politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As Dave and Ed limber up for their final PMQs the last four
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As Dave and Ed limber up for their final PMQs the last four polls have their parties level pegging
This is extraordinary. In all the time I’ve been covering polling I cannot recall a sequence like the one we are seeing this week. Four polls on the trot all reporting LAB and CON with the same vote shares.
0
Comments
-
First!0
-
"For neutrals (and are there any?) this is wonderful election to watch. Uncertainty makes it a much more absorbing spectacle."
Neutrals? Only you Mike
0 -
Latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election & "Jack" Dozen" Projection Countdown :
75 hours0 -
Morning all
Very odd polling indeed this week - I’m not normally one for conspiracy theories but…!
0 -
You may have a point. Reasons to distrust the polls have often been discussed here, and I suspect the pollsters themselves have far less faith in their product than they had in past elections.SimonStClare said:Morning all
Very odd polling indeed this week - I’m not normally one for conspiracy theories but…!
0 -
Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...
0 -
As I always say, much of the Labour vote is, in fact, an anti-Tory vote. So the key to the election is the extent to which anti-Tory voters are motivated enough to kick the Tories out. It may be worth seeing the budget in that context. As generally agreed, it was "Meh" - so did little to animate the anti-Tories.
EdM + Scotland + improving economy + cautious campaign = Tories getting most seats, surely.
The Tories can only throw it away from here.0 -
The polls seem reasonable to me. The country is pretty evenly divided. But the key to the election is voter motivation. And right now just about the only motivation Labour voters have to vote is to prevent a Tory majority. With EdM the alternative, will that really be enough? I can't see it myself.Innocent_Abroad said:
You may have a point. Reasons to distrust the polls have often been discussed here, and I suspect the pollsters themselves have far less faith in their product than they had in past elections.SimonStClare said:Morning all
Very odd polling indeed this week - I’m not normally one for conspiracy theories but…!
On the other hand, if you are a Tory voter the government has delivered for you by and large over the last five years. Why wouldn't you go out and vote Tory again?
0 -
D’Mail ComRes Opinion poll at a glance.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/03/24/23/26F6A18B00000578-0-image-a-47_1427240889365.jpg
0 -
I suspect that many people will be focussed upon the forthcoming Easter holidays, and will only begin to notice the subsequent election once these are over.
That said, some people must be paying attention, and my chart below does appear to point towards a definitive slippage away from UKIP and the Greens, in favour of Tory/Labour/LibDem.0 -
Spot on - but the bit I cannot fathom is the whole Scotland effect - who will come off best there - Labour or Tories? If the SNP look like doing as well as we think how will this play in the rUK? Has Salmond over-egged the haggis? And how will this all impact after May on the UK economy? If you haven't bought your £s for your Costa hols yet it's almost too lateSouthamObserver said:
The polls seem reasonable to me. The country is pretty evenly divided. But the key to the election is voter motivation. And right now just about the only motivation Labour voters have to vote is to prevent a Tory majority. With EdM the alternative, will that really be enough? I can't see it myself.Innocent_Abroad said:
You may have a point. Reasons to distrust the polls have often been discussed here, and I suspect the pollsters themselves have far less faith in their product than they had in past elections.SimonStClare said:Morning all
Very odd polling indeed this week - I’m not normally one for conspiracy theories but…!
On the other hand, if you are a Tory voter the government has delivered for you by and large over the last five years. Why wouldn't you go out and vote Tory again? 0 -
On every question except the voting intention the Tories are at least 10 points ahead of labour, includingSimonStClare said:D’Mail ComRes Opinion poll at a glance.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/03/24/23/26F6A18B00000578-0-image-a-47_1427240889365.jpg
Who is the better PM
Who is the better chancellor
Will the economy be better under cameron and osborne or miliband and balls
Would you be better off under cameron and osborne or miliband and balls
Will the country be better off under cameron and osborne or miliband and balls
Is the country better or worse than in 2010
The voting intention of 35/35 dosent make sense. Labour are going to be slaughtered.0 -
The SNP will come off best. Clearly, though, on a UK-wide basis the Labour collapse in Scotland favours the Tories. I doubt the Salmond stuff will have much direct impact on votes in England.felix said:
Spot on - but the bit I cannot fathom is the whole Scotland effect - who will come off best there - Labour or Tories? If the SNP look like doing as well as we think how will this play in the rUK? Has Salmond over-egged the haggis? And how will this all impact after May on the UK economy? If you haven't bought your £s for your Costa hols yet it's almost too lateSouthamObserver said:
The polls seem reasonable to me. The country is pretty evenly divided. But the key to the election is voter motivation. And right now just about the only motivation Labour voters have to vote is to prevent a Tory majority. With EdM the alternative, will that really be enough? I can't see it myself.Innocent_Abroad said:
You may have a point. Reasons to distrust the polls have often been discussed here, and I suspect the pollsters themselves have far less faith in their product than they had in past elections.SimonStClare said:Morning all
Very odd polling indeed this week - I’m not normally one for conspiracy theories but…!
On the other hand, if you are a Tory voter the government has delivered for you by and large over the last five years. Why wouldn't you go out and vote Tory again?
0 -
We have so many polls these days that such unlikely coincidences become inevitable. Give it another decade at this polling frequency and the two-party shares will be identical, rather than just equal, in a run of polls, at some time or another.0
-
As far as I can see, under the supplementaries Labour is getting pretty close to its voting intention. That says labour voters think they'll be OK under Labour, but voters of other parties think they will be better off under the Tories. If you are still a LibDem, for example, the chances are that you think the government - and by extension Cameron/Osborne - has done OK.Paul_Mid_Beds said:
On every question except the voting intention the Tories are at least 10 points ahead of labour, includingSimonStClare said:D’Mail ComRes Opinion poll at a glance.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/03/24/23/26F6A18B00000578-0-image-a-47_1427240889365.jpg
Who is the better PM
Who is the better chancellor
Will the economy be better under cameron and osborne or miliband and balls
Would you be better off under cameron and osborne or miliband and balls
Will the country be better off under cameron and osborne or miliband and balls
Is the country better or worse than in 2010
The voting intention of 35/35 dosent make sense. Labour are going to be slaughtered.
0 -
It looks like the pollsters read PB as well as the Political Parties campaign teams.Innocent_Abroad said:
You may have a point. Reasons to distrust the polls have often been discussed here, and I suspect the pollsters themselves have far less faith in their product than they had in past elections.SimonStClare said:Morning all
Very odd polling indeed this week - I’m not normally one for conspiracy theories but…!
I watch the behaviour and attitudes of the Party Hierarchies to get a feeling of what they think is actually happening from their own inhouse polls and door knocking results. I suspect that they are all getting different answers from the Pollsters but are not quite sure how to proceed.
The parties cannot be critical of the published Polls, as since the media pay for them, the politicians would be torn to shreds as unbelievers in the truth, honour and respect of the press (sorry, I couldn't stop giggling for several minutes after re-reading the paragraph).
0 -
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?SouthamObserver said:
EdM + Scotland + improving economy + cautious campaign = Tories getting most seats, surely.
The Tories can only throw it away from here.
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)0 -
That's what people said about Christmas. Then they said it about Valentine's Day.Gadfly said:I suspect that many people will be focussed upon the forthcoming Easter holidays, and will only begin to notice the subsequent election once these are over.
That said, some people must be paying attention, and my chart below does appear to point towards a definitive slippage away from UKIP and the Greens, in favour of Tory/Labour/LibDem.
'Just wait, after May day people will start paying attention and the Tory vote will reappear'
0 -
The British public are recognising the remarkable performance of this Tory led government. In 2010 did anyone on here predict the economy would be in this position? The government approval in the latest you gov poll is now in its best position since 2010 . Despite this it is very likely that the British public will not vote to return such an excellent government and will throw the country into the clutches of labour supported by the snp. Go figurePaul_Mid_Beds said:
On every question except the voting intention the Tories are at least 10 points ahead of labour, includingSimonStClare said:D’Mail ComRes Opinion poll at a glance.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/03/24/23/26F6A18B00000578-0-image-a-47_1427240889365.jpg
Who is the better PM
Who is the better chancellor
Will the economy be better under cameron and osborne or miliband and balls
Would you be better off under cameron and osborne or miliband and balls
Will the country be better off under cameron and osborne or miliband and balls
Is the country better or worse than in 2010
The voting intention of 35/35 dosent make sense. Labour are going to be slaughtered.0 -
Your equation looks like a second GE within a year to me.asjohnstone said:
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?SouthamObserver said:
EdM + Scotland + improving economy + cautious campaign = Tories getting most seats, surely.
The Tories can only throw it away from here.
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)0 -
***** Betting Post *****
My tip of the week suggestion this time is for the Tories to recapture the Rochester & Strood seat they lost last November after Mark Reckless defected to UKIP and successfully defended the seat in the subsequent by-election with a modest majority of a little over 2,000 votes.
The recent polls are suggesting that UKIP has lost a significant share, perhaps as much as a third of their support since then, added to which the Tories will benefit considerably from the inevitably very much higher turnout in the forthcoming General Election (65% in 2010), compared with the 50% who voted at the by-election.
Taken together therefore, Reckless looks likely to be roundly defeated in six weeks time and on this basis the best available odds of 5/6 (1.83 decimal) on a Tory win from those nice people at SkyBet appear to offer sound value.
As ever DYOR.0 -
If that happens it will be as a direct result of the first past the post voting system that the Tories strongly advocate.currystar said:
The British public are recognising the remarkable performance of this Tory led government. In 2010 did anyone on here predict the economy would be in this position? The government approval in the latest you gov poll is now in its best position since 2010 . Despite this it is very likely that the British public will not vote to return such an excellent government and will throw the country into the clutches of labour supported by the snp. Go figurePaul_Mid_Beds said:
On every question except the voting intention the Tories are at least 10 points ahead of labour, includingSimonStClare said:D’Mail ComRes Opinion poll at a glance.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/03/24/23/26F6A18B00000578-0-image-a-47_1427240889365.jpg
Who is the better PM
Who is the better chancellor
Will the economy be better under cameron and osborne or miliband and balls
Would you be better off under cameron and osborne or miliband and balls
Will the country be better off under cameron and osborne or miliband and balls
Is the country better or worse than in 2010
The voting intention of 35/35 dosent make sense. Labour are going to be slaughtered.
0 -
I hope so, more betting chances.SouthamObserver said:
Your equation looks like a second GE within a year to me.asjohnstone said:
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?SouthamObserver said:
EdM + Scotland + improving economy + cautious campaign = Tories getting most seats, surely.
The Tories can only throw it away from here.
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)
Although it does require a turkey to vote for Xmas. Much more likely is a SNP flounce during the 2016 Holyrood elections0 -
The last two YG sub-samples have had the SNP-Lab gap down to 5 and 2.
They seem to have these two day aberrations in some of their data, but worth keeping an eye on, just in case.0 -
Another UKIP candidate quits.Gadfly said:I suspect that many people will be focussed upon the forthcoming Easter holidays, and will only begin to notice the subsequent election once these are over.
That said, some people must be paying attention, and my chart below does appear to point towards a definitive slippage away from UKIP and the Greens, in favour of Tory/Labour/LibDem.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-320384850 -
If the leader of such a disparate group of magic money tree-ers is already considered weak, just how do you think they would look when every appearance of their name in a headline is preceded or followed by 'propped up' or 'facing rebellion' or 'having to make a u turn to keep office'.asjohnstone said:
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?SouthamObserver said:
EdM + Scotland + improving economy + cautious campaign = Tories getting most seats, surely.
The Tories can only throw it away from here.
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)
You may be constitutionally correct - it is unlikely to be de facto accurate. Whoever wins the most seats will be PM.
0 -
O/T: Carnyx: Vanilla mail for you.0
-
On those arguments I would have thought the over/under markets on UKIP seats a better bet. If UKIP cannot hold Rochester then they would be heading for a single seat.peter_from_putney said:***** Betting Post *****
My tip of the week suggestion this time is for the Tories to recapture the Rochester & Strood seat they lost last November after Mark Reckless defected to UKIP and successfully defended the seat in the subsequent by-election with a modest majority of a little over 2,000 votes.
The recent polls are suggesting that UKIP has lost a significant share, perhaps as much as a third of their support since then, added to which the Tories will benefit considerably from the inevitably very much higher turnout in the forthcoming General Election (65% in 2010), compared with the 50% who voted at the by-election.
Taken together therefore, Reckless looks likely to be roundly defeated in six weeks time and on this basis the best available odds of 5/6 (1.83 decimal) on a Tory win from those nice people at SkyBet appear to offer sound value.
As ever DYOR.0 -
They advocate it because under PR there would be 90 odd kippersSouthamObserver said:
If that happens it will be as a direct result of the first past the post voting system that the Tories strongly advocate.currystar said:
The British public are recognising the remarkable performance of this Tory led government. In 2010 did anyone on here predict the economy would be in this position? The government approval in the latest you gov poll is now in its best position since 2010 . Despite this it is very likely that the British public will not vote to return such an excellent government and will throw the country into the clutches of labour supported by the snp. Go figurePaul_Mid_Beds said:
On every question except the voting intention the Tories are at least 10 points ahead of labour, includingSimonStClare said:D’Mail ComRes Opinion poll at a glance.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/03/24/23/26F6A18B00000578-0-image-a-47_1427240889365.jpg
Who is the better PM
Who is the better chancellor
Will the economy be better under cameron and osborne or miliband and balls
Would you be better off under cameron and osborne or miliband and balls
Will the country be better off under cameron and osborne or miliband and balls
Is the country better or worse than in 2010
The voting intention of 35/35 dosent make sense. Labour are going to be slaughtered.
0 -
Yep! The amount of work and time that the Westminster Politicians will have to put in, running a minority, or a rag tag C&S government will have all sides wanting a clean workable majority. Suggest people read up about the government in the late 70's and the pressures involved. I watched it, not pretty.SouthamObserver said:
Your equation looks like a second GE within a year to me.asjohnstone said:
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?SouthamObserver said:
EdM + Scotland + improving economy + cautious campaign = Tories getting most seats, surely.
The Tories can only throw it away from here.
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)
What will happen after May 8 if there is a change in the leadership of the losing party/ies running into the autumn election. More betting opportunities?0 -
The advocates of a strong swingback must now be concerned, especially those that have backed it with money. Whilst the Tories have clearly recovered from the dog days of mid term the effect to date is minimal compared with previous Parliaments.
I do not find this surprising. Con/Labour switchers have always been non existent. In fact Tory support has been remarkably solid losing less than 10% points at its worst. The downside of this is there is not much to swing back and what there is has largely occurred now.
As Mike has been pointing out throughout this Parliament the most important polling information has been and remains the switch of the red Liberals to Labour. This is the source of almost all of Labour's anaemic recovery from 2010. They have persuaded almost no one else. This will hurt the Tories in marginals with a significant 2010 Lib Dem vote waiting to be squeezed.
Will this be enough to offset the Scottish losses and make Labour the largest party? I suspect so but it will be close. Whether that actually matters in terms of putting a government together is another question.0 -
Which one of those parties do you see letting the Tories into power aka electoral suicide?Mortimer said:
If the leader of such a disparate group of magic money tree-ers is already considered weak, just how do you think they would look when every appearance of their name in a headline is preceded or followed by 'propped up' or 'facing rebellion' or 'having to make a u turn to keep office'.asjohnstone said:
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?SouthamObserver said:
EdM + Scotland + improving economy + cautious campaign = Tories getting most seats, surely.
The Tories can only throw it away from here.
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)
You may be constitutionally correct - it is unlikely to be de facto accurate. Whoever wins the most seats will be PM.0 -
Consider the scenario where CON get somewhere around 290, Lab somewhere around 260, Cameron forms the government, the LAB+SNP vote down their Queen's speech. One suspects such an action from the Scottish separatists would do their campaign a power of good, roundly being blamed in England for saddling us with an unwanted government, especially if we then see a load of "Mr Miliband was forced to postpone his policy of X because he was unable to gain support from Mr Salmond and his nationalists" type of headlines.Mortimer said:
If the leader of such a disparate group of magic money tree-ers is already considered weak, just how do you think they would look when every appearance of their name in a headline is preceded or followed by 'propped up' or 'facing rebellion' or 'having to make a u turn to keep office'.asjohnstone said:
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?SouthamObserver said:
EdM + Scotland + improving economy + cautious campaign = Tories getting most seats, surely.
The Tories can only throw it away from here.
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)
You may be constitutionally correct - it is unlikely to be de facto accurate. Whoever wins the most seats will be PM.
Bring down Cameron + Cripple Miliband = "Go away Scotland" mandate at the next election for anyone brave enough to moot the policy.0 -
RE the comments on my previous post. I think Southam Observer makes the good point that people tell pollsters pretty accurately which Party they support, but are much less honest about how likely they are to vote. After all, it's costless to appear "civic" and claim to be 10/10 in their voting likelihood.
I have actually bet on the election outcome (first time ever I've placed a bet - and I'm 66 next month
) on the basis that lefties will disproportionately stay at home (or peel off to the Greens) whilst the Tories pick up soft Kippers. The latter seems to be happening already, which is sooner than I (and, I think, Tory strategists) expected. 0 -
There are at least two seats where imho UKIP stand a better chance of winning than at Rochester. Which over/under markets do you have in mind specifically which you consider offer better value than the bet I have suggested?foxinsoxuk said:
On those arguments I would have thought the over/under markets on UKIP seats a better bet. If UKIP cannot hold Rochester then they would be heading for a single seat.peter_from_putney said:***** Betting Post *****
My tip of the week suggestion this time is for the Tories to recapture the Rochester & Strood seat they lost last November after Mark Reckless defected to UKIP and successfully defended the seat in the subsequent by-election with a modest majority of a little over 2,000 votes.
The recent polls are suggesting that UKIP has lost a significant share, perhaps as much as a third of their support since then, added to which the Tories will benefit considerably from the inevitably very much higher turnout in the forthcoming General Election (65% in 2010), compared with the 50% who voted at the by-election.
Taken together therefore, Reckless looks likely to be roundly defeated in six weeks time and on this basis the best available odds of 5/6 (1.83 decimal) on a Tory win from those nice people at SkyBet appear to offer sound value.
As ever DYOR.0 -
I wouldn't even go that far, people vote tactically, why not poll tactically to "send a message" to your party of choice. Lots of Conservatives will be polling kipper because they want Cameron to take a tougher line on immigration, but probably won't vote kipper. Lots of Labour supporters probably poll Green because they want Miliband to be more anti-austerity, but probably will vote Labour.Innocent_Abroad said:RE the comments on my previous post. I think Southam Observer makes the good point that people tell pollsters pretty accurately which Party they support, but are much less honest about how likely they are to vote. After all, it's costless to appear "civic" and claim to be 10/10 in their voting likelihood.
I have actually bet on the election outcome (first time ever I've placed a bet - and I'm 66 next month ) on the basis that lefties will disproportionately stay at home (or peel off to the Greens) whilst the Tories pick up soft Kippers. The latter seems to be happening already, which is sooner than I (and, I think, Tory strategists) expected. 0 -
That is not necessarily my view, but it's a not an unreasonable theory. In 2010 the Tory vote began to pull ahead 5 weeks prior to the election, but then of course the TV debates changed everything.Freggles said:
That's what people said about Christmas. Then they said it about Valentine's Day.Gadfly said:I suspect that many people will be focussed upon the forthcoming Easter holidays, and will only begin to notice the subsequent election once these are over.
That said, some people must be paying attention, and my chart below does appear to point towards a definitive slippage away from UKIP and the Greens, in favour of Tory/Labour/LibDem.
'Just wait, after May day people will start paying attention and the Tory vote will reappear'
0 -
There have been a lot of comments about the possibility of a second election. If the government of the losers hangs together for any period of time it will be a government that the Tories would be going into without David Cameron, their largest single asset. Just a thought.0
-
Interestingly, UKIP's relative decline in these polls does not seem to have disproportionately benefited the Tories.0
-
No such govt felling event required - Dave is current PM, when he retains most votes he will likely continue in a minority govt when it turns out that Mili would not form a govt with SNP (I imagine, under the threat of most of his Scottish party, and the Northern England MPs threatening to defect).Freggles said:
Which one of those parties do you see letting the Tories into power aka electoral suicide?Mortimer said:
If the leader of such a disparate group of magic money tree-ers is already considered weak, just how do you think they would look when every appearance of their name in a headline is preceded or followed by 'propped up' or 'facing rebellion' or 'having to make a u turn to keep office'.asjohnstone said:
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?SouthamObserver said:
EdM + Scotland + improving economy + cautious campaign = Tories getting most seats, surely.
The Tories can only throw it away from here.
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)
You may be constitutionally correct - it is unlikely to be de facto accurate. Whoever wins the most seats will be PM.
0 -
It's not so much that, they might hug each other tightly for the reason you suggest, but its going to look like complete chaos on the news and in the papers, with endless bickering and refusing to support each others policies, what would the economic policy for such a grouping look like for example ? Then you have to consider how many by-elections in the average year, 5-6 ? Kippers would have a field day, and the majority of the government, such as it it, would evaporate in fairly short order.Freggles said:
Which one of those parties do you see letting the Tories into power aka electoral suicide?Mortimer said:
If the leader of such a disparate group of magic money tree-ers is already considered weak, just how do you think they would look when every appearance of their name in a headline is preceded or followed by 'propped up' or 'facing rebellion' or 'having to make a u turn to keep office'.asjohnstone said:
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?SouthamObserver said:
EdM + Scotland + improving economy + cautious campaign = Tories getting most seats, surely.
The Tories can only throw it away from here.
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)
You may be constitutionally correct - it is unlikely to be de facto accurate. Whoever wins the most seats will be PM.
0 -
Under 4.5 UKIP seats at Ladbrokes is on 1.83 too.peter_from_putney said:
There are at least two seats where imho UKIP stand a better chance of winning than at Rochester. Which over/under markets do you have in mind specifically which you consider offer better value than the bet I have suggested?foxinsoxuk said:
On those arguments I would have thought the over/under markets on UKIP seats a better bet. If UKIP cannot hold Rochester then they would be heading for a single seat.peter_from_putney said:***** Betting Post *****
My tip of the week suggestion this time is for the Tories to recapture the Rochester & Strood seat they lost last November after Mark Reckless defected to UKIP and successfully defended the seat in the subsequent by-election with a modest majority of a little over 2,000 votes.
The recent polls are suggesting that UKIP has lost a significant share, perhaps as much as a third of their support since then, added to which the Tories will benefit considerably from the inevitably very much higher turnout in the forthcoming General Election (65% in 2010), compared with the 50% who voted at the by-election.
Taken together therefore, Reckless looks likely to be roundly defeated in six weeks time and on this basis the best available odds of 5/6 (1.83 decimal) on a Tory win from those nice people at SkyBet appear to offer sound value.
As ever DYOR.
Which would be a safer bet; if Rochester is lost then the other seats are unlikely to come in.
But I think Rochester will be a kipper hold.0 -
You are right that it is the numbers which in the end count. But so does political common sense. The coalition of the losers you postulate would be a desperately unstable government which would be portrayed as having been foisted on the English. Labour is going to be hammered in Scotland. Taking office in the circumstances you envisage would lead to a fairly swift second election in which they would be hammered in England too. Just because you are offered a poison chalice does not mean you have to drink of it.asjohnstone said:
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?SouthamObserver said:
EdM + Scotland + improving economy + cautious campaign = Tories getting most seats, surely.
The Tories can only throw it away from here.
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)
-1 -
@isam of this parish is offering 10-11, though I have no idea how much liability he wants to rack up on it.peter_from_putney said:***** Betting Post *****
My tip of the week suggestion this time is for the Tories to recapture the Rochester & Strood seat they lost last November after Mark Reckless defected to UKIP and successfully defended the seat in the subsequent by-election with a modest majority of a little over 2,000 votes.
The recent polls are suggesting that UKIP has lost a significant share, perhaps as much as a third of their support since then, added to which the Tories will benefit considerably from the inevitably very much higher turnout in the forthcoming General Election (65% in 2010), compared with the 50% who voted at the by-election.
Taken together therefore, Reckless looks likely to be roundly defeated in six weeks time and on this basis the best available odds of 5/6 (1.83 decimal) on a Tory win from those nice people at SkyBet appear to offer sound value.
As ever DYOR.0 -
It would be a minority government and would likely have to pass individual laws with the help of the Lib Dems and SNP. Similar to what will happen if Tories form governmentIndigo said:
It's not so much that, they might hug each other tightly for the reason you suggest, but its going to look like complete chaos on the news and in the papers, with endless bickering and refusing to support each others policies, what would the economic policy for such a grouping look like for example ? Then you have to consider how many by-elections in the average year, 5-6 ? Kippers would have a field day, and the majority of the government, such as it it, would evaporate in fairly short order.Freggles said:
Which one of those parties do you see letting the Tories into power aka electoral suicide?Mortimer said:
If the leader of such a disparate group of magic money tree-ers is already considered weak, just how do you think they would look when every appearance of their name in a headline is preceded or followed by 'propped up' or 'facing rebellion' or 'having to make a u turn to keep office'.asjohnstone said:
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?SouthamObserver said:
EdM + Scotland + improving economy + cautious campaign = Tories getting most seats, surely.
The Tories can only throw it away from here.
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)
You may be constitutionally correct - it is unlikely to be de facto accurate. Whoever wins the most seats will be PM.0 -
So much Kipper support comes from NOTA and DNV that their decline in areas where they are not thought to be at the races is hardly a surprise. They reach parts of the electorate which the other parties don't and frequently ignore or belittle. There is not a lot of incentive to return to any of the mainstream parties for those in this category.Casino_Royale said:Interestingly, UKIP's relative decline in these polls does not seem to have disproportionately benefited the Tories.
0 -
I am not sure we can draw that conclusion. Just because Cameron out polls his party, that doesn't necessarily mean other people in the party can't out poll their party either. Boris almost certainly can, and probably more so than Cameron does. There are several able performers in the Conservative party that might well outperform Dave, but the party as a whole is weighed down by a group of duck-ponders and bufton tuftons.DavidL said:There have been a lot of comments about the possibility of a second election. If the government of the losers hangs together for any period of time it will be a government that the Tories would be going into without David Cameron, their largest single asset. Just a thought.
0 -
I think it'll come down to whether Labour's new found voters actually turn out.SouthamObserver said:
The polls seem reasonable to me. The country is pretty evenly divided. But the key to the election is voter motivation. And right now just about the only motivation Labour voters have to vote is to prevent a Tory majority. With EdM the alternative, will that really be enough? I can't see it myself.Innocent_Abroad said:
You may have a point. Reasons to distrust the polls have often been discussed here, and I suspect the pollsters themselves have far less faith in their product than they had in past elections.SimonStClare said:Morning all
Very odd polling indeed this week - I’m not normally one for conspiracy theories but…!
On the other hand, if you are a Tory voter the government has delivered for you by and large over the last five years. Why wouldn't you go out and vote Tory again?
Tories have every reason to, and are pretty solid. Much of Labour's new support didn't vote Labour in GE2010, and are highly sceptical about Miliband. So their sole motivation is to stop the Tories.
I'm not sure that's enough, but we'll see.0 -
Yesterday's yougov internals show that red kippers have come home but Conservative are gaining more ex Labour than the reds and the 2010 Lib Dem gap has narrowed a bit.Casino_Royale said:Interestingly, UKIP's relative decline in these polls does not seem to have disproportionately benefited the Tories.
The Scottish weighting was slightly dubious too (Yes yes I know it isn't weighted for Scotland to be accurate...) - overall I read the Conservatives slightly ahead from last night's Yougov but obviously that's swamped by MoE on one poll.0 -
That's the case either way, though, isn't it? If he is the PM of a minority government that cannot last the course he is out, because that is his second term done. Alternatively, if the Tories lose office in May, he will stand down or be forced out.DavidL said:There have been a lot of comments about the possibility of a second election. If the government of the losers hangs together for any period of time it will be a government that the Tories would be going into without David Cameron, their largest single asset. Just a thought.
0 -
I suspect the kippers are much more handicapped by the appearance of not being in contention for many seats than any image problem they might have. There might be any number of people that like the cut of Farage's jib, but if the kippers are currently fourth in their seat, they are unlikely to give him their vote while there is an important Ed/Dave contest which appears too close to call.DavidL said:
So much Kipper support comes from NOTA and DNV that their decline in areas where they are not thought to be at the races is hardly a surprise. They reach parts of the electorate which the other parties don't and frequently ignore or belittle. There is not a lot of incentive to return to any of the mainstream parties for those in this category.Casino_Royale said:Interestingly, UKIP's relative decline in these polls does not seem to have disproportionately benefited the Tories.
If the kippers come second in 50-100 seats this time around as seems likely, GE2020 is going to be a completely different kettle of fish.0 -
The Red LDs are not the issue; they will turn out and are very motivated anti-Tories. The issue is much more the traditional Labour vote. I can see parts of it doing what many traditional Tories did in 97 - stay at home.Casino_Royale said:
I think it'll come down to whether Labour's new found voters actually turn out.SouthamObserver said:
The polls seem reasonable to me. The country is pretty evenly divided. But the key to the election is voter motivation. And right now just about the only motivation Labour voters have to vote is to prevent a Tory majority. With EdM the alternative, will that really be enough? I can't see it myself.Innocent_Abroad said:
You may have a point. Reasons to distrust the polls have often been discussed here, and I suspect the pollsters themselves have far less faith in their product than they had in past elections.SimonStClare said:Morning all
Very odd polling indeed this week - I’m not normally one for conspiracy theories but…!
On the other hand, if you are a Tory voter the government has delivered for you by and large over the last five years. Why wouldn't you go out and vote Tory again?
Tories have every reason to, and are pretty solid. Much of Labour's new support didn't vote Labour in GE2010, and are highly sceptical about Miliband. So their sole motivation is to stop the Tories.
I'm not sure that's enough, but we'll see.
0 -
Good morning all and unless something dramatic is said, I would expect today's final PMQs to be overshadowed by the French plane crash and the ongoing tragedy.
Alex Salmond is really doing his best for the Tory campaign in England. His announcement that the SNP would block a minority Tory government should go down like a bag of sick in the southern shires.0 -
Over the longer term, UKIP's ascendancy never really affected the Tories.Casino_Royale said:Interestingly, UKIP's relative decline in these polls does not seem to have disproportionately benefited the Tories.
0 -
I agree, but where does that leave DC? His off the cuff remark that he wouldn't stand for a third election will be thrown back at him, plus all the shifting alliances being formed behind him in the race to replace him whether he says that it was a full term parliament he was talking about, or he just walks.PeterC said:
You are right that it is the numbers which in the end count. But so does political common sense. The coalition of the losers you postulate would be a desperately unstable government which would be portrayed as having been foisted on the English. Labour is going to be hammered in Scotland. Taking office in the circumstances you envisage would lead to a fairly swift second election in which they would be hammered in England too. Just because you are offered a poison chalice does not mean you have to drink of it.asjohnstone said:
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?SouthamObserver said:
EdM + Scotland + improving economy + cautious campaign = Tories getting most seats, surely.
The Tories can only throw it away from here.
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)0 -
The poison chalice comes with ministerial red boxes, big pay rises, limos and the ability to spend tax payers money on patronage for their interest groups. Pretty sure they'd drink from that chalice.PeterC said:
You are right that it is the numbers which in the end count. But so does political common sense. The coalition of the losers you postulate would be a desperately unstable government which would be portrayed as having been foisted on the English. Labour is going to be hammered in Scotland. Taking office in the circumstances you envisage would lead to a fairly swift second election in which they would be hammered in England too. Just because you are offered a poison chalice does not mean you have to drink of it.asjohnstone said:
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?SouthamObserver said:
EdM + Scotland + improving economy + cautious campaign = Tories getting most seats, surely.
The Tories can only throw it away from here.
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)
I'm not sure the 2nd election hammering is a foregone conclusion either, Miliband may be difficult to envision as PM, but when you see him in a government limo driving from the Palace to Downing St it becomes a whole lot easier.0 -
It would largely depend on how UKIP holds together. The internal contradictions may become very overt over the 5 years.Indigo said:
I suspect the kippers are much more handicapped by the appearance of not being in contention for many seats than any image problem they might have. There might be any number of people that like the cut of Farage's jib, but if the kippers are currently fourth in their seat, they are unlikely to give him their vote while there is an important Ed/Dave contest which appears too close to call.DavidL said:
So much Kipper support comes from NOTA and DNV that their decline in areas where they are not thought to be at the races is hardly a surprise. They reach parts of the electorate which the other parties don't and frequently ignore or belittle. There is not a lot of incentive to return to any of the mainstream parties for those in this category.Casino_Royale said:Interestingly, UKIP's relative decline in these polls does not seem to have disproportionately benefited the Tories.
If the kippers come second in 50-100 seats this time around as seems likely, GE2020 is going to be a completely different kettle of fish.
And with a Euroreferendum out of the way (assuming a Tory govt), and Cameron replaced, what would a UKIP party offer?0 -
And then you notice Alex Salmond sitting next to him smirking at PMQs. And then we start hearing headline about how this or that policy was being shelved because the SNP wouldn't support it.asjohnstone said:
The poison chalice comes with ministerial red boxes, big pay rises, limos and the ability to spend tax payers money on patronage for their interest groups. Pretty sure they'd drink from that chalice.PeterC said:
You are right that it is the numbers which in the end count. But so does political common sense. The coalition of the losers you postulate would be a desperately unstable government which would be portrayed as having been foisted on the English. Labour is going to be hammered in Scotland. Taking office in the circumstances you envisage would lead to a fairly swift second election in which they would be hammered in England too. Just because you are offered a poison chalice does not mean you have to drink of it.asjohnstone said:
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?SouthamObserver said:
EdM + Scotland + improving economy + cautious campaign = Tories getting most seats, surely.
The Tories can only throw it away from here.
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)
I'm not sure the 2nd election hammering is a foregone conclusion either, Miliband may be difficult to envision as PM, but when you see him in a government limo driving from the Palace to Downing St it becomes a whole lot easier.
The SNP are left leaning, but broadly pro-business, I wonder what they will make of the sort of big government, politically correct, red-tape nightmares that Hattie regularly tries to foist on the country.0 -
In 2020 we may well have had the referendum and made the decision, which will have shot UKIP’s fox. Unless of course a) Ed wins, doesn’t hold a referendim but his government (thanks to Salmond?) lasts the course . If that happens and there’s still thought to be an issue with “europe” then they might do well, although a significant share of their current vote may well have died off!Indigo said:
I suspect the kippers are much more handicapped by the appearance of not being in contention for many seats than any image problem they might have. There might be any number of people that like the cut of Farage's jib, but if the kippers are currently fourth in their seat, they are unlikely to give him their vote while there is an important Ed/Dave contest which appears too close to call.DavidL said:
So much Kipper support comes from NOTA and DNV that their decline in areas where they are not thought to be at the races is hardly a surprise. They reach parts of the electorate which the other parties don't and frequently ignore or belittle. There is not a lot of incentive to return to any of the mainstream parties for those in this category.Casino_Royale said:Interestingly, UKIP's relative decline in these polls does not seem to have disproportionately benefited the Tories.
If the kippers come second in 50-100 seats this time around as seems likely, GE2020 is going to be a completely different kettle of fish.0 -
The IndiRef is out the way, I didn't notice it slowing the SNP down.foxinsoxuk said:
It would largely depend on how UKIP holds together. The internal contradictions may become very overt over the 5 years.Indigo said:
I suspect the kippers are much more handicapped by the appearance of not being in contention for many seats than any image problem they might have. There might be any number of people that like the cut of Farage's jib, but if the kippers are currently fourth in their seat, they are unlikely to give him their vote while there is an important Ed/Dave contest which appears too close to call.DavidL said:
So much Kipper support comes from NOTA and DNV that their decline in areas where they are not thought to be at the races is hardly a surprise. They reach parts of the electorate which the other parties don't and frequently ignore or belittle. There is not a lot of incentive to return to any of the mainstream parties for those in this category.Casino_Royale said:Interestingly, UKIP's relative decline in these polls does not seem to have disproportionately benefited the Tories.
If the kippers come second in 50-100 seats this time around as seems likely, GE2020 is going to be a completely different kettle of fish.
And with a Euroreferendum out of the way (assuming a Tory govt), and Cameron replaced, what would a UKIP party offer?
If Cameron wins the EU referendum by say 55/45 (that number sounds familiar) it is going to be the rallying cry for every "we was robbed" grievance merchant within 1000 miles (that sounds familiar as well). The 45% who wanted OUT might decide to try and get it through the ballot box instead. Conversely five years of EdM euro-idiocy will stiffen their vote quite considerably I would expect.
I don't by the died off bit, there will be just as many people with blue rinses in five years time as there are now, different people, but lots of people get more conservative, and more insular as they get older.OldKingCole said:In 2020 we may well have had the referendum and made the decision, which will have shot UKIP’s fox. Unless of course a) Ed wins, doesn’t hold a referendim but his government (thanks to Salmond?) lasts the course . If that happens and there’s still thought to be an issue with “europe” then they might do well, although a significant share of their current vote may well have died off!
0 -
In light of a post I made last week about differences in attitudes between Scotland and the south of England, I found this amusing. (regional differences)
Where does my personality fit in?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31816926-1 -
When you are totting up combinations of seats to work out a potential government, remember to look at the actual seats. The best Ashcroft has achieved from a Labour point of view is 39 out of their top 50 Tory targets. Given that from tomorrow the sitting MPs will be available to campaign on a daily basis and many (like Esther McVeigh, Nicky Morgan and Anna Soubry) will achieve a fair amount of media coverage, it is possible we will see Labour leads in these marginals start to fall and as with Worcester, disappear.0
-
That's because a good proportion of the ex tory Kippers stopped bothering to vote after the ERM fiasco - until now.Gadfly said:
Over the longer term, UKIP's ascendancy never really affected the Tories.Casino_Royale said:Interestingly, UKIP's relative decline in these polls does not seem to have disproportionately benefited the Tories.
0 -
If Salmond leads a big block of SNP MP’s then he’s made it plain he won’t do a Clegg. He’ll be on the benches opposite and we’ll have the curious spectatcle of 60% of the Opposition benches shouting abuse at the PM at PMQ’s and 20% of it cheering. The other 20% will be the MP’s (mostly female) who are apallled at that somewhat juvenile behaviour!Indigo said:
And then you notice Alex Salmond sitting next to him smirking at PMQs. And then we start hearing headline about how this or that policy was being shelved because the SNP wouldn't support it.asjohnstone said:
The poison chalice comes with ministerial red boxes, big pay rises, limos and the ability to spend tax payers money on patronage for their interest groups. Pretty sure they'd drink from that chalice.PeterC said:
You are right that it is the numbers which in the end count. But so does political common sense. The coalition of the losers you postulate would be a desperately unstable government which would be portrayed as having been foisted on the English. Labour is going to be hammered in Scotland. Taking office in the circumstances you envisage would lead to a fairly swift second election in which they would be hammered in England too. Just because you are offered a poison chalice does not mean you have to drink of it.asjohnstone said:
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?SouthamObserver said:
EdM + Scotland + improving economy + cautious campaign = Tories getting most seats, surely.
The Tories can only throw it away from here.
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)
I'm not sure the 2nd election hammering is a foregone conclusion either, Miliband may be difficult to envision as PM, but when you see him in a government limo driving from the Palace to Downing St it becomes a whole lot easier.
The SNP are left leaning, but broadly pro-business, I wonder what they will make of the sort of big government, politically correct, red-tape nightmares that Hattie regularly tries to foist on the country.0 -
Disagree, trying to run a minority or very small majority Westminster government is very difficult for all concerned.asjohnstone said:
The poison chalice comes with ministerial red boxes, big pay rises, limos and the ability to spend tax payers money on patronage for their interest groups. Pretty sure they'd drink from that chalice.PeterC said:
You are right that it is the numbers which in the end count. But so does political common sense. The coalition of the losers you postulate would be a desperately unstable government which would be portrayed as having been foisted on the English. Labour is going to be hammered in Scotland. Taking office in the circumstances you envisage would lead to a fairly swift second election in which they would be hammered in England too. Just because you are offered a poison chalice does not mean you have to drink of it.asjohnstone said:
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?SouthamObserver said:
EdM + Scotland + improving economy + cautious campaign = Tories getting most seats, surely.
The Tories can only throw it away from here.
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)
I'm not sure the 2nd election hammering is a foregone conclusion either, Miliband may be difficult to envision as PM, but when you see him in a government limo driving from the Palace to Downing St it becomes a whole lot easier.
The deals to keep your own MP's in line, while getting backing for C&S from minor parties and disillusioned members of the other side is a nightmare while the strain on your own MP's puts them in hospital/coffins etc.. An attack minded opposition would make being in government a living hell.0 -
Quite.. How big is the Labour awkward squad these days ? Must be 30ish MPs.Edin_Rokz said:
Disagree, trying to run a minority or very small majority Westminster government is very difficult for all concerned.asjohnstone said:
The poison chalice comes with ministerial red boxes, big pay rises, limos and the ability to spend tax payers money on patronage for their interest groups. Pretty sure they'd drink from that chalice.PeterC said:
You are right that it is the numbers which in the end count. But so does political common sense. The coalition of the losers you postulate would be a desperately unstable government which would be portrayed as having been foisted on the English. Labour is going to be hammered in Scotland. Taking office in the circumstances you envisage would lead to a fairly swift second election in which they would be hammered in England too. Just because you are offered a poison chalice does not mean you have to drink of it.asjohnstone said:
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?SouthamObserver said:
EdM + Scotland + improving economy + cautious campaign = Tories getting most seats, surely.
The Tories can only throw it away from here.
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)
I'm not sure the 2nd election hammering is a foregone conclusion either, Miliband may be difficult to envision as PM, but when you see him in a government limo driving from the Palace to Downing St it becomes a whole lot easier.
The deals to keep your own MP's in line, while getting backing for C&S from minor parties and disillusioned members of the other side is a nightmare while the strain on your own MP's puts them in hospital/coffins etc.. An attack minded opposition would make being in government a living hell.0 -
Callaghan and Wilson managed it for 5 years. In very trying circumstances.Edin_Rokz said:
Disagree, trying to run a minority or very small majority Westminster government is very difficult for all concerned.asjohnstone said:
The poison chalice comes with ministerial red boxes, big pay rises, limos and the ability to spend tax payers money on patronage for their interest groups. Pretty sure they'd drink from that chalice.PeterC said:
You are right that it is the numbers which in the end count. But so does political common sense. The coalition of the losers you postulate would be a desperately unstable government which would be portrayed as having been foisted on the English. Labour is going to be hammered in Scotland. Taking office in the circumstances you envisage would lead to a fairly swift second election in which they would be hammered in England too. Just because you are offered a poison chalice does not mean you have to drink of it.asjohnstone said:
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?SouthamObserver said:
EdM + Scotland + improving economy + cautious campaign = Tories getting most seats, surely.
The Tories can only throw it away from here.
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)
I'm not sure the 2nd election hammering is a foregone conclusion either, Miliband may be difficult to envision as PM, but when you see him in a government limo driving from the Palace to Downing St it becomes a whole lot easier.
The deals to keep your own MP's in line, while getting backing for C&S from minor parties and disillusioned members of the other side is a nightmare while the strain on your own MP's puts them in hospital/coffins etc.. An attack minded opposition would make being in government a living hell.0 -
300 seats makes a Conservative government very likely, in my view.asjohnstone said:
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?SouthamObserver said:
EdM + Scotland + improving economy + cautious campaign = Tories getting most seats, surely.
The Tories can only throw it away from here.
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)0 -
Well yes, unless the Lib Dems have suffered complete wipeout.Sean_F said:
300 seats makes a Conservative government very likely, in my view.asjohnstone said:
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?SouthamObserver said:
EdM + Scotland + improving economy + cautious campaign = Tories getting most seats, surely.
The Tories can only throw it away from here.
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)0 -
Labour have benefitted from a reduction in Green support. The Conservatives from a reduction in UKIP support.Casino_Royale said:Interestingly, UKIP's relative decline in these polls does not seem to have disproportionately benefited the Tories.
0 -
Even if the Conservatives form a minority government, they may not have the votes to carry a referendum bill.Indigo said:
The IndiRef is out the way, I didn't notice it slowing the SNP down.foxinsoxuk said:
It would largely depend on how UKIP holds together. The internal contradictions may become very overt over the 5 years.Indigo said:
I suspect the kippers are much more handicapped by the appearance of not being in contention for many seats than any image problem they might have. There might be any number of people that like the cut of Farage's jib, but if the kippers are currently fourth in their seat, they are unlikely to give him their vote while there is an important Ed/Dave contest which appears too close to call.DavidL said:
So much Kipper support comes from NOTA and DNV that their decline in areas where they are not thought to be at the races is hardly a surprise. They reach parts of the electorate which the other parties don't and frequently ignore or belittle. There is not a lot of incentive to return to any of the mainstream parties for those in this category.Casino_Royale said:Interestingly, UKIP's relative decline in these polls does not seem to have disproportionately benefited the Tories.
If the kippers come second in 50-100 seats this time around as seems likely, GE2020 is going to be a completely different kettle of fish.
And with a Euroreferendum out of the way (assuming a Tory govt), and Cameron replaced, what would a UKIP party offer?
If Cameron wins the EU referendum by say 55/45 (that number sounds familiar) it is going to be the rallying cry for every "we was robbed" grievance merchant within 1000 miles (that sounds familiar as well). The 45% who wanted OUT might decide to try and get it through the ballot box instead. Conversely five years of EdM euro-idiocy will stiffen their vote quite considerably I would expect.
I don't by the died off bit, there will be just as many people with blue rinses in five years time as there are now, different people, but lots of people get more conservative, and more insular as they get older.OldKingCole said:In 2020 we may well have had the referendum and made the decision, which will have shot UKIP’s fox. Unless of course a) Ed wins, doesn’t hold a referendim but his government (thanks to Salmond?) lasts the course . If that happens and there’s still thought to be an issue with “europe” then they might do well, although a significant share of their current vote may well have died off!
0 -
This election looks like the 1854 US midterms so far:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_18540 -
Indeed. And quite who would a Tory opposition be minded to attack, given that the Party hasn't won an election outright since 1992, its donors are pro-European and its activists pretty much all Kippers in posh shoes?OldKingCole said:
Callaghan and Wilson managed it for 5 years. In very trying circumstances.Edin_Rokz said:
Disagree, trying to run a minority or very small majority Westminster government is very difficult for all concerned.asjohnstone said:
The poison chalice comes with ministerial red boxes, big pay rises, limos and the ability to spend tax payers money on patronage for their interest groups. Pretty sure they'd drink from that chalice.PeterC said:
You are right that it is the numbers which in the end count. But so does political common sense. The coalition of the losers you postulate would be a desperately unstable government which would be portrayed as having been foisted on the English. Labour is going to be hammered in Scotland. Taking office in the circumstances you envisage would lead to a fairly swift second election in which they would be hammered in England too. Just because you are offered a poison chalice does not mean you have to drink of it.asjohnstone said:
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?SouthamObserver said:
EdM + Scotland + improving economy + cautious campaign = Tories getting most seats, surely.
The Tories can only throw it away from here.
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)
I'm not sure the 2nd election hammering is a foregone conclusion either, Miliband may be difficult to envision as PM, but when you see him in a government limo driving from the Palace to Downing St it becomes a whole lot easier.
The deals to keep your own MP's in line, while getting backing for C&S from minor parties and disillusioned members of the other side is a nightmare while the strain on your own MP's puts them in hospital/coffins etc.. An attack minded opposition would make being in government a living hell.
0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Aye, the plane crash will overshadow everything. Tricky for Miliband. He won't want to have the final PMQs just be sombre, but diving in without any mention of the crash would look crass. Probably a 2/4 or 3/3 split, I'd guess, with the latter questions of a party political nature.0 -
Yes, I agree that <4.5 UKIP seats bet at 1.83 with Laddies looks like good value - it doesn't seem to feature on Oddschecker but I found it hidden away on the bookie's own site.foxinsoxuk said:
Under 4.5 UKIP seats at Ladbrokes is on 1.83 too.peter_from_putney said:
There are at least two seats where imho UKIP stand a better chance of winning than at Rochester. Which over/under markets do you have in mind specifically which you consider offer better value than the bet I have suggested?foxinsoxuk said:
On those arguments I would have thought the over/under markets on UKIP seats a better bet. If UKIP cannot hold Rochester then they would be heading for a single seat.peter_from_putney said:***** Betting Post *****
My tip of the week suggestion this time is for the Tories to recapture the Rochester & Strood seat they lost last November after Mark Reckless defected to UKIP and successfully defended the seat in the subsequent by-election with a modest majority of a little over 2,000 votes.
The recent polls are suggesting that UKIP has lost a significant share, perhaps as much as a third of their support since then, added to which the Tories will benefit considerably from the inevitably very much higher turnout in the forthcoming General Election (65% in 2010), compared with the 50% who voted at the by-election.
Taken together therefore, Reckless looks likely to be roundly defeated in six weeks time and on this basis the best available odds of 5/6 (1.83 decimal) on a Tory win from those nice people at SkyBet appear to offer sound value.
As ever DYOR.
Which would be a safer bet; if Rochester is lost then the other seats are unlikely to come in.
But I think Rochester will be a kipper hold.
Should the Tories fail to retake R & S then they are in very serious trouble. I'd expect them to secure a comfortable majority of between 1,500 - 3,000.0 -
Agreed. DUP will have about 8-9 seats and I can't see the Lib-Dems falling below 30 in reality so I can't see a party with 40 seats less taking power in that scenario.Sean_F said:
300 seats makes a Conservative government very likely, in my view.asjohnstone said:
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?SouthamObserver said:
EdM + Scotland + improving economy + cautious campaign = Tories getting most seats, surely.
The Tories can only throw it away from here.
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)
Either we'll have Coalition 2.0 (still an absolute majority in that scenario) or a Tory minority with confidence and supply.
0 -
If a minority Tory government introduces a referendum bill that cannot get through, who will be blamed?Sean_F said:
Even if the Conservatives form a minority government, they may not have the votes to carry a referendum bill.Indigo said:
The IndiRef is out the way, I didn't notice it slowing the SNP down.foxinsoxuk said:
It would largely depend on how UKIP holds together. The internal contradictions may become very overt over the 5 years.Indigo said:
I suspect the kippers are much more handicapped by the appearance of not being in contention for many seats than any image problem they might have. There might be any number of people that like the cut of Farage's jib, but if the kippers are currently fourth in their seat, they are unlikely to give him their vote while there is an important Ed/Dave contest which appears too close to call.DavidL said:
So much Kipper support comes from NOTA and DNV that their decline in areas where they are not thought to be at the races is hardly a surprise. They reach parts of the electorate which the other parties don't and frequently ignore or belittle. There is not a lot of incentive to return to any of the mainstream parties for those in this category.Casino_Royale said:Interestingly, UKIP's relative decline in these polls does not seem to have disproportionately benefited the Tories.
If the kippers come second in 50-100 seats this time around as seems likely, GE2020 is going to be a completely different kettle of fish.
And with a Euroreferendum out of the way (assuming a Tory govt), and Cameron replaced, what would a UKIP party offer?
If Cameron wins the EU referendum by say 55/45 (that number sounds familiar) it is going to be the rallying cry for every "we was robbed" grievance merchant within 1000 miles (that sounds familiar as well). The 45% who wanted OUT might decide to try and get it through the ballot box instead. Conversely five years of EdM euro-idiocy will stiffen their vote quite considerably I would expect.
I don't by the died off bit, there will be just as many people with blue rinses in five years time as there are now, different people, but lots of people get more conservative, and more insular as they get older.OldKingCole said:In 2020 we may well have had the referendum and made the decision, which will have shot UKIP’s fox. Unless of course a) Ed wins, doesn’t hold a referendim but his government (thanks to Salmond?) lasts the course . If that happens and there’s still thought to be an issue with “europe” then they might do well, although a significant share of their current vote may well have died off!
0 -
We saw something similar during the Indyref with a four or five polls in a row giving no a 4% lead0
-
Crikey - 20 maybe, can definitely see them below 30.Philip_Thompson said:I can't see the Lib-Dems falling below 30 in reality
0 -
Tim Farron.foxinsoxuk said:
If a minority Tory government introduces a referendum bill that cannot get through, who will be blamed?Sean_F said:
Even if the Conservatives form a minority government, they may not have the votes to carry a referendum bill.Indigo said:
The IndiRef is out the way, I didn't notice it slowing the SNP down.foxinsoxuk said:
It would largely depend on how UKIP holds together. The internal contradictions may become very overt over the 5 years.Indigo said:
I suspect the kippers are much more handicapped by the appearance of not being in contention for many seats than any image problem they might have. There might be any number of people that like the cut of Farage's jib, but if the kippers are currently fourth in their seat, they are unlikely to give him their vote while there is an important Ed/Dave contest which appears too close to call.DavidL said:
So much Kipper support comes from NOTA and DNV that their decline in areas where they are not thought to be at the races is hardly a surprise. They reach parts of the electorate which the other parties don't and frequently ignore or belittle. There is not a lot of incentive to return to any of the mainstream parties for those in this category.Casino_Royale said:Interestingly, UKIP's relative decline in these polls does not seem to have disproportionately benefited the Tories.
If the kippers come second in 50-100 seats this time around as seems likely, GE2020 is going to be a completely different kettle of fish.
And with a Euroreferendum out of the way (assuming a Tory govt), and Cameron replaced, what would a UKIP party offer?
If Cameron wins the EU referendum by say 55/45 (that number sounds familiar) it is going to be the rallying cry for every "we was robbed" grievance merchant within 1000 miles (that sounds familiar as well). The 45% who wanted OUT might decide to try and get it through the ballot box instead. Conversely five years of EdM euro-idiocy will stiffen their vote quite considerably I would expect.
I don't by the died off bit, there will be just as many people with blue rinses in five years time as there are now, different people, but lots of people get more conservative, and more insular as they get older.OldKingCole said:In 2020 we may well have had the referendum and made the decision, which will have shot UKIP’s fox. Unless of course a) Ed wins, doesn’t hold a referendim but his government (thanks to Salmond?) lasts the course . If that happens and there’s still thought to be an issue with “europe” then they might do well, although a significant share of their current vote may well have died off!
0 -
Tories 300, Lib Dems 20 and DUP 9, plus a few UKIP and away you go.Pulpstar said:
Well yes, unless the Lib Dems have suffered complete wipeout.Sean_F said:
300 seats makes a Conservative government very likely, in my view.asjohnstone said:
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?SouthamObserver said:
EdM + Scotland + improving economy + cautious campaign = Tories getting most seats, surely.
The Tories can only throw it away from here.
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)0 -
Callaghan and Wilson almost had a majority. Labour on 260 seats would be 63 short.OldKingCole said:
Callaghan and Wilson managed it for 5 years. In very trying circumstances.Edin_Rokz said:
Disagree, trying to run a minority or very small majority Westminster government is very difficult for all concerned.asjohnstone said:
The poison chalice comes with ministerial red boxes, big pay rises, limos and the ability to spend tax payers money on patronage for their interest groups. Pretty sure they'd drink from that chalice.PeterC said:
You are right that it is the numbers which in the end count. But so does political common sense. The coalition of the losers you postulate would be a desperately unstable government which would be portrayed as having been foisted on the English. Labour is going to be hammered in Scotland. Taking office in the circumstances you envisage would lead to a fairly swift second election in which they would be hammered in England too. Just because you are offered a poison chalice does not mean you have to drink of it.asjohnstone said:
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?SouthamObserver said:
EdM + Scotland + improving economy + cautious campaign = Tories getting most seats, surely.
The Tories can only throw it away from here.
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)
I'm not sure the 2nd election hammering is a foregone conclusion either, Miliband may be difficult to envision as PM, but when you see him in a government limo driving from the Palace to Downing St it becomes a whole lot easier.
The deals to keep your own MP's in line, while getting backing for C&S from minor parties and disillusioned members of the other side is a nightmare while the strain on your own MP's puts them in hospital/coffins etc.. An attack minded opposition would make being in government a living hell.0 -
And what happened in 1979?OldKingCole said:
Callaghan and Wilson managed it for 5 years. In very trying circumstances.Edin_Rokz said:
Disagree, trying to run a minority or very small majority Westminster government is very difficult for all concerned.asjohnstone said:
The poison chalice comes with ministerial red boxes, big pay rises, limos and the ability to spend tax payers money on patronage for their interest groups. Pretty sure they'd drink from that chalice.PeterC said:
You are right that it is the numbers which in the end count. But so does political common sense. The coalition of the losers you postulate would be a desperately unstable government which would be portrayed as having been foisted on the English. Labour is going to be hammered in Scotland. Taking office in the circumstances you envisage would lead to a fairly swift second election in which they would be hammered in England too. Just because you are offered a poison chalice does not mean you have to drink of it.asjohnstone said:
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?SouthamObserver said:
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game,
I'm not sure the 2nd election hammering is a foregone conclusion either, Miliband may be difficult to envision as PM, but when you see him in a government limo driving from the Palace to Downing St it becomes a whole lot easier.
The deals to keep your own MP's in line, while getting backing for C&S from minor parties and disillusioned members of the other side is a nightmare while the strain on your own MP's puts them in hospital/coffins etc.. An attack minded opposition would make being in government a living hell.
Apart from which, while I know that Westminster is a very different place from the 70's, where MP's in hospital (some of whom were literally on their death beds) were sent by ambulance to cross into the Westminster courtyard so that their vote could be counted.
While technology has brought more changes in the chances of MP's not getting caught by the respective whips offices in rebellions before they happen.
All whilst looking after their own constituency work, trying to sort out who the powerbrokers are and what opportunities there are for their own advancement.0 -
I'm not sure I fully agree. If they were that motivated to stop the Tories, surely they would all have voted Labour in GE2010.SouthamObserver said:
The Red LDs are not the issue; they will turn out and are very motivated anti-Tories. The issue is much more the traditional Labour vote. I can see parts of it doing what many traditional Tories did in 97 - stay at home.Casino_Royale said:
I think it'll come down to whether Labour's new found voters actually turn out.SouthamObserver said:
The polls seem reasonable to me. The country is pretty evenly divided. But the key to the election is voter motivation. And right now just about the only motivation Labour voters have to vote is to prevent a Tory majority. With EdM the alternative, will that really be enough? I can't see it myself.Innocent_Abroad said:
You may have a point. Reasons to distrust the polls have often been discussed here, and I suspect the pollsters themselves have far less faith in their product than they had in past elections.SimonStClare said:Morning all
Very odd polling indeed this week - I’m not normally one for conspiracy theories but…!
On the other hand, if you are a Tory voter the government has delivered for you by and large over the last five years. Why wouldn't you go out and vote Tory again?
Tories have every reason to, and are pretty solid. Much of Labour's new support didn't vote Labour in GE2010, and are highly sceptical about Miliband. So their sole motivation is to stop the Tories.
I'm not sure that's enough, but we'll see.
But they didn't. And it's not as if Nick Clegg was an obvious left-winger back then either, certainly not compared to Charles Kennedy.
I think it's much more complicated than that, but can see why Labour want to bank on it.
0 -
The first, certainly. I'm still to be convinced by the latter.Sean_F said:
Labour have benefitted from a reduction in Green support. The Conservatives from a reduction in UKIP support.Casino_Royale said:Interestingly, UKIP's relative decline in these polls does not seem to have disproportionately benefited the Tories.
0 -
You can have 10/11 with mepeter_from_putney said:***** Betting Post *****
My tip of the week suggestion this time is for the Tories to recapture the Rochester & Strood seat they lost last November after Mark Reckless defected to UKIP and successfully defended the seat in the subsequent by-election with a modest majority of a little over 2,000 votes.
The recent polls are suggesting that UKIP has lost a significant share, perhaps as much as a third of their support since then, added to which the Tories will benefit considerably from the inevitably very much higher turnout in the forthcoming General Election (65% in 2010), compared with the 50% who voted at the by-election.
Taken together therefore, Reckless looks likely to be roundly defeated in six weeks time and on this basis the best available odds of 5/6 (1.83 decimal) on a Tory win from those nice people at SkyBet appear to offer sound value.
As ever DYOR.0 -
295+ seats means the Conservatives stay in office, but, given the number and composition of the Lib Dems post election, I can't see that government being particularly "Conservative".Sean_F said:
300 seats makes a Conservative government very likely, in my view.asjohnstone said:
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?SouthamObserver said:
EdM + Scotland + improving economy + cautious campaign = Tories getting most seats, surely.
The Tories can only throw it away from here.
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)
310 is the magic number to be sure of carrying the EU referendum Bill. 315 seats if they want to implement the vast majority of their programme.0 -
We’ll probably, IMHO, be looking at a Tory minority government. Whether Labour would be able to be looking for the kill is probably the question. If they don’t win, will Ed go, voluntarily or not, or will they go in for the kill? If Labour fight among themselves, then a Tory minority would manage in the same way as Wilson/Callaghan.
If the Tories loses seats in May and there’s a Labour minority government then I suspect that “fighting like ferrets in a sack” will be a mild way of describing the Tory benches! They might actually split.0 -
@Andrew_ComRes: ComRes/Daily Mail voter reaction to Cameron's 2 terms comments: 45% 'honest' 28% 'arrogant' http://t.co/8BcRm8byMM0
-
TheScreamingEagles said:
We saw something similar during the Indyref with a four or five polls in a row giving no a 4% lead
meanwhile down in dockside land US sailors are negotiating how many pounds they'll get for a dollarTheScreamingEagles said:We saw something similar during the Indyref with a four or five polls in a row giving no a 4% lead
cough cough
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11492825/What-happens-on-a-night-out-with-5000-American-sailors.html0 -
And how big is the Tory one? DC, GO et al are not popular and there are too many who would like to stick a knife into their backs. When are the Ides of March anyway?Indigo said:
Quite.. How big is the Labour awkward squad these days ? Must be 30ish MPs.Edin_Rokz said:
Disagree, trying to run a minority or very small majority Westminster government is very difficult for all concerned.asjohnstone said:
The poison chalice comes with ministerial red boxes, big pay rises, limos and the ability to spend tax payers money on patronage for their interest groups. Pretty sure they'd drink from that chalice.PeterC said:
You are right that it is the numbers which in the end count. But so does political common sense. The coalition of the losers you postulate would be a desperately unstable government which would be portrayed as having been foisted on the English. Labour is going to be hammered in Scotland. Taking office in the circumstances you envisage would lead to a fairly swift second election in which they would be hammered in England too. Just because you are offered a poison chalice does not mean you have to drink of it.asjohnstone said:
Why do we think most seats gives the tories anything ?SouthamObserver said:
EdM + Scotland + improving economy + cautious campaign = Tories getting most seats, surely.
The Tories can only throw it away from here.
323 is the effective number. If Labour / Greens / SNP / SDLP / Respect add up to 323 then Ed is PM. Doesn't matter if the Tories are on 300 seats vs 260 Labour.
Media can spin a coalition of the losers / moral mandate meme all they want, at the end of the day it's just the numbers. With the Lib Dems dying, even staying 300+ isn't going to cut it for the tories.
I don't see a plausible result that doesn't have Milliband in power.
(I have no skin in the game, no longer live in the UK, I'm just about the betting)
I'm not sure the 2nd election hammering is a foregone conclusion either, Miliband may be difficult to envision as PM, but when you see him in a government limo driving from the Palace to Downing St it becomes a whole lot easier.
The deals to keep your own MP's in line, while getting backing for C&S from minor parties and disillusioned members of the other side is a nightmare while the strain on your own MP's puts them in hospital/coffins etc.. An attack minded opposition would make being in government a living hell.0 -
I think that circumstances could easily create a joint 330-350 bloc of Tory/SNP that would drive through a pact on EV4EL and Super Devo-Max.
It's in the mutual interest.0 -
Those bonuses must be big - being spent AGAIN
norman smith@BBCNormanS·54 secs54 seconds ago
Labour @JimForScotland says will pay for 5,000 Scottish jobs with £1 billion from tax on City bonuses0 -
I understand the good ladies are offering a "Lib Dem May 2015" experience.Alanbrooke said:TheScreamingEagles said:We saw something similar during the Indyref with a four or five polls in a row giving no a 4% lead
meanwhile down in dockside land US sailors are negotiating how many pounds they'll get for a dollarTheScreamingEagles said:We saw something similar during the Indyref with a four or five polls in a row giving no a 4% lead
cough cough
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11492825/What-happens-on-a-night-out-with-5000-American-sailors.html0 -
If no Party attains 300 seats either the pressure for a Grand Coalition will build and build (because of the 5 Year Act) or almost the first thing the Parliament will do will be to repeal the 5YA - or even both.
If we have, say, Tory 290, Labour 260 &c then I would expect Miliband to offer a Grand Coalition & Cameron to refuse it (and regret it later, but, hey, that's life).0 -
Rachel McDonald (00:40)'s mum has warned her.Alanbrooke said:TheScreamingEagles said:We saw something similar during the Indyref with a four or five polls in a row giving no a 4% lead
meanwhile down in dockside land US sailors are negotiating how many pounds they'll get for a dollarTheScreamingEagles said:We saw something similar during the Indyref with a four or five polls in a row giving no a 4% lead
cough cough
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11492825/What-happens-on-a-night-out-with-5000-American-sailors.html0 -
Reaches for his betting notes.... what was my bet again?isam said:
You can have 10/11 with mepeter_from_putney said:***** Betting Post *****
My tip of the week suggestion this time is for the Tories to recapture the Rochester & Strood seat they lost last November after Mark Reckless defected to UKIP and successfully defended the seat in the subsequent by-election with a modest majority of a little over 2,000 votes.
The recent polls are suggesting that UKIP has lost a significant share, perhaps as much as a third of their support since then, added to which the Tories will benefit considerably from the inevitably very much higher turnout in the forthcoming General Election (65% in 2010), compared with the 50% who voted at the by-election.
Taken together therefore, Reckless looks likely to be roundly defeated in six weeks time and on this basis the best available odds of 5/6 (1.83 decimal) on a Tory win from those nice people at SkyBet appear to offer sound value.
As ever DYOR.0 -
The LibDems also appear to have lost some support in favour to UKIP, which appears to be returning.Casino_Royale said:
The first, certainly. I'm still to be convinced by the latter.Sean_F said:
Labour have benefitted from a reduction in Green support. The Conservatives from a reduction in UKIP support.Casino_Royale said:Interestingly, UKIP's relative decline in these polls does not seem to have disproportionately benefited the Tories.
I question whether the Kippers are simply returning to their former polarisations as the election approaches, or whether they have noticed the disaster that a populist party has foisted upon Greece. Front National and Podemus seem to be in similar decline.
0
This discussion has been closed.