politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Con+LD=320 is the magic equation for Dave

Is it mathematically (not constitutionally) plausible for the Tories to have an English majority but for Labour and SNP to be the government passing English only laws?

@Philip_Thompson

Yes.
One of the benefits of an unwritten constitution is that all things are possible.
Unless of course that you think it should only ever happen to the rest of GB, and not England?

Sporting Index midpoint of seat spreads:

Con 283
LD 24.5

So Con+LD = 307.5

So 6.5 or 7.5 seats short of my target at the moment - depending upon whether the DUP gets 8 or 9.

So yes, Cameron is the outsider based on those seat spreads - but only just.

@edmundintokyo

Unlikely, unless they want to follow the LibDems.
The SNP need to maintain their "left wing" credentials to keep most of their new members on board.

O/T:

"This woman wants homosexuality criminalised, adultery made illegal and rock groups banned ... and now she wants your vote
Susan Anne White is standing as an independent"

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/this-woman-wants-homosexuality-criminalised-adultery-made-illegal-and-rock-groups-banned-and-now-she-wants-your-vote-30275867.html

Mirror scoop on the mega heist is well worth a watch. Whole thing screams inside job.

Rock up 5 mins after the staff leave and spend 3 days doing the job, casually pottering in and out the building like they are there to redo the roof.

Lots of difficult questions for a lot of people to answer.

edmundintokyo said:

Is there really no Big, Open Offer To The People Of Scotland that would make this politically unimpossible?　

I guess he could commit to enacting the SNP's election program wholesale and to give all of his future speeches from a lectern shaped like Alex Salmond's suit pocket. I don't know how that would go down with his own caucus, though.

With little of cheer in the recent polls for the Tories, the sands of time appear to be running out for them.
It would now seem to require a significant degree of late switching for the Blue Team to have any realistic chance of achieving 290+ seats which has to be their minimum target to have any hope of remaining in power. A 2% shift from Lab to LibDems would certainly help as would a similar shift from UKIP to Con.
I can't see either happening though and both would probably be required for Dave to remain in No. 10.

anotherDave said:

In 2005 Labour won a majority with 35% vs Con 32%. Those numbers look quite likely to be repeated this year.

Should you really believe this is even remotely possible, let alone in your words "quite likely", then perhaps you should back your conviction by investing in those odds of 22/1 available from SkyBet or Betfair against Labour achieving an overall majority. Even if you don't already have an account with either firm, it shouldn't take longer than 5 minutes of your time to arrange online. One shouldn't look gift horses in the mouth after all.

peter_from_putney said:

With little of cheer in the recent polls for the Tories, the sands of time appear to be running out for them.
It would now seem to require a significant degree of late switching for the Blue Team to have any realistic chance of achieving 290+ seats which has to be their minimum target to have any hope of remaining in power. A 2% shift from Lab to LibDems would certainly help as would a similar shift from UKIP to Con.
I can't see either happening though and both would probably be required for Dave to remain in No. 10.

Running a proper campaign would help. I don't know what the Conservatives have been doing this week.

JosiasJessop said:

Sean_F said:

peter_from_putney said:

With little of cheer in the recent polls for the Tories, the sands of time appear to be running out for them.
It would now seem to require a significant degree of late switching for the Blue Team to have any realistic chance of achieving 290+ seats which has to be their minimum target to have any hope of remaining in power. A 2% shift from Lab to LibDems would certainly help as would a similar shift from UKIP to Con.
I can't see either happening though and both would probably be required for Dave to remain in No. 10.

Running a proper campaign would help. I don't know what the Conservatives have been doing this week.

Considering you're no longer a Conservative, and seem to despise Cameron, perhaps you're not the best person to judge?

Back to the 1950s with you ...

Do you think they've performed effectively this week?

JosiasJessop said:

Sean_F said:

peter_from_putney said:

With little of cheer in the recent polls for the Tories, the sands of time appear to be running out for them.
It would now seem to require a significant degree of late switching for the Blue Team to have any realistic chance of achieving 290+ seats which has to be their minimum target to have any hope of remaining in power. A 2% shift from Lab to LibDems would certainly help as would a similar shift from UKIP to Con.
I can't see either happening though and both would probably be required for Dave to remain in No. 10.

Running a proper campaign would help. I don't know what the Conservatives have been doing this week.

Considering you're no longer a Conservative, and seem to despise Cameron, perhaps you're not the best person to judge?

Back to the 1950s with you ...

I don't know about anyone else but I respect Sean F's opinions whether they're about his own party's campaign or anyone else's.

Do you think the Con campaign so far has been good?

edmundintokyo said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sean_F said:

peter_from_putney said:

With little of cheer in the recent polls for the Tories, the sands of time appear to be running out for them.
It would now seem to require a significant degree of late switching for the Blue Team to have any realistic chance of achieving 290+ seats which has to be their minimum target to have any hope of remaining in power. A 2% shift from Lab to LibDems would certainly help as would a similar shift from UKIP to Con.
I can't see either happening though and both would probably be required for Dave to remain in No. 10.

Running a proper campaign would help. I don't know what the Conservatives have been doing this week.

Considering you're no longer a Conservative, and seem to despise Cameron, perhaps you're not the best person to judge?

Back to the 1950s with you ...

I don't know about anyone else but I respect Sean F's opinions whether they're about his own party's campaign or anyone else's.

Do you think the Con campaign so far has been good?

Last week, the Conservatives were focusing quite effectively, it seemed, on the economy. This week, they've been all over the place.

edmundintokyo said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sean_F said:

peter_from_putney said:

With little of cheer in the recent polls for the Tories, the sands of time appear to be running out for them.
It would now seem to require a significant degree of late switching for the Blue Team to have any realistic chance of achieving 290+ seats which has to be their minimum target to have any hope of remaining in power. A 2% shift from Lab to LibDems would certainly help as would a similar shift from UKIP to Con.
I can't see either happening though and both would probably be required for Dave to remain in No. 10.

Running a proper campaign would help. I don't know what the Conservatives have been doing this week.

Considering you're no longer a Conservative, and seem to despise Cameron, perhaps you're not the best person to judge?

Back to the 1950s with you ...

I don't know about anyone else but I respect Sean F's opinions whether they're about his own party's campaign or anyone else's.

Do you think the Con campaign so far has been good?

There's too many people aligned with a party throwing muck on the other party's campaign. The last thread was polluted with it.

As for the Conservatives campaign: the manifestos have not even been launched yet, ffs. There's everything to play for, for all the parties.

Latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown :

7,777 seconds

edmundintokyo said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sean_F said:

peter_from_putney said:

With little of cheer in the recent polls for the Tories, the sands of time appear to be running out for them.
It would now seem to require a significant degree of late switching for the Blue Team to have any realistic chance of achieving 290+ seats which has to be their minimum target to have any hope of remaining in power. A 2% shift from Lab to LibDems would certainly help as would a similar shift from UKIP to Con.
I can't see either happening though and both would probably be required for Dave to remain in No. 10.

Running a proper campaign would help. I don't know what the Conservatives have been doing this week.

Considering you're no longer a Conservative, and seem to despise Cameron, perhaps you're not the best person to judge?

Back to the 1950s with you ...

I don't know about anyone else but I respect Sean F's opinions whether they're about his own party's campaign or anyone else's.

Do you think the Con campaign so far has been good?

Kevin Maguire appeared on yesterday's Daily Politics Show, and said that he had expected the Tory campaign to be much better. He was clearly quite astonished as to how poor it had been.

Purseybear said:

No Clegg No Coalition
(Probably)

Lord Clegg is surely a possibility?

Indigo said:

JosiasJessop said:

edmundintokyo said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sean_F said:

peter_from_putney said:

With little of cheer in the recent polls for the Tories, the sands of time appear to be running out for them.
It would now seem to require a significant degree of late switching for the Blue Team to have any realistic chance of achieving 290+ seats which has to be their minimum target to have any hope of remaining in power. A 2% shift from Lab to LibDems would certainly help as would a similar shift from UKIP to Con.
I can't see either happening though and both would probably be required for Dave to remain in No. 10.

Running a proper campaign would help. I don't know what the Conservatives have been doing this week.

Considering you're no longer a Conservative, and seem to despise Cameron, perhaps you're not the best person to judge?

Back to the 1950s with you ...

I don't know about anyone else but I respect Sean F's opinions whether they're about his own party's campaign or anyone else's.

Do you think the Con campaign so far has been good?

There's too many people aligned with a party throwing muck on the other party's campaign. The last thread was polluted with it.

As for the Conservatives campaign: the manifestos have not even been launched yet, ffs. There's everything to play for, for all the parties.

When do the postal voters go out ?

Next week, and apparently some 20% of the electorate will be casting their votes by post. In my experience, postal voters don't tend to sit on their ballot papers, but send them back by return of post.

If the result was Con 290 and Lab 253 would Labour be of one mind to accept government? The circumstances the day after the election are less important than those 12 - 18 months after. A minority Labour government propped up by a ragbag of mischief makers would have no authority or mandate, and would quickly lose popularity. By 2017 Labour would probably be polling in the teens IMO. Wiped out in Scotland and then facing an English wipe out too, how would that serve the party's long-term interest?

Purseybear said:

Gadfly said:

Purseybear said:

No Clegg No Coalition
(Probably)

Lord Clegg is surely a possibility?

But to lead the LD's into coalition again? Not convinced he'd bring the LD MPs with him unless he's in the Commons as their leader?

I have no idea, but the concept has previously been mooted on here. I detect something of a desire for a continuing coalition, and imagine that there could yet be a way of making this happen, depending upon how the numbers eventually pan out.

Gadfly said:

edmundintokyo said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sean_F said:

peter_from_putney said:

With little of cheer in the recent polls for the Tories, the sands of time appear to be running out for them.
It would now seem to require a significant degree of late switching for the Blue Team to have any realistic chance of achieving 290+ seats which has to be their minimum target to have any hope of remaining in power. A 2% shift from Lab to LibDems would certainly help as would a similar shift from UKIP to Con.
I can't see either happening though and both would probably be required for Dave to remain in No. 10.

Running a proper campaign would help. I don't know what the Conservatives have been doing this week.

Considering you're no longer a Conservative, and seem to despise Cameron, perhaps you're not the best person to judge?

Back to the 1950s with you ...

I don't know about anyone else but I respect Sean F's opinions whether they're about his own party's campaign or anyone else's.

Do you think the Con campaign so far has been good?

Kevin Maguire appeared on yesterday's Daily Politics Show, and said that he had expected the Tory campaign to be much better. He was clearly quite astonished as to how poor it had been.

You're taking Maguire's word on that? Really?

Chortle.

Given Labour has lost Scotland, the Tories need two things to happen:
1. The return of UKIP switchers in the marginals.
2. Anti-Tories in marginals to stay at home, or at least not coalesce round Labour.

The problem is that in going after 1 - Ed is going to be in Salmond's pocket, Ed took on and beat his brother so will be a traitor, etc - they make 2 less likely. Throw in the fact that Ed has yet to do anything totally Ed-like and it's no wonder some Tories are a bit jittery.

The Tories have staked everything on Ed is crap; Labour on the Tories are crap. This is no surprise. We have all been saying that it would happen for a very long time: Ed basically is crap, the Tory brand is toxic for many millions of voters.

For me the central problem for Labour remains the same: it needs 35 to 40 net gains in England and Wales just to stand still. It needs 50 plus to become the largest party. I just do not ser where those seats will come from. On a very good night the former may be doable; it would take a spectacular night for the latter to occur. For the Tories, even a slight UKIP return in the right places does the job.

Thus, though it is far from inspiring and though it will galvanise the anti-Tory vote the LC strategy is probably going to be effective. The Tories should retain most seats. If things fall very nicely, they could get a de facto, if not a de jure, majority. It's the next bit they need to worry about: five years dominated by EU argument and confrontation with Scotland, against the background of a faltering economy. Should be fun!!

Ms Sturgeon has an absolutely fab bookshelf.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-spills-the-beans-on-her-home-1458433

Envious!

PeterC said:

If the result was Con 290 and Lab 253 would Labour be of one mind to accept government? The circumstances the day after the election are less important than those 12 - 18 months after. A minority Labour government propped up by a ragbag of mischief makers would have no authority or mandate, and would quickly lose popularity. By 2017 Labour would probably be polling in the teens IMO. Wiped out in Scotland and then facing an English wipe out too, how would that serve the party's long-term interest?

A lot of Labour voices came out very quickly after the last GE to say Labour had lost and should not seek to form a coalition. I'd expect the same to happen if Labour suffers a net loss of seats - especially given Ed's lack of a base and the huge challenges a Tory government will face following the GE. Getting a better leader while watching the Tories fight with the Scots, with each other over Europe and with a faltering economy may well deliver a better result in the following GE than going a year or two at the head of a rainbow grouping with a bare Commons majority that will never be certain. EdM may push for it; but he may find himself in a small minority.

edmundintokyo said:

asjohnstone said:

edmundintokyo said:

Can't Cameron cut a deal with the SNP? They don't have to actually "support" him, they just need an implicit agreement not to vote against him.

No, because it's suicide at Holyrood 2016 for the SNP to be tainted by association.

I don't think many people on here grasp just how toxic the word "tory" is amongst large numbers of Scots, esp working class in the western central belt. It's verging on being as bad as calling someone a pedophile.

It's crazy unjustified of course, but Scotland as a body politic has gone absolutely crazy mad, it's long ago jumped the shark. Two decades of labour demonizing Thatcher and Major, followed by the SNP smartly sticking the label on new labour have tainted it beyond redemption.

Is there really no Big, Open Offer To The People Of Scotland that would make this politically unimpossible?　

No. There really should be, but the people of Scotland aren't listening. The very word "tory" makes this impossible

SouthamObserver said:

PeterC said:

If the result was Con 290 and Lab 253 would Labour be of one mind to accept government? The circumstances the day after the election are less important than those 12 - 18 months after. A minority Labour government propped up by a ragbag of mischief makers would have no authority or mandate, and would quickly lose popularity. By 2017 Labour would probably be polling in the teens IMO. Wiped out in Scotland and then facing an English wipe out too, how would that serve the party's long-term interest?

A lot of Labour voices came out very quickly after the last GE to say Labour had lost and should not seek to form a coalition. I'd expect the same to happen if Labour suffers a net loss of seats - especially given Ed's lack of a base and the huge challenges a Tory government will face following the GE. Getting a better leader while watching the Tories fight with the Scots, with each other over Europe and with a faltering economy may well deliver a better result in the following GE than going a year or two at the head of a rainbow grouping with a bare Commons majority that will never be certain. EdM may push for it; but he may find himself in a small minority.

I agree. And when was the time that the Largest party did not provide the PM? 1923 I think.

Let us remind ourselves how the polls were looking at this stage in the 2010 election, when Easter occurred one day earlier than this year. Click to enlarge...

Plato said:

Mr Maguire never makes an honest assessment - it's all sledging and mind games. And trying to make it personal about Lynton Crosby - last time it was Ashcroft's Millions.

It's what Labour does. It's the same as repeatedly using someone's full name in an effort to make it seem almost embarrassing to be mentioned.

It was Isabel Hardman that first raised the questions about Crosby on Daily Politics yesterday, Maguire just joined in.

Plato said:

Mr Maguire never makes an honest assessment - it's all sledging and mind games. And trying to make it personal about Lynton Crosby - last time it was Ashcroft's Millions.

It's what Labour does. It's the same as repeatedly using someone's full name in an effort to make it seem almost embarrassing to be mentioned.

Gadfly said:

JosiasJessop said:

Gadfly said:

edmundintokyo said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sean_F said:

peter_from_putney said:

With little of cheer in the recent polls for the Tories, the sands of time appear to be running out for them.
It would now seem to require a significant degree of late switching for the Blue Team to have any realistic chance of achieving 290+ seats which has to be their minimum target to have any hope of remaining in power. A 2% shift from Lab to LibDems would certainly help as would a similar shift from UKIP to Con.
I can't see either happening though and both would probably be required for Dave to remain in No. 10.

Running a proper campaign would help. I don't know what the Conservatives have been doing this week.

Considering you're no longer a Conservative, and seem to despise Cameron, perhaps you're not the best person to judge?

Back to the 1950s with you ...

I don't know about anyone else but I respect Sean F's opinions whether they're about his own party's campaign or anyone else's.

Do you think the Con campaign so far has been good?

Kevin Maguire appeared on yesterday's Daily Politics Show, and said that he had expected the Tory campaign to be much better. He was clearly quite astonished as to how poor it had been.

You're taking Maguire's word on that? Really?

Chortle.

My point is that people from across the political spectrum are noticing how poor the Tory campaign has been over the last week or so. Maguire wasn't point scoring, but he was clearly scratching his head about Lynton Crosby's strategy. Watch this from 7 minutes in...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05qsqz5/daily-politics-10042015

As opposed to saying that Ed will betray Britain because he beat his brother in an election. And if we are going to align journalists with parties, let's look at the Mail. Is that what Tories do?

PeterC said:

SouthamObserver said:

PeterC said:

If the result was Con 290 and Lab 253 would Labour be of one mind to accept government? The circumstances the day after the election are less important than those 12 - 18 months after. A minority Labour government propped up by a ragbag of mischief makers would have no authority or mandate, and would quickly lose popularity. By 2017 Labour would probably be polling in the teens IMO. Wiped out in Scotland and then facing an English wipe out too, how would that serve the party's long-term interest?

A lot of Labour voices came out very quickly after the last GE to say Labour had lost and should not seek to form a coalition. I'd expect the same to happen if Labour suffers a net loss of seats - especially given Ed's lack of a base and the huge challenges a Tory government will face following the GE. Getting a better leader while watching the Tories fight with the Scots, with each other over Europe and with a faltering economy may well deliver a better result in the following GE than going a year or two at the head of a rainbow grouping with a bare Commons majority that will never be certain. EdM may push for it; but he may find himself in a small minority.

A minority Tory government would scarcely be able to pass legislation under that scenario. I expect that grand coalition - the outcome that dare not speak its name - would appear on the agenda of serious possibilities.

With 290 or so seats the Tories could soldier on for a while. Confidence and supply with the LDs and DUP on the budget and Queen's speech should work OK. But it'll be tough, a lot if stuff won't get through and there'll be plenty of arguing. Someone has to govern though. A grand coalition just isn't going to happen. It would destroy both sides.

SouthamObserver said:

PeterC said:

SouthamObserver said:

PeterC said:

If the result was Con 290 and Lab 253 would Labour be of one mind to accept government? The circumstances the day after the election are less important than those 12 - 18 months after. A minority Labour government propped up by a ragbag of mischief makers would have no authority or mandate, and would quickly lose popularity. By 2017 Labour would probably be polling in the teens IMO. Wiped out in Scotland and then facing an English wipe out too, how would that serve the party's long-term interest?

A lot of Labour voices came out very quickly after the last GE to say Labour had lost and should not seek to form a coalition. I'd expect the same to happen if Labour suffers a net loss of seats - especially given Ed's lack of a base and the huge challenges a Tory government will face following the GE. Getting a better leader while watching the Tories fight with the Scots, with each other over Europe and with a faltering economy may well deliver a better result in the following GE than going a year or two at the head of a rainbow grouping with a bare Commons majority that will never be certain. EdM may push for it; but he may find himself in a small minority.

A minority Tory government would scarcely be able to pass legislation under that scenario. I expect that grand coalition - the outcome that dare not speak its name - would appear on the agenda of serious possibilities.

With 290 or so seats the Tories could soldier on for a while. Confidence and supply with the LDs and DUP on the budget and Queen's speech should work OK. But it'll be tough, a lot if stuff won't get through and there'll be plenty of arguing. Someone has to govern though. A grand coalition just isn't going to happen. It would destroy both sides.

Agreed any notion of a Grand Coalition in the UK is laughable. Both sides would rather see the other struggle in government than prop them up.

I don't think there's a lot long with the Tories campaign. They're responding to Labour rather than doing anything active (paid volunteering is just silly). Personal attacks and lies are normal now in British politics from all sides now (sigh).

The only thing I've noticed since the campaign began is Nicola kicking the men's arses in some localised squabble.

Roger said:

Jessop

"An interesting policy from Labour about labour: every woman in Labour to have a 1:1 midwife during labour."

It's not midwives they should concentrate on but the size of prams. Either reduce them by half or ban them from cafe's and restaurants.

Heh. You wouldn't like our main pram then - it's one designed for off-road running and is built like a tank. Ideal for annoying people who care about such things. ;-)

Nobody here, I suspect, will like this, but I fully expect that if there are 100+ seats which return an MP who is neither Tory nor Labour, the talk in the media the following week-end will focus more and more on Grand Coalition. The first thing such a Coalition would do would be to scrap the 5 Year Act (probably replacing it with a 3 Year Act for one Parliament only). As to the second thing it would do - you tell me!

Roger said:

Jessop

"Heh. You wouldn't like our main pram then - it's one designed for off-road running and is built like a tank. Ideal for annoying people who care about such things. ;-) "

How did I just know you'd have the most annoying battleship of a pram!

I try to be considerate of other people: as it's off road-capable, if people of limited mobility or groups of kids are coming towards me then I try to make room for them, e.g. by going onto the grass.

In the same way I'd expect people (yes, even ad directors) to be considerate of people who have to look after a baby and still go out in public ...

Excellent article, David.

So, '...just 15 net losses for Cameron would see Ed in No 10.' And just how likely do you think that is? You're a betting man. What are the odds?

Betfair makes it slight odds against. Would you concur?

Tabman said:

Gadfly said:

Purseybear said:

Gadfly said:

Purseybear said:

No Clegg No Coalition
(Probably)

Lord Clegg is surely a possibility?

But to lead the LD's into coalition again? Not convinced he'd bring the LD MPs with him unless he's in the Commons as their leader?

I have no idea, but the concept has previously been mooted on here. I detect something of a desire for a continuing coalition, and imagine that there could yet be a way of making this happen, depending upon how the numbers eventually pan out.

The main stumbling block will be the party members. I fear that if as is expected at least half our MPs go, the membership will take the view that another 5 years coalition would kill off the rest. Confidence and supply is the most to be hoped for and only if Clegg survives

C&S is the worst of all political worlds - All the blame and none of the power - Think Lib/Lab pact in 78/79.

Indigo said:

Gadfly said:

My sense of a desire for a continuing coalition comes more from the wider public, rather than party members. Plenty of people seem fairly content about how the country has been governed for the last 5 years.

That sounds a bit more plausible than the usual emoting cr*p we get on here, 70% of voters "hate" "despise" "can't stand" "spit upon" etc, the Tories. Do they hell. A small number of self-obsessed activists do, the majority of voters don't feel that strongly about their politics, they feel a government has either "not done to badly" or "maybe its time for a change".

It's my view as well. I have been very impressed with the coalition: it's outperformed and outlasted the predictions of many distinguished pundits and posters. In fact, it's had less splits than the Labour 2005 to 2010 parliament.

I'm intrigued as to whether Labour would have managed in coalition as well. Somehow I doubt it (but then I would).

I would put one little caveat to your second paragraph: talking to people over the years, I agree there are relatively few people who hate or despise parties. However it is much more common to come across people who dislike someone prominent within a party, and cannot vote for that party whilst that person is in it.

I wonder whether personality matters more in politics than policy?

JackW said:

Tabman said:

Gadfly said:

Purseybear said:

Gadfly said:

Purseybear said:

No Clegg No Coalition
(Probably)

Lord Clegg is surely a possibility?

But to lead the LD's into coalition again? Not convinced he'd bring the LD MPs with him unless he's in the Commons as their leader?

I have no idea, but the concept has previously been mooted on here. I detect something of a desire for a continuing coalition, and imagine that there could yet be a way of making this happen, depending upon how the numbers eventually pan out.

The main stumbling block will be the party members. I fear that if as is expected at least half our MPs go, the membership will take the view that another 5 years coalition would kill off the rest. Confidence and supply is the most to be hoped for and only if Clegg survives

C&S is the worst of all political worlds - All the blame and none of the power - Think Lib/Lab pact in 78/79.

Have to agree with that, Young Jack.

And welcome back Tabman, one of PB's great posters. Will you be posting regularly throught the campaign, Tabbers?

And finally, in case either of my readers missed it yesterday, my Grand National selection is Spring Heeled, a mouth-watering 28/1 with Hills.

Grand National

William Hill.

£50 on ShutTheFrontDoor @ 10/1. Win only.

Price available for the next half hour or so.

JosiasJessop said:

Indigo said:

Gadfly said:

My sense of a desire for a continuing coalition comes more from the wider public, rather than party members. Plenty of people seem fairly content about how the country has been governed for the last 5 years.

That sounds a bit more plausible than the usual emoting cr*p we get on here, 70% of voters "hate" "despise" "can't stand" "spit upon" etc, the Tories. Do they hell. A small number of self-obsessed activists do, the majority of voters don't feel that strongly about their politics, they feel a government has either "not done to badly" or "maybe its time for a change".

It's my view as well. I have been very impressed with the coalition: it's outperformed and outlasted the predictions of many distinguished pundits and posters. In fact, it's had less splits than the Labour 2005 to 2010 parliament.

I'm intrigued as to whether Labour would have managed in coalition as well. Somehow I doubt it (but then I would).

I would put one little caveat to your second paragraph: talking to people over the years, I agree there are relatively few people who hate or despise parties. However it is much more common to come across people who dislike someone prominent within a party, and cannot vote for that party whilst that person is in it.

I wonder whether personality matters more in politics than policy?

Yes and no. When I was an activist, if a voter said: "I can't support you because of Bloggs" I would suggest to them that if Bloggs left, one way or another, they'd find another front-bencher to demonise. The usual reply was: "I suppose I would".

It's not only canvassers and pollsters people tell fibs to! And it's easier to project bile onto faces than ideas (unless you're a don).

nigel4england said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

JackW said:

Tabman said:

Gadfly said:

Purseybear said:

Gadfly said:

Purseybear said:

No Clegg No Coalition
(Probably)

Lord Clegg is surely a possibility?

But to lead the LD's into coalition again? Not convinced he'd bring the LD MPs with him unless he's in the Commons as their leader?

I have no idea, but the concept has previously been mooted on here. I detect something of a desire for a continuing coalition, and imagine that there could yet be a way of making this happen, depending upon how the numbers eventually pan out.

The main stumbling block will be the party members. I fear that if as is expected at least half our MPs go, the membership will take the view that another 5 years coalition would kill off the rest. Confidence and supply is the most to be hoped for and only if Clegg survives

C&S is the worst of all political worlds - All the blame and none of the power - Think Lib/Lab pact in 78/79.

Have to agree with that, Young Jack.

And welcome back Tabman, one of PB's great posters. Will you be posting regularly throught the campaign, Tabbers?

And finally, in case either of my readers missed it yesterday, my Grand National selection is Spring Heeled, a mouth-watering 28/1 with Hills.

Mine are Rocky Creek and First Lieutenant.

Quick point, Bet Victor are paying six places and probably best offer is bet365 who will give you half your money back on losing bets up to £125, not as a free bet but back into your account. Read the T&C's though.

I've temporarily purloined ten shillings from Mrs JackW's housekeeping jar and gone for Druid's Nephew EW.

Douglas Carswell (@DouglasCarswell)
11/04/2015 08:37
George Osborne is in charge of it. Of course it's a tepid, uninspiring negative campaign

Some interesting and considered points, though I feel it actually underestimates the Tory difficulties even in the event of keeping their net losses to around 15 (which personally I see as highly improbable, but we'll see). Even with Con/LD combined at 320 making it arithmetically viable, I just cannot see why the LDs would subject themselves to that.

They will be broken and divided following a middling to massive slaughter on election night. The leadership will either have lost their seats or replaced at once I would guess, and there will be uncertainty what direction the party will want to take. Without the national emergency arguments from 2010, what could convince the LDs of the need to enter into a coalition or other agreement, especially with the Tories, which would only cement them as pseudo-Tories for many.

It seems probable they'd either deal with no-one, or with Labour in an attempt to tack left. As it is I think the former is more likely, in order to regroup and reformulate their ideas, and also because that would mean a Labour government of some sort I think, and they will hope that the unpopular decisions any government will make would lead to some of the at lefty vote coming back to the LDs.