeed, whatever system we had could be abolished, reinstated, reformed, strengthened or weakened according to the wishes of the electorate.

It doesn't matter which of those options you prefer. But if you think that its UK and its electorate that matters, and should be making those decisions, without having its hands tied by the EU, then you can still support UKIP without hypocrisy and a clear conscience.

Cyclefree said:

dr_spyn said:

Labour's Mansion Tax, Mandleson sticks the boot in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30890924

Surely unrelated to the fact that he might have to pay it?

Amazing how many Labour types come out against taxes when it might affect them.

Has St Anthony of Blair waded in yet?

Dair said:

antifrank said:

Socrates said:

antifrank said:

Sort of on topic, a fascinating account of a lecture by Sir Nicholas Macpherson on Treasury attitudes to the independence referendum:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-the-treasury-backed-the-no-vote-in-the-scottish-referendum-its-top-mandarin-speaks-9989263.html

Lots to digest here, but perhaps the single most important line is buried deep in the article:

"At the time, Alex Salmond, the Scottish National Party leader, argued that the UK Government was bluffing when it said that it would not countenance a currency union with an independent Scotland. “Having spoken to the Chancellor, the Chief Secretay and the Shadow Chancellor (Ed Balls), I am absolutely certain that the UK would not have entered into a currency union,” Sir Nicholas said."

That was obvious to everyone but hardcore nationalists, wasn't it? Why on Earth would the UK put itself on the hook for Scotland?

I'm not sure that Joseph Stiglitz counts as a hardcore nationalist:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/25/opposition-currency-union-socltand-bluff-joseph-stiglitz

But I always believed the unionists on this one. It would have been electoral suicide to concede the point for any of them.

There was likely far more complexity to what happened than this. At the time that the pledge was made on Currency, the Loyalists had a 20pt lead with slight slippage and could easily have seen it as a stone dead killer move to stop any more slippage and put the issue to bed at that point.

A risk for sure, if it had backfired, but as it was universal, the Risk/Reward ratio would be heavily on the Loyalists side.

And of course the outcome was that the slippage continued and there doesn't appear to be much evidence that it worked. Indeed the polling that we did see suggested it was discredited by the electorate. So the arguemnt over would they or wouldn't they is moot - the public didn't believe so it was not a factor in the vote.

Electoral suicide in England. The English public would never have countenanced a currency union with an independent Scotland. The troubles of the Euro made the idea a non-starter.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dair said:

antifrank said:

Socrates said:

antifrank said:

Sort of on topic, a fascinating account of a lecture by Sir Nicholas Macpherson on Treasury attitudes to the independence referendum:

"

That was obvious to everyone but hardcore nationalists, wasn't it? Why on Earth would the UK put itself on the hook for Scotland?

I'm not sure that Joseph Stiglitz counts as a hardcore nationalist:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/25/opposition-currency-union-socltand-bluff-joseph-stiglitz

But I always believed the unionists on this one. It would have been electoral suicide to concede the point for any of them.

There was likely far more complexity to what happened than this. At the time that the pledge was made on Currency, the Loyalists had a 20pt lead with slight slippage and could easily have seen it as a stone dead killer move to stop any more slippage and put the issue to bed at that point.

A risk for sure, if it had backfired, but as it was universal, the Risk/Reward ratio would be heavily on the Loyalists side.

And of course the outcome was that the slippage continued and there doesn't appear to be much evidence that it worked. Indeed the polling that we did see suggested it was discredited by the electorate. So the arguemnt over would they or wouldn't they is moot - the public didn't believe so it was not a factor in the vote.

Some say it did work, and here's the polling

My questions on the issues that mattered most in people’s voting decisions suggest the No campaign was right to focus on the currency and the other uncertainties of independence. More than half (57%) of No voters said the pound was one of the most important factors in their decision, and the biggest overarching reason for their decision was that “the risks of becoming independent looked too great when it came to things like the currency, EU membership, the economy, jobs and prices” (a more powerful reason for most No voters’ decision than “a strong attachment to the UK” or the promise of the best of both worlds with guaranteed extra powers for the Scottish Parliament). Pensions, the NHS and uncertainties about tax and public spending were also mentioned by at least one third of No voters.

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/09/scotland-voted/

But that doesn't square with 72% of No voters having made up their mind over a year ago - before the "No Currency Union" pronouncement was made.

Some say it did work, and here's the polling

My questions on the issues that mattered most in people’s voting decisions suggest the No campaign was right to focus on the currency and the other uncertainties of independence. More than half (57%) of No voters said the pound was one of the most important factors in their decision, and the biggest overarching reason for their decision was that “the risks of becoming independent looked too great when it came to things like the currency, EU membership, the economy, jobs and prices” (a more powerful reason for most No voters’ decision than “a strong attachment to the UK” or the promise of the best of both worlds with guaranteed extra powers for the Scottish Parliament). Pensions, the NHS and uncertainties about tax and public spending were also mentioned by at least one third of No voters.

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/09/scotland-voted/

I don't doubt the veracity of the poll you quote but its not asking the same question. The question is whether people believe the Loyalist assertion or not. Clearly it is important, but that's a different question.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-poll-pound-claim-a-bluff-1-3355521

IIRC this was pretty consitent.

Dair said:

Some say it did work, and here's the polling

My questions on the issues that mattered most in people’s voting decisions suggest the No campaign was right to focus on the currency and the other uncertainties of independence. More than half (57%) of No voters said the pound was one of the most important factors in their decision, and the biggest overarching reason for their decision was that “the risks of becoming independent looked too great when it came to things like the currency, EU membership, the economy, jobs and prices” (a more powerful reason for most No voters’ decision than “a strong attachment to the UK” or the promise of the best of both worlds with guaranteed extra powers for the Scottish Parliament). Pensions, the NHS and uncertainties about tax and public spending were also mentioned by at least one third of No voters.

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/09/scotland-voted/

I don't doubt the veracity of the poll you quote but its not asking the same question. The question is whether people believe the Loyalist assertion or not. Clearly it is important, but that's a different question.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-poll-pound-claim-a-bluff-1-3355521

IIRC this was pretty consitent.

The polling South of the Border was also pretty consistent, no currency Union with an independent Scotland.

TheScreamingEagles said:

For those of us betting on Portsmouth South

Disgraced MP Mike Hancock has said he is undecided about whether to stand in the general election.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-30895747

It SHOULD be a Conservative gain, but the Lib Dems are stickier than shit down there.

@TheScreamingEagles
Best comment about "page three" was on the radio this morning.
"Thanks for the mamaries"

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

For those of us betting on Portsmouth South

Disgraced MP Mike Hancock has said he is undecided about whether to stand in the general election.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-30895747

It SHOULD be a Conservative gain, but the Lib Dems are stickier than shit down there.

That's what was thought about Winchester and Montgomeryshire last time.

Where the Liberal Democrat incumbent has been controversial - and, with all due respect to both of them, both of those two constituencies incumbent's weren't exactly out of the headlines - there is evidence that they suffer.

There's also seemingly solid Lib Dem constituencies that just eventually revert to type. Such as Guildford, Newbury, and Oxford West & Abingdon. Perilously close at St. Ives, too.

The sorts of places that are impenetrable are citadels like Eastleigh, and Yeovil, where the Lib Dems have it sewn up top to bottom, and consistently pwn at all levels.

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

For those of us betting on Portsmouth South

Disgraced MP Mike Hancock has said he is undecided about whether to stand in the general election.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-30895747

It SHOULD be a Conservative gain, but the Lib Dems are stickier than shit down there.

That's what was thought about Winchester and Montgomeryshire last time.

Where the Liberal Democrat incumbent has been controversial - and, with all due respect to both of them, both of those two constituencies incumbent's weren't exactly out of the headlines - there is evidence that they suffer.

There's also seemingly solid Lib Dem constituencies that just eventually revert to type. Such as Guildford, Newbury, and Oxford West & Abingdon. Perilously close at St. Ives, too.

The sorts of places that are impenetrable are citadels like Eastleigh, and Yeovil, where the Lib Dems have it sewn up top to bottom, and consistently pwn at all levels.

Boundary changes at Winchester made a difference, too. Montgomeryshire could be "interesting" this time.

Neil said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

We are at war and if that means being in alliance with the Soviet Union so be it.

Ruthie = Ribbentrop, Murphy = Molotov?

I look forward to the Barbarossian falling out, though relations already seem a bit strained between the Unionist and the non-Unionist.

Poor Jim Murphy, we've compared him to Model, Dietrich and Molotov in the last 24 hours.

I've never thought too much of him but going by the attention heaped on him by nats posters he must be quite good. Grey and Lamont were more pitied than anything else.

DavidL said:

JPJ2 said:

David L:

"No. That used to happen but it will not post referendum. Scottish tories know what their priority is and that is remaining British."

Very true-but the result of their votes this time will not determine whether Scotland becomes independent, or even if their is another referendum.

For that reason alone, manyTtory leaning opponents of Labour will continue to vote SNP to stop Labour NOW, rather than vote for a unionist candidate to stop the not-happening-NOW independence.

Consider how effective the SNP strategy of-correctly-telling the electorate in 2011 Holyrood that an SNP vote and victory would not automatically trigger independence.

I think you underestimate how much of a fright tories got in the referendum and its continuing effect on Scottish politics. I for one am seriously considering voting Labour for the first time in my life in a probably vain attempt to stop the SNP taking Dundee West. It was a hot topic of conversation at the Dundee Conservative party lunch.

The feeling in Scotland is that this is not over. I walked past 3 or 4 YES posters in Edinburgh this morning walking into work. We are at war and if that means being in alliance with the Soviet Union so be it.

your retreat from Stalingrad will be fun