politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Con+LD=320 is the magic equation for Dave
Comments
-
GF Last Ashcroft poll had Davey ahead in Kingston, but LDs likely to be nearer 25 than 350
-
30 may end up on the high side for the Lib Dems, though it's where I'd place their par score right now. Even if it is though, almost all the additional losses would be to the Tories, so it wouldn't greatly affect the big picture (unless Hallam is one of them). The most significant impact it would have would be on Lib Dem thinking as to their long-term recovery strategy; a loss of two-thirds would likely make them more reluctant to repeat the experience that led to the cull than a loss of a half.Greenwich_Floater said:It's a good article by David H, but I do think the LD's figure of 30 might be optimistic.
Personally I think anything sub 300 for Cameron and he is toast.
Even allowing for possible understatement of Tories by online pollsters and a repeat of shifts towards the Tories as has generally historically happened in the later stages of campaigns, I still think a further shift in their favour is necessary.
I don't think it can happen without UKIP dropping to about 7% and therefore I feel he falls short and a rather turbulent period of politics will follow.0 -
DH It was of course Labour who failed to regulate the banks and bailed them out when they needed it, even George W Bush let Lehmans go bust0
-
Still wanting one of Labour's pledge mugs, last 8 left.
https://shop.labour.org.uk/products/pledge-4-mug-controls-on-immigration-551/0 -
Both - don't buy the tactical anti Nat stuff in Scotland gaining a lot a traction and I think the UKIP slump let the tories take most of the South West seats.timmo said:
Left or Right cheek?Greenwich_Floater said:
If the libdems get 35 seats, I'll publish my own version of the ARSE in Fenwick's shop window.timmo said:
A libdem "bigwig" confirmed to me yesterday that they are extremely confident of getting at least 35 seats. He did concede though that Ed Davey maybe in trouble in Kingston.Greenwich_Floater said:It's a good article by David H, but I do think the LD's figure of 30 might be optimistic.
Personally I think anything sub 300 for Cameron and he is toast.
Even allowing for possible understatement of Tories by online pollsters and a repeat of shifts towards the Tories as has generally historically happened in the later stages of campaigns, I still think a further shift in their favour is necessary.
I don't think it can happen without UKIP dropping to about 7% and therefore I feel he falls short and a rather turbulent period of politics will follow.
25 Max0 -
Allegations about what Mrs Thatcher did or said in her later years are unfair under the known circumstances of her health.MP_SE said:Stumbled across this gem last night:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/alexsingleton/100068746/exclusive-thatcher-advised-ukip-on-party-morale/
Clearly a shy Kipper in later life.
0 -
timmo Still the poll showed Davey would still be ahead even if the Tories held their 2010 voteshare, and he is a good local MP0
-
Both Cameron and Major were out of touch with the majority of their party.edmundintokyo said:
He's worse than Kinnock but David Cameron is no John Major.Greenwich_Floater said:
Is Milliband any better than Kinnock.SMukesh said:
It`s 2015.Greenwich_Floater said:
Labour had similar or better leads 3-4 weeks before the election in 1992. Then everyone remembered how rubbish Kinnock was.SMukesh said:Independent poll of polls suggests Labour are standing still at 34 and the Tories have lost 2 points to 32 in the last 4 weeks.
Perhaps the election campaign has sharpened people`s minds to how rubbish are Cameron and co.
You could be right and Labour might be heading for victory but do not count your chickens.
He's isn't ginger I suppose, or Welsh (stands by for backlash from PC brigade)
Miliband has a few more strengths than Kinnock but would/will be one of our worst PMs since WW2.0 -
If I were Cameron, I'd introduce a Queen's speech that contains only (1) FFA for Scotland and (2) EVEL for England. State that he's heard the desire of the people of Scotland for increased autonomy and that bring harmony back to the islands is the most pressing priority and that once the constitution is settled he will call a new general election to allow the people to make up their minds who should be the next government.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.
Would the SNP really vote that down?0 -
Indeed. FWIW, I think they were right to bail them out but it should never have got that far. In today's debate, Labour is holding its hands up to 'not having regulated enough', which is a classic socialist fallacy equating 'more' with 'better' not least because the Tories had argued for 'less'. That 'less' might have meant 'more effective' is a difficult argument to sell, despite the fact that a few dozen quality regulators checking capital bases would have proven more useful than a thousand double-checking individual retail loan agreements.HYUFD said:DH It was of course Labour who failed to regulate the banks and bailed them out when they needed it, even George W Bush let Lehmans go bust
0 -
LDs are going to lose 10 seats in Scotland taking them down to 47. They can then lose only 17 more to meet the bottom of that range.JohnO said:
I would have thought the 30-35 range is correct for the yellow peril.timmo said:
A libdem "bigwig" confirmed to me yesterday that they are extremely confident of getting at least 35 seats. He did concede though that Ed Davey maybe in trouble in Kingston.Greenwich_Floater said:It's a good article by David H, but I do think the LD's figure of 30 might be optimistic.
Personally I think anything sub 300 for Cameron and he is toast.
Even allowing for possible understatement of Tories by online pollsters and a repeat of shifts towards the Tories as has generally historically happened in the later stages of campaigns, I still think a further shift in their favour is necessary.
I don't think it can happen without UKIP dropping to about 7% and therefore I feel he falls short and a rather turbulent period of politics will follow.
How realistic that is I don't know.0 -
They will weight by the types of people they require in their model. But it is my personal view that polls leading into, during or shortly after holiday periods tend to favour Labour instead of the Conservatives. I base it on recalling some polling around Xmas periods but I maybe wrong. Polls based on data gathered from Tues onwards of next week are the ones I am looking for to see where we really are.timmo said:
Ho about it has been the Easter Holidays? Do pollsters weight for holiday periods?Greenwich_Floater said:
Labour had similar or better leads 3-4 weeks before the election in 1992. Then everyone remembered how rubbish Kinnock was.SMukesh said:Independent poll of polls suggests Labour are standing still at 34 and the Tories have lost 2 points to 32 in the last 4 weeks.
Perhaps the election campaign has sharpened people`s minds to how rubbish are Cameron and co.
You could be right and Labour might be heading for victory but do not count your chickens.
0 -
I agree with much of this and think that it will be S&C only, whatever the party equations end up being - that will just suit everyone better.david_herdson said:
30 may end up on the high side for the Lib Dems, though it's where I'd place their par score right now. Even if it is though, almost all the additional losses would be to the Tories, so it wouldn't greatly affect the big picture (unless Hallam is one of them). The most significant impact it would have would be on Lib Dem thinking as to their long-term recovery strategy; a loss of two-thirds would likely make them more reluctant to repeat the experience that led to the cull than a loss of a half.Greenwich_Floater said:It's a good article by David H, but I do think the LD's figure of 30 might be optimistic.
Personally I think anything sub 300 for Cameron and he is toast.
Even allowing for possible understatement of Tories by online pollsters and a repeat of shifts towards the Tories as has generally historically happened in the later stages of campaigns, I still think a further shift in their favour is necessary.
I don't think it can happen without UKIP dropping to about 7% and therefore I feel he falls short and a rather turbulent period of politics will follow.
It's a real shame for the LibDems that they got 'lumbered' with government as there was a real opportunity to challenge a rather lacklustre Labour party with being the main party of opposition.
I reckon they might have been up for 80-100 seats in this election had they remained in opposition. They would have had a real chance in my seat and I might have considered voting for them.0 -
DH Indeed, though the Tories would probably have let Northern Rock at least go bankrupt0
-
By what mechanism do you suppose he 'call[s] a new election'? Bear in mind that the FTPA is very useful to the opposition parties in a hung parliament facing a minority government.Charles said:
If I were Cameron, I'd introduce a Queen's speech that contains only (1) FFA for Scotland and (2) EVEL for England. State that he's heard the desire of the people of Scotland for increased autonomy and that bring harmony back to the islands is the most pressing priority and that once the constitution is settled he will call a new general election to allow the people to make up their minds who should be the next government.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.
Would the SNP really vote that down?0 -
I am not even convinced by the kipper falling to 7% doing it, Ashcroft suggested that squeezing the kippers was working better for Labour in some seats.Greenwich_Floater said:I don't think it can happen without UKIP dropping to about 7% and therefore I feel he falls short and a rather turbulent period of politics will follow.
0 -
Ed is SO prime minsterial
0 -
Any thoughts of today's promise of yet more magic money tree shaking for the NHS ?david_herdson said:
Or doesn't it count as 'mindless, ignorant, selfish and childish' when its Tory magic money tree shaking ?
0 -
Spot on David. Why should opposition parties give this power to a minority government? Under the act as it stands they have an effective veto.david_herdson said:
By what mechanism do you suppose he 'call[s] a new election'? Bear in mind that the FTPA is very useful to the opposition parties in a hung parliament facing a minority government.Charles said:
If I were Cameron, I'd introduce a Queen's speech that contains only (1) FFA for Scotland and (2) EVEL for England. State that he's heard the desire of the people of Scotland for increased autonomy and that bring harmony back to the islands is the most pressing priority and that once the constitution is settled he will call a new general election to allow the people to make up their minds who should be the next government.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.
Would the SNP really vote that down?
0 -
FFA for EV4EL/Barnett cancellation is a win-win, isn't it?
Both the SNP and Tories say no coalition, just fair deals for Scotland and England respectively.
0 -
Again bizarre campaigning from the Conservatives, announcing your major 'save the NHS' counter-intuitive point on a Friday/Saturday, when few give a monkeys - whatever the rights, lies and wrongs of it. Also, Lab haven't been hammering on about the NHS as much as many thought, so it isn't as much of a 'ha you were bleating on about this, but you're bleating on about nowt'. Couldn't it wait till Sunday or Monday? Desperately need to up their game for the 'PB Tories' sake.0
-
I was basing my analysis on a "Go to bed with Nige, wake up with Ed" strategy working, spooking ex-blues mainly, but inevitably not every vote would go blue, probably as many would stay at home altogether.Indigo said:
I am not even convinced by the kipper falling to 7% doing it, Ashcroft suggested that squeezing the kippers was working better for Labour in some seats.Greenwich_Floater said:I don't think it can happen without UKIP dropping to about 7% and therefore I feel he falls short and a rather turbulent period of politics will follow.
Makes Cam's task of keeping his job very difficult given there seems to be very little Red/Blue churn.0 -
It's rather surprising that the pledge has been made without any costing, unless that is to follow.another_richard said:
Any thoughts of today's promise of yet more magic money tree shaking for the NHS ?david_herdson said:
Or doesn't it count as 'mindless, ignorant, selfish and childish' when its Tory magic money tree shaking ?
Purely relying on previous relative fiscal competence leaves them open to plenty of flack on this matter.0 -
EdM looks nerdy but he wouldn't be a bad neighbour.HYUFD said:SMukesh The same arguments about tax apply and Miliband has worse ratings than Kinnock on some measures, he is brighter than Kinnock but a far worse speaker.
Kinnock looked like the neighbour from hell to much of Middle England - guaranteed to get in a feud about the hedge or parking.
Now looking nerdy isn't ideal when dealing with the likes of Putin.
But I think perhaps the accusations of EdM being a 'backstabber' or 'ruthless SOB' helps him here. After all a ruthless backstabber might deal better with Putin than someone who 'plays fair'.
0 -
Yes.Charles said:
If I were Cameron, I'd introduce a Queen's speech that contains only (1) FFA for Scotland and (2) EVEL for England. State that he's heard the desire of the people of Scotland for increased autonomy and that bring harmony back to the islands is the most pressing priority and that once the constitution is settled he will call a new general election to allow the people to make up their minds who should be the next government.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.
Would the SNP really vote that down?0 -
Maybe they are doing at the weekend, when the IFS staff are away from their desks and can't ask where the hell the money is suddenly coming from.marktheowl said:Again bizarre campaigning from the Conservatives, announcing your major 'save the NHS' counter-intuitive point on a Friday/Saturday, when few give a monkeys - whatever the rights, lies and wrongs of it. Also, Lab haven't been hammering on about the NHS as much as many thought, so it isn't as much of a 'ha you were bleating on about this, but you're bleating on about nowt'. Couldn't it wait till Sunday or Monday? Desperately need to up their game for the 'PB Tories' sake.
0 -
I don't see how they can be "extremely confident" of 35. 35 is a possibility, but I think it's optimistic.timmo said:
A libdem "bigwig" confirmed to me yesterday that they are extremely confident of getting at least 35 seats. He did concede though that Ed Davey maybe in trouble in Kingston.Greenwich_Floater said:It's a good article by David H, but I do think the LD's figure of 30 might be optimistic.
Personally I think anything sub 300 for Cameron and he is toast.
Even allowing for possible understatement of Tories by online pollsters and a repeat of shifts towards the Tories as has generally historically happened in the later stages of campaigns, I still think a further shift in their favour is necessary.
I don't think it can happen without UKIP dropping to about 7% and therefore I feel he falls short and a rather turbulent period of politics will follow.0 -
The SNP would never deal with the Tories. But that doesn't preclude some of their MPs getting mysteriously lost in the Highland fog when traveling south to a crucial vote.chestnut said:FFA for EV4EL/Barnett cancellation is a win-win, isn't it?
Both the SNP and Tories say no coalition, just fair deals for Scotland and England respectively.
0 -
We're getting promises of magic money tree shaking pretty much everyday now and pretty much from all parties.Greenwich_Floater said:
It's rather surprising that the pledge has been made without any costing, unless that is to follow.another_richard said:
Any thoughts of today's promise of yet more magic money tree shaking for the NHS ?david_herdson said:
Or doesn't it count as 'mindless, ignorant, selfish and childish' when its Tory magic money tree shaking ?
Purely relying on previous relative fiscal competence leaves them open to plenty of flack on this matter.
Its contemptible.
I would hope there would be a point at which the electorate sees through all these lies.
0 -
Milliband undoubtedly has an image problem, but for me, what is worse is the succession of populist policies being unannounced to pander to the economically illiterate majority.another_richard said:
EdM looks nerdy but he wouldn't be a bad neighbour.HYUFD said:SMukesh The same arguments about tax apply and Miliband has worse ratings than Kinnock on some measures, he is brighter than Kinnock but a far worse speaker.
Kinnock looked like the neighbour from hell to much of Middle England - guaranteed to get in a feud about the hedge or parking.
Now looking nerdy isn't ideal when dealing with the likes of Putin.
But I think perhaps the accusations of EdM being a 'backstabber' or 'ruthless SOB' helps him here. After all a ruthless backstabber might deal better with Putin than someone who 'plays fair'.
One can only hope that they keep up their fine record of not implementing manifesto promises if they do get in, otherwise the country is heading for the poorhouse.0 -
Good point. It just looks too optimistic that the LDs will keep almost 1 in 3 of the other 46 seats they are defending. With 9 of the others having new candidates, not incumbents.Alistair said:
LDs are going to lose 10 seats in Scotland taking them down to 47. They can then lose only 17 more to meet the bottom of that range.JohnO said:
I would have thought the 30-35 range is correct for the yellow peril.timmo said:
A libdem "bigwig" confirmed to me yesterday that they are extremely confident of getting at least 35 seats. He did concede though that Ed Davey maybe in trouble in Kingston.Greenwich_Floater said:It's a good article by David H, but I do think the LD's figure of 30 might be optimistic.
Personally I think anything sub 300 for Cameron and he is toast.
Even allowing for possible understatement of Tories by online pollsters and a repeat of shifts towards the Tories as has generally historically happened in the later stages of campaigns, I still think a further shift in their favour is necessary.
I don't think it can happen without UKIP dropping to about 7% and therefore I feel he falls short and a rather turbulent period of politics will follow.
How realistic that is I don't know.
Lose 10 of 11 in Scotland (4% polling). Lose all 9 non-incumbents of the rest in England & Wales = down to 38.
Then, only lose 7 of the 37 seats not in Scotland..... a retention rate of 81%. Can we really see the LDs holding 8 out of 10 seats that they have an incumbent in across England & Wales?
Of course this also assumes no gains! But even 1 gain hardly improves the chances of keeping 30+
0 -
I believe you are being somewhat optimistic imagining for one moment that Ladbrokes' frail and befuddled website is anywhwere close to introducing a cashout facility - indeed massive improvements are required to the basic functioning of the site before it should even contemplate this - better leave it to the bookies and exchanges with bigger brains.timmo said:
The problem with the spread markets at the moment is that they are trading like option markets..If the polls stay as they are then they will move dramatically but as when you move nearer to an option expiration they will only move in the last week.MikeSmithson said:
Fear not Peter. My judgement is superior to Jack's as we saw at Watford in 2010. I sold the CON lead over LAB at 12. This has now dropped to 8.peter_from_putney said:Hmm ....so only modest changes this morning from JackW.
He'll have OGH quaking in his boots with his Con Seats - Lab Seats = <12 Seats spread bet. Based on this latest projection, he'd face a loss of 46 Units x his unit stake (NOT £20).</p>
Jack's problem is that he made a big call several years ago and what you are seeing is confirmation bias.
I have made no call on GE15 and try to bet in the most effective way possible with the aim of making money not making political statements.
The spread itself is also an issue at present,they are too wide to enable anybody to trade out of them properly.
OGH could well be right but it would be good if some of the mainline bookies such as PP or the magic sign would allow cashout on election bets. Over to you Shadsy..
Meanwhile while the Stock Market reaches new highs, Ladbrokes' share price continues to flounder at just over a quid. Long gone are the days (late 2006) when it was almost 400p. What a wasted decade!0 -
Milliband is certainly performing worse than Kinnock, and Labour's current poll ratings are similar to those they were getting in the 1987 general election, and worse than in 1992. The problem is that Cameron and the Conservatives are much less well rated than Thatcher/Major, and the Conservatives in 1987/92.HYUFD said:SMukesh The same arguments about tax apply and Miliband has worse ratings than Kinnock on some measures, he is brighter than Kinnock but a far worse speaker. Cameron may not have the personal appeal of Major but he does look the part of PM. All but one of the final 1992 polls had Labour ahead, only Gallup had the Tories narrowly ahead, but Major won. UKIP may deny Cameron a majority, but a yougov last week had the Tories on 37%, another Labour on 33%, still all to play for
On the debates we shall see0 -
@Greenwich_Floater
If they fail to get a majority, they could re-use Dave's excuses from the last election?0 -
It's absolutely for the birds. 32-33 seats is about the best the Lib Dems can hope for IMHO.Sean_F said:
I don't see how they can be "extremely confident" of 35. 35 is a possibility, but I think it's optimistic.timmo said:
A libdem "bigwig" confirmed to me yesterday that they are extremely confident of getting at least 35 seats. He did concede though that Ed Davey maybe in trouble in Kingston.Greenwich_Floater said:It's a good article by David H, but I do think the LD's figure of 30 might be optimistic.
Personally I think anything sub 300 for Cameron and he is toast.
Even allowing for possible understatement of Tories by online pollsters and a repeat of shifts towards the Tories as has generally historically happened in the later stages of campaigns, I still think a further shift in their favour is necessary.
I don't think it can happen without UKIP dropping to about 7% and therefore I feel he falls short and a rather turbulent period of politics will follow.0 -
I'd like to see the detail before commenting. I don't doubt that overall the government could easily find £8bn from other departments even while reducing the structural deficit (and very easily if the pledge is in nominal rather than real terms). Whether that's proposed or not I don't know. I certainly wouldn't support unfunded spending commitments from any party.another_richard said:Any thoughts of today's promise of yet more magic money tree shaking for the NHS ?
Or doesn't it count as 'mindless, ignorant, selfish and childish' when its Tory magic money tree shaking ?0 -
It's not a fair comparison. This is not defending the authorities over Rotherham, but it's much easier and quicker to prosecute a simple case of assault (especially when the culprit admits guilt) than investigate and prosecute most cases involving the sexual abuse of minors.another_richard said:I'm sure we are are all pleased that this thug has been jailed:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-32157820
But isn't it interesting how quickly the justice process can happen when the authorities want it.
Now compare with Rotherham.
How many plods, social workers, childrens home managers, councillors and council officials have been jailed ? Or even arrested.
Isn't the answer zero, zero, zero, zero and zero.
Meanwhile the likes of Joyce Thacker continue to spend more time with their payoffs and pensions.
There are many reasons for this; but there can be no doubt that the authorities in Rotherham and elsewhere did not even try. But they were far from alone in that.
It's interesting that the latest news about the extension of the investigation into the abuse in the Nottinghamshire care system - believed to be ongoing for seventy years - has garnered exactly zero comments (that I have seen, at least) on PB.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-32209975
http://www.nottinghampost.com/New-investigation-launched-historic-sex-abuse/story-26299988-detail/story.html0 -
Life in Scotland under the fanatical Nats
@pressjournal: The Conservative offices in Aberdeen have been attacked overnight http://t.co/tY3o3kbzVC http://t.co/zhiCIzAyoT0 -
So you're not voting this election?david_herdson said:I certainly wouldn't support unfunded spending commitments from any party.
0 -
I wonder how many they were 'extremely confident' of getting after the 2010 debates.Sean_F said:
I don't see how they can be "extremely confident" of 35. 35 is a possibility, but I think it's optimistic.timmo said:
A libdem "bigwig" confirmed to me yesterday that they are extremely confident of getting at least 35 seats. He did concede though that Ed Davey maybe in trouble in Kingston.Greenwich_Floater said:It's a good article by David H, but I do think the LD's figure of 30 might be optimistic.
Personally I think anything sub 300 for Cameron and he is toast.
Even allowing for possible understatement of Tories by online pollsters and a repeat of shifts towards the Tories as has generally historically happened in the later stages of campaigns, I still think a further shift in their favour is necessary.
I don't think it can happen without UKIP dropping to about 7% and therefore I feel he falls short and a rather turbulent period of politics will follow.
LibDem overoptimism has been pretty continuous since the 2005 election.
0 -
I see that both the Tories and Labour are promising the earth:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32260220
Tories: We'll find £8bn more for NHS
Labour says it would guarantee one-on-one midwife care for new mothers
......and the Yellows try to get into the act:
The Lib Dems promise a new law to protect people's rights online.
It's what I call the "slobbering mouth appeal", stage of the election battle.0 -
Is that his age or shoe size?CD13 said:Peter,
I've had my annual horse-racing bet and followed your advice with an EW bet on Spring Heeled. If it loses my eldest will have to go to school with no shoes (he is 38) and we'll have to live on gruel and pease pudding until next year. I will, of course, also make a voodoo doll of you so you may find shooting pains in your nether regions.
If it wins, you are forgiven.0 -
I don't really think the median/mean argument comes into it that much herePong said:
FWIW, I think UKIP are a buy on the spreads at 6, but also more likely than not to get under 4.5 seats. It's one of those bets where the difference between the mean & median distort the odds.isam said:
Thanks Peter, glad you agree, always nice to have your opinion backed upPeter_the_Punter said:
Won't bet with you Sam because I think you are right. UKIP odds are starting t look tasty again.isam said:I see UKIP under 4.5 seats is as short as 4/7 now
I think that is a crazy price given the polls.
If anyone wants to lay 5/4, therefore getting Best price 4/5 about the unders I will play
5/6 over 3.5 also looks v nice as does 11/4 15-20 (% of the vote)
These prices are all off the back of massive assumptions
If UKIP really are polling 14% on average, then 11/4 15-20 cant be right.. and the assumption that UNS will hurt them and they will poll 11-14% and only get 3-4 seats is just a guess
They are ahead on raw data in Basildon South, Castle Point, S Thanet and Boston. Most shrewdies think they are favs in Rochester. Clacton is a shoo in, not to mention the 5-6 seats north of Watford where they are live chances
The yougov tracker has them ahead or TCTC in several other seats as well
So lets go if you disagree, I will play in any size £1 upwards
On the Grand National, I've had a little more time than I expected and have expanded my portfolio. In addition to Spring Heeled (already advised), I've had small bets on:
First Lieutenant 25/1
Pinea de Re 33/1
Rocky Creek 10/1
At big odds I also like Chance du Roy, Dolatulo and Owega Star, but they are obviously very speculative and you can only back so many.
Off out now. Good luck if you wade in after me....
None of the haters want to play so I guess that's positive confirmation too
Good luck w the gee gees
On the GN - as well as backing STFD @ 10/1, I also got a bit overexcited this morning and put £25 EW on Owega Star @ 80/1. Nice that ptp thinks I ain't completely crazy
Shall we bet over under 4.5? 4/5 5/4?
We would both be getting the best odds available, everyones a winner0 -
Anyone got a link to the Kent-only opinion poll that was apparently done recently?0
-
That's the easy bit, you include repeal of FTPA in the same act as FFA and EVEL.david_herdson said:
By what mechanism do you suppose he 'call[s] a new election'? Bear in mind that the FTPA is very useful to the opposition parties in a hung parliament facing a minority government.Charles said:
If I were Cameron, I'd introduce a Queen's speech that contains only (1) FFA for Scotland and (2) EVEL for England. State that he's heard the desire of the people of Scotland for increased autonomy and that bring harmony back to the islands is the most pressing priority and that once the constitution is settled he will call a new general election to allow the people to make up their minds who should be the next government.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.
Would the SNP really vote that down?0 -
They are watering the course at "The National", should I look for a horse with oversized hooves?0
-
If a trife on the Crap sideSunil_Prasannan said:Ed is SO prime minsterial
0 -
And its only true in the South, in the Midland and North you want people to vote kipper to reduce the number of Labour seats, no point in doing ourselves out of a possible most seats situation through hatred of the kippers.Greenwich_Floater said:
I was basing my analysis on a "Go to bed with Nige, wake up with Ed" strategy working, spooking ex-blues mainly, but inevitably not every vote would go blue, probably as many would stay at home altogether.Indigo said:
I am not even convinced by the kipper falling to 7% doing it, Ashcroft suggested that squeezing the kippers was working better for Labour in some seats.Greenwich_Floater said:I don't think it can happen without UKIP dropping to about 7% and therefore I feel he falls short and a rather turbulent period of politics will follow.
Makes Cam's task of keeping his job very difficult given there seems to be very little Red/Blue churn.0 -
Looks like all parties intend on planting money magic trees left, right and centre.MikeK said:I see that both the Tories and Labour are promising the earth:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32260220
Tories: We'll find £8bn more for NHS
Labour says it would guarantee one-on-one midwife care for new mothers
......and the Yellows try to get into the act:
The Lib Dems promise a new law to protect people's rights online.
It's what I call the "slobbering mouth appeal", stage of the election battle.
Labour every day now are promising stuff that just isn't possible, magic money tree or not. Smaller primary school class sizes the other day, not going to happen, birth rate is higher than it has been for a long time and you can't just magic up schools, it takes years of planning. Coalition inherited a situation where already weren't keeping up with "demand" and despite new schools, the demand coming through the system in the next few years is even greater.0 -
I agree. There's no way a minority government could get a repeal of the FTPA through parliament. The only card Cameron would have to force an early election would be to resign his government. That could easily go wrong in at least two ways. Firstly, Miliband (or a successor) might be able to form a government; secondly, the manoeuvring may backfire in terms of public perception. Either way, he'd still be placing the Labour leader in No 10, which would be no small matter.MikeSmithson said:
Spot on David. Why should opposition parties give this power to a minority government? Under the act as it stands they have an effective veto.david_herdson said:
By what mechanism do you suppose he 'call[s] a new election'? Bear in mind that the FTPA is very useful to the opposition parties in a hung parliament facing a minority government.Charles said:
If I were Cameron, I'd introduce a Queen's speech that contains only (1) FFA for Scotland and (2) EVEL for England. State that he's heard the desire of the people of Scotland for increased autonomy and that bring harmony back to the islands is the most pressing priority and that once the constitution is settled he will call a new general election to allow the people to make up their minds who should be the next government.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.
Would the SNP really vote that down?0 -
National punts
Spring Heeled (PtP must get at least one winner this year...)
Shutthefrontdoor (Not because I think it will win, but I would kick myself if it did and I wasn't on it)
Oscar Time (most successful Aintree National fences jocky ever)
First Lieutenant (first female jocky winner?)0 -
From March.
The Budget documents show that the reduction in the predicted surplus will allow an extra £29.6bn in spending by government departments in 2019-20.0 -
I believe there was quite a number of billions left quietly unallocated in the budget to allow for just these sort of jollies without effecting the published finances at all, £20bn springs to mind, but it might be more than that.david_herdson said:
I'd like to see the detail before commenting. I don't doubt that overall the government could easily find £8bn from other departments even while reducing the structural deficit (and very easily if the pledge is in nominal rather than real terms). Whether that's proposed or not I don't know. I certainly wouldn't support unfunded spending commitments from any party.another_richard said:Any thoughts of today's promise of yet more magic money tree shaking for the NHS ?
Or doesn't it count as 'mindless, ignorant, selfish and childish' when its Tory magic money tree shaking ?0 -
River Choice 250/1 ?Smarmeron said:They are watering the course at "The National", should I look for a horse with oversized hooves?
0 -
@skynewsniall: .@SophyRidgeSky asks Ed Miliband if Lab commitment to spending 2.5b more than Tory plans still remains now they've said theyll spend 8b more
@skynewsniall: As far as I can tell, beyond an assertion that "we're clearly doing more" than Tories, he didn't answer @SophyRidgeSky's question directly0 -
@david_herdson
Will Dave be head of the Tory party for long enough, after another "bad" election result?0 -
Natalie Bennett PM!!Peter_the_Punter said:
River Choice 250/1 ?Smarmeron said:They are watering the course at "The National", should I look for a horse with oversized hooves?
0 -
CON+SNP wouldn't be a minority, so you merge it into the FFA/EVEL bill and its not a problem.david_herdson said:
I agree. There's no way a minority government could get a repeal of the FTPA through parliament. The only card Cameron would have to force an early election would be to resign his government. That could easily go wrong in at least two ways. Firstly, Miliband (or a successor) might be able to form a government; secondly, the manoeuvring may backfire in terms of public perception. Either way, he'd still be placing the Labour leader in No 10, which would be no small matter.MikeSmithson said:
Spot on David. Why should opposition parties give this power to a minority government? Under the act as it stands they have an effective veto.david_herdson said:
By what mechanism do you suppose he 'call[s] a new election'? Bear in mind that the FTPA is very useful to the opposition parties in a hung parliament facing a minority government.Charles said:
If I were Cameron, I'd introduce a Queen's speech that contains only (1) FFA for Scotland and (2) EVEL for England. State that he's heard the desire of the people of Scotland for increased autonomy and that bring harmony back to the islands is the most pressing priority and that once the constitution is settled he will call a new general election to allow the people to make up their minds who should be the next government.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.
Would the SNP really vote that down?0 -
-
didnt the last budget find extra surplus coming in in final year of next parliament of around 7 - 8 billiondavid_herdson said:
I'd like to see the detail before commenting. I don't doubt that overall the government could easily find £8bn from other departments even while reducing the structural deficit (and very easily if the pledge is in nominal rather than real terms). Whether that's proposed or not I don't know. I certainly wouldn't support unfunded spending commitments from any party.another_richard said:Any thoughts of today's promise of yet more magic money tree shaking for the NHS ?
Or doesn't it count as 'mindless, ignorant, selfish and childish' when its Tory magic money tree shaking ?0 -
SNPout need to get their act together, they keep putting out different versions of the tactical voting wheel of fortune:
http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/wheeloflolz.jpg
It will not take long before spoof wheels start appearing to further confuse the fantasy army of tactical voters, which many England based PBers think is going to ride to the "mainstream parties" rescue.0 -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11529784/Labour-and-Tories-will-draw-the-election-new-poll-predicts.html
Wisdom Index predicts a draw.
Tories nudge ahead of Labour on 'cost of living'.
Is that what happens when Ed's on telly every day saying, "more taxes"? People think that somehow they will end up getting hit.0 -
@FrancisUrquhart you mean Left, Left, and Left. Not a right wing or leaning party among them.FrancisUrquhart said:
Looks like all parties intend on planting money magic trees left, right and centre.MikeK said:I see that both the Tories and Labour are promising the earth:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32260220
Tories: We'll find £8bn more for NHS
Labour says it would guarantee one-on-one midwife care for new mothers
......and the Yellows try to get into the act:
The Lib Dems promise a new law to protect people's rights online.
It's what I call the "slobbering mouth appeal", stage of the election battle.
Labour every day now are promising stuff that just isn't possible, magic money tree or not. Smaller primary school class sizes the other day, not going to happen, birth rate is higher than it has been for a long time and you can't just magic up schools, it takes years of planning. Coalition inherited a situation where already weren't keeping up with "demand" and despite new schools, the demand coming through the system in the next few years is even greater.0 -
I suspect there are cases of child abuse taking place in care homes in every county in the country. You can probably say similar about every country in the world. Sadly vulnerable children attract unpleasant people.JosiasJessop said:
It's not a fair comparison. This is not defending the authorities over Rotherham, but it's much easier and quicker to prosecute a simple case of assault (especially when the culprit admits guilt) than investigate and prosecute most cases involving the sexual abuse of minors.
There are many reasons for this; but there can be no doubt that the authorities in Rotherham and elsewhere did not even try. But they were far from alone in that.
It's interesting that the latest news about the extension of the investigation into the abuse in the Nottinghamshire care system - believed to be ongoing for seventy years - has garnered exactly zero comments (that I have seen, at least) on PB.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-32209975
http://www.nottinghampost.com/New-investigation-launched-historic-sex-abuse/story-26299988-detail/story.html
What happened in Rotherham though was on a different level as it featured collaberation by plods and other public servants on a borough wide basis.
So its not just a situation where the authorities in Rotherham "didn't even try" its a situation where the authorities in Rotherham should themselves be getting investigated and then having action taken against them.
As to time scales, how long is it now since the Times investigation into Rotherham ?
I know it was followed by quick action by the Home Affairs Select Committee - when Keith Vaz stands as the exemplar of proper and prompt action it puts all the others to shame for their inaction.
Meanwhile we've had an investigation by the IPCC into the role the GMP played in the Rochdale abuse. A four year investigation which in the end decided nothing should be done. How very convenient. Forgive me for being cynical but I suspect we'll get a similar investigation into the SYP.
0 -
Campaigning in #Ryde today I wished good luck to a confused @keepandrew2015 He refused to shake my hand & ran off! pic.twitter.com/XTX7fCeCpf
— Iain Mckie (@Iainmckie_UKIP) April 11, 20150 -
So when do we hear of what cuts are going to be made in other departments ?david_herdson said:
I'd like to see the detail before commenting. I don't doubt that overall the government could easily find £8bn from other departments even while reducing the structural deficit (and very easily if the pledge is in nominal rather than real terms). Whether that's proposed or not I don't know. I certainly wouldn't support unfunded spending commitments from any party.another_richard said:Any thoughts of today's promise of yet more magic money tree shaking for the NHS ?
Or doesn't it count as 'mindless, ignorant, selfish and childish' when its Tory magic money tree shaking ?
That's right, we wont.
0 -
Don't you mean @NuttilyBennet on twitter now.bigjohnowls said:
Natalie Bennett PM!!Peter_the_Punter said:
River Choice 250/1 ?Smarmeron said:They are watering the course at "The National", should I look for a horse with oversized hooves?
0 -
Some reasonable points.another_richard said:
I suspect there are cases of child abuse taking place in care homes in every county in the country. You can probably say similar about every country in the world. Sadly vulnerable children attract unpleasant people.JosiasJessop said:
It's not a fair comparison. This is not defending the authorities over Rotherham, but it's much easier and quicker to prosecute a simple case of assault (especially when the culprit admits guilt) than investigate and prosecute most cases involving the sexual abuse of minors.
There are many reasons for this; but there can be no doubt that the authorities in Rotherham and elsewhere did not even try. But they were far from alone in that.
It's interesting that the latest news about the extension of the investigation into the abuse in the Nottinghamshire care system - believed to be ongoing for seventy years - has garnered exactly zero comments (that I have seen, at least) on PB.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-32209975
http://www.nottinghampost.com/New-investigation-launched-historic-sex-abuse/story-26299988-detail/story.html
What happened in Rotherham though was on a different level as it featured collaberation by plods and other public servants on a borough wide basis.
So its not just a situation where the authorities in Rotherham "didn't even try" its a situation where the authorities in Rotherham should themselves be getting investigated and then having action taken against them.
As to time scales, how long is it now since the Times investigation into Rotherham ?
I know it was followed by quick action by the Home Affairs Select Committee - when Keith Vaz stands as the exemplar of proper and prompt action it puts all the others to shame for their inaction.
Meanwhile we've had an investigation by the IPCC into the role the GMP played in the Rochdale abuse. A four year investigation which in the end decided nothing should be done. How very convenient. Forgive me for being cynical but I suspect we'll get a similar investigation into the SYP.
It's not just the authorities: it's the society around them as well. The girls are trouble; the girls are unworthy; the girls love the men; the girls will make poor witnesses; it's the girls' fault. All terrible excuses that have been used about Rotherham. Many members of the public knew that this was going on and said nothing, even if it was their fathers, husbands or brothers doing the abuse.
One of the reasons Rotherham got traction was that the abuse spread outside the care homes; to the friends of girls in care. Girls who had family and tried to complain, even if the complaints fell on fallow ground.
And we should not forget that boys get abuse as well.
All utterly and hideously depressing.0 -
No they wouldn't. And if they did, and if they thereby triggered another GE, why shouldn't the voters who switched to SNP from LAB switch back to LAB?Pulpstar said:
Yes.Charles said:
If I were Cameron, I'd introduce a Queen's speech that contains only (1) FFA for Scotland and (2) EVEL for England. State that he's heard the desire of the people of Scotland for increased autonomy and that bring harmony back to the islands is the most pressing priority and that once the constitution is settled he will call a new general election to allow the people to make up their minds who should be the next government.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.
Would the SNP really vote that down?
But the scenario needs fleshing out. It wouldn 't just be FFA (Scotland) and EVEL. Consider a package that would involve an English referendum on EVEL-plus. With questions and talking-points set so that the result would be a strong YES. "England rises again." Change of landscape. Both the SNP and the Tories would be in seventh heaven.
(As I've said before, if the LAB leadership had any calibre, they could have got to all this first, shown some real leadership and hurt the Tories in a big way for a long period of time - but if my auntie was my uncle...)
If the SNP hold the balance of power - a quaint phrase, but apt if they get far more seats than the fourth party - expect them to consider their options.
And if one option is get into bed with the Tories and the other is cooperate with Labour but have the whole arrangement sensitive to the whims of the LibDems and maybe Respect or some UUs, it's a bit of a no-brainer. Politics is fickle. It's not about appealing to the intellect. It's only pundits who use terms such as "centre-left".
0 -
After the election if the Tories win. More debt of Labour win.another_richard said:
So when do we hear of what cuts are going to be made in other departments ?david_herdson said:
I'd like to see the detail before commenting. I don't doubt that overall the government could easily find £8bn from other departments even while reducing the structural deficit (and very easily if the pledge is in nominal rather than real terms). Whether that's proposed or not I don't know. I certainly wouldn't support unfunded spending commitments from any party.another_richard said:Any thoughts of today's promise of yet more magic money tree shaking for the NHS ?
Or doesn't it count as 'mindless, ignorant, selfish and childish' when its Tory magic money tree shaking ?
That's right, we wont.
Pick your poison.
0 -
So you say the SNP are lying when they say they will not vote for any conservative queen's speech?John_N said:
No they wouldn't. And if they did, and if they thereby triggered another GE, why shouldn't the voters who switched to SNP from LAB switch back to LAB?Pulpstar said:
Yes.Charles said:
If I were Cameron, I'd introduce a Queen's speech that contains only (1) FFA for Scotland and (2) EVEL for England. State that he's heard the desire of the people of Scotland for increased autonomy and that bring harmony back to the islands is the most pressing priority and that once the constitution is settled he will call a new general election to allow the people to make up their minds who should be the next government.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.
Would the SNP really vote that down?
But the scenario needs fleshing out. It wouldn 't just be FFA (Scotland) and EVEL. Consider a package that would involve an English referendum on EVEL-plus. With questions and talking-points set so that the result would be a strong YES. "England rises again." Change of landscape. Both the SNP and the Tories would be in seventh heaven.
(As I've said before, if the LAB leadership had any calibre, they could have got to all this first, shown some real leadership and hurt the Tories in a big way for a long period of time - but if my auntie was my uncle...)
If the SNP hold the balance of power - a quaint phrase, but apt if they get far more seats than the fourth party - expect them to consider their options.
And if one option is get into bed with the Tories and the other is cooperate with Labour but have the whole arrangement sensitive to the whims of the LibDems and maybe Respect or some UUs, it's a bit of a no-brainer. Politics is fickle. It's not about appealing to the intellect. It's only pundits who use terms such as "centre-left".
0 -
I liked David Herdson's piece but he appears to share the assumption of so many commentators that the LibDems would stick together in the way that they did in 2010. Personally I am doubtful that this will prove to be true. If 30 Libdems survive on May 7th I rather suspect that 6 to 10 of them will simply refuse to follow Clegg into another Tory-led administration. Furthermore we may end up with LibDem members receiving conflicting advice from separate groups of its MPs with the members having to choose between them.0
-
Just listening to 'Any Questions'. Why do the Tories persist with Grant Shapps? He clearly doesn't understand the script. The public instinctively don't like him and he's obviously not up to the job.
The funniest line though was when Paddy Ashdown said his Party was "The Green Party in Government" Caroline Lucas was asked what she thought of that claim and got the biggest cheer of the day when she said "I'd laugh"
I'm getting a real sense that the Tories are actively disliked.0 -
Include it as a clause in the same bill.david_herdson said:
By what mechanism do you suppose he 'call[s] a new election'? Bear in mind that the FTPA is very useful to the opposition parties in a hung parliament facing a minority government.Charles said:
If I were Cameron, I'd introduce a Queen's speech that contains only (1) FFA for Scotland and (2) EVEL for England. State that he's heard the desire of the people of Scotland for increased autonomy and that bring harmony back to the islands is the most pressing priority and that once the constitution is settled he will call a new general election to allow the people to make up their minds who should be the next government.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.
Would the SNP really vote that down?
Of course the risk is amendment, but make it clear to the SNP it is all or nothing.0 -
He is saying circumstances changes, and its not exactly unusual for a politician to claim extenuating circumstances. After all the alternative is to vote the Tories down, get basically nothing from Labour but a bit of pork for a year or so until the government collapses and then risk a Tory majority which proceeds to completely ignore Scotland's needs for the next 5-10 years. There is an aspect of taking what is on offer while you can get it.Alistair said:
So you say the SNP are lying when they say they will not vote for any conservative queen's speech?John_N said:
No they wouldn't. And if they did, and if they thereby triggered another GE, why shouldn't the voters who switched to SNP from LAB switch back to LAB?Pulpstar said:
Yes.Charles said:
If I were Cameron, I'd introduce a Queen's speech that contains only (1) FFA for Scotland and (2) EVEL for England. State that he's heard the desire of the people of Scotland for increased autonomy and that bring harmony back to the islands is the most pressing priority and that once the constitution is settled he will call a new general election to allow the people to make up their minds who should be the next government.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.
Would the SNP really vote that down?
But the scenario needs fleshing out. It wouldn 't just be FFA (Scotland) and EVEL. Consider a package that would involve an English referendum on EVEL-plus. With questions and talking-points set so that the result would be a strong YES. "England rises again." Change of landscape. Both the SNP and the Tories would be in seventh heaven.
(As I've said before, if the LAB leadership had any calibre, they could have got to all this first, shown some real leadership and hurt the Tories in a big way for a long period of time - but if my auntie was my uncle...)
If the SNP hold the balance of power - a quaint phrase, but apt if they get far more seats than the fourth party - expect them to consider their options.
And if one option is get into bed with the Tories and the other is cooperate with Labour but have the whole arrangement sensitive to the whims of the LibDems and maybe Respect or some UUs, it's a bit of a no-brainer. Politics is fickle. It's not about appealing to the intellect. It's only pundits who use terms such as "centre-left".
Not sure SNP voters would be too sympathetic to being told that the party rejected 90% of what they wanted and they are going to have to wait another 10 years before they get another chance at getting 100% of it.0 -
David H
"It's a die, not dye, and cast as in thrown, not moulded. Don't they teach you anything at your expensive private schools?"
I wondered about that and couldn't find an answer easily on my I pad. As to not being taught it at my expensive school. Idioms weren't encouraged!0 -
Sunday papers will be the target. IIRC they are the ones that people read/remember the mostmarktheowl said:Again bizarre campaigning from the Conservatives, announcing your major 'save the NHS' counter-intuitive point on a Friday/Saturday, when few give a monkeys - whatever the rights, lies and wrongs of it. Also, Lab haven't been hammering on about the NHS as much as many thought, so it isn't as much of a 'ha you were bleating on about this, but you're bleating on about nowt'. Couldn't it wait till Sunday or Monday? Desperately need to up their game for the 'PB Tories' sake.
0 -
That's just you an a handful of anoraks, most people neither love not hate parties or governments, it just isn't that important in their daily life, they are just "not doing so bad" or " probably time for a change".Roger said:Just listening to 'Any Questions'. Why do the Tories persist with Grant Shapps? He clearly doesn't understand the script. The public instinctively don't like him and he's obviously not up to the job.
The funniest line though was when Paddy Ashdown said his Party was "The Green Party in Government" Caroline Lucas was asked what she thought of that claim and got the biggest cheer of the day when she said "I'd laugh"
I'm getting a real sense that the Tories are actively disliked.
0 -
Indigo
"That's just you and a handful of anoraks, most people neither love not hate parties or governments,"
I think that's usually true. Thatcher's was an exception. I've never really found the coalition to be that bad but I'm getting the impression now they've uncoupled both halves are pretty disliked0 -
Kippers have a sixth sense for finding pubs, but this one in #SouthThanet is genius
— Donna_R_E (@Donna_R_E) April 11, 2015pic.twitter.com/7WKgUTT5Ix0 -
And all we got from UKIP was sausage rolls.:)MikeK said:I see that both the Tories and Labour are promising the earth:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32260220
Tories: We'll find £8bn more for NHS
Labour says it would guarantee one-on-one midwife care for new mothers
......and the Yellows try to get into the act:
The Lib Dems promise a new law to protect people's rights online.
It's what I call the "slobbering mouth appeal", stage of the election battle.0 -
Listening to the lunchtime news the conservatives and lib dems have both signed upto Mr Stevens, head of NHS , requirements of £8 billion by 2020 but labour are only committing to £2.5 billion leaving them with a £5.5 billion funding shortfall. It seems both the conservatives and lib dems proposition is that as the debt is paid down and debt interest falls the extra investment will flow from lower interest payments and economic growth. It seems amazing that labour can only cry foul and really seem to have been caught out on what is their flag ship policy0
-
The thing that really, really aggravates me is this implicit assumption that our recovery will continue.Big_G_NorthWales said:Listening to the lunchtime news the conservatives and lib dems have both signed upto Mr Stevens, head of NHS , requirements of £8 billion by 2020 but labour are only committing to £2.5 billion leaving them with a £5.5 billion funding shortfall. It seems both the conservatives and lib dems proposition is that as the debt is paid down and debt interest falls the extra investment will flow from lower interest payments and economic growth. It seems amazing that labour can only cry foul and really seem to have been caught out on what is their flag ship policy
History tells us that we're due a recession in the next few years. Of course, they're all making these ludicrous promises because it works; the electorate doesn't want to hear the truth.0 -
You really are a creepy halfwit, luckily not enough brain cells to be dangerous.Scott_P said:Life in Scotland under the fanatical Nats
@pressjournal: The Conservative offices in Aberdeen have been attacked overnight http://t.co/tY3o3kbzVC http://t.co/zhiCIzAyoT0 -
Circumstances change. I've just read that Alec Salmond interview, in which he says he wouldn't want to do a deal with Cameron even if Cameron offered him everything he wanted (sic). He then says, " I wouldn’t come to Westminster to make up the numbers... What I’ve got to offer of course is the experience of having run a minority government." He makes three separate references to how the stars might be in alignment. And he says the political figure he most identifies with is Nelson Mandela. That's identifies with, not admires.Alistair said:So you say the SNP are lying when they say they will not vote for any conservative queen's speech?
Is the poor old sausage losing his marbles?
Then he talks about looking forward to holding the balance of power. How you can do that when you couldn't possibly countenance supporting one of the two sides under any conditions, I don't know.
I wouldn't take that interview too seriously. Politicians tell porkies and suffer from excess pride and Salmond is no exception.0 -
deleted - moved to new thread.0
