politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour are currently the largest recipients of tactical vot

As part of this month’s Ipsos-Mori political monitor found that 22% of Lab voters saying they do so to keep another party out, rather than because the party represents their views. For the Tories the figure is 10%, for UKIP it is 9%and the Liberal Democrat’s it is 7%.
Comments
-
"Shadow chancellor Ed Balls says the Treasury "turned a blind eye" on what was happening at HSBC"
Well he should know...0 -
I've started a blog - the first post states the bleeding obvious, when you think about it...
http://ponyonthetories.blogspot.co.uk/0 -
Bugger, New Thread Curse!
Charles said:
» show previous quotes
Out of interest, why do they structure it like that? I'd have thought that a standard shift pattern would make more sense, surely? Obviously there'd need to be some flex because you're not going to clock off in the middle of fighting a fire, but it does appear that you have a fairly odd system in place.
Because it cuts the number of staff required by 40%, saving a fortune in wages and pension contributions. There is an initial capital outlay to upgrade station facilities, but that gets classed as investment. The system is called Day Crewing Plus, and a lot of brigades are bringing it in.
From 08:00 to 20:00, it's a normal workday, but outside those times, you're on duty, but not actively doing any work related stuff-no paperwork, no computer work, no equipment testing, lectures or training. You can retire to your room, and watch TV, or cook in the communal kitchen. Attending incidents during downtime adds the accrued hours onto the end of your downtime. You can't leave the station, but family can visit and even stay the night, but, to be honest, once the novelty has worn off, not many do.
It's paid at a bonus of 27%, to account for the longer hours.
0 -
-
@TwistedFireStopper
I hope so as well. We all make typo's and mistakes and apart from the jihadist pedants, most of us let it go with perhaps a light comment at worst.0 -
Interesting to see Tory voters would prefer a coalition with the Lib Dems instead of UKIP. Any ideas as to why this is? The Lib Dems are on the completely opposite end of the political spectrum.0
-
*Unashamed Advert*
Any PBers in the North London area who are free on the evening of Wednesday 25th Feb might like to come along to this special screening of the film 'Cartoonists - Footsoldiers of Democracy', followed by a discussion with special guests Martha Richler (Marf of this parish), David Aaronovitch (The Times) and Jodie Ginsberg (Index of Censorship).
http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=312cf720117fac1051bd1afe6&id=1819779b0b&e=3a59b60940
Tickets are £10 (25% discount for UKJF members, or 50% to anybody joining me as part of Marf's armed guard.)
I understand bullet-proof vests will be available to members of the audience, on request. Catering by Mossad.
Could be a lively nite.
PtP
0 -
"Anyone know whether Graham Evans has a good chance of keeping his Vale Royal seat? I heard this lunchtime that he was a really good bloke and very well liked in his constituency.
Also the Conservative Catherine Fletcher in Ellesmere Port?
And was Stuart Penketh who stood there last time the person of the same name who used to post here? If so anyone know why he was replaced as Conservative candidate this time?
0 -
I live in Ellesmere Port, I think it's probably moved completely out of the Tories' grasp now. It's quite a weird seat because it contains some of the poorest AND wealthiest parts of the northwest.Roger said:"Anyone know whether Graham Evans has a good chance of keeping his Vale Royal seat? I heard this lunchtime that he was a really good bloke and very well liked in his constituency.
Also the Conservative Catherine Fletcher in Ellesmere Port?
And was Stuart Penketh who stood there last time the person of the same name who used to post here? If so anyone know why he was replaced as Conservative candidate this time?
On the other hand, the slight shreds in favour of the Tories are that the Labour incumbent is stepping down (though I don't think he was especially popular or had much of a personal vote) and also the swing against them last time was probably kept lower than it should've been because the Labour government had saved the Vauxhall plant. Still doubt it will be enough for the Tories to do it though.0 -
There's also probably an incumbency bonus.Indigo said:
Not preference, reality I expect.MP_SE said:Interesting to see Tory voters would prefer a coalition with the Lib Dems instead of UKIP. Any ideas as to why this is? The Lib Dems are on the completely opposite end of the political spectrum.
20-25 LD seats vs 2-5 UKIP seats.
For all Tory criticisms of the Lib Dems, the coalition has worked pretty well.0 -
Danny
Thanks for that. From what I hear Katherine is very nice so if she comes knocking it'll be worth spending a few minutes listening. she apparently knew nothing of politics just a few years ago but decided she wanted to make a difference and looked at the parties and decided she'd become a Conservative despite all her family being Labour0 -
If Tax Avoidance is perfectly legal, as we keep on hearing, then why are the HSBC apologising about it. They should instead be saying , "we are proud to assist in helping out clients do a legal construction" !0
-
5% swing to Labour according to Yougov/S Times. In England it will be even higher.0
-
PtP.
That should be very good. I intended to go to the see some of the films in the Jewish Film festival which I think was at the end of last year but I wasn't around. Enjoy it. I'd go but I'm not able to go on that date. I'm going to try to get to see it though. Can we have a review when you've seen it0 -
Because, sadly, in this day and age - so poisoned with 'Twitter storms', witch hunts and 'liberal' media bias - even a a law-abiding company is fearful for its brand reputation, in the face of a maelstrom of Leftist hypocrisy and lies.surbiton said:If Tax Avoidance is perfectly legal, as we keep on hearing, then why are the HSBC apologising about it. They should instead be saying , "we are proud to assist in helping out clients do a legal construction" !
0 -
Sure thing, Roger.Roger said:PtP.
That should be very good. I intended to go to the see some of the films in the Jewish Film festival which I think was at the end of last year but I wasn't around. Enjoy it. I'd go but I'm not able to go on that date. I'm going to try to get to see it though. Can we have a review when you've seen it
These evenings are generally good value. Looking forward to it.0 -
Numbers, dear boy, numbers ! Tories know they can roll over the Lib Dems anytime.MP_SE said:Interesting to see Tory voters would prefer a coalition with the Lib Dems instead of UKIP. Any ideas as to why this is? The Lib Dems are on the completely opposite end of the political spectrum.
0 -
That should have been the line when Ed made his 'dodgy' remarks.surbiton said:If Tax Avoidance is perfectly legal, as we keep on hearing, then why are the HSBC apologising about it. They should instead be saying , "we are proud to assist in helping out clients do a legal construction" !
Surprised at Dave. He normally strikes the right tone and is not so easily rattled.0 -
But why would its brand suffer if it was such a good thing !Stark_Dawning said:
Because, sadly, in this day and age - so poisoned with 'Twitter storms', witch hunts and 'liberal' media bias - even a a law-abiding company is fearful for its brand reputation, in the face of a maelstrom of Leftist hypocrisy and lies.surbiton said:If Tax Avoidance is perfectly legal, as we keep on hearing, then why are the HSBC apologising about it. They should instead be saying , "we are proud to assist in helping out clients do a legal construction" !
0 -
Because few people will look beyond Miliband's shrill lies.surbiton said:
But why would its brand suffer if it was such a good thing !Stark_Dawning said:
Because, sadly, in this day and age - so poisoned with 'Twitter storms', witch hunts and 'liberal' media bias - even a a law-abiding company is fearful for its brand reputation, in the face of a maelstrom of Leftist hypocrisy and lies.surbiton said:If Tax Avoidance is perfectly legal, as we keep on hearing, then why are the HSBC apologising about it. They should instead be saying , "we are proud to assist in helping out clients do a legal construction" !
0 -
surbiton said:
Numbers, dear boy, numbers ! Tories know they can roll over the Lib Dems anytime.MP_SE said:Interesting to see Tory voters would prefer a coalition with the Lib Dems instead of UKIP. Any ideas as to why this is? The Lib Dems are on the completely opposite end of the political spectrum.
Interesting. I didn't consider it based on number of seats. I suppose the Lib Dems are tried and tested as the coalition has not been a complete disaster and could also offer a safer majority.Indigo said:
Not preference, reality I expect.MP_SE said:Interesting to see Tory voters would prefer a coalition with the Lib Dems instead of UKIP. Any ideas as to why this is? The Lib Dems are on the completely opposite end of the political spectrum.
20-25 LD seats vs 2-5 UKIP seats.
0 -
@Stark_Dawning
HSBC apologised because there is clear evidence they were encouraging tax evasion.
But, some will say, only one person was found guilty in the UK, therefore it was very limited, and if more people were breaking the law name them!
Unfortunately, even if you have cast iron evidence that someone had broken the law, you would be sued if you mentioned their name,
As long as they agree on a settlement, they are granted immunity from prosecution, and without a court case there can be no guilt.
Probably easier to write it off as a left wing conspiracy though, it saves thinking.0 -
On this Sunday the West is asleep at a wheeless car that is driving ever closer to the edge of a cliff:
MossadNews @MossadNews 4m4 minutes ago
BREAKING NEWS: Iraqi Troops In Anbar Province Could ‘Collapse Within Hours’ CNN reporting…..... http://fb.me/2nkltCiwW
Agence France-Presse @AFP 10m10 minutes ago
#BREAKING Police raid Internet cafe in vast Copenhagen operation after attacks: media0 -
Here is an article from the New York Post linking Bill Clinton in with the whole Epstein under-age sex trial. It is the NY Post, so fair warning, but the material is published so I guess their lawyers think it is solid.
I've already posted my gut feeling that there is a real chance that Hillary may not even run. It is more of a feeling than anything supported by evidence. This story is evidence that the negative research on her is well under way and no doubt various anti-Clinton and GOP groups have been accumulating it for a while. If this sort of thing is true and starts getting traction, I can't really see Hillary running unless she divorces and condemns Bill.
Just something to consider for those betting on the 2016 primaries and presidential.0 -
Oops, forgot the link. http://nypost.com/2015/02/14/bill-clintons-libido-threatens-to-derail-hillary-again/0
-
Did Miliband lie about tax avoidance being abetted by HSBC ? If he did, why did they apologise ?Stark_Dawning said:
Because few people will look beyond Miliband's shrill lies.surbiton said:
But why would its brand suffer if it was such a good thing !Stark_Dawning said:
Because, sadly, in this day and age - so poisoned with 'Twitter storms', witch hunts and 'liberal' media bias - even a a law-abiding company is fearful for its brand reputation, in the face of a maelstrom of Leftist hypocrisy and lies.surbiton said:If Tax Avoidance is perfectly legal, as we keep on hearing, then why are the HSBC apologising about it. They should instead be saying , "we are proud to assist in helping out clients do a legal construction" !
0 -
How can a wheeless car be driven over a cliff edge..just asking..0
-
Which shrill liesStark_Dawning said:
Because few people will look beyond Miliband's shrill lies.surbiton said:
But why would its brand suffer if it was such a good thing !Stark_Dawning said:
Because, sadly, in this day and age - so poisoned with 'Twitter storms', witch hunts and 'liberal' media bias - even a a law-abiding company is fearful for its brand reputation, in the face of a maelstrom of Leftist hypocrisy and lies.surbiton said:If Tax Avoidance is perfectly legal, as we keep on hearing, then why are the HSBC apologising about it. They should instead be saying , "we are proud to assist in helping out clients do a legal construction" !
The no top down reorganisation of the NHS
The elimination of the deficit
The we are reducing debt
The net immigration will be down to....
Oh hang on was that even EIC0 -
Star Wars ?richardDodd said:How can a wheeless car be driven over a cliff edge..just asking..
0 -
Looks like the Epstein thing could get very uncomfortable for a lot of people. At least DSK doesn't look like taking too many others with him, unless I've missed something in the reports. I'm not following it that closely.MTimT said:Here is an article from the New York Post linking Bill Clinton in with the whole Epstein under-age sex trial. It is the NY Post, so fair warning, but the material is published so I guess their lawyers think it is solid.
I've already posted my gut feeling that there is a real chance that Hillary may not even run. It is more of a feeling than anything supported by evidence. This story is evidence that the negative research on her is well under way and no doubt various anti-Clinton and GOP groups have been accumulating it for a while. If this sort of thing is true and starts getting traction, I can't really see Hillary running unless she divorces and condemns Bill.
Just something to consider for those betting on the 2016 primaries and presidential.0 -
Copenhagen
The dead man, as you would expect, was known to Danish authorities. It looks, however, like the police have stumbled on a potential intelligence haul.0 -
Messdeck amateur lawyering at its very worst.Smarmeron said:
Unfortunately, even if you have cast iron evidence that someone had broken the law, you would be sued if you mentioned their name,
As long as they agree on a settlement, they are granted immunity from prosecution, and without a court case there can be no guilt.
0 -
It's a gorgeous sunny Sunday, and I'm watching Ghostbusters - is there a better 80s movie than that? I saw it 5x at the pix in two weeks and still adore it. It's barely aged at all and even the SFX are pretty good 30yrs on
PS I still can't quite grasp that Dan Ackroyd is the same person in The Blues Brothers...
EDIT WOWBox Office
Budget:
$32,000,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend:
$13,612,564 (USA) (8 June 1984)
Gross:
$229,242,989 (USA) (12 September 2014)0 -
The Lib Dems under Clegg are seen as in the centre ground comparied to Miliband: http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/8183/Left-Right-02.pngMP_SE said:surbiton said:
Numbers, dear boy, numbers ! Tories know they can roll over the Lib Dems anytime.MP_SE said:Interesting to see Tory voters would prefer a coalition with the Lib Dems instead of UKIP. Any ideas as to why this is? The Lib Dems are on the completely opposite end of the political spectrum.
Interesting. I didn't consider it based on number of seats. I suppose the Lib Dems are tried and tested as the coalition has not been a complete disaster and could also offer a safer majority.Indigo said:
Not preference, reality I expect.MP_SE said:Interesting to see Tory voters would prefer a coalition with the Lib Dems instead of UKIP. Any ideas as to why this is? The Lib Dems are on the completely opposite end of the political spectrum.
20-25 LD seats vs 2-5 UKIP seats.
The party by party breakdowns would be interesting, if YouGov has them...0 -
Miliband is in no position to lie or tell the truth because the matter, as far as I'm aware, hasn't even been investigated yet. (We only have the word of some Assange-like whistle blower.) But the concept of innocent until proven guilty is now obsolete. Miliband spread his poison and there was nothing HSBC could do. They just had to try to limit the damage.surbiton said:
Did Miliband lie about tax avoidance being abetted by HSBC ? If he did, why did they apologise ?Stark_Dawning said:
Because few people will look beyond Miliband's shrill lies.surbiton said:
But why would its brand suffer if it was such a good thing !Stark_Dawning said:
Because, sadly, in this day and age - so poisoned with 'Twitter storms', witch hunts and 'liberal' media bias - even a a law-abiding company is fearful for its brand reputation, in the face of a maelstrom of Leftist hypocrisy and lies.surbiton said:If Tax Avoidance is perfectly legal, as we keep on hearing, then why are the HSBC apologising about it. They should instead be saying , "we are proud to assist in helping out clients do a legal construction" !
0 -
@Stark_Dawning
There was plenty of evidence, and none of it would have ever come to light had the journalists not exposed it to the world.
The tax office held the information, and decided what was to be done with it, and apparently it had no interest in law breakers being punished in the courts, or indeed named.
0 -
Does the first chart mean ukip are the party with least protest votes?0
-
Difficult to tell since I'm not sure protest voters would necessarily have a "party I support" even if they did want to keep another party out. Actually answer two is badly drafted on that issue.isam said:Does the first chart mean ukip are the party with least protest votes?
0 -
I saw it in the cinema a few years back and it never gets old.Plato said:It's a gorgeous sunny Sunday, and I'm watching Ghostbusters - is there a better 80s movie than that? I saw it 5x at the pix in two weeks and still adore it. It's barely aged at all and even the SFX are pretty good 30yrs on
PS I still can't quite grasp that Dan Ackroyd is the same person in The Blues Brothers...
EDIT WOWBox Office
Budget:
$32,000,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend:
$13,612,564 (USA) (8 June 1984)
Gross:
$229,242,989 (USA) (12 September 2014)
I am going to pretend Ghostbusters 3 does not exist:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2928976/Kristen-Wiig-Melissa-McCarthy-Kate-McKinnon-Leslie-Jones-lead-Ghostbusters-girl-reboot.html
0 -
Yep. When the case first reared its head, I sort of wrote it off as someone trying to cash in. But the evidence seems to keep mounting and sucking in more and more people. Haven't heard from Dershowitz since his threat to sue the other lawyer for knowingly conducting a frivolous law suit, or whatever it was he threatened.OldKingCole said:
Looks like the Epstein thing could get very uncomfortable for a lot of people. At least DSK doesn't look like taking too many others with him, unless I've missed something in the reports. I'm not following it that closely.MTimT said:Here is an article from the New York Post linking Bill Clinton in with the whole Epstein under-age sex trial. It is the NY Post, so fair warning, but the material is published so I guess their lawyers think it is solid.
I've already posted my gut feeling that there is a real chance that Hillary may not even run. It is more of a feeling than anything supported by evidence. This story is evidence that the negative research on her is well under way and no doubt various anti-Clinton and GOP groups have been accumulating it for a while. If this sort of thing is true and starts getting traction, I can't really see Hillary running unless she divorces and condemns Bill.
Just something to consider for those betting on the 2016 primaries and presidential.0 -
Nigel Farage may disagree with him politically, but the politician he would most like to have a drink with is Jean Claude Juncker (Atticus)
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/0 -
MikeK Key word 'could' and we are already bombing ISIS in Iraq and of course the Iranian Revolutionary Guard will step in to fill the breach if needed0
-
So on the coalitions a Tory-LD combination or a Labour-SNP deal of the likely outcomes is favoured by both parties' supporters, a Tory-SNP deal is opposed by SNP voters, and most likely Tories, and Tory voters also oppose a deal with UKIP, while UKIP voters oppose a deal with Labour, so those are ruled out. Greens will do a deal with Labour but not the Tories, and the LDs will do a deal with Labour and Labour with the LDs. So if Cameron gets back in without a majority he could do a deal with the LDs, Miliband has more options and could do deals with the SNP, LDs or Greens0
-
Possibly because the law and their procedure require them to gain the maximum return of tax money for the state, which is done by collecting the tax, the interest and the penalty payments (effectively a fine). The problem with you lefties is that if you don't like the law, you decide to ignore it in the interests of "social justice", due process, what that ? It just the same crap as trying to get people who have served their sentences to lose their jobs and become unemployable.Smarmeron said:@Stark_Dawning
There was plenty of evidence, and none of it would have ever come to light had the journalists not exposed it to the world.
The tax office held the information, and decided what was to be done with it, and apparently it had no interest in law breakers being punished in the courts, or indeed named.
0 -
I think it's tricky for Miliband to hope to do any sort of deal with the Lib Dems... Abstention from a confidence motion is perhaps the most they'll offer him. Particularly is the SNP is involved as well, and seeing as the SNP are pretty much nailed on to have more MPs than the Lib Dems, that will surely be the case. Unless Labour can get ~ 310 MPs in which case a Lib-Lab deal is very viable. Perhaps c&s.HYUFD said:So on the coalitions a Tory-LD combination or a Labour-SNP deal of the likely outcomes is favoured by both parties' supporters, a Tory-SNP deal is opposed by SNP voters, and most likely Tories, and Tory voters also oppose a deal with UKIP, while UKIP voters oppose a deal with Labour, so those are ruled out. Greens will do a deal with Labour but not the Tories, and the LDs will do a deal with Labour and Labour with the LDs. So if Cameron gets back in without a majority he could do a deal with the LDs, Miliband has more options and could do deals with the SNP, LDs or Greens
0 -
Pulpstar If Labour are the largest party inevitably the LDs would not vote down a Labour government and would also likely support Labour's budgets in return for a few concessions0
-
Yes but what about if Labour need to get in bed with the SNP to form the largest block... the Lib Dems are the biggest wild card after May imo.HYUFD said:Pulpstar If Labour are the largest party inevitably the LDs would not vote down a Labour government and would also likely support Labour's budgets in return for a few concessions
0 -
What a stupid statement by Balls. It was not the Treasury supervising HSBC at the time but the FSA - and at the relevant time they were pretty busy fighting fires all over the place. They also placed very little importance on whistleblowing and would probably have taken the view that any problems relating to HSBC's Swiss entity was best dealt with by its regulator, FINMA.FrancisUrquhart said:"Shadow chancellor Ed Balls says the Treasury "turned a blind eye" on what was happening at HSBC"
Well he should know...
Also the infamous whistleblower email is - from what I have heard - less than it seems. Saying that here is a list of people who have Swiss bank accounts means nothing because it is perfectly legal to have bank accounts in foreign countries. What would have been more interesting is if he had said that he had proof that those people had not declared the interest - if any (and remember a lot of foreign accounts don't pay interest) - or that the capital in those accounts had not been declared. But he couldn't know that because an IT person in HSBC would not have the information about what declarations to the tax authorities those persons would have made.
That said, HMRC should have made inquiries. I'm willing to bet that the email was too vague for anyone at that time to really investigate, there was probably an over- stretched investigative team with other priorities, there was concern about obtaining possibly stolen information, which might well be difficult if not impossible to use and in 2008 and onwards there was near panic within the Treasury and HMRC and the BoE and the FSA at the possible collapse of our financial system. A few hundred people with Swiss bank accounts was really neither here nor there during that time.
And don't be so sanguine about the strength of the banking system now either if we get some Grexit c*ck up.
0 -
Pulpstar Well if Labour and the SNP have a majority but Labour and the LDs do not, the LDs are irrelevant to Miliband anyway and he will have to do a deal with Sturgeon. If Labour and the LDs (plus maybe the Greens) and Labour and the SNP both have a majority though he will likely do a deal with the LDs0
-
@Peter_the_Punter: Is the hall where the film is at the JW3 centre in Finchley Road?0
-
The LDs have made it clear that they won't do "supply & confidence" with either LAB or CON. It is coalition or nothing if another party wants its support. They will say that the problems facing country so great that stable government a necessity.Pulpstar said:
Yes but what about if Labour need to get in bed with the SNP to form the largest block... the Lib Dems are the biggest wild card after May imo.HYUFD said:Pulpstar If Labour are the largest party inevitably the LDs would not vote down a Labour government and would also likely support Labour's budgets in return for a few concessions
It is a good opening negotiating position
0 -
Interesting...MikeSmithson said:
The LDs have made it clear that they won't do "supply & confidence" with either LAB or CON. It is coalition or nothing if another party wants its support. They will say that the problems facing country so great that stable government a necessity.Pulpstar said:
Yes but what about if Labour need to get in bed with the SNP to form the largest block... the Lib Dems are the biggest wild card after May imo.HYUFD said:Pulpstar If Labour are the largest party inevitably the LDs would not vote down a Labour government and would also likely support Labour's budgets in return for a few concessions
It is a good opening negotiating position
Exact opposite of the DUP's position (Cash for votes) and different again to the SNP/PC - favouring Labour s&c, no deal with the Conservatives.
0 -
Must be a Springer spaniel.Pulpstar said:0 -
I would have thought Lib Dems party members would want a time in opposition to re-build.HYUFD said:Pulpstar Well if Labour and the SNP have a majority but Labour and the LDs do not, the LDs are irrelevant to Miliband anyway and he will have to do a deal with Sturgeon. If Labour and the LDs (plus maybe the Greens) and Labour and the SNP both have a majority though he will likely do a deal with the LDs
The leadership who are cabinet ministers will have differing views.
I voted Lib Dem in York Outer in 2010.
Even though I placed bets on the Conservatives winning the seat.
This time it is hard to see a tactical vote worth pursuing in this seat.
.
0 -
Yorkcity Regardless of what LD members want, if Labour needs the LDs for a majority they will have to do a deal with Labour in some form to ensure we are able to get a functioning government!0
-
York Outer is the sort of seat where you can see the Lib Dem vote share dropping well below UNS.Yorkcity said:
I would have thought Lib Dems party members would want a time in opposition to re-build.HYUFD said:Pulpstar Well if Labour and the SNP have a majority but Labour and the LDs do not, the LDs are irrelevant to Miliband anyway and he will have to do a deal with Sturgeon. If Labour and the LDs (plus maybe the Greens) and Labour and the SNP both have a majority though he will likely do a deal with the LDs
The leadership who are cabinet ministers will have differing views.
I voted Lib Dem in York Outer in 2010.
Even though I placed bets on the Conservatives winning the seat.
This time it is hard to see a tactical vote worth pursuing in this seat.
.0 -
Interesting.
7% of current LD voters don't know why they want to vote LD.0 -
SNP more popular to do a deal with than the Lib Dems for Labour.
0 -
@Cyclefree
So, what you appear to be saying is that until the tax office received the documents, no one knew there was any form of wrong doing going on?
But, it happened under Labours watch, so they are responsible according to some of the present government??0 -
Good evening, everyone.
Alas, for Scotland. They should've at least drawn and really should've won. There were a few missed opportunities, but it was the poor decision-making (throwing away penalties seeking glorious tries) which cost them.
Heard rumblings elsewhere about the referee. Comes to something when Jonathan Davies (in commentary) is suggesting Wales should've had a yellow card.0 -
A coalition wth the LD only will be very precarious to by-election defeats.HYUFD said:Yorkcity Regardless of what LD members want, if Labour needs the LDs for a majority they will have to do a deal with Labour in some form to ensure we are able to get a functioning government!
Labour probably has the oldest parliamentary group, so the natural death rate of their MP's is higher than in other parties, we already had 14 Labour by-elections in this parliament.0 -
MD Can't say I was too disappointed with the Scots' defeat, something less for Sturgeon and Salmond to crow about, and the Welsh at least have not yet had an independence referendum to split the country up, unlike their northern neighbours!0
-
I agree, last time they got a lot of Labour tactical votes in York outer because the bookies had the Lib Dems as favorites.Pulpstar said:
York Outer is the sort of seat where you can see the Lib Dem vote share dropping well below UNS.Yorkcity said:
I would have thought Lib Dems party members would want a time in opposition to re-build.HYUFD said:Pulpstar Well if Labour and the SNP have a majority but Labour and the LDs do not, the LDs are irrelevant to Miliband anyway and he will have to do a deal with Sturgeon. If Labour and the LDs (plus maybe the Greens) and Labour and the SNP both have a majority though he will likely do a deal with the LDs
The leadership who are cabinet ministers will have differing views.
I voted Lib Dem in York Outer in 2010.
Even though I placed bets on the Conservatives winning the seat.
This time it is hard to see a tactical vote worth pursuing in this seat.
.
I kept saying on here, and to anyone else who would listen, it was an illusion. As Conservative voters in many Greater York council seats voted Lib dem to keep Labour out, and from running the council.
I also made money in 2010 on Harrogate returning blue from yellow.
HYUFD
Agreed but it will not be a formal coalition.
Confidence and supply is the only option.0 -
Speedy Well, so what, regardless of potential by-election defeats if there is no deal with the LDs and Labour needs them for a majority in effect we would get no government at all!0
-
Read the small print. @edballsmp will cripple tradesmen with form filling and another tax grab. pic.twitter.com/7boAuTq33k
— ukipwebmaster (@ukipwebmaster) February 15, 20150 -
Tactically Labour should refuse a coalition with the SNP, anything that reduces the oxygen of power for the SNP is welcome for the SNP's demise.Pulpstar said:SNP more popular to do a deal with than the Lib Dems for Labour.
By isolating the SNP, national politics gets a preference.
To put it simply some of the left votes SNP because they think that the SNP cater to their interests in scotland and can keep a Labour government in power nationally, if you sever the possibility of the SNP propping Labour then the voter behavior changes to voting Labour directly in a national election.
Canada style (NDP-BQ in 2011).0 -
No government at all would be a marvellous thing. It's amazing how legislation writing, like a ratchet, only goes one way.HYUFD said:Speedy Well, so what, regardless of potential by-election defeats if there is no deal with the LDs and Labour needs them for a majority in effect we would get no government at all!
But it won't happen. The LD have tasted ministerial salaries and cars and that bell cannot be unrung. They will never turn those down in favour of a single principle again (not that they ever had any).0 -
Yup, that's the one.Cyclefree said:@Peter_the_Punter: Is the hall where the film is at the JW3 centre in Finchley Road?
0 -
Cannot see it in your link; be more specific, please.HYUFD said:Nigel Farage may disagree with him politically, but the politician he would most like to have a drink with is Jean Claude Juncker (Atticus)
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/0 -
Blame the Fixed Parliament Act for creating a possibility of a government not having control of parliament.HYUFD said:Speedy Well, so what, regardless of potential by-election defeats if there is no deal with the LDs and Labour needs them for a majority in effect we would get no government at all!
However the Act can be abolished.0 -
To be fair I think the criticism has been a two way street.TheScreamingEagles said:
There's also probably an incumbency bonus.Indigo said:
Not preference, reality I expect.MP_SE said:Interesting to see Tory voters would prefer a coalition with the Lib Dems instead of UKIP. Any ideas as to why this is? The Lib Dems are on the completely opposite end of the political spectrum.
20-25 LD seats vs 2-5 UKIP seats.
For all Tory criticisms of the Lib Dems, the coalition has worked pretty well.
Honestly conflicted for 2015 - My priority is to keep Labour out and this is compounded by my feeling a debt to Sir Bob for getting stuck in to help my family with a problem we had with Essex CC - unlike certain others I could mention.
But if the numbers work the lib's might prop up a weak Labour government (and I would not like that)......
This is the result from 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colchester_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s
this is the Wiki entry on Sir Bob
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Russell_(British_politician)
I had forgotten about the expenses issue.
He looks safe though?0 -
The LD might not have the seats necessary for a coalition.GeoffM said:
No government at all would be a marvellous thing. It's amazing how legislation writing, like a ratchet, only goes one way.HYUFD said:Speedy Well, so what, regardless of potential by-election defeats if there is no deal with the LDs and Labour needs them for a majority in effect we would get no government at all!
But it won't happen. The LD have tasted ministerial salaries and cars and that bell cannot be unrung. They will never turn those down in favour of a single principle again (not that they ever had any).0 -
No government would suit me fine. Far too many authoritarian acts passed in the last twenty years. Parliament needs to return to its proper purpose of controlling the government, not being the government.Speedy said:
Blame the Fixed Parliament Act for creating a possibility of a government not having control of parliament.HYUFD said:Speedy Well, so what, regardless of potential by-election defeats if there is no deal with the LDs and Labour needs them for a majority in effect we would get no government at all!
However the Act can be abolished.0 -
Last constituency poll for Colchester was:Floater said:
To be fair I think the criticism has been a two way street.TheScreamingEagles said:
There's also probably an incumbency bonus.Indigo said:
Not preference, reality I expect.MP_SE said:Interesting to see Tory voters would prefer a coalition with the Lib Dems instead of UKIP. Any ideas as to why this is? The Lib Dems are on the completely opposite end of the political spectrum.
20-25 LD seats vs 2-5 UKIP seats.
For all Tory criticisms of the Lib Dems, the coalition has worked pretty well.
Honestly conflicted for 2015 - My priority is to keep Labour out and this is compounded by my feeling a debt to Sir Bob for getting stuck in to help my family with a problem we had with Essex CC - unlike certain others I could mention.
But if the numbers work the lib's might prop up a weak Labour government (and I would not like that)......
This is the result from 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colchester_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s
this is the Wiki entry on Sir Bob
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Russell_(British_politician)
I had forgotten about the expenses issue.
He looks safe though?
LD 36, CON 22, UKIP 18, LAB 17.
Looks safe.0 -
Geoff M No government means no money being paid for the army, police, schools, hospitals, welfare etc no new laws, yes, but no decisions being made either on domestic or foreign policy0
-
MikeK It is under Atticus (albeit behind the paywall)0
-
Todays most unlikely news:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/northernireland/11414130/Gerry-Adams-trampolines-naked-with-his-dog.html0 -
Speedy If not then the deal will be with the SNP, if the fixed parliaments act is scrapped it does make a second election in the autumn more likely, but still no guarantee of a majority then either0
-
That's an interesting thought which I agree, it is the american system of government.Paul_Mid_Beds said:
No government would suit me fine. Far too many authoritarian acts passed in the last twenty years. Parliament needs to return to its proper purpose of controlling the government, not being the government.Speedy said:
Blame the Fixed Parliament Act for creating a possibility of a government not having control of parliament.HYUFD said:Speedy Well, so what, regardless of potential by-election defeats if there is no deal with the LDs and Labour needs them for a majority in effect we would get no government at all!
However the Act can be abolished.
The House of Commons will degenerate into the US Congress, we can have a government which can't pass legislation, like in America.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-4FQAov2xI0 -
Speedy Of course France had similar problems to the US when the President and Parliament were controlled by different parties eg President Mitterand and PM Chirac or President Chirac and PM Jospin had just as big differences as President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich, President Bush and Speaker Pelosi and President Obama and Speaker Boehner. It is a feature of Presidential systems where the president is directly elected by the voters0
-
Of course if no deal could be reached the alternative would be a minority government on the Harper model in Canada from 2006-2011, with deals reached with parties one bill at a time0
-
Well I have not said that Ministers are responsible because I doubt (I cannot know) that they would have had sight or even been told of the 2008 mail.Smarmeron said:@Cyclefree
So, what you appear to be saying is that until the tax office received the documents, no one knew there was any form of wrong doing going on?
But, it happened under Labours watch, so they are responsible according to some of the present government??
HMRC were put on notice in 2008 that there might have been something worth looking at. In my professional capacity I deal with whistleblowing allegations - often anonymous, often very vague indeed and it is one hell of a job to get to the bottom of them - but I and my team are very focused on them. I suspect that whoever received the email was not so focused and this sort of investigation was probably not a priority.
HMRC can certainly be criticised for not putting in place proper investigative procedures - assuming that there weren't any or, possibly, the investigation was not done adequately (hard to tell) - and Ministers and those at the top can be criticised for the priorities they imposed on HMRC and also for determining what level of resources they obtained. There was plenty of criticism around at the time that the merger between the Inland Revenue and Customs & Excise had not worked well and that they lost a lot of their most experienced and talented investigators. I know because I hired one myself!
But - and this is a big but - the priority was almost certainly bringing in money (as much as possible) and it is hard to criticise HMRC for that.
The real criticism to be made of Labour Ministers at the time was (a) how they managed HMRC and its priorities; and (b) more widely that they did not take any sort of effective steps to clamp down on tax evasion etc or to build the sort of relationships with foreign authorities (regulators etc) which might have led to better co-operation to stop the sort of regulatory/legal arbitrage some financial institutions indulged in.
0 -
Peter_the_Punter said:
Yup, that's the one.Cyclefree said:@Peter_the_Punter: Is the hall where the film is at the JW3 centre in Finchley Road?
OK - I will probably go to this. It's very close to me. And it sounds interesting. Thank you.
0 -
Unfortunately the Fixed Parliament Act is not as clear as that as to who is leading the executive.HYUFD said:Speedy Of course France had similar problems to the US when the President and Parliament were controlled by different parties eg President Mitterand and PM Chirac or President Chirac and PM Jospin had just as big differences as President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich, President Bush and Speaker Pelosi and President Obama and Speaker Boehner. It is a feature of Presidential systems where the president is directly elected by the voters
In theory if Milliband can't form a majority then Cameron stays as PM even if he doesn't have a majority leading a government which can't pass legislation, however if Milliband does have a majority and becomes PM then he can stay as PM even if he loses it and if he loses a no confidence vote then after 2 weeks something happens but parliament is dissolved with a 2/3 vote or in a case of being totally confused right now with this silly Act.0 -
Exactly what information did the tax office hold? Please tell us.Smarmeron said:@Stark_Dawning
There was plenty of evidence, and none of it would have ever come to light had the journalists not exposed it to the world.
The tax office held the information, and decided what was to be done with it, and apparently it had no interest in law breakers being punished in the courts, or indeed named.0 -
Can you remind me who is the PM in case there is no majority with the Fixed Parliament Act?HYUFD said:Of course if no deal could be reached the alternative would be a minority government on the Harper model in Canada from 2006-2011, with deals reached with parties one bill at a time
I got confused a bit.
0 -
0
-
Interesting, hadn't seen that. But what does "nothing" mean exactly? In practice either Miliband or Cameron will seek a vote of confidence. Will they vote against both if they're not offered seats in the Cabinet? A bit unpromising to sell that as a strategy for stable government.MikeSmithson said:
The LDs have made it clear that they won't do "supply & confidence" with either LAB or CON. It is coalition or nothing if another party wants its support. They will say that the problems facing country so great that stable government a necessity.
It is a good opening negotiating position
0 -
Classic Maggie sketch now at the end of 'For your eyes only' on ITV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf67SPzC3tQ0 -
I gave tim 8/1 on a Conservative gain.Speedy said:
Last constituency poll for Colchester was:Floater said:
To be fair I think the criticism has been a two way street.TheScreamingEagles said:
There's also probably an incumbency bonus.Indigo said:
Not preference, reality I expect.MP_SE said:Interesting to see Tory voters would prefer a coalition with the Lib Dems instead of UKIP. Any ideas as to why this is? The Lib Dems are on the completely opposite end of the political spectrum.
20-25 LD seats vs 2-5 UKIP seats.
For all Tory criticisms of the Lib Dems, the coalition has worked pretty well.
Honestly conflicted for 2015 - My priority is to keep Labour out and this is compounded by my feeling a debt to Sir Bob for getting stuck in to help my family with a problem we had with Essex CC - unlike certain others I could mention.
But if the numbers work the lib's might prop up a weak Labour government (and I would not like that)......
This is the result from 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colchester_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s
this is the Wiki entry on Sir Bob
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Russell_(British_politician)
I had forgotten about the expenses issue.
He looks safe though?
LD 36, CON 22, UKIP 18, LAB 17.
Looks safe.
Bob's rock solid.
I've opted to vote in London this time round, but if I were back in Colchester I'd think nothing of voting for "Sir" Bob. Plenty of pointing at potholes...0 -
Who said the next government will be stable?NickPalmer said:
Interesting, hadn't seen that. But what does "nothing" mean exactly? In practice either Miliband or Cameron will seek a vote of confidence. Will they vote against both if they're not offered seats in the Cabinet? A bit unpromising to sell that as a strategy for stable government.MikeSmithson said:
The LDs have made it clear that they won't do "supply & confidence" with either LAB or CON. It is coalition or nothing if another party wants its support. They will say that the problems facing country so great that stable government a necessity.
It is a good opening negotiating position
It has all the provisions of being as dysfunctional as a typical american government.0 -
Lab minority with c&s from SNP, PC, SDLPbigjohnowls said:Biggest seat lead for LAB with these for a while
http://electionforecast.co.uk/
EICIPM (2.28 BETFAIR)0 -
@Cyclefree
Well, there appears to have been nothing wrong with the HMRC in 2011, indeed, these lines prove the point
"The report is based on partial information, inaccurate opinion and some misunderstanding of facts," the spokesman said.
"The idea Dave Hartnett cuts a large tax bill in return for a glass of wine and a cheese sandwich is just plain nonsense.
"If he was interested in feathering his nest he would have accepted one of the many highly lucrative offers of work he regularly receives from the private sector," the spokesman added."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16253205
Hartnett? I am sure I have heard that name recently, I wonder how he is getting on these days?0 -
Speedy Indeed, the potential recipe for chaos with no party having a clear majority will keep constitutional scholars up late
In response to your second question, I assume in the event of a hung parliament Cameron would get first chance to form a government and stay PM for a short while as Brown did, however if Miliband leads the largest party and the other parties do not prop up Cameron it is he who will end up going to the Palace0 -
As time goes by and the polls don't shift, then the forecasts based on past elections will be gradually tossed where they belong.Pulpstar said:
Lab minority with c&s from SNP, PC, SDLPbigjohnowls said:Biggest seat lead for LAB with these for a while
http://electionforecast.co.uk/
EICIPM (2.28 BETFAIR)0