politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » There’s still a huge gap facing the Tories in England and W
Comments
-
Except they're only polling 8% as we have FPTP and they've been locked in as a major party for decades now, third parties are often destroyed by many PR systems (especially if there's a 5% threshold its not unimaginable they'd get less than that).Tabman said:
When you have STV the rules of the game change dramatically. There is a lot of latent Con/Lab support that sticks with them only because of FPTP - to be fair this is also true of other parties but much less so given the numbers of seats they have.DeClare said:
Are the LD's still interested in PR? they've gone very quiet on the subject, after all if we had PR they would now be the fourth party in England and Scotland and the Fifth party in Wales.TheScreamingEagles said:
Put me in charge of coalition negotiations and I'll bring the Lib Dems into a new coalition.Tabman said:
I think Con minority with LD C&S would be most likely in that scenario. Much as I'd personally be up for a new coalition, I don't think the party is generally.Philip_Thompson said:
That'd be a terribly shambolic rainbow coalition.TheScreamingEagles said:I've been working on the magic number
If Lab + SNP + LD + SDLP +Greens + PC = 320
So I reckon Lab only needs 240 seats to make Ed PM (assuming 45 Nats and 30 Lib Dems)
Currently they are on 258, allowing for a shellacking in Scotland, that puts them on 217, so they only need to make 30 odd gains from the Tories (allowing for 8 gains from the Lib Dems) to make Ed PM.
Allowing 3 for Sinn Fein and 9 for DUP that leaves 318 left, presumably almost all Con.
Con minority or Con+LD is more likely.
I'd offer them PR for local elections (sans plebiscite), Tax breaks on sandals and muesli, A plebiscite on STV for parliament and a wholly directly elected Senate.
"can't win here" no longer applies and people are able to vote positively for something rather than for the least worse option.
And given 8% of the vote in England would equate to c55 seats in a proportional system, I think most Lib Dems would take that at present.0 -
Methinks you are not reading this right.nigel4england said:
Normally I Like Tom Bradby but he is wrong on this.BenM said:Where's Scott N Paste?
tom bradby@tombradby · 2h 2 hours ago
Of this I am certain; by the end of the day, this will have cost the Tories votes.
And they will be votes they can ill afford to lose.
The Tories should use it to enhance the excellent "Chaos or competence" line on the economy.
Labour simply do not have a scooby doo.
0 -
Almost certainly "Howling Laud" Alan Hope, from the Monster Raving Loonies.Sandpit said:Plato said:PBers?
Michael Crick
@MichaelLCrick
Can anyone tell me, which candidate has the worst election record of any standing in 2015 - who has lost the most successive elections?
Wiki seems to think he has stood in 14 parliamentary elections and by-elections, and is standing in Uxbridge against Boris this time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howling_Laud_Hope0 -
Interesting that the Tories are not defending non doms.0
-
He has never recovered from the NFL playoff ball deflation row..TheScreamingEagles said:
Is that the Tom Brady who a few weeks ago said Dave's third term pledge would cost him votes and was the greatest strategic blunder since Carthage put Hannibal in charge of a large military force ?BenM said:Where's Scott N Paste?
tom bradby@tombradby · 2h 2 hours ago
Of this I am certain; by the end of the day, this will have cost the Tories votes.
And they will be votes they can ill afford to lose.
That Tom Bradby?0 -
I really want a Labour government.TCPoliticalBetting said:
This type of agit prop student politiking from Miliband may well work. The voters are angry enough with politicians and Miliband's desperate nonsense may get him into Number 10. So be it. He will be the worst PM since WW2. Worse than Brown.TheScreamingEagles said:
Is that the Tom Brady who a few weeks ago said Dave's third term pledge would cost him votes and was the greatest strategic blunder since Carthage put Hannibal in charge of a large military force ?BenM said:Where's Scott N Paste?
tom bradby@tombradby · 2h 2 hours ago
Of this I am certain; by the end of the day, this will have cost the Tories votes.
And they will be votes they can ill afford to lose.
That Tom Bradby?
I'm relaxed about it. Just imagine these guys in power being dictated by the Nats.
If the Tories can hold their nerve in opposition then Labour are screwed at the next election.
How will England feel when her hard earned taxes are being sent to Scotland to pay their largesse?
Especially as the bulk of austerity is to come in the next parliament.
0 -
Portsmouth Souith includes Old Portsmouth and Southsea.Jonathan said:
Anti Tory vote consolidated around SDP/ LD IN 1980s.AllyPally_Rob said:Off topic but could someone explain given the demographics of the seat why Portsmouth South is a LD/Tory marginal? Seems like the kind of constituency that would be natural Labour territory?
Portsmouth North includes Paulsgrove, which is much more Labour territory, and was in fact represented by Frank Judd at one point.0 -
0
-
It's certainly going to be fun watching Labour supporters defend the government when the sweeties don't materialise and cuts kick in, particularly the healthcare ones.TheScreamingEagles said:
I really want a Labour government.TCPoliticalBetting said:
This type of agit prop student politiking from Miliband may well work. The voters are angry enough with politicians and Miliband's desperate nonsense may get him into Number 10. So be it. He will be the worst PM since WW2. Worse than Brown.TheScreamingEagles said:
Is that the Tom Brady who a few weeks ago said Dave's third term pledge would cost him votes and was the greatest strategic blunder since Carthage put Hannibal in charge of a large military force ?BenM said:Where's Scott N Paste?
tom bradby@tombradby · 2h 2 hours ago
Of this I am certain; by the end of the day, this will have cost the Tories votes.
And they will be votes they can ill afford to lose.
That Tom Bradby?
I'm relaxed about it. Just imagine these guys in power being dictated by the Nats.
If the Tories can hold their nerve in opposition then Labour are screwed at the next election.
How will England feel when her hard earned taxes are being sent to Scotland to pay their largesse?
Especially as the bulk of austerity is to come in the next parliament.0 -
I suspect his stakes are rather larger than mineMikeSmithson said:
Tim, formerly of this parish, is a big seller of UKIP on SPIN.Pulpstar said:
Sell UKIP on the Sporting Index at 4.0 (Settles at 10.0 for second, 25 for first) - this is a two horse race disguised as a 7 horse race.Jonathan said:
Anti Tory vote consolidated around SDP/ LD IN 1980s.AllyPally_Rob said:Off topic but could someone explain given the demographics of the seat why Portsmouth South is a LD/Tory marginal? Seems like the kind of constituency that would be natural Labour territory?
0 -
Well I'm out canvassing in a bit. I'll let you know if they can't stop talking Non Doms0
-
***Faint's with surprise***MikeSmithson said:I agree with Savage
https://twitter.com/michaelsavage/status/585773362649178116
0 -
What you have to remember about Miliband's approach, he isn't targeting a broad church like Blair did, he is targeting 35%.
Tuition fee policy, total nonsense, cuts for rich students, but as a soundbite lots of young people think great lower fees.
Energy price freeze..sounds magic..
ZHC...no knock on effects, magic everybody get paid more.
Tax avoidance / Non-Doms...booo...hissss
It isn't about actually having well thought out policies, it is getting the 35% by playing to a particular crowd and the mood music they want to hear.0 -
The current political parties are coalitions built to deal with FPTP. Under STV you'd get new groupings emerging.Philip_Thompson said:
Except they're only polling 8% as we have FPTP and they've been locked in as a major party for decades now, third parties are often destroyed by many PR systems (especially if there's a 5% threshold its not unimaginable they'd get less than that).Tabman said:
When you have STV the rules of the game change dramatically. There is a lot of latent Con/Lab support that sticks with them only because of FPTP - to be fair this is also true of other parties but much less so given the numbers of seats they have.DeClare said:
Are the LD's still interested in PR? they've gone very quiet on the subject, after all if we had PR they would now be the fourth party in England and Scotland and the Fifth party in Wales.TheScreamingEagles said:
Put me in charge of coalition negotiations and I'll bring the Lib Dems into a new coalition.Tabman said:
I think Con minority with LD C&S would be most likely in that scenario. Much as I'd personally be up for a new coalition, I don't think the party is generally.Philip_Thompson said:
That'd be a terribly shambolic rainbow coalition.TheScreamingEagles said:I've been working on the magic number
If Lab + SNP + LD + SDLP +Greens + PC = 320
So I reckon Lab only needs 240 seats to make Ed PM (assuming 45 Nats and 30 Lib Dems)
Currently they are on 258, allowing for a shellacking in Scotland, that puts them on 217, so they only need to make 30 odd gains from the Tories (allowing for 8 gains from the Lib Dems) to make Ed PM.
Allowing 3 for Sinn Fein and 9 for DUP that leaves 318 left, presumably almost all Con.
Con minority or Con+LD is more likely.
I'd offer them PR for local elections (sans plebiscite), Tax breaks on sandals and muesli, A plebiscite on STV for parliament and a wholly directly elected Senate.
"can't win here" no longer applies and people are able to vote positively for something rather than for the least worse option.
And given 8% of the vote in England would equate to c55 seats in a proportional system, I think most Lib Dems would take that at present.
For example:
- the Tory right could break off and join UKIP.
- the Labour Left could ditto with the Greens
- the liberal vote could coalesce together rather than being dispersed in three or four directions
0 -
Some weeks ago I came round to that view. Cameron & Osborne have made far too many errors within their party and the Conservatives seem to be far weaker than 2010 in the ground campaign. Also the anti-austerity theme in the broadcast media resonates well with the voters as they want to be told that they can be given more for less tax. Only a Greek crash could have saved it, but similar to 1992 this maybe the right one to lose.TheScreamingEagles said:
I really want a Labour government.TCPoliticalBetting said:
This type of agit prop student politiking from Miliband may well work. The voters are angry enough with politicians and Miliband's desperate nonsense may get him into Number 10. So be it. He will be the worst PM since WW2. Worse than Brown.TheScreamingEagles said:
Is that the Tom Brady who a few weeks ago said Dave's third term pledge would cost him votes and was the greatest strategic blunder since Carthage put Hannibal in charge of a large military force ?BenM said:Where's Scott N Paste?
tom bradby@tombradby · 2h 2 hours ago
Of this I am certain; by the end of the day, this will have cost the Tories votes.
And they will be votes they can ill afford to lose.
That Tom Bradby?
I'm relaxed about it. Just imagine these guys in power being dictated by the Nats.
If the Tories can hold their nerve in opposition then Labour are screwed at the next election.
How will England feel when her hard earned taxes are being sent to Scotland to pay their largesse?
Especially as the bulk of austerity is to come in the next parliament.
0 -
Can anybody recall the circumstances that will trigger the Dan Hodges naked run along Whitehall.TheScreamingEagles said:Not that Dan Hodges
@iptvdan: #Farage LOL
#UKIP http://t.co/1MJwAUamue
0 -
Question for the great PB cognoscenti - under what conditions would we get a Con/Lab coalition?0
-
PR would make Libs 6th in Wales and 5th in Scotland. Greens poll much better in PR votes and they're already behind UKIP in Wales.DeClare said:
Are the LD's still interested in PR? they've gone very quiet on the subject, after all if we had PR they would now be the fourth party in England and Scotland and the Fifth party in Wales.TheScreamingEagles said:
Put me in charge of coalition negotiations and I'll bring the Lib Dems into a new coalition.Tabman said:
I think Con minority with LD C&S would be most likely in that scenario. Much as I'd personally be up for a new coalition, I don't think the party is generally.Philip_Thompson said:
That'd be a terribly shambolic rainbow coalition.TheScreamingEagles said:I've been working on the magic number
If Lab + SNP + LD + SDLP +Greens + PC = 320
So I reckon Lab only needs 240 seats to make Ed PM (assuming 45 Nats and 30 Lib Dems)
Currently they are on 258, allowing for a shellacking in Scotland, that puts them on 217, so they only need to make 30 odd gains from the Tories (allowing for 8 gains from the Lib Dems) to make Ed PM.
Allowing 3 for Sinn Fein and 9 for DUP that leaves 318 left, presumably almost all Con.
Con minority or Con+LD is more likely.
I'd offer them PR for local elections (sans plebiscite), Tax breaks on sandals and muesli, A plebiscite on STV for parliament and a wholly directly elected Senate.0 -
May I ask where are you canvassing ?TheScreamingEagles said:Well I'm out canvassing in a bit. I'll let you know if they can't stop talking Non Doms
0 -
Please don't talk about that yet. I've written a thread about a grand coalition. Coming in the next few days.Tabman said:Question for the great PB cognoscenti - under what conditions would we get a Con/Lab coalition?
0 -
Oh FFS the PB Tories are trotting out the "it's a good election to lose" line. It's stuff like that, which has kept you majority free since 1992. Maggie would have knocked it out of you.0
-
Almost certainly "Howling Lord" Alan Hope, from the Monster Raving Loonies.Sandpit said:Plato said:PBers?
Michael Crick
@MichaelLCrick
Can anyone tell me, which candidate has the worst election record of any standing in 2015 - who has lost the most successive elections?
Suprisingly Alan Hope has won 2 local elections unopposed - Ashburton town council in 1987 and Fleet town council in 20100 -
Might be the full Yougov Scottish poll for the Times' Friday morning issue, release tomorrow night. Vide scotgoespop, comments on the Monsieur Jackanory thread.kjohnw said:Anyone know what this "interesting" poll is which computer2 alluded to earlier. Does he have inside information
0 -
UKIP +6%, but he's already pre-welched by saying he won't do it if Farage is in a debate. I think he's called Con Most Seats correctly though, but not for the right reasons (Scotland)MikeSmithson said:
Can anybody recall the circumstances that will trigger the Dan Hodges naked run along Whitehall.TheScreamingEagles said:Not that Dan Hodges
@iptvdan: #Farage LOL
#UKIP http://t.co/1MJwAUamue
0 -
0
-
I'm nothing if not topical!TheScreamingEagles said:
Please don't talk about that yet. I've written a thread about a grand coalition. Coming in the next few days.Tabman said:Question for the great PB cognoscenti - under what conditions would we get a Con/Lab coalition?
0 -
Pudsey. Stuart Andrew has got the big guns out today for him. William Hague will also be there.Tykejohnno said:
May I ask where are you canvassing ?TheScreamingEagles said:Well I'm out canvassing in a bit. I'll let you know if they can't stop talking Non Doms
0 -
It depends hugely on the number of returned seats how effective STV is in being proportional. Obviously Single outcome STV (or AV) isn't proportional at all - just a gerrymander for the third largest party but even 3 or 4 seat STV still won't be particularly proportional.Tabman said:
When you have STV the rules of the game change dramatically. There is a lot of latent Con/Lab support that sticks with them only because of FPTP - to be fair this is also true of other parties but much less so given the numbers of seats they have.
"can't win here" no longer applies and people are able to vote positively for something rather than for the least worse option.
And given 8% of the vote in England would equate to c55 seats in a proportional system, I think most Lib Dems would take that at present.
AMS is a much fairer system if there is an insistence on a geographic portion to the ballot.0 -
The telegraph say that the 'non-taxes' actually paid was £8.3 billion.OblitusSumMe said:
Oh I don't know. It has been presented as a grand tax dodge, but no-one seems able to explain how it involves dodging taxes. It seems intuitively obvious to me that if you earn an income in, say, Ireland, and the money stays in Ireland that it should be taxed in Ireland. I guess it becomes a dodge if people get themselves paid by paper companies in Monaco, or wherever - is that the sort of thing that goes on?JEO said:The non-domicile issue is a smart one for Ed Miliband to play, and disastrous to the Conservatives. Our great weakness is that we're seen as the party of the rich. Forcing us to defend giving some very rich British citizens a better tax regime than others is never going to go down well with the vast majority of the public. It is intuitively unfair and anything intuitively unfair is a killer when you're out canvassing.
It's interesting that a lot of fuss is made about taxing companies in the countries where they generate their income, but the non-dom thing seems to be the opposite, of wanting to tax people in countries other than where the income was earned.
How many non-doms would stay in the UK if ALL their income anywhere in the world was taxed at 50%+?0 -
I want to win, hence me taking a 8 week sabbatical from work to go canvassing. I just said I'm relaxed about the two Eds being in power.Jonathan said:Oh FFS the PB Tories are trotting out the "it's a good election to lose" line. It's stuff like that, which has kept you majority free since 1992. Maggie would have knocked it out of you.
But Labour delenda est0 -
I'll be interested to see that thread, in view of Mr Gove's remarks last night (though with some backtracking by Mr Murphy on the other channel).Tabman said:
I'm nothing if not topical!TheScreamingEagles said:
Please don't talk about that yet. I've written a thread about a grand coalition. Coming in the next few days.Tabman said:Question for the great PB cognoscenti - under what conditions would we get a Con/Lab coalition?
0 -
0
-
Seen and heard alot of stuart Andrew,seems a good guy.TheScreamingEagles said:
Pudsey. Stuart Andrew has got the big guns out today for him. William Hague will also be there.Tykejohnno said:
May I ask where are you canvassing ?TheScreamingEagles said:Well I'm out canvassing in a bit. I'll let you know if they can't stop talking Non Doms
0 -
Lovely area of the world. And THE marginal of the whole election !TheScreamingEagles said:
Pudsey. Stuart Andrew has got the big guns out today for him. William Hague will also be there.Tykejohnno said:
May I ask where are you canvassing ?TheScreamingEagles said:Well I'm out canvassing in a bit. I'll let you know if they can't stop talking Non Doms
0 -
I've managed to segue in a reference to the Hitchhiker's Guide Galaxy into that thread.Tabman said:
I'm nothing if not topical!TheScreamingEagles said:
Please don't talk about that yet. I've written a thread about a grand coalition. Coming in the next few days.Tabman said:Question for the great PB cognoscenti - under what conditions would we get a Con/Lab coalition?
0 -
It's irrelevant.weejonnie said:
The telegraph say that the 'non-taxes' actually paid was £8.3 billion.OblitusSumMe said:
Oh I don't know. It has been presented as a grand tax dodge, but no-one seems able to explain how it involves dodging taxes. It seems intuitively obvious to me that if you earn an income in, say, Ireland, and the money stays in Ireland that it should be taxed in Ireland. I guess it becomes a dodge if people get themselves paid by paper companies in Monaco, or wherever - is that the sort of thing that goes on?JEO said:The non-domicile issue is a smart one for Ed Miliband to play, and disastrous to the Conservatives. Our great weakness is that we're seen as the party of the rich. Forcing us to defend giving some very rich British citizens a better tax regime than others is never going to go down well with the vast majority of the public. It is intuitively unfair and anything intuitively unfair is a killer when you're out canvassing.
It's interesting that a lot of fuss is made about taxing companies in the countries where they generate their income, but the non-dom thing seems to be the opposite, of wanting to tax people in countries other than where the income was earned.
How many non-doms would stay in the UK if ALL their income anywhere in the world was taxed at 50%+?
The Exchequer can make up any loss with the Mansion Tax (assuming the threshold is set at £500K or lower of course).0 -
Nah. The Greens said they didn't want the likes of me canvassing for them.Tissue_Price said:TSE is going to adore this Green PEB:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPgS7p40ERg
They only want people dressed soberly0 -
There is a lot of mileage for Labour to sell this as "Britain should not be a tax haven for individuals" especially with the focus on hammering the countries which are tax havens for business.TOPPING said:
Why would we? We get the fact that there is unfairness there. As a pristine policy "scrap non-doms" it was a winner.Jonathan said:Interesting that the Tories are not defending non doms.
But then events happened.
And it's those events that we are talking about.0 -
@Mr_Eugenides: BBC: 115,000 non-doms pay as much in tax as 10 million low-income workers http://t.co/Kj6GB5GsBg0
-
Great sounding ideas, fair and stuffed full of equality.FrancisUrquhart said:What you have to remember about Miliband's approach, he isn't targeting a broad church like Blair did, he is targeting 35%.
Tuition fee policy, total nonsense, cuts for rich students, but as a soundbite lots of young people think great lower fees.
Energy price freeze..sounds magic..
ZHC...no knock on effects, magic everybody get paid more.
Tax avoidance / Non-Doms...booo...hissss
It isn't about actually having well thought out policies, it is getting the 35% by playing to a particular crowd and the mood music they want to hear.
Impractical, designed to be overrun by unintended consequences and not thought through as to operational suitability in the real world.
It is easy to make fluffy comfortable focus groups lefty announcements, harder to make ones that are coherent.
The real concern is this is Labour's best shot after five years. That is unbelievable.0 -
'' If the Tories can hold their nerve in opposition then Labour are screwed at the next election. ''
OMFG.
If Cameron loses to Ed Miliband, there will be a giant civil war in the tory party. The backbenchers, many of whom cannot abide David Cameron, will round on the progressives. There could be many more defections to UKIP. It will be horrible.
0 -
Hope they paid Horrible Histories for copying their "Born to Rule" sketchTissue_Price said:TSE is going to adore this Green PEB:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPgS7p40ERg
0 -
There is no such thing as a "good election to lose". Ever.taffys said:'' If the Tories can hold their nerve in opposition then Labour are screwed at the next election. ''
OMFG.
If Cameron loses to Ed Miliband, there will be a giant civil war in the tory party. The backbenchers, many of whom cannot abide David Cameron, will round on the progressives. There could be many more defections to UKIP. It will be horrible.
0 -
"Grand coalition - don't talk to me about Grand Coalition"?TheScreamingEagles said:
I've managed to segue in a reference to the Hitchhiker's Guide Galaxy into that thread.Tabman said:
I'm nothing if not topical!TheScreamingEagles said:
Please don't talk about that yet. I've written a thread about a grand coalition. Coming in the next few days.Tabman said:Question for the great PB cognoscenti - under what conditions would we get a Con/Lab coalition?
0 -
Well quite, shows how stupid this all is.Scott_P said:
@Mr_Eugenides: BBC: 115,000 non-doms pay as much in tax as 10 million low-income workers http://t.co/Kj6GB5GsBg
0 -
That's a smart move by the greens, could go viral, will definitely be linked and played a lot.
Edit - scrub the "smart move" they've left Comments live on their Youtube channel, with predictable results.0 -
I agree, and it might even work. However, it has nothing to do with good governance, just the pursuit of power for its own sake. Brown was the Acme of that type of politician, he desperately wanted to be prime minister but had no bloody idea what to do with the power once he had achieved it. Balls and Miliband learned their trade under Brown.FrancisUrquhart said:What you have to remember about Miliband's approach, he isn't targeting a broad church like Blair did, he is targeting 35%.
Tuition fee policy, total nonsense, cuts for rich students, but as a soundbite lots of young people think great lower fees.
Energy price freeze..sounds magic..
ZHC...no knock on effects, magic everybody get paid more.
Tax avoidance / Non-Doms...booo...hissss
It isn't about actually having well thought out policies, it is getting the 35% by playing to a particular crowd and the mood music they want to hear.
Not that Cameron is any better.
Democracy really is an awful system.0 -
As you've shown, the AMS system is very far from being fair when it is possible to game it with tactical voting as you suggest is likely with SNP constituency/Green list voting.Dair said:
It depends hugely on the number of returned seats how effective STV is in being proportional. Obviously Single outcome STV (or AV) isn't proportional at all - just a gerrymander for the third largest party but even 3 or 4 seat STV still won't be particularly proportional.Tabman said:
When you have STV the rules of the game change dramatically. There is a lot of latent Con/Lab support that sticks with them only because of FPTP - to be fair this is also true of other parties but much less so given the numbers of seats they have.
"can't win here" no longer applies and people are able to vote positively for something rather than for the least worse option.
And given 8% of the vote in England would equate to c55 seats in a proportional system, I think most Lib Dems would take that at present.
AMS is a much fairer system if there is an insistence on a geographic portion to the ballot.
Such quibbles are why PR is never going to happen for the Commons. Just as with Lords Reform supporters of the status quo will be able to defeat reform by making not unreasonable objections to the details.0 -
The Infinite Improbability Drive is a wonderful new method of crossing interstellar distances creating coalitions in a few seconds, without all that tedious mucking about in hyperspace smoke filled rooms. Such generators were often used to break the ice at parties, by making all the molecules in the hostess’s undergarments manifesto simultaneously leap one foot policy to the left, in accordance with the Theory of Indeterminacy. Many respectable physicists politicians said that they weren’t going to stand for that sort of thing, mostly because they didn’t get invited to those sorts of parties.TheScreamingEagles said:
I've managed to segue in a reference to the Hitchhiker's Guide Galaxy into that thread.Tabman said:
I'm nothing if not topical!TheScreamingEagles said:
Please don't talk about that yet. I've written a thread about a grand coalition. Coming in the next few days.Tabman said:Question for the great PB cognoscenti - under what conditions would we get a Con/Lab coalition?
0 -
Agreed. It's the kind of thing you can just about convince yourself of coming up to an election, but 2 or 3 years into a parliament in the cold light of day, it's obvious what a ridiculous idea it is.Anorak said:
There is no such thing as a "good election to lose". Ever.taffys said:'' If the Tories can hold their nerve in opposition then Labour are screwed at the next election. ''
OMFG.
If Cameron loses to Ed Miliband, there will be a giant civil war in the tory party. The backbenchers, many of whom cannot abide David Cameron, will round on the progressives. There could be many more defections to UKIP. It will be horrible.
The exception would be if losing an election led to your opponents forming a government which fell apart after a few months.
0 -
You're almost certainly right about voting system change.OblitusSumMe said:
As you've shown, the AMS system is very far from being fair when it is possible to game it with tactical voting as you suggest is likely with SNP constituency/Green list voting.Dair said:
It depends hugely on the number of returned seats how effective STV is in being proportional. Obviously Single outcome STV (or AV) isn't proportional at all - just a gerrymander for the third largest party but even 3 or 4 seat STV still won't be particularly proportional.Tabman said:
When you have STV the rules of the game change dramatically. There is a lot of latent Con/Lab support that sticks with them only because of FPTP - to be fair this is also true of other parties but much less so given the numbers of seats they have.
"can't win here" no longer applies and people are able to vote positively for something rather than for the least worse option.
And given 8% of the vote in England would equate to c55 seats in a proportional system, I think most Lib Dems would take that at present.
AMS is a much fairer system if there is an insistence on a geographic portion to the ballot.
Such quibbles are why PR is never going to happen for the Commons. Just as with Lords Reform supporters of the status quo will be able to defeat reform by making not unreasonable objections to the details.
But what, pray tell, can possibly be used as an argument against Lords abolition? I can't think of one that doesn't sound preposterous.0 -
That was a party political broadcast on behalf of the Tories, UKIP, Labour & the LD.Tissue_Price said:TSE is going to adore this Green PEB:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPgS7p40ERg
The Greens couldn't make them look or sound more cool.0 -
"Democracy really is an awful system."
Churchill's quote comes to mind.0 -
Can we have 115k more NDs and then take 10m more workers out of tax all together ?Scott_P said:@Mr_Eugenides: BBC: 115,000 non-doms pay as much in tax as 10 million low-income workers http://t.co/Kj6GB5GsBg
0 -
Green PEB already getting coverage on Sky.0
-
I don't think that's an exception - it would still be preferable to win the first time around!Stereotomy said:
Agreed. It's the kind of thing you can just about convince yourself of coming up to an election, but 2 or 3 years into a parliament in the cold light of day, it's obvious what a ridiculous idea it is.Anorak said:
There is no such thing as a "good election to lose". Ever.taffys said:'' If the Tories can hold their nerve in opposition then Labour are screwed at the next election. ''
OMFG.
If Cameron loses to Ed Miliband, there will be a giant civil war in the tory party. The backbenchers, many of whom cannot abide David Cameron, will round on the progressives. There could be many more defections to UKIP. It will be horrible.
The exception would be if losing an election led to your opponents forming a government which fell apart after a few months.0 -
I fear the reverse might be happening sooner, rather than later.TGOHF said:
Can we have 115k more NDs and then take 10m more workers out of tax all together ?Scott_P said:@Mr_Eugenides: BBC: 115,000 non-doms pay as much in tax as 10 million low-income workers http://t.co/Kj6GB5GsBg
0 -
Of course there is.Dair said:
There is a lot of mileage for Labour to sell this as "Britain should not be a tax haven for individuals" especially with the focus on hammering the countries which are tax havens for business.TOPPING said:
Why would we? We get the fact that there is unfairness there. As a pristine policy "scrap non-doms" it was a winner.Jonathan said:Interesting that the Tories are not defending non doms.
But then events happened.
And it's those events that we are talking about.
But, sadly for Labour, the story has moved on from there.0 -
It isn't what they pay that matters - it's what they dodge.Scott_P said:@Mr_Eugenides: BBC: 115,000 non-doms pay as much in tax as 10 million low-income workers http://t.co/Kj6GB5GsBg
0 -
At least Labour have moved on from "he was edited".
The new line is "he said it, but he didn't mean it"
"Well, he meant it, but it doesn't apply to those people for whom the rules will not be abolished"
"But we will abolish the rules"0 -
They both matter, and for the country what matters most is the former. And the former is a very, very big number.SandyRentool said:
It isn't what they pay that matters - it's what they dodge.Scott_P said:@Mr_Eugenides: BBC: 115,000 non-doms pay as much in tax as 10 million low-income workers http://t.co/Kj6GB5GsBg
0 -
OT Just been watching a TV prog where the RNLI decided to rescue a Dutch yacht in difficulty rather than let it sink. By boarding it with the stranded crews permission, and towing it back, does that mean the vessel is salvage and their property now?0
-
Tabman said:
Question for the great PB cognoscenti - under what conditions would we get a Con/Lab coalition?
Some scenarios;
If Putin sends his tanks into NATO;
If someone releases a dirty, nuclear home made device in a major city causing thousands of casualties;
If someone flies a plane into the HoC killing alot of the Govt
If we had an anarchist group that could win about 150 seats in Govt
If Iran and Israel run into a nuclear war and ditto for Pakistan and India
If we had a global economic collapse that brought down all the banks
If there was a pandemic that killed 10% plus of the population
There are probably many others, but in the all above I would imagine a party of unity would be placed over narrow political interests. And probably William Hague would be asked to lead it.
0 -
Of course.FrancisUrquhart said:What you have to remember about Miliband's approach, he isn't targeting a broad church like Blair did, he is targeting 35%.
Tuition fee policy, total nonsense, cuts for rich students, but as a soundbite lots of young people think great lower fees.
Energy price freeze..sounds magic..
ZHC...no knock on effects, magic everybody get paid more.
Tax avoidance / Non-Doms...booo...hissss
It isn't about actually having well thought out policies, it is getting the 35% by playing to a particular crowd and the mood music they want to hear.
His target voters are:
a) Working age benefit claimants;
b) Leftie theorists/students;
c) Ethnic minorities/immigrants;
d) Renters;
e) Public sector workers;
f) Low wage employees;
The Tories can't counter on (A) or (B), but Ed could be outflanked by Greens/SNP.
The Tories will struggle with (C) but we see with yesterday's Jewish poll, and with the rise of UKIP that there is a cost for Labour in terms of courting specific groups, mainly muslims.
(D) is all about getting people into buying, and expansion of right to buy.
(E) is emphasising that a poor economy will cost more public sector jobs
(F) is the tax free allowance and amount of jobs available.
0 -
Quite. They're paying way more than almost everyone else already.Anorak said:
They both matter, and for the country what matters most is the former.SandyRentool said:
It isn't what they pay that matters - it's what they dodge.Scott_P said:@Mr_Eugenides: BBC: 115,000 non-doms pay as much in tax as 10 million low-income workers http://t.co/Kj6GB5GsBg
0 -
Like! Imagine how much we could cut the basic rate of income tax if we could only attract a few thousand more rich entrepreneurs!TGOHF said:
Can we have 115k more NDs and then take 10m more workers out of tax all together ?Scott_P said:@Mr_Eugenides: BBC: 115,000 non-doms pay as much in tax as 10 million low-income workers http://t.co/Kj6GB5GsBg
0 -
LOLSpeedy said:
That was a party political broadcast on behalf of the Tories, UKIP, Labour & the LD.Tissue_Price said:TSE is going to adore this Green PEB:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPgS7p40ERg
The Greens couldn't make them look or sound more cool.
0 -
It would also help if they got a presenter who didn't mangle the English language.Speedy said:
That was a party political broadcast on behalf of the Tories, UKIP, Labour & the LD.Tissue_Price said:TSE is going to adore this Green PEB:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPgS7p40ERg
The Greens couldn't make them look or sound more cool.0 -
The YouTube linky is too busy to cope with us all trying to see it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PPgS7p40ERgTykejohnno said:
LOLSpeedy said:
That was a party political broadcast on behalf of the Tories, UKIP, Labour & the LD.Tissue_Price said:TSE is going to adore this Green PEB:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPgS7p40ERg
The Greens couldn't make them look or sound more cool.0 -
"Quite. They're paying way more than almost everyone else already."
Can we have a moratorium on posters talking through their backsides. It's embarrassing0 -
You mean "dressed Conservatively"?TheScreamingEagles said:
Nah. The Greens said they didn't want the likes of me canvassing for them.Tissue_Price said:TSE is going to adore this Green PEB:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPgS7p40ERg
They only want people dressed soberly 0 -
I have found yet another betting opportunity.
Labour have 217 seats outside Scotland and the Tories have 304, so if the assumption is that the Tories lose very few seats to UKIP and that both LAB&CON gains from the LD are about the same number, then the difference between the two will remain the about same if Labour lose all their seats in Scotland, 87 seats.
Realistically Labour would probably keep some seats in Scotland, say 5 seats, so that's 222, they gain another 10 seats from the LD so that's 232, the Tories would lose probably 3-5 seats to UKIP, so that's 300 and they gain 10 from the LD, so that's 310 seats.
For Labour to be largest party they would need 40 gains straight from the Tories so that would be LAB 272 CON 270.
Ladbrokes offers 7/4 for Labour largest party, but offers 4/1 for Tories on the 251-275 seat band.
You see for Labour to be largest party the Tories would have to be under 275 seats, so it's more profitable to put money on the 4/1 for Tories 251-275 seats than on Labour most seats.0 -
Been a fun day so far.. I wonder what the EdnEd comedy duo will eff up tomorrow.0
-
Better to win well. But if the outcome is on a knife edge in terms of controlling the Commons (e.g. Con 285 Lab 265) then perhaps Opposition is the better place to be for a few months. Getting the 2nd election is the challenge...Anorak said:
I don't think that's an exception - it would still be preferable to win the first time around!Stereotomy said:
Agreed. It's the kind of thing you can just about convince yourself of coming up to an election, but 2 or 3 years into a parliament in the cold light of day, it's obvious what a ridiculous idea it is.Anorak said:
There is no such thing as a "good election to lose". Ever.taffys said:'' If the Tories can hold their nerve in opposition then Labour are screwed at the next election. ''
OMFG.
If Cameron loses to Ed Miliband, there will be a giant civil war in the tory party. The backbenchers, many of whom cannot abide David Cameron, will round on the progressives. There could be many more defections to UKIP. It will be horrible.
The exception would be if losing an election led to your opponents forming a government which fell apart after a few months.0 -
When are we expecting the manifestos, by the way?0
-
Titters
Ann Sheridan @bernerlap
Shortest lived policy since Herod set up a sure start centre in Bethlehem order-order.com/2015/04/08/lab… #Nondomnishambles pic.twitter.com/zB4o7cZhHI0 -
Daily Mail U.K. (@DailyMailUK)
08/04/2015 14:53
Schoolgirl meets David Cameron, headbutts desk dailym.ai/1FgulRO pic.twitter.com/rD2wdv1LiT
The Independent (@Independent)
08/04/2015 08:15
It's as if Nigel Farage was part of One Direction: these teenage girls absolutely loved him: ind.pn/1aH4ju6 pic.twitter.com/gGM6ZNqyGC
0 -
My point is that they haven't argued against the principle of Lords reform, only the detail of what would replace it. So there was the farcical vote under Labour where every proposed percentage of elected peers was defeated. In this Parliament we had Tories voting against Lords reform because of the details (single 15 year terms, etc) that were designed to meet their earlier objections (against having short-termist political placemen, etc).Dair said:
You're almost certainly right about voting system change.OblitusSumMe said:
As you've shown, the AMS system is very far from being fair when it is possible to game it with tactical voting as you suggest is likely with SNP constituency/Green list voting.Dair said:It depends hugely on the number of returned seats how effective STV is in being proportional. Obviously Single outcome STV (or AV) isn't proportional at all - just a gerrymander for the third largest party but even 3 or 4 seat STV still won't be particularly proportional.
AMS is a much fairer system if there is an insistence on a geographic portion to the ballot.
Such quibbles are why PR is never going to happen for the Commons. Just as with Lords Reform supporters of the status quo will be able to defeat reform by making not unreasonable objections to the details.
But what, pray tell, can possibly be used as an argument against Lords abolition? I can't think of one that doesn't sound preposterous.0 -
Sorry - give me a 200k more of these "dodgers" and a huge income tax cut anyday over fake "fairness".SandyRentool said:
It isn't what they pay that matters - it's what they dodge.Scott_P said:@Mr_Eugenides: BBC: 115,000 non-doms pay as much in tax as 10 million low-income workers http://t.co/Kj6GB5GsBg
0 -
@faisalislam: One tax advisory firm had an FoI suggesting that on UK tax, nndoms paid £6bn... so avg £50k for 120,000 of them. Plausible... -0
-
Chuckie U claims the Balls quote has been 'doctored'. Ha Ha.0
-
The level of incompetence in this Labour campaign is just amazing.TOPPING said:
Of course there is.Dair said:
There is a lot of mileage for Labour to sell this as "Britain should not be a tax haven for individuals" especially with the focus on hammering the countries which are tax havens for business.TOPPING said:
Why would we? We get the fact that there is unfairness there. As a pristine policy "scrap non-doms" it was a winner.Jonathan said:Interesting that the Tories are not defending non doms.
But then events happened.
And it's those events that we are talking about.
But, sadly for Labour, the story has moved on from there.
To set the agenda on a vote winner and lose it because they can't actually work together and give consistent messages... it's just comedy now.0 -
Except that wasn't quite what she was doing.isam said:Daily Mail U.K. (@DailyMailUK)
08/04/2015 14:53
Schoolgirl meets David Cameron, headbutts desk dailym.ai/1FgulRO pic.twitter.com/rD2wdv1LiT
0 -
BBC News ticker headline
"Labour defends policy"
Sounds like a winner...0 -
@faisalislam: would take 10% of all nondoms upping sticks, so 12,000 in total, to wipe out the "hundreds of millions" that Labour claim policy will raise0
-
It wouldn't be 10 million - the 10 million quoted are the lowest paying 10 million - the next 10 million will be paying much more. So it would probably be 'only' 2 million or so.Sandpit said:
Like! Imagine how much we could cut the basic rate of income tax if we could only attract a few thousand more rich entrepreneurs!TGOHF said:
Can we have 115k more NDs and then take 10m more workers out of tax all together ?Scott_P said:@Mr_Eugenides: BBC: 115,000 non-doms pay as much in tax as 10 million low-income workers http://t.co/Kj6GB5GsBg
0 -
logical_song said:
Portsmouth Souith includes Old Portsmouth and Southsea.Jonathan said:
Anti Tory vote consolidated around SDP/ LD IN 1980s.AllyPally_Rob said:Off topic but could someone explain given the demographics of the seat why Portsmouth South is a LD/Tory marginal? Seems like the kind of constituency that would be natural Labour territory?
Portsmouth North includes Paulsgrove, which is much more Labour territory, and was in fact represented by Frank Judd at one point.
Partly that, and partly Mike Hancock winning a byelection in 1984. Labour weren't going to win (Unsound On Defence really hit them in places like Portsmouth and Gosport), so the Alliance had a way in. After that, Mike Hancock was really good at working the seat- he lost by tiny amounts in '87 and '92, but was perfectly placed to come in on the tide in 1997.0 -
Great - 2M more people seeing their take home pay rise - what wonderful news eh ?weejonnie said:
It wouldn't be 10 million - the 10 million quoted are the lowest paying 10 million - the next 10 million will be paying much more. So it would probably be 'only' 2 million or so.Sandpit said:
Like! Imagine how much we could cut the basic rate of income tax if we could only attract a few thousand more rich entrepreneurs!TGOHF said:
Can we have 115k more NDs and then take 10m more workers out of tax all together ?Scott_P said:@Mr_Eugenides: BBC: 115,000 non-doms pay as much in tax as 10 million low-income workers http://t.co/Kj6GB5GsBg
0 -
That seems logical. I guess the LDs or UKIP would have to have a very good night for both Con and Lab to be under 275.Speedy said:I have found yet another betting opportunity.
Labour have 217 seats outside Scotland and the Tories have 304, so if the assumption is that the Tories lose very few seats to UKIP and that both LAB&CON gains from the LD are about the same number, then the difference between the two will remain the about same if Labour lose all their seats in Scotland, 87 seats.
Realistically Labour would probably keep some seats in Scotland, say 5 seats, so that's 222, they gain another 10 seats from the LD so that's 232, the Tories would lose probably 3-5 seats to UKIP, so that's 300 and they gain 10 from the LD, so that's 310 seats.
For Labour to be largest party they would need 40 gains straight from the Tories so that would be LAB 272 CON 270.
Ladbrokes offers 7/4 for Labour largest party, but offers 4/1 for Tories on the 251-275 seat band.
You see for Labour to be largest party the Tories would have to be under 275 seats, so it's more profitable to put money on the 4/1 for Tories 251-275 seats than on Labour most seats.
If you start at the other side though:
NI:18
LD:30
UKIP:2
SNP:50
That equals 100 for the others, which in a 650 seat Parliament leaves 550 up for grabs, or a potential tie on 275.
It could be very tight around the 270-280 band for both Con and Lab, depending on especially LD and SNP performance.
If I'm right we are screwed, almost certainly looking at another election unless Ed fancies taking a daily briefing from Mr Salmond.0 -
Tissue_Price said:
When are we expecting the manifestos, by the way?
Manifestos are now quantum. Policies cease to exist as soon as you read them.
0 -
The old boy said some very good and profound things in his time. He also came out with a load of old tosh on occasion.A_Man_Called_Horse said:"Democracy really is an awful system."
Churchill's quote comes to mind.
He also said, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter"0 -
I was reading about this recently - normally the RNLI and HM Coastguard, where involved, waive the claim. On checking, though, this is interesting: [google RNLI Salvage Claim and pick the 'Modern Admiralty Law' book by A. Mandaraka-Sheppard]Plato said:OT Just been watching a TV prog where the RNLI decided to rescue a Dutch yacht in difficulty rather than let it sink. By boarding it with the stranded crews permission, and towing it back, does that mean the vessel is salvage and their property now?
0 -
Ah, Mike Hancock. The brilliant walking and talking example of why we should have the right of recall for MPs.Stuartinromford said:
Partly that, and partly Mike Hancock winning a byelection in 1984. Labour weren't going to win (Unsound On Defence really hit them in places like Portsmouth and Gosport), so the Alliance had a way in. After that, Mike Hancock was really good at working the seat- he lost by tiny amounts in '87 and '92, but was perfectly placed to come in on the tide in 1997.logical_song said:
Portsmouth Souith includes Old Portsmouth and Southsea.Jonathan said:
Anti Tory vote consolidated around SDP/ LD IN 1980s.AllyPally_Rob said:Off topic but could someone explain given the demographics of the seat why Portsmouth South is a LD/Tory marginal? Seems like the kind of constituency that would be natural Labour territory?
Portsmouth North includes Paulsgrove, which is much more Labour territory, and was in fact represented by Frank Judd at one point.
0 -
That would be 'unfair' on the next 2 million. Better all 4m stay where they are and vote Labour until Britain resembles the set of Mad Max 2 (Young people: Children of Men).TGOHF said:
Great - 2M more people seeing their take home pay rise - what wonderful news eh ?weejonnie said:
It wouldn't be 10 million - the 10 million quoted are the lowest paying 10 million - the next 10 million will be paying much more. So it would probably be 'only' 2 million or so.Sandpit said:
Like! Imagine how much we could cut the basic rate of income tax if we could only attract a few thousand more rich entrepreneurs!TGOHF said:
Can we have 115k more NDs and then take 10m more workers out of tax all together ?Scott_P said:@Mr_Eugenides: BBC: 115,000 non-doms pay as much in tax as 10 million low-income workers http://t.co/Kj6GB5GsBg
0 -
What about the Tories doing worse than 251? If you build in best prices all the way down (16/1, 33/1, 150/1) you are then getting 2.4/1 on Tories < 276. Better than 7/4, but...Speedy said:I have found yet another betting opportunity.
Labour have 217 seats outside Scotland and the Tories have 304, so if the assumption is that the Tories lose very few seats to UKIP and that both LAB&CON gains from the LD are about the same number, then the difference between the two will remain the about same if Labour lose all their seats in Scotland, 87 seats.
Realistically Labour would probably keep some seats in Scotland, say 5 seats, so that's 222, they gain another 10 seats from the LD so that's 232, the Tories would lose probably 3-5 seats to UKIP, so that's 300 and they gain 10 from the LD, so that's 310 seats.
For Labour to be largest party they would need 40 gains straight from the Tories so that would be LAB 272 CON 270.
Ladbrokes offers 7/4 for Labour largest party, but offers 4/1 for Tories on the 251-275 seat band.
You see for Labour to be largest party the Tories would have to be under 275 seats, so it's more profitable to put money on the 4/1 for Tories 251-275 seats than on Labour most seats.
If the SNP slip back a bit (or LD seriously underperform) the bar for most seats is probably more like 280-285. So you need some cover there as well.0 -
Or cut the 20p rate to 16p or 15p - people would notice that!weejonnie said:
It wouldn't be 10 million - the 10 million quoted are the lowest paying 10 million - the next 10 million will be paying much more. So it would probably be 'only' 2 million or so.Sandpit said:
Like! Imagine how much we could cut the basic rate of income tax if we could only attract a few thousand more rich entrepreneurs!TGOHF said:
Can we have 115k more NDs and then take 10m more workers out of tax all together ?Scott_P said:@Mr_Eugenides: BBC: 115,000 non-doms pay as much in tax as 10 million low-income workers http://t.co/Kj6GB5GsBg
0
