politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Announcing PB’s General Election night event + today’s Popu
Comments
-
double post.0
-
I'm not defending either party in this regard (though it's surely up to the voters of a constituency to vote for an MP whose parent may previously have been an MP if they want to). Just challenging the common perception here that's it's a Labour rather than a Tory thing. It's like the idea that Jack Dromey was selected in a seat that should have been AWS. One of those things that some pbc-ers have decided is true regardless of the facts.KentRising said:
Both parties are as bad as each other on the nepotism and unpaid internship stuff that's been talked about on here today - I have personal experience regarding the Tories and have friends who've had the same experiences regarding Labour.Neil said:
How many of that list are actually MPs?Bond_James_Bond said:
Why would the party of Euan Blair, Emily Benn, Will Straw, Dan Hodges, Stephen Kinnock, David Prescott and Joe Dromey want "to stop the core problem of nepotism"?Dair said:
And how, pray tell, will this policy discriminate between an "intern" and a "volunteer" ?MaxPB said:I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.
It is a meaningless gesture in any case, it will do nothing to stop the core problem of nepotism which is what the internship problem is based on.
Compared to the following Tories who followed in their parents' steps:
James Arbuthnot, Richard Benyon, Dominic Grieve, Ben Gummer, Nick Hurd, Bernard Jenkin, Francis Maude, Andrew Mitchell, Mark Pawsey, Laura Sandys, Nicholas Soames, Robin Walker, Bill Wiggin.0 -
I would think if you cast the net to comprehend quangoes, charidees, luvviedom and the BBC, you'd find more left wing nepotism still. The point, however, is not that one party is more nepotistic than others. It's that the one that wants to be seen as such is failing to see and fix its own nepotism problem, which it could perfectly well do right now, and instead is focusing on somebody else's alleged problem.Neil said:
How many of that list are actually MPs?Bond_James_Bond said:
Why would the party of Euan Blair, Emily Benn, Will Straw, Dan Hodges, Stephen Kinnock, David Prescott and Joe Dromey want "to stop the core problem of nepotism"?Dair said:
And how, pray tell, will this policy discriminate between an "intern" and a "volunteer" ?MaxPB said:I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.
It is a meaningless gesture in any case, it will do nothing to stop the core problem of nepotism which is what the internship problem is based on.
Compared to the following Tories who followed in their parents' steps:
James Arbuthnot, Richard Benyon, Dominic Grieve, Ben Gummer, Nick Hurd, Bernard Jenkin, Francis Maude, Andrew Mitchell, Mark Pawsey, Laura Sandys, Nicholas Soames, Robin Walker, Bill Wiggin.
Which is blatant rule by horses, of the most grotesque kind.0 -
All the better.nigel4england said:
Really? You may be in for a surpriseBenM said:
I think most people won't give a monkeys.nigel4england said:
One of the main points to be remembered from last night was Sturgeon asking Ed to work with him.Tykejohnno said:Not all bad for tory message from last night,news channels this morning going on miliband/sturgeon join me message to stop the tories.
Anyone who thinks that if Labour get the most seats that we won't be governed by Scotland is an idiot, and it won't be lost on the English electorate.
Did You Know.
In 1992 Czechoslovakia was dissolved after an UNSUCCESSFUL plebiscite when the population of both states voted No.0 -
https://noscotland.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/better-together-367.jpgDair said:
All the better.nigel4england said:
Really? You may be in for a surpriseBenM said:
I think most people won't give a monkeys.nigel4england said:
One of the main points to be remembered from last night was Sturgeon asking Ed to work with him.Tykejohnno said:Not all bad for tory message from last night,news channels this morning going on miliband/sturgeon join me message to stop the tories.
Anyone who thinks that if Labour get the most seats that we won't be governed by Scotland is an idiot, and it won't be lost on the English electorate.
Did You Know.
In 1992 Czechoslovakia was dissolved after an UNSUCCESSFUL plebiscite when the population of both states voted No.
Better Together.0 -
I'd have been very happy to accept that Yes meant No last September.Dair said:
All the better.nigel4england said:
Really? You may be in for a surpriseBenM said:
I think most people won't give a monkeys.nigel4england said:
One of the main points to be remembered from last night was Sturgeon asking Ed to work with him.Tykejohnno said:Not all bad for tory message from last night,news channels this morning going on miliband/sturgeon join me message to stop the tories.
Anyone who thinks that if Labour get the most seats that we won't be governed by Scotland is an idiot, and it won't be lost on the English electorate.
Did You Know.
In 1992 Czechoslovakia was dissolved after an UNSUCCESSFUL plebiscite when the population of both states voted No.
Inshallah I may get my wish.0 -
Yougov map has Glenrothes as "Too close to call"... it's a constituency I don't actually have a penny on too !
Hard to see it though given SNP got 55% in a local by-election recently.0 -
Good afternoon, everyone.
Hope you have a nice time at the bash, and don't drink too much tequila.0 -
Yes - Labour accusing Tories of being toffs when in fact both parties are stuffed full of toffs who have no real idea of what it's like to to be unemployed or live in a rented flat with damp running down the walls or to be made redundant in your 50's with little chance of getting another job or to have a limited pension or to have savings earning little interest.Bond_James_Bond said:
I would think if you cast the net to comprehend quangoes, charidees, luvviedom and the BBC, you'd find more left wing nepotism still. The point, however, is not that one party is more nepotistic than others. It's that the one that wants to be seen as such is failing to see and fix its own nepotism problem, which it could perfectly well do right now, and instead is focusing on somebody else's alleged problem.Neil said:
How many of that list are actually MPs?Bond_James_Bond said:
Why would the party of Euan Blair, Emily Benn, Will Straw, Dan Hodges, Stephen Kinnock, David Prescott and Joe Dromey want "to stop the core problem of nepotism"?Dair said:
And how, pray tell, will this policy discriminate between an "intern" and a "volunteer" ?MaxPB said:I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.
It is a meaningless gesture in any case, it will do nothing to stop the core problem of nepotism which is what the internship problem is based on.
Compared to the following Tories who followed in their parents' steps:
James Arbuthnot, Richard Benyon, Dominic Grieve, Ben Gummer, Nick Hurd, Bernard Jenkin, Francis Maude, Andrew Mitchell, Mark Pawsey, Laura Sandys, Nicholas Soames, Robin Walker, Bill Wiggin.
Which is blatant rule by horses, of the most grotesque kind.
They're all out of touch toffs as far as I'm concerned. In my more ferocious moments, ropes and lamp posts is what comes to mind when thinking of our political class.
And, now, I must work.
0 -
So little time has passed for 75% of those political careers to be stone dead.Pulpstar said:
https://noscotland.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/better-together-367.jpgDair said:
All the better.nigel4england said:
Really? You may be in for a surpriseBenM said:
I think most people won't give a monkeys.nigel4england said:
One of the main points to be remembered from last night was Sturgeon asking Ed to work with him.Tykejohnno said:Not all bad for tory message from last night,news channels this morning going on miliband/sturgeon join me message to stop the tories.
Anyone who thinks that if Labour get the most seats that we won't be governed by Scotland is an idiot, and it won't be lost on the English electorate.
Did You Know.
In 1992 Czechoslovakia was dissolved after an UNSUCCESSFUL plebiscite when the population of both states voted No.
Better Together.0 -
Not even the slippery eels that are the SNP could wriggle out of their cast iron "we will not support a Tory Govt under any circumstance" and "we will lock out David Cameron" assurances. If the LDs destroyed their reputation over the "no increase in tuition fees" u-turn, imagine what it would do for the Nats to put in place a Tory administration - preventing that seems to be the raison d'etre of the independence movement anyway.Tissue_Price said:
In such circumstances, Labour would be well advised not to vote the Queen's Speech down and change their leader. They could then bring the government down in the autumn. Unless of course Cameron had done a deal with Salmond in the meantime...Danny565 said:Been spending the last hour at work thinking about hung parliament permutations #saddo
The real nightmare scenario in terms of forming a new government is if the Tories are the largest party but WELL short of a majority (say, about 280 seats or less). In such a scenario, they wouldn't have the numbers to cobble together a majority since there's so few natural allies for them in parliament, but equally Labour would be seen to have no "moral authority" to lead a government if they are the second party by a distance. In that case I think an immediate second election would be unavoidable, regardless of the obstacles that the Fixed Term Parliaments Act technically pose.
They'll support Ed, and let him do what he wants on 34% on the vote and probably no more than 285-295 seats.0 -
The SNP are safe re a Con govt - if the LDs hold up then the SNP are at best 4th choice partners for Dave. If the LDs completely disappear then either Lab or Con will have 300.
0 -
They don't have to support Ed until Ed agrees to the SNP demands.Bob__Sykes said:
Not even the slippery eels that are the SNP could wriggle out of their cast iron "we will not support a Tory Govt under any circumstance" and "we will lock out David Cameron" assurances. If the LDs destroyed their reputation over the "no increase in tuition fees" u-turn, imagine what it would do for the Nats to put in place a Tory administration - preventing that seems to be the raison d'etre of the independence movement anyway.Tissue_Price said:
In such circumstances, Labour would be well advised not to vote the Queen's Speech down and change their leader. They could then bring the government down in the autumn. Unless of course Cameron had done a deal with Salmond in the meantime...Danny565 said:Been spending the last hour at work thinking about hung parliament permutations #saddo
The real nightmare scenario in terms of forming a new government is if the Tories are the largest party but WELL short of a majority (say, about 280 seats or less). In such a scenario, they wouldn't have the numbers to cobble together a majority since there's so few natural allies for them in parliament, but equally Labour would be seen to have no "moral authority" to lead a government if they are the second party by a distance. In that case I think an immediate second election would be unavoidable, regardless of the obstacles that the Fixed Term Parliaments Act technically pose.
They'll support Ed, and let him do what he wants on 34% on the vote and probably no more than 285-295 seats.
They can vote down a Labour Queens Speech without any fear of another election. The fear of an election is entirely with Labour who will have demonstrated to their Northern England and Welsh heartlands that they cannot be trusted to work in their constituents best interest.
If the SNP vote down such a Queens Speech, the FTPA means Miliband can get ANOTHER go at being the government, this time with SNP support. In almost all circumstances this is a better choice for Labour avoiding a wipe out at a second election.0 -
You are talking here of trying to run a minority government in a fundamentally hostile parliament. With the FTPA there would be no automatic route either to a second election or a more stable government, either. This would be total gridlock and the market reaction would be gruesome. I would expect Cameron to be gone fairly quickly and Boris to emerge as leader and PM. EdM is an intellectually vain and stubborn man and I would not expect him to go voluntarily.antifrank said:
It's interesting. That would be the surest way possible of losing Scotland forever. Nicola Sturgeon could correctly claim that Labour preferred to let the Conservatives in than to work with the SNP.Tissue_Price said:
Wouldn't they be better off letting Cameron scrabble on for 6 months, under assault from his backbenches, while they have a proper leadership contest and then force a second election?antifrank said:
That's why I think Ed Miliband is so vulnerable if Labour clearly finish second in the seat count. Labour will need to show that they've listened to the public's rejection of their offering, and how better than to sacrifice the leader who led them to what the public would see as defeat and replace him with a less partisan eminence grise in order to lead a government of national progressive unity?Danny565 said:
I dunno, I just feel that for a lot of people who don't follow politics closely, it's going to seem like an open/shut case that the party who comes second doesn't have the right to lead the government. Especially since the press will be running hysterical headlines of "LABOUR COUP" at the time.Pulpstar said:@Danny565
I think you are forgetting about the 1923 General Election. Did Ramsay McDonald have "Moral authority" on sub 200 seats ?
In fact I'd argue he had even less in 1931 when he scrambled together 13 whole seats and was the Prime Minister !
Or who could forget when Churchill only "got over the line" with the Ulstermen in 1951.
It isn't a presidential system and just because we've seen the biggest party "win" for the last 50 years doesn't mean it HAS to be the case now.
Foisting Yvette on us may not lead to a grateful nation.
On the other hand, a Conservative minority government would be a grim affair for David Cameron and Labour would probably win in England alone in the circumstances you describe.
A really tough call for Labour there.
0 -
So in summary - everyone in England should vote Con until this Nat fad peters out...PeterC said:
You are talking here of trying to run a minority government in a fundamentally hostile parliament. With the FTPA there would be no automatic route either to a second election or a more stable government, either. This would be total gridlock and the market reaction would be gruesome. I would expect Cameron to be gone fairly quickly and Boris to emerge as leader and PM. EdM is an intellectually vain and stubborn man and I would not expect him to go voluntarily.antifrank said:
It's interesting. That would be the surest way possible of losing Scotland forever. Nicola Sturgeon could correctly claim that Labour preferred to let the Conservatives in than to work with the SNP.Tissue_Price said:
Wouldn't they be better off letting Cameron scrabble on for 6 months, under assault from his backbenches, while they have a proper leadership contest and then force a second election?antifrank said:
That's why I think Ed Miliband is so vulnerable if Labour clearly finish second in the seat count. Labour will need to show that they've listened to the public's rejection of their offering, and how better than to sacrifice the leader who led them to what the public would see as defeat and replace him with a less partisan eminence grise in order to lead a government of national progressive unity?Danny565 said:
I dunno, I just feel that for a lot of people who don't follow politics closely, it's going to seem like an open/shut case that the party who comes second doesn't have the right to lead the government. Especially since the press will be running hysterical headlines of "LABOUR COUP" at the time.Pulpstar said:@Danny565
I think you are forgetting about the 1923 General Election. Did Ramsay McDonald have "Moral authority" on sub 200 seats ?
In fact I'd argue he had even less in 1931 when he scrambled together 13 whole seats and was the Prime Minister !
Or who could forget when Churchill only "got over the line" with the Ulstermen in 1951.
It isn't a presidential system and just because we've seen the biggest party "win" for the last 50 years doesn't mean it HAS to be the case now.
Foisting Yvette on us may not lead to a grateful nation.
On the other hand, a Conservative minority government would be a grim affair for David Cameron and Labour would probably win in England alone in the circumstances you describe.
A really tough call for Labour there.
0 -
Finsborough arms event not the only one happening on Election night - Check this one out:
Beach Blanket Babylon
For those still up and awake from the previous election night, on Friday 8th May, Beach Blanket Babylon is giving you the chance to celebrate the results or drown your sorrows with the Monster Raving Looney Party. With politically themed cocktails, Poll Tax dancing and a mincing Marget Thatcher, there will be plenty of silliness in the air. The party kicks off at 9pm with free entry and cocktails priced from £8.90.
45 Ledbury Road,
Notting Hill,
London,
W11 2AA
UKIP or CON voters allowed to this one
? 0 -
0
-
Strong words, but differences of opinion are what makes the game interesting. If you are so certain, I'm willing to lay 25 or more SNP MPs voting against a Queen's Speech by a Cameron-led government at 1/100. Bet void if Cameron isn't PM or if CON + LD get 320 seats or more.Pulpstar said:
The SNP will not do a deal with the Conservatives.John_N said:PB heads' average predictions at Nojam.com: CON 289, LAB 271, SNP 42, LD 26, UKIP 3, GRN 1, OTH 18. You're Cameron. What would you do? It's almost a no-brainer: make concessions to the SNP. Sure, you could try for a deal with LD and some UU's, but that wouldn't be stable and why would the LD go for it? If the UU were to hold the government to ransom and bring it down, the LD wouldn't look that distinguishable from CON. Here are the alternatives if those are the numbers: 1) CON-SNP, 2) RAINBOW.
This is the biggest cert of the election.0 -
The Labour policy on interns is a good one. Curiously, you find interns most in the industries that are stuffed full of soi-disant progressives who are quite blind to their own exploitation of the powerless.0
-
Yes, but note that final assembly of the engines will take place in Singapore and that no new jobs will be created due to this order. Our labour costs are just too high to be competitive.JosiasJessop said:More good news:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-323477830 -
We have the fastest growing major developed economy in the world.
We have great employment figures today.
We have wages growing.
We have literally no inflation
We have the deficit down coming year after year.
We have more jobs being created than in the rest of Europe put together.
Is it only me that wishes the Conservative strategy was more about our own record and less about the SNP?0 -
Yes. And this is the only message worth pushing by Cameron for the rest of the campaign.TGOHF said:
So in summary - everyone in England should vote Con until this Nat fad peters out...PeterC said:
You are talking here of trying to run a minority government in a fundamentally hostile parliament. With the FTPA there would be no automatic route either to a second election or a more stable government, either. This would be total gridlock and the market reaction would be gruesome. I would expect Cameron to be gone fairly quickly and Boris to emerge as leader and PM. EdM is an intellectually vain and stubborn man and I would not expect him to go voluntarily.antifrank said:
It's interesting. That would be the surest way possible of losing Scotland forever. Nicola Sturgeon could correctly claim that Labour preferred to let the Conservatives in than to work with the SNP.Tissue_Price said:
Wouldn't they be better off letting Cameron scrabble on for 6 months, under assault from his backbenches, while they have a proper leadership contest and then force a second election?antifrank said:
That's why I think Ed Miliband is so vulnerable if Labour clearly finish second in the seat count. Labour will need to show that they've listened to the public's rejection of their offering, and how better than to sacrifice the leader who led them to what the public would see as defeat and replace him with a less partisan eminence grise in order to lead a government of national progressive unity?Danny565 said:
I dunno, I just feel that for a lot of people who don't follow politics closely, it's going to seem like an open/shut case that the party who comes second doesn't have the right to lead the government. Especially since the press will be running hysterical headlines of "LABOUR COUP" at the time.Pulpstar said:@Danny565
I think you are forgetting about the 1923 General Election. Did Ramsay McDonald have "Moral authority" on sub 200 seats ?
In fact I'd argue he had even less in 1931 when he scrambled together 13 whole seats and was the Prime Minister !
Or who could forget when Churchill only "got over the line" with the Ulstermen in 1951.
It isn't a presidential system and just because we've seen the biggest party "win" for the last 50 years doesn't mean it HAS to be the case now.
Foisting Yvette on us may not lead to a grateful nation.
On the other hand, a Conservative minority government would be a grim affair for David Cameron and Labour would probably win in England alone in the circumstances you describe.
A really tough call for Labour there.
0 -
Good news indeed - I had just read the article a short while before you posted it and read that Rolls Royce currently employs 24,500 people in the UK. For the life of me I can't recall where RR are based. Any guesses without googling?JosiasJessop said:More good news:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-323477830 -
This would be fine if it was all just a game insulated from the wider world. Markets would be in meltdown and the UK would be an international laughing stock.Dair said:
They don't have to support Ed until Ed agrees to the SNP demands.Bob__Sykes said:
Not even the slippery eels that are the SNP could wriggle out of their cast iron "we will not support a Tory Govt under any circumstance" and "we will lock out David Cameron" assurances. If the LDs destroyed their reputation over the "no increase in tuition fees" u-turn, imagine what it would do for the Nats to put in place a Tory administration - preventing that seems to be the raison d'etre of the independence movement anyway.Tissue_Price said:
In such circumstances, Labour would be well advised not to vote the Queen's Speech down and change their leader. They could then bring the government down in the autumn. Unless of course Cameron had done a deal with Salmond in the meantime...Danny565 said:Been spending the last hour at work thinking about hung parliament permutations #saddo
The real nightmare scenario in terms of forming a new government is if the Tories are the largest party but WELL short of a majority (say, about 280 seats or less). In such a scenario, they wouldn't have the numbers to cobble together a majority since there's so few natural allies for them in parliament, but equally Labour would be seen to have no "moral authority" to lead a government if they are the second party by a distance. In that case I think an immediate second election would be unavoidable, regardless of the obstacles that the Fixed Term Parliaments Act technically pose.
They'll support Ed, and let him do what he wants on 34% on the vote and probably no more than 285-295 seats.
They can vote down a Labour Queens Speech without any fear of another election. The fear of an election is entirely with Labour who will have demonstrated to their Northern England and Welsh heartlands that they cannot be trusted to work in their constituents best interest.
If the SNP vote down such a Queens Speech, the FTPA means Miliband can get ANOTHER go at being the government, this time with SNP support. In almost all circumstances this is a better choice for Labour avoiding a wipe out at a second election.
0 -
If Ed gets that many he'll be PM, no doubt. It's the lower range that's more interesting.Bob__Sykes said:
Not even the slippery eels that are the SNP could wriggle out of their cast iron "we will not support a Tory Govt under any circumstance" and "we will lock out David Cameron" assurances. If the LDs destroyed their reputation over the "no increase in tuition fees" u-turn, imagine what it would do for the Nats to put in place a Tory administration - preventing that seems to be the raison d'etre of the independence movement anyway.Tissue_Price said:
In such circumstances, Labour would be well advised not to vote the Queen's Speech down and change their leader. They could then bring the government down in the autumn. Unless of course Cameron had done a deal with Salmond in the meantime...Danny565 said:Been spending the last hour at work thinking about hung parliament permutations #saddo
The real nightmare scenario in terms of forming a new government is if the Tories are the largest party but WELL short of a majority (say, about 280 seats or less). In such a scenario, they wouldn't have the numbers to cobble together a majority since there's so few natural allies for them in parliament, but equally Labour would be seen to have no "moral authority" to lead a government if they are the second party by a distance. In that case I think an immediate second election would be unavoidable, regardless of the obstacles that the Fixed Term Parliaments Act technically pose.
They'll support Ed, and let him do what he wants on 34% on the vote and probably no more than 285-295 seats.
If Cameron basically gives the SNP carte blanche to run Scotland as a de facto nation state then are you telling me they'll refuse?0 -
Indeed. Although from memory, it was more to do with grants and tax incentives to build a factory there. I can't remember if it was under this government or at the dog-end of the previous one, but there was some controversy in the Derby area that the UK government refused to be anywhere near as generous.Financier said:
Yes, but note that final assembly of the engines will take place in Singapore and that no new jobs will be created due to this order. Our labour costs are just too high to be competitive.JosiasJessop said:More good news:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32347783
Although it also makes sense to have a production facility near many of your customers.0 -
And what goodies might the SNP get from CON? Got to weigh that in the balance before deciding which way the balance tips.Bob__Sykes said:Not even the slippery eels that are the SNP could wriggle out of their cast iron "we will not support a Tory Govt under any circumstance" and "we will lock out David Cameron" assurances. If the LDs destroyed their reputation over the "no increase in tuition fees" u-turn, imagine what it would do for the Nats to put in place a Tory administration - preventing that seems to be the raison d'etre of the independence movement anyway.
They'll support Ed, and let him do what he wants on 34% on the vote and probably no more than 285-295 seats.
I can't see that CON would have much of a problem with EVEL or son-of-EVEL (because it's not likely to be as simple as EVEL) if the alternative is going into opposition.
Factor in that Salmond appears to have lost his marbles, saying things about star alignments and not doing a deal even if the SNP gets everything they want (sic).
Average prediction at the moment is that SNP support for LAB wouldn't put Miliband into No.10 without LD support. Current figures suggest two possibilities: CON-SNP or LAB-RAINBOW. (That's leaving aside the issue of maj or min government, which isn't the big issue - who does a deal with whom is the big issue.)0 -
DerbySimonStClare said:
Good news indeed - I had just read the article a short while before you posted it and read that Rolls Royce currently employs 24,500 people in the UK. For the life of me I can't recall where RR are based. Any guesses without googling?JosiasJessop said:More good news:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-323477830 -
The LibDems will struggle against the Conservatives, as Red Liberals return home, and will hold up better against Labour thanks to people like TSE voting tactically.Sean_F said:
Under UNS, Labour would gain 54 seats from the Conservatives, and 11 from the Lib Dems. The Conservatives would gain 17 from the Lib Dems.Millsy said:A 4.5% swing across England is pretty meaningless in terms of seats if it's because of Labour picking up excess LD votes and the Tories losing votes to Ukip in safe seats.
For example, in the north east there is a lump of 24% that voted LD but they only have 2 seats up there. Imagine Labour getting most of the votes and maybe one of the seats. The same thing can happen in the west midlands where the Lib Dems got 21% and 2 seats, and the east midlands where they got 21% and ZERO seats, and Yorkshire where they got 23% and 3 seats. Labour could pick up all the votes and seats in these areas, which would add circa 9% to their national vote tally and only 7 seats.
We can assume that incumbents will outperform these figures, however.
20 -> Conservative
8 -> SNP
7 -> Labour
Give or take...0 -
0
-
Bristol or Derby?SimonStClare said:
Good news indeed - I had just read the article a short while before you posted it and read that Rolls Royce currently employs 24,500 people in the UK. For the life of me I can't recall where RR are based. Any guesses without googling?JosiasJessop said:More good news:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-323477830 -
Looks like all black men look the same to the Guardian
https://twitter.com/Footy_Jokes/status/5890698807222272030 -
Such a tease:
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft · 41s42 seconds ago
My latest marginals polling is coming up at 4pm on @ConHome. Worth a read, if I do say so myself...
0 -
Oh christantifrank said:Such a tease:
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft · 41s42 seconds ago
My latest marginals polling is coming up at 4pm on @ConHome. Worth a read, if I do say so myself...0 -
Pretty sure it used to be Derby, and think it still is. If I walk a couple of hundred yards from my auntie's front door I can see RR over Sinfin Moor.TheWatcher said:
Bristol or Derby?SimonStClare said:
Good news indeed - I had just read the article a short while before you posted it and read that Rolls Royce currently employs 24,500 people in the UK. For the life of me I can't recall where RR are based. Any guesses without googling?JosiasJessop said:More good news:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-323477830 -
I visited the Finborough Arms a couple of months ago and can vouch for it being a first rate establishment and an ideal venue for General Election night. It also has a brilliant landlord in Jeff Bell who I met on my visit and I feel certain will ensure that the event is a huge success.
Oh and btw the choice and quality of the beers on offer there are great too!0 -
This is the Grauniad we are talking about...TheScreamingEagles said:Looks like all black men look the same to the Guardian
0 -
Will you be heading along >?peter_from_putney said:I visited the Finborough Arms a couple of months ago and can vouch for it being a first rate establishment and an ideal venue for General Election night. It also has a brilliant landlord in Jeff Bell who I met on my visit and I feel certain will ensure that the event is a huge success.
Oh and btw the choice and quality of the beers on offer there are great too!0 -
Just Derby apparently, although Rolls-Royce have just announced the creation of a new Composite Technology Hub that will be based in Bristol - yup, I cheatedTheWatcher said:
Bristol or Derby?SimonStClare said:
Good news indeed - I had just read the article a short while before you posted it and read that Rolls Royce currently employs 24,500 people in the UK. For the life of me I can't recall where RR are based. Any guesses without googling?JosiasJessop said:More good news:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32347783
0 -
I want to see Castle Point!Pulpstar said:
Oh christantifrank said:Such a tease:
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft · 41s42 seconds ago
My latest marginals polling is coming up at 4pm on @ConHome. Worth a read, if I do say so myself...
I'm sensing bad news for UKIP but time will tell.
0 -
Not quite as good as their polling headline :-)TheScreamingEagles said:Looks like all black men look the same to the Guardian
https://twitter.com/Footy_Jokes/status/5890698807222272030 -
CON, LAB and even LD had a chance to show inspired leadership as soon as the indyref result came in. I mean actually attending to the issue of improving the Union. They could have started a big British-level conversation (I don't mean wonks-only), looking towards a new settlement, perhaps even to be put to people in simultaneous referendums in each of the Union's four constituent parts. None of the party leaderships had the gumption.Philip_Thompson said:Is it only me that wishes the Conservative strategy was more about our own record and less about the SNP?
0 -
http://labourlist.org/2015/04/this-week-felt-like-a-crucial-moment-douglas-alexanders-state-of-the-race-memo/
"There is a chart on the wall of Labour HQ that I walk past every day"
Unless Labour HQ is in Glasgow/Paisley he's errm...0 -
Any Leanne Wood fanciers? She is doing the Leaders Interview tonight at 7.30pm BBC1 Wales or 9.45 BBC Parliament (available on SKY or IPlayer later)0
-
Scotland SNP landslide perhapsantifrank said:Such a tease:
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft · 41s42 seconds ago
My latest marginals polling is coming up at 4pm on @ConHome. Worth a read, if I do say so myself...0 -
Not more of these buggers, designed to deflate a pb tory on a friday pm!!!bigjohnowls said:
Scotland SNP landslide perhapsantifrank said:Such a tease:
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft · 41s42 seconds ago
My latest marginals polling is coming up at 4pm on @ConHome. Worth a read, if I do say so myself...0 -
I don't think Lib and Lab quite realised how seismic an event it would be.John_N said:CON, LAB and even LD had a chance to show inspired leadership as soon as the indyref result came in. I mean actually attending to the issue of improving the Union. They could have started a big British-level conversation (I don't mean wonks-only), looking towards a new settlement, perhaps even to be put to people in simultaneous referendums in each of the Union's four constituent parts. None of the party leaderships had the gumption.
With 11 and 41 MPs 'no-change' must have looked pretty attractive in mid-September.
I can recall people on here dismissing the first SNP sub-samples that started to come through at the end of September 2014 as polling aberrations.0 -
A three-tissue interview?marke09 said:Any Leanne Wood fanciers? She is doing the Leaders Interview tonight at 7.30pm BBC1 Wales or 9.45 BBC Parliament (available on SKY or IPlayer later)
0 -
I reckon LAB collapse complete in Scotland myself but lets seeScrapheap_as_was said:
Not more of these buggers, designed to deflate a pb tory on a friday pm!!!bigjohnowls said:
Scotland SNP landslide perhapsantifrank said:Such a tease:
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft · 41s42 seconds ago
My latest marginals polling is coming up at 4pm on @ConHome. Worth a read, if I do say so myself...0 -
News from Broxtowe maybe
?
Trouble in Castle Point ?
Yellow Peril Scottish surge ?!0 -
I can't help wondering if the coming parliament will have record low amounts of legislation. If it is going to be hard to get bills through the temptation will be to try and avoid legislating and instead use ministerial powers wherever possible.
It is still not clear to me under a Lab-lead government whether the SNP/Plaid will vote on England only bills. If not, we might get the bare minimum of health, education, transport and justice bills in the next parliament.0 -
EVENING STANDARD: Cameron gets twin boost on economy pic.twitter.com/cVH3rIJukp
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/589071672621330433/photo/1
Also says - Germany praises wonderful job by UK0 -
How can Ed Miliband not know who Vice News are? You know unlike Cameron and Clegg, he lives in the real world, he knows what it is like, what is going on...oh no he doesn't.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/mediamonkeyblog/2015/apr/17/ed-miliband-a-man-without-vice
Also, I love the question as well...
EM: “Oh right. What does Vice News do?”
Errrhhh News perhaps? I guess at least he didn't ask a racist question this time. He really is the son of Brown.0 -
@David_Cameron: The one thing Nicola Sturgeon and I agree on - Ed Miliband must answer this simple question: https://t.co/ysTlIp8qK40
-
More Argy-bargy, this time over oil near the Falklands:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-323542220 -
He hasn't been watching his Zeitgeist tape...FrancisUrquhart said:How can Ed Miliband not know who Vice News are?
0 -
Clearly. Next he will be telling us his favourite Wand Erectioner is Zayn.Scott_P said:
He hasn't been watching his Zeitgeist tape...FrancisUrquhart said:How can Ed Miliband not know who Vice News are?
0 -
UK jobless rate now heading to a 40-year low
Cameron the job-maker
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/04/uk-jobless-rate-now-heading-to-a-40-year-low/0 -
On that topic new Con Cambridgeshire candidates are a vast improvement on Andrew Lansleymarke09 said:Any Leanne Wood fanciers? She is doing the Leaders Interview tonight at 7.30pm BBC1 Wales or 9.45 BBC Parliament (available on SKY or IPlayer later)
http://www.heidisouthcambs.co.uk/
http://www.lucyfrazer.org.uk/0 -
Total bullshit.Financier said:
Yes, but note that final assembly of the engines will take place in Singapore and that no new jobs will be created due to this order. Our labour costs are just too high to be competitive.JosiasJessop said:More good news:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-323477830 -
Yes. Because it would mean Cameron as PM and the Tories in Government.Tissue_Price said:
If Ed gets that many he'll be PM, no doubt. It's the lower range that's more interesting.Bob__Sykes said:
Not even the slippery eels that are the SNP could wriggle out of their cast iron "we will not support a Tory Govt under any circumstance" and "we will lock out David Cameron" assurances. If the LDs destroyed their reputation over the "no increase in tuition fees" u-turn, imagine what it would do for the Nats to put in place a Tory administration - preventing that seems to be the raison d'etre of the independence movement anyway.Tissue_Price said:
In such circumstances, Labour would be well advised not to vote the Queen's Speech down and change their leader. They could then bring the government down in the autumn. Unless of course Cameron had done a deal with Salmond in the meantime...Danny565 said:Been spending the last hour at work thinking about hung parliament permutations #saddo
The real nightmare scenario in terms of forming a new government is if the Tories are the largest party but WELL short of a majority (say, about 280 seats or less). In such a scenario, they wouldn't have the numbers to cobble together a majority since there's so few natural allies for them in parliament, but equally Labour would be seen to have no "moral authority" to lead a government if they are the second party by a distance. In that case I think an immediate second election would be unavoidable, regardless of the obstacles that the Fixed Term Parliaments Act technically pose.
They'll support Ed, and let him do what he wants on 34% on the vote and probably no more than 285-295 seats.
If Cameron basically gives the SNP carte blanche to run Scotland as a de facto nation state then are you telling me they'll refuse?
And on what authority or mandate could Cameron, even if he wanted to, give quasi-independence to Scotland? His MPs and the English would crucify him surely?0 -
Louise Mensch ✔ @LouiseMensch
Miliband speaks with forked tongue on #SNP - at least they're OPEN about scrapping Trident http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11545078/Revealed-Labour-wants-to-get-rid-of-Trident-admits-shadow-cabinet-minister.html …
0 -
Just had to back Chris Christie @ 42-1 to free up funds lol0
-
0
-
More or Ed what Ed's going to do anyway?Bob__Sykes said:
Yes. Because it would mean Cameron as PM and the Tories in Government.Tissue_Price said:
If Ed gets that many he'll be PM, no doubt. It's the lower range that's more interesting.Bob__Sykes said:
Not even the slippery eels that are the SNP could wriggle out of their cast iron "we will not support a Tory Govt under any circumstance" and "we will lock out David Cameron" assurances. If the LDs destroyed their reputation over the "no increase in tuition fees" u-turn, imagine what it would do for the Nats to put in place a Tory administration - preventing that seems to be the raison d'etre of the independence movement anyway.Tissue_Price said:
In such circumstances, Labour would be well advised not to vote the Queen's Speech down and change their leader. They could then bring the government down in the autumn. Unless of course Cameron had done a deal with Salmond in the meantime...Danny565 said:Been spending the last hour at work thinking about hung parliament permutations #saddo
The real nightmare scenario in terms of forming a new government is if the Tories are the largest party but WELL short of a majority (say, about 280 seats or less). In such a scenario, they wouldn't have the numbers to cobble together a majority since there's so few natural allies for them in parliament, but equally Labour would be seen to have no "moral authority" to lead a government if they are the second party by a distance. In that case I think an immediate second election would be unavoidable, regardless of the obstacles that the Fixed Term Parliaments Act technically pose.
They'll support Ed, and let him do what he wants on 34% on the vote and probably no more than 285-295 seats.
If Cameron basically gives the SNP carte blanche to run Scotland as a de facto nation state then are you telling me they'll refuse?
And on what authority or mandate could Cameron, even if he wanted to, give quasi-independence to Scotland? His MPs and the English would crucify him surely?
I can't see a future now for the union. It's dead.0 -
Hold onto your hats folks.0
-
F1: because the race is run after sunset (well, except the first three minutes), Mercedes just tested parts during the first practice session.
This may have implications for other, similar races (maybe Singapore/Abu Dhabi) where temperature varies a lot from P1 to qualifying/race, and there is a 'fastest in P1' market [I was tempted by Raikonen but didn't back him, alas, at 15].0 -
CON GAIN BERWICK
says LA.
0 -
and its all Scotland from ashcroft0
-
PANDAS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!0
-
@LordAshcroft: Voting intentions from my latest round of Scottish constituency polling. More on @ConHome, 4pm http://t.co/TPkMerUybZ0
-
Basic message - there's been a further swing to the SNP. Lord Ashcroft, my bank account salutes you.0
-
Four more journalists have been cleared of charges connected with the Metropolitan Police's Operation Elveden.
Sun journalists Tom Wells, Neil Millard and Brandon Malinksy and ex-Mirror reporter Graham Brough were cleared at the Old Bailey of paying public officials for stories. DT.0 -
Unemployment dropping like a stone, growth prospects good, widespread international praise for Britain's economic performance, while the rest of Europe teeters. It's basically a total vindication for the coalition's economic plans, a contrast to Miliband's stated preference (the Hollande approach)
Problem1: it's all coming a bit late in the day......
Problem2: people are bored of hearing "long-term economic plan", when that should have been the centrepiece of their campaign.
0 -
Those fecking pandas best not breed before May the 8th0
-
@May2015NS: The only party not collapsing in latest round of Ashcroft Scotland polls? Tories. Who may add to their 1 Scot seat. http://t.co/qMvKfhkpCW
*cough*surge*cough*0 -
Anyone buying company shares of F5 keys. 0
-
But what the Lord giveth the Lord taketh away.TGOHF said:CON GAIN BERWICK
says LA.
SNP GAIN DUMFRIESSHIRE, CLYDESDALE & TWEEDDALE0 -
As well as good news on Berwick ... East Renfrewshire SNP too 0
-
May2015 Election @May2015NS · 2m2 minutes ago
This is most astonishing Scotland polling yet. Jim Murphy down 9 points.
SNP could win every seat in Scotland. pic.twitter.com/zpwMu2YdqJ
0 -
Not really the problem is Cameron told his right wing to sod off and they did.Andrew said:Unemployment dropping like a stone, growth prospects good, widespread international praise for Britain's economic performance, while the rest of Europe teeters. It's basically a total vindication for the coalition's economic performance, a contrast to Miliband's stated preference (the Hollande approach)
Problem for them though, it's all coming a bit late in the day ......0 -
Poor Jim Murphy0
-
So, are Labour going to take any seats in Scotland at all?0
-
Paul Goodman @PaulGoodmanCH 1m1 minute ago
On latest @LordAshcroft polling, Jim Murphy would lose his East Renfrewshire seat to the SNP http://bit.ly/1ImnofF
Unfortunate..!0 -
Cons could have 3 seats or no seats - very close.
0 -
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB
Ashcroft Scottish polling
SNP GAIN E Renfrewshire pic.twitter.com/HADQqilYUa
0 -
Another success for the CPS.Plato said:Four more journalists have been cleared of charges connected with the Metropolitan Police's Operation Elveden.
Sun journalists Tom Wells, Neil Millard and Brandon Malinksy and ex-Mirror reporter Graham Brough were cleared at the Old Bailey of paying public officials for stories. DT.0 -
Not really. Sensible right wingers are still with us.Alanbrooke said:
Not really the problem is Cameron told his right wing to sod off and they did.Andrew said:Unemployment dropping like a stone, growth prospects good, widespread international praise for Britain's economic performance, while the rest of Europe teeters. It's basically a total vindication for the coalition's economic performance, a contrast to Miliband's stated preference (the Hollande approach)
Problem for them though, it's all coming a bit late in the day ......
People more obsessed with denying equal rights to gays than running the economy though ...0 -
Closer than I can ever possibly have imagined.TGOHF said:CON GAIN BERWICK
says LA.
Con now losing DCT.
Direction of travel is now all SNP - my fiver on SNP to take Orkney & Shetland looks pretty golden. My £10 of Cons in Dumfries and Galloway looks toast.
Orkney & Shetland and Glasgow NE are going to be the only non-SNP seats come May 8th.0 -
We might as well award PB Toty to Calum and Antifrank now.0
-
Jeez How crap are Labour in Scotland?0
-
Lord Ashcroft ✔ @LordAshcroft
Could tactical Tory votes save Jim Murphy? pic.twitter.com/ZOFtxVrcE7
Hopefully not,tories must give a anti labour message in Scotland,just like labour did with the tories.0 -
they are falling like fliesPulpstar said:
https://noscotland.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/better-together-367.jpgDair said:
All the better.nigel4england said:
Really? You may be in for a surpriseBenM said:
I think most people won't give a monkeys.nigel4england said:
One of the main points to be remembered from last night was Sturgeon asking Ed to work with him.Tykejohnno said:Not all bad for tory message from last night,news channels this morning going on miliband/sturgeon join me message to stop the tories.
Anyone who thinks that if Labour get the most seats that we won't be governed by Scotland is an idiot, and it won't be lost on the English electorate.
Did You Know.
In 1992 Czechoslovakia was dissolved after an UNSUCCESSFUL plebiscite when the population of both states voted No.
Better Together.0 -
No named candidates again.
0 -
If Will Hill are wise they'd subdivide their 0-5 SLab seat market into individual seat bands.TheScreamingEagles said:We might as well award PB Toty to Calum and Antifrank now.
0
