politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Could shy Kippers become a problem for pollsters like shy T
Comments
-
I could see that. I regard a LD-Lab coalition as more likely than a second LD-Con one for many of the reasons given, although I still think the party would wish to avoid one altogether. They're coalition shy at the moment, despite their campaign to the contrary, i suspect.Carnyx said:
There is an article by Iain Macwhirter in the Sunday Herald arguing that it is more likely we will see a Labour-LD coalition (Mr M gets to be PM, the LDs keep their ministerial cars and start detoxing away from the Tories) while the SNP quietly support on a case by case basis without any agreement but are still seen to intervene in key issues. [Edit: my summary.] There is some sense in this as it maximises the benefits and reduces the downsides for each party.kle4 said:
Of course. My suspicion is the LDs would be happy with a Lab-SNP government, in the hope that they can recover support as those two lose some popularity as a natural consequence of being in government, while simultaneously tacking left and repudiating Clegg and his ilk to reassure people they are proper lefties again. It could work, but as you say maybe it'll just mean they don't recover and also don't have influence - but what else leads to the possibility of a recovery?Pong said:
Isn't there a risk, surely, that the LD's fade into irrelevance by 2020?kle4 said:
Possibly. Being able to pick and choose, or pick neither, puts a lot of pressure on a party that will be licking its wounds and needing to figure out how to regroup, but if they can essentially just sit things out? Very nice.Greenwich_Floater said:the Lib Dems might be largely irrelevant in the next government.
To small to help the tories
not needed to help an SNP backed Labour
Probably actually aids their long term electoral prospects.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/the-big-threat-to-the-union-the-tories.14300447890 -
As ever a fair bit down thread about tactical voting in Scotland, which is a sad reflection on the 3 so called mainstream parties. One of the main problems with tactical voting is that the Unionist parties are giving out very mixed messages as you can see from my post from yesterday:
" Just had a leaflet in from Stephen Kerr, the Tory candidate for Stirling making a very direct plea for tactical votes to stop the SNP. Unfortunately other Stirling Tories are already indicating they will be voting tactically for SLAB;
https://medium.com/@chrisdeerin/why-i-will-vote-labour-b058b17e042f
These guys need to get their act together, Chris seems to think that David Cameron is on-side with him voting for SLAB !!
As I hadn't heard anything from the LibDem candidate I thought I do a bit of research. It turns out according to Elizabeth Wilson:
"Supporters of all parties are switching to back Lib Dem Elisabeth Wilson this time - the only candidate able to deliver more powers for Scotland and protect local services."0 -
In the eyes of the Red Liberals it might, if they got rid of the ruling clique and pretended it was all down to them. My feeling is that some people need a pretext to justify to themselves to consider voting for the LDs again. Getting rid of Clegg might have been enough for a few tactically minded voters.Scott_P said:
That's not how it works. The LDs are toxic because they said one thing and did another.Carnyx said:the LDs keep their ministerial cars and start detoxing away from the Tories
If they go into a Labour government and immediately say everything we did for 5 years was bad, that will not 'detox' them
Must be off all.0 -
One of the assumption the PBTories have made of Miliband [ apart from murdering his brother ] is that he is too stupid. Nabavi and SeanT being exceptions.Freggles said:RodCrosby said:
A weakened Tories could decide their best tactical option would be to install an even weaker Miliband, and let the fun begin with the SNP...saddo said:Assuming Cameron leads the largest party and Miliband has no formal or even public informal arrangements with the SNP how would Labour get any chance at forming a government until every Tory lead option is seen to be unworkable?
Being in government helps you control much of the political weather. If you're in number 10, you are in charge.
Abolish bedroom taxRodCrosby said:
A weakened Tories could decide their best tactical option would be to install an even weaker Miliband, and let the fun begin with the SNP...saddo said:Assuming Cameron leads the largest party and Miliband has no formal or even public informal arrangements with the SNP how would Labour get any chance at forming a government until every Tory lead option is seen to be unworkable?
Being in government helps you control much of the political weather. If you're in number 10, you are in charge.
Raise taxes on rich
Cap energy prices
Unfreeze public sector wages
Call election on a ticket of 'don't take us back to the bad old days'
Miliband can play quite a few cards with small ticket items [ you forgot the reduction in University fees ] and put into touch [ set up a commission ] controversial things like Mansion Tax.
He declares "Austerity is coming to an end". Let's see how many votes he loses.
The SNP will not vote against any of those. He might even have the Lib Dems supporting him to regain some credibility.0 -
Yes. They need to do it, but they are not in a position to officially endorse it at the top of the parties yet. They and their voters are not ready to accept that, and the suddenness of noticing the SNP rise didn't give enough time to figure something out even if they had been so inclined.calum said:As ever a fair bit down thread about tactical voting in Scotland, which is a sad reflection on the 3 so called mainstream parties. One of the main problems with tactical voting is that the Unionist parties are giving out very mixed messages
Furthermore the Tories want some tactical voting for their guy, but they actually still need Labour to lose plenty of seats to have a chance to win - they would prefer the tactical voting start after this GE.0 -
Very nice? To be in politics to be an irrelevance? The Liberals were an irrelevance. The point of them merging with another irrelevance - the SDP - was to become meaningful. Now that they never need actually worry about 'preparing for government' is hailed as 'very nice'??kle4 said:
Possibly. Being able to pick and choose, or pick neither, puts a lot of pressure on a party that will be licking its wounds and needing to figure out how to regroup, but if they can essentially just sit things out? Very nice.Greenwich_Floater said:the Lib Dems might be largely irrelevant in the next government.
To small to help the tories
not needed to help an SNP backed Labour
Probably actually aids their long term electoral prospects.
The LDs have failed totally.
They had a good opportunity, probably never to be repeated, to become a part of government to see that what they represent has some influence. What did they do? 'I'll tell you wot' they did they rubbished the govt they were a part of, they rubbished the decisions they were a part of. And they wonder why they are disparaging into the wilderness of irrelevance.0 -
The other advantage of that is it defuses the SNp=wreckers=unfit for government argument from the Tories, unless one wants to follow the underlying argument that the SNP should be completely banned from Westminster just because, which would destroy the Union instantly: which is also relevant to Mr Macwhirter's analysis.kle4 said:
I could see that. I regard a LD-Lab coalition as more likely than a second LD-Con one for many of the reasons given, although I still think the party would wish to avoid one altogether. They're coalition shy at the moment, despite their campaign to the contrary, i suspect.Carnyx said:
There is an article by Iain Macwhirter in the Sunday Herald arguing that it is more likely we will see a Labour-LD coalition (Mr M gets to be PM, the LDs keep their ministerial cars and start detoxing away from the Tories) while the SNP quietly support on a case by case basis without any agreement but are still seen to intervene in key issues. [Edit: my summary.] There is some sense in this as it maximises the benefits and reduces the downsides for each party.kle4 said:
Of course. My suspicion is the LDs would be happy with a Lab-SNP government, in the hope that they can recover support as those two lose some popularity as a natural consequence of being in government, while simultaneously tacking left and repudiating Clegg and his ilk to reassure people they are proper lefties again. It could work, but as you say maybe it'll just mean they don't recover and also don't have influence - but what else leads to the possibility of a recovery?Pong said:
Isn't there a risk, surely, that the LD's fade into irrelevance by 2020?kle4 said:
Possibly. Being able to pick and choose, or pick neither, puts a lot of pressure on a party that will be licking its wounds and needing to figure out how to regroup, but if they can essentially just sit things out? Very nice.Greenwich_Floater said:the Lib Dems might be largely irrelevant in the next government.
To small to help the tories
not needed to help an SNP backed Labour
Probably actually aids their long term electoral prospects.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/the-big-threat-to-the-union-the-tories.1430044789
0 -
How can he call an election on the fixed term actsurbiton said:
One of the assumption the PBTories have made of Miliband [ apart from murdering his brother ] is that he is too stupid. Nabavi and SeanT being exceptions.Freggles said:RodCrosby said:
A weakened Tories could decide their best tactical option would be to install an even weaker Miliband, and let the fun begin with the SNP...saddo said:Assuming Cameron leads the largest party and Miliband has no formal or even public informal arrangements with the SNP how would Labour get any chance at forming a government until every Tory lead option is seen to be unworkable?
Being in government helps you control much of the political weather. If you're in number 10, you are in charge.
Abolish bedroom taxRodCrosby said:
A weakened Tories could decide their best tactical option would be to install an even weaker Miliband, and let the fun begin with the SNP...saddo said:Assuming Cameron leads the largest party and Miliband has no formal or even public informal arrangements with the SNP how would Labour get any chance at forming a government until every Tory lead option is seen to be unworkable?
Being in government helps you control much of the political weather. If you're in number 10, you are in charge.
Raise taxes on rich
Cap energy prices
Unfreeze public sector wages
Call election on a ticket of 'don't take us back to the bad old days'
Miliband can play quite a few cards with small ticket items [ you forgot the reduction in University fees ] and put into touch [ set up a commission ] controversial things like Mansion Tax.
He declares "Austerity is coming to an end". Let's see how many votes he loses.
The SNP will not vote against any of those. He might even have the Lib Dems supporting him to regain some credibility.0 -
Not 'never' but for this next parliament, they need time to rebuild. I don't know why some people think the LDs not wanting to be involved in a government next time which will not benefit them means they are happy to 'always' be an irrelevance. Very short term minded of such people.Flightpath1 said:
Very nice? To be in politics to be an irrelevance? The Liberals were an irrelevance. The point of them merging with another irrelevance - the SDP - was to become meaningful. Now that they never need actually worry about 'preparing for government' is hailed as 'very nice'??kle4 said:
Possibly. Being able to pick and choose, or pick neither, puts a lot of pressure on a party that will be licking its wounds and needing to figure out how to regroup, but if they can essentially just sit things out? Very nice.Greenwich_Floater said:the Lib Dems might be largely irrelevant in the next government.
To small to help the tories
not needed to help an SNP backed Labour
Probably actually aids their long term electoral prospects.
The LDs have failed totally.
They had a good opportunity, probably never to be repeated, to become a part of government to see that what they represent has some influence. What did they do? 'I'll tell you wot' they did they rubbished the govt they were a part of, they rubbished the decisions they were a part of. And they wonder why they are disparaging into the wilderness of irrelevance.
0 -
Lose a confidence vote. I'd be easy, just have a few backbenchers fail to turn up, or do it during Holyrood campaignBig_G_NorthWales said:
How can he call an election on the fixed term actsurbiton said:
One of the assumption the PBTories have made of Miliband [ apart from murdering his brother ] is that he is too stupid. Nabavi and SeanT being exceptions.Freggles said:RodCrosby said:
A weakened Tories could decide their best tactical option would be to install an even weaker Miliband, and let the fun begin with the SNP...saddo said:Assuming Cameron leads the largest party and Miliband has no formal or even public informal arrangements with the SNP how would Labour get any chance at forming a government until every Tory lead option is seen to be unworkable?
Being in government helps you control much of the political weather. If you're in number 10, you are in charge.
Abolish bedroom taxRodCrosby said:
A weakened Tories could decide their best tactical option would be to install an even weaker Miliband, and let the fun begin with the SNP...saddo said:Assuming Cameron leads the largest party and Miliband has no formal or even public informal arrangements with the SNP how would Labour get any chance at forming a government until every Tory lead option is seen to be unworkable?
Being in government helps you control much of the political weather. If you're in number 10, you are in charge.
Raise taxes on rich
Cap energy prices
Unfreeze public sector wages
Call election on a ticket of 'don't take us back to the bad old days'
Miliband can play quite a few cards with small ticket items [ you forgot the reduction in University fees ] and put into touch [ set up a commission ] controversial things like Mansion Tax.
He declares "Austerity is coming to an end". Let's see how many votes he loses.
The SNP will not vote against any of those. He might even have the Lib Dems supporting him to regain some credibility.0 -
Birmingham Northfield.Greenwich_Floater said:Looking at the list of target seats for Conservatives, is it at all feasible that they may gain any seats from Labour?
Possibles, without doing a huge amount of research.
West Midlands seats might be in play because they had a smaller swing from LAB to CON in 2010, than elsewhere and might be less UKIP effect.
Dudley North
Telford
Walsall North
BIrmingham Edgbaston
Walsall South
South West, due to general resurgence there
Southampton Itchen
Plymouth Moor View
Exeter
Others
Vale of Clwyd
Newcastle Under Lyme
Chorley.
I wouldn't be too surprised to see one of these fall blue on election night.
Any other suggestions.0 -
Why should he ? But if others gang up and move a vote of no-confidence he will happily run on his record and prove those changes are possible without the roof caving in.Big_G_NorthWales said:
How can he call an election on the fixed term actsurbiton said:
One of the assumption the PBTories have made of Miliband [ apart from murdering his brother ] is that he is too stupid. Nabavi and SeanT being exceptions.Freggles said:RodCrosby said:
A weakened Tories could decide their best tactical option would be to install an even weaker Miliband, and let the fun begin with the SNP...saddo said:Assuming Cameron leads the largest party and Miliband has no formal or even public informal arrangements with the SNP how would Labour get any chance at forming a government until every Tory lead option is seen to be unworkable?
Being in government helps you control much of the political weather. If you're in number 10, you are in charge.
Abolish bedroom taxRodCrosby said:
A weakened Tories could decide their best tactical option would be to install an even weaker Miliband, and let the fun begin with the SNP...saddo said:Assuming Cameron leads the largest party and Miliband has no formal or even public informal arrangements with the SNP how would Labour get any chance at forming a government until every Tory lead option is seen to be unworkable?
Being in government helps you control much of the political weather. If you're in number 10, you are in charge.
Raise taxes on rich
Cap energy prices
Unfreeze public sector wages
Call election on a ticket of 'don't take us back to the bad old days'
Miliband can play quite a few cards with small ticket items [ you forgot the reduction in University fees ] and put into touch [ set up a commission ] controversial things like Mansion Tax.
He declares "Austerity is coming to an end". Let's see how many votes he loses.
The SNP will not vote against any of those. He might even have the Lib Dems supporting him to regain some credibility.0 -
The DUP will never, ever support a diminishing of their MPs roles. They will not support EVEL. Nevargh, Nevargh, NEVARGH!chestnut said:
Cameron's line would only need to be strong enough for long enough to get EV4EL etc through parliament.FrankBooth said:Just as a re-cap I think we are looking at something like:
Tory 285
Anti-Tory 320
Non-aligned 40
EICIPM. The DUP plus the Lib Dems might just get Cameron over the line but the majority would be paper thin. An anti-Tory majority seems far more credible.
Then you can write off the SNP, Plaid, NI etc etc.0 -
From UK polling report, May 2014:
"Birmingham Northfield local election results with comparison to 2010 (general election day):
Conservative 37.2% (+ 0.5%)
Labour 30.7% (- 4.8%)
Lib Dem 3.3% (-12.9%)
Green 3.8% (+ 1.5%)
UKIP 23.6% (Only 1 candidate)
UKIP hoovered up the sizeable BNP vote and the collapsed Liberal democrat vote, and clearly took votes from Labour here too. The Conservatives gained the marginal Kings Norton ward from Labour, and held Northfield which was lost at the last 2 elections. (C3 L1 this time, L7,C5 total).
The Conservative lead with this good performance is now higher than in Edgbaston."
I think it could be a recount.0 -
I read the DUP manifesto on Friday. There is a high degree of overlap with the Conservatives, and I don't think they'd have an issue with EVFEL.Dair said:
The DUP will never, ever support a diminishing of their MPs roles. They will not support EVEL. Nevargh, Nevargh, NEVARGH!chestnut said:
Cameron's line would only need to be strong enough for long enough to get EV4EL etc through parliament.FrankBooth said:Just as a re-cap I think we are looking at something like:
Tory 285
Anti-Tory 320
Non-aligned 40
EICIPM. The DUP plus the Lib Dems might just get Cameron over the line but the majority would be paper thin. An anti-Tory majority seems far more credible.
Then you can write off the SNP, Plaid, NI etc etc.0 -
There I was, tranquil in the wilderness where no pollster ventures, when election fever began to steal upon me and before you could say ARSE I found myself yearning for tales of the famed enormo-haddock. My fate was sealed.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. F, the policymakers [a word too polite, I'd say] are damned fools who ought to be slapped around the head and neck with an enormo-haddock.
0 -
So how are the Lib Dem activists reacting to the polls? Denial is not a strong enough word. Apparently this lady thinks that Ashcrofts polls are tainted because he is a political opponent. Something no one on here has written in recent memory.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/so-how-worried-should-we-be-about-the-ashcroft-poll-on-bristol-west-45622.html
Lib Dems whining here?0 -
You are viewing things as always through partisan coloured spectacles . The Lib Dems did not rubbish the decisions they were part of . That was the practice of a group of Conservative backbenchers a couple of whom even b*ggered off to another party but of course in your eyes these were heroes .Flightpath1 said:
Very nice? To be in politics to be an irrelevance? The Liberals were an irrelevance. The point of them merging with another irrelevance - the SDP - was to become meaningful. Now that they never need actually worry about 'preparing for government' is hailed as 'very nice'??kle4 said:
Possibly. Being able to pick and choose, or pick neither, puts a lot of pressure on a party that will be licking its wounds and needing to figure out how to regroup, but if they can essentially just sit things out? Very nice.Greenwich_Floater said:the Lib Dems might be largely irrelevant in the next government.
To small to help the tories
not needed to help an SNP backed Labour
Probably actually aids their long term electoral prospects.
The LDs have failed totally.
They had a good opportunity, probably never to be repeated, to become a part of government to see that what they represent has some influence. What did they do? 'I'll tell you wot' they did they rubbished the govt they were a part of, they rubbished the decisions they were a part of. And they wonder why they are disparaging into the wilderness of irrelevance.
0 -
I don't understand why everyone assumes that to call an early election a government deliberately loses a no-confidence vote.
A simple two-thirds majority will get an early election called immediately - no 14 days, no no-confidence nonsense. If the government calls for an early election on a three line whip, the opposition (if it can't form its own government) would essentially be obliged to all three line whip in favour of an election.
Unless the opposition can form their own government (in which case vote for no confidence and try and take over), the opposition can not ever honourably say no we don't want a vote we'd rather you continue to run the government.
Government plus opposition always exceeds well over two thirds, so an election is started.0 -
Off-topic:
I see the southwest and Labour was mentioned below. The latest edition of Rail magazine says that Ed Balls has backed the tunnel diversion for the Dawlish rail problem, rather than the more popular Okehampton line reopening.
This is the option I favour as well, although the much higher costs mean that neither is the best option (as Balls identifies, the Okehampton line does nothing for the population centres in South Devon).
He also questions the phasing of such improvements with the HS2 phases (although he ignores the electrification schemes).
Just thought I'd mention this, as I haven't seen it publicised much and may swing some voters in either direction.
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Labour-s-8203-Ed-Balls-says-Osborne-backs/story-26238922-detail/story.html0 -
My postal vote is sitting on the dining room table.
I've been putting off the Conservative/UKIP decision for weeks now but today is the day.
Reading PB recently has felt like fifty canvassers knocking on my front door every night.0 -
Vote Conservative or the afternoon thread is going to be about AV, electoral reform or Scotland.GeoffM said:My postal vote is sitting on the dining room table.
I've been putting off the Conservative/UKIP decision for weeks now but today is the day.
Reading PB recently has felt like fifty canvassers knocking on my front door every night.0 -
Tend to agree. A government that wants an election could say they would resign if they don't get it, and put the cowardly Opposition into government, which promptly collapses (on a VoC), triggering an election...Philip_Thompson said:I don't understand why everyone assumes that to call an early election a government deliberately loses a no-confidence vote.
A simple two-thirds majority will get an early election called immediately - no 14 days, no no-confidence nonsense. If the government calls for an early election on a three line whip, the opposition (if it can't form its own government) would essentially be obliged to all three line whip in favour of an election.
Unless the opposition can form their own government (in which case vote for no confidence and try and take over), the opposition can not ever honourably say no we don't want a vote we'd rather you continue to run the government.
Government plus opposition always exceeds well over two thirds, so an election is started.0 -
Under the FTPA the SNP can happily vote against Labour's Queen's Speech if Labour do not consult with them and offer sweeties. They can spin this trivially enough and the ball is 100% in Labour's court to make concessions to the SNP.surbiton said:
One of the assumption the PBTories have made of Miliband [ apart from murdering his brother ] is that he is too stupid. Nabavi and SeanT being exceptions.
Miliband can play quite a few cards with small ticket items [ you forgot the reduction in University fees ] and put into touch [ set up a commission ] controversial things like Mansion Tax.
He declares "Austerity is coming to an end". Let's see how many votes he loses.
The SNP will not vote against any of those. He might even have the Lib Dems supporting him to regain some credibility.
In realpolitik it is more likely the SNP will let the Queen's Speech pass, however. This will place Miliband in even more of a bind, being effectively powerless to pass any legislation without the support of either the Tories or the SNP.0 -
They will have a fundamental ideological opposition to EVEL. Their MPs are EQUAL to any other MP because NI is an intrinsic and inseparable part of the UK. Any law which diminishes this ideological dogma will be unsupportable by the DUP.Casino_Royale said:
I read the DUP manifesto on Friday. There is a high degree of overlap with the Conservatives, and I don't think they'd have an issue with EVFEL.Dair said:
The DUP will never, ever support a diminishing of their MPs roles. They will not support EVEL. Nevargh, Nevargh, NEVARGH!chestnut said:
Cameron's line would only need to be strong enough for long enough to get EV4EL etc through parliament.FrankBooth said:Just as a re-cap I think we are looking at something like:
Tory 285
Anti-Tory 320
Non-aligned 40
EICIPM. The DUP plus the Lib Dems might just get Cameron over the line but the majority would be paper thin. An anti-Tory majority seems far more credible.
Then you can write off the SNP, Plaid, NI etc etc.0 -
I was in the same position as you, GeoffM, a few weeks ago. I reached a point where I decided it was simply too bloody dangerous to do anything other than vote Conservative.GeoffM said:My postal vote is sitting on the dining room table.
I've been putting off the Conservative/UKIP decision for weeks now but today is the day.
Reading PB recently has felt like fifty canvassers knocking on my front door every night.
It's a balancing act of relativities: Ed Miliband is a clear and present danger to the well-being and interests of this country. I actually have had sleepless nights over this election. The man puts the fear of God into me.
And I think the Tory manifesto isn't too bad, actually. It's the best I think we Con-UKIP floaters could have hoped for. And it might be enacted, if Cameron wins.
Which constituency are you in?
0 -
The SNP are going to do their damndest to make Miliband PM whether he likes it or not.0
-
Any opposition with an ounce of sense would go into government under those circumstances and at least try and get a Queens Speech through . The subsequent GE would then be fought with their leader as PM and other senior party members as Ministers and the former PM would be just that .RodCrosby said:
Tend to agree. A government that wants an election could say they would resign if they don't get it, and put the cowardly Opposition into government, which promptly collapses (on a VoC), triggering an election...Philip_Thompson said:I don't understand why everyone assumes that to call an early election a government deliberately loses a no-confidence vote.
A simple two-thirds majority will get an early election called immediately - no 14 days, no no-confidence nonsense. If the government calls for an early election on a three line whip, the opposition (if it can't form its own government) would essentially be obliged to all three line whip in favour of an election.
Unless the opposition can form their own government (in which case vote for no confidence and try and take over), the opposition can not ever honourably say no we don't want a vote we'd rather you continue to run the government.
Government plus opposition always exceeds well over two thirds, so an election is started.0 -
I don't think that's the case. They will have no objection to Health, Education and English income tax being set in England by English MPs.Dair said:
They will have a fundamental ideological opposition to EVEL. Their MPs are EQUAL to any other MP because NI is an intrinsic and inseparable part of the UK. Any law which diminishes this ideological dogma will be unsupportable by the DUP.Casino_Royale said:
I read the DUP manifesto on Friday. There is a high degree of overlap with the Conservatives, and I don't think they'd have an issue with EVFEL.Dair said:
The DUP will never, ever support a diminishing of their MPs roles. They will not support EVEL. Nevargh, Nevargh, NEVARGH!chestnut said:
Cameron's line would only need to be strong enough for long enough to get EV4EL etc through parliament.FrankBooth said:Just as a re-cap I think we are looking at something like:
Tory 285
Anti-Tory 320
Non-aligned 40
EICIPM. The DUP plus the Lib Dems might just get Cameron over the line but the majority would be paper thin. An anti-Tory majority seems far more credible.
Then you can write off the SNP, Plaid, NI etc etc.
They will want an overall UK voice on the Barnett formula, foreign policy, immigration and defence.0 -
Miliband is the smartest politician on offer. He promises no major reforms. He prmises a range of minor tinkerings which fit I with a popular theme that the rich can pay more and make everything fairer. Neither the tories nor the libdems offer such a simple and popular meme.surbiton said:
If it has no real effect, then maybe Ed Miliband is a smarter politician than you give him credit for.Big_G_NorthWales said:Re labours rent control policy does anyone think it will become a reality. Rents will be freely negotiated at the beginning of the tenancy between landlord and tenant with some reference to the previous rent and then any rent rise for the max three years will be restricted to inflation. Apparently it will not come in until 2017 and will be policed by the local authority.
Any landlord who neglects the property maintenance will lose tax relief this to be policed by HMRC.
It is so obvious that landlords will calculate their initial rents at a much higher level to allow for this restriction and then at the end of three years will raise rents again. As there is no possibility of there being anything but large rental demand the landlords will have no problem in attracting tenants paying the higher rent. Furthermore it is probable that a lot of tenancies will be allowed to lapse before the regulation comes into force to enable the landlord to negotiate a completely new tenancy contract to protect their interest
The idea that local authorities will have the time and staffing to maintain a new landlord register and that HMRC will be able to investigate landlords re their tax relief is ridiculous.
Another sound bite policy from Ed Miliband who has no knowledge of markets and more worryingly no interest in understanding them
Miliband's policies seem to be all quite insignificant and therefor, for the smart politician, easily achievable. Small change to the amount of housing benefit you might receive if you have a spare room. Insignificant and achievable in 1 year. Tinker with casual employment contracts. Insignificant and achievable. Tinker with private rents. Insignificant and achievable. Reduce tuition fees a bit. Ditto. Increase nurse numbers by 0.3%. Ditto. Knock a few quid off your energy bills. Ditto. Rich a bit worse off. Ditto.
After 1 year in office he'll be riding high having achieved everything he promised without changing very much at all. Smart. Very smart when one considers that one year in, the coalition were embarking on a 'courageous' reform agenda that was always going to end in electoral tears, regardless of the economy.
Ed may be crap, he may be weak, or weird. Call him what you like. But he's smarter than the average.
0 -
A lost vote of confidence does NOT trigger an election under FTPA.RodCrosby said:
Tend to agree. A government that wants an election could say they would resign if they don't get it, and put the cowardly Opposition into government, which promptly collapses (on a VoC), triggering an election...Philip_Thompson said:I don't understand why everyone assumes that to call an early election a government deliberately loses a no-confidence vote.
A simple two-thirds majority will get an early election called immediately - no 14 days, no no-confidence nonsense. If the government calls for an early election on a three line whip, the opposition (if it can't form its own government) would essentially be obliged to all three line whip in favour of an election.
Unless the opposition can form their own government (in which case vote for no confidence and try and take over), the opposition can not ever honourably say no we don't want a vote we'd rather you continue to run the government.
Government plus opposition always exceeds well over two thirds, so an election is started.0 -
Have to admit Mark Senior, you called it right about the Greens not going to win Bristol WestMarkSenior said:
You are viewing things as always through partisan coloured spectacles .
0 -
LOL , a chicken gone home to roost tries to justify to himself not going out into the bad bad world outside .Casino_Royale said:
I was in the same position as you, GeoffM, a few weeks ago. I reached a point where I decided it was simply too bloody dangerous to do anything other than vote Conservative.GeoffM said:My postal vote is sitting on the dining room table.
I've been putting off the Conservative/UKIP decision for weeks now but today is the day.
Reading PB recently has felt like fifty canvassers knocking on my front door every night.
It's a balancing act of relativities: Ed Miliband is a clear and present danger to the well-being and interests of this country. I actually have had sleepless nights over this election. The man puts the fear of God into me.
And I think the Tory manifesto isn't too bad, actually. It's the best I think we Con-UKIP floaters could have hoped for. And it might be enacted, if Cameron wins.
Which constituency are you in?
0 -
But they would be damaged and look foolish, for bottling out of a voluntary election.MarkSenior said:
Any opposition with an ounce of sense would go into government under those circumstances and at least try and get a Queens Speech through . The subsequent GE would then be fought with their leader as PM and other senior party members as Ministers and the former PM would be just that .RodCrosby said:
Tend to agree. A government that wants an election could say they would resign if they don't get it, and put the cowardly Opposition into government, which promptly collapses (on a VoC), triggering an election...Philip_Thompson said:I don't understand why everyone assumes that to call an early election a government deliberately loses a no-confidence vote.
A simple two-thirds majority will get an early election called immediately - no 14 days, no no-confidence nonsense. If the government calls for an early election on a three line whip, the opposition (if it can't form its own government) would essentially be obliged to all three line whip in favour of an election.
Unless the opposition can form their own government (in which case vote for no confidence and try and take over), the opposition can not ever honourably say no we don't want a vote we'd rather you continue to run the government.
Government plus opposition always exceeds well over two thirds, so an election is started.
0 -
Exactly. Hypothetically if the FTPA had existed during the run up to the Election That Never Was with Brown still leaking that he wanted an election and Cameron calling for an election, there is no way that a two-thirds majority wouldn't have been reached if Brown had put the motion forwards.RodCrosby said:
Tend to agree. A government that wants an election could say they would resign if they don't get it, and put the cowardly Opposition into government, which promptly collapses (on a VoC), triggering an election...Philip_Thompson said:I don't understand why everyone assumes that to call an early election a government deliberately loses a no-confidence vote.
A simple two-thirds majority will get an early election called immediately - no 14 days, no no-confidence nonsense. If the government calls for an early election on a three line whip, the opposition (if it can't form its own government) would essentially be obliged to all three line whip in favour of an election.
Unless the opposition can form their own government (in which case vote for no confidence and try and take over), the opposition can not ever honourably say no we don't want a vote we'd rather you continue to run the government.
Government plus opposition always exceeds well over two thirds, so an election is started.
Yes its slightly more complex than simply speaking to Her Majesty and requesting an election, but its not insurmountable.0 -
Well said, Mr Senior. The Lib Dems in the Coalition Government loyally supported policies which were in the coalition agreement.MarkSenior said:
You are viewing things as always through partisan coloured spectacles . The Lib Dems did not rubbish the decisions they were part of . That was the practice of a group of Conservative backbenchers a couple of whom even b*ggered off to another party but of course in your eyes these were heroes .Flightpath1 said:
They had a good opportunity, probably never to be repeated, to become a part of government to see that what they represent has some influence. What did they do? 'I'll tell you wot' they did they rubbished the govt they were a part of, they rubbished the decisions they were a part of. And they wonder why they are disparaging into the wilderness of irrelevance.
They strongly opposed Tory measures which were not in the agreement - even then, some got through the net, more´s the pity.
Some Conservative MPs did their best to bring the Government to an end. Some even loped off to UKIP, as Mr Senior observes.
The difficulty for the Conservative Party under Mr Cameron is that it is trying to be a "broad tent". Those days have gone. It has to become a niche party, like all the others. And they start working to find partners whom it can work with in coalition. Small chance of that when they go out their way to offend everybody.
0 -
No they would look statesmanlike for attempting to run the country wheras the previous bunch are only interested in fighting a new election . This is not a partisan point , it applies to whichever parties are in which position .RodCrosby said:
But they would be damaged and look foolish, for bottling out of a voluntary election.MarkSenior said:
Any opposition with an ounce of sense would go into government under those circumstances and at least try and get a Queens Speech through . The subsequent GE would then be fought with their leader as PM and other senior party members as Ministers and the former PM would be just that .RodCrosby said:
Tend to agree. A government that wants an election could say they would resign if they don't get it, and put the cowardly Opposition into government, which promptly collapses (on a VoC), triggering an election...Philip_Thompson said:I don't understand why everyone assumes that to call an early election a government deliberately loses a no-confidence vote.
A simple two-thirds majority will get an early election called immediately - no 14 days, no no-confidence nonsense. If the government calls for an early election on a three line whip, the opposition (if it can't form its own government) would essentially be obliged to all three line whip in favour of an election.
Unless the opposition can form their own government (in which case vote for no confidence and try and take over), the opposition can not ever honourably say no we don't want a vote we'd rather you continue to run the government.
Government plus opposition always exceeds well over two thirds, so an election is started.
0 -
That fundamentally misunderstands the mindset of Unionists in Northern Ireland. Being happy for English MPs to decide certain matters is absolutely different to being legally barred from deciding such matters. It would also mean supporting the move of further powers to Scotland which again, the NI Unionists have a fundamental opposition to.Casino_Royale said:
I don't think that's the case. They will have no objection to Health, Education and English income tax being set in England by English MPs.Dair said:
They will have a fundamental ideological opposition to EVEL. Their MPs are EQUAL to any other MP because NI is an intrinsic and inseparable part of the UK. Any law which diminishes this ideological dogma will be unsupportable by the DUP.Casino_Royale said:
I read the DUP manifesto on Friday. There is a high degree of overlap with the Conservatives, and I don't think they'd have an issue with EVFEL.Dair said:
The DUP will never, ever support a diminishing of their MPs roles. They will not support EVEL. Nevargh, Nevargh, NEVARGH!chestnut said:
Cameron's line would only need to be strong enough for long enough to get EV4EL etc through parliament.FrankBooth said:Just as a re-cap I think we are looking at something like:
Tory 285
Anti-Tory 320
Non-aligned 40
EICIPM. The DUP plus the Lib Dems might just get Cameron over the line but the majority would be paper thin. An anti-Tory majority seems far more credible.
Then you can write off the SNP, Plaid, NI etc etc.
They will want an overall UK voice on the Barnett formula, foreign policy, immigration and defence.0 -
The government has no need to resign and force them in if the opposition turns down the opportunity to go to the country. Any opposition that rejects an election would be a total laughing stock and every week the opposition leader would be humiliated in PMQs with a line along the lines of "why are you afraid to face the electorate"? The opposition would be humiliated if they rejected an election.MarkSenior said:
No they would look statesmanlike for attempting to run the country wheras the previous bunch are only interested in fighting a new election . This is not a partisan point , it applies to whichever parties are in which position .RodCrosby said:
But they would be damaged and look foolish, for bottling out of a voluntary election.MarkSenior said:
Any opposition with an ounce of sense would go into government under those circumstances and at least try and get a Queens Speech through . The subsequent GE would then be fought with their leader as PM and other senior party members as Ministers and the former PM would be just that .RodCrosby said:
Tend to agree. A government that wants an election could say they would resign if they don't get it, and put the cowardly Opposition into government, which promptly collapses (on a VoC), triggering an election...Philip_Thompson said:I don't understand why everyone assumes that to call an early election a government deliberately loses a no-confidence vote.
A simple two-thirds majority will get an early election called immediately - no 14 days, no no-confidence nonsense. If the government calls for an early election on a three line whip, the opposition (if it can't form its own government) would essentially be obliged to all three line whip in favour of an election.
Unless the opposition can form their own government (in which case vote for no confidence and try and take over), the opposition can not ever honourably say no we don't want a vote we'd rather you continue to run the government.
Government plus opposition always exceeds well over two thirds, so an election is started.0 -
The boundary line between Edinburgh North & Leith and Edinburgh East runs down the centre of Easter Road, you have SNP posters facing each other from the tenement windows exhorting people to vote for the respective candidates - if you didn't know the constituency layout you would assume people were either very confused or that there was a schism in the party.antifrank said:Another leaflet for the wrong constituency today, this time for the Greens.
0 -
I think the overwhelming view at that stage would be the Government (formerly Opposition) were both cowards and demonstrable failures.MarkSenior said:
No they would look statesmanlike for attempting to run the country wheras the previous bunch are only interested in fighting a new election . This is not a partisan point , it applies to whichever parties are in which position .RodCrosby said:
But they would be damaged and look foolish, for bottling out of a voluntary election.MarkSenior said:
Any opposition with an ounce of sense would go into government under those circumstances and at least try and get a Queens Speech through . The subsequent GE would then be fought with their leader as PM and other senior party members as Ministers and the former PM would be just that .RodCrosby said:
Tend to agree. A government that wants an election could say they would resign if they don't get it, and put the cowardly Opposition into government, which promptly collapses (on a VoC), triggering an election...Philip_Thompson said:I don't understand why everyone assumes that to call an early election a government deliberately loses a no-confidence vote.
A simple two-thirds majority will get an early election called immediately - no 14 days, no no-confidence nonsense. If the government calls for an early election on a three line whip, the opposition (if it can't form its own government) would essentially be obliged to all three line whip in favour of an election.
Unless the opposition can form their own government (in which case vote for no confidence and try and take over), the opposition can not ever honourably say no we don't want a vote we'd rather you continue to run the government.
Government plus opposition always exceeds well over two thirds, so an election is started.0 -
botanically_speaking said:
Miliband is the smartest politician on offer. He promises no major reforms. He prmises a range of minor tinkerings which fit I with a popular theme that the rich can pay more and make everything fairer. Neither the tories nor the libdems offer such a simple and popular meme.
Miliband's policies seem to be all quite insignificant and therefor, for the smart politician, easily achievable. Small change to the amount of housing benefit you might receive if you have a spare room. Insignificant and achievable in 1 year. Tinker with casual employment contracts. Insignificant and achievable. Tinker with private rents. Insignificant and achievable. Reduce tuition fees a bit. Ditto. Increase nurse numbers by 0.3%. Ditto. Knock a few quid off your energy bills. Ditto. Rich a bit worse off. Ditto.
After 1 year in office he'll be riding high having achieved everything he promised without changing very much at all. Smart. Very smart when one considers that one year in, the coalition were embarking on a 'courageous' reform agenda that was always going to end in electoral tears, regardless of the economy.
Ed may be crap, he may be weak, or weird. Call him what you like. But he's smarter than the average.
"After 1 year in office he'll be riding high having achieved everything he promised without changing very much at all. "
After a year in office Miliband will be heading down to Hollande's level of dissatisfaction.
0 -
SNP - you know it makes sense.GeoffM said:My postal vote is sitting on the dining room table.
I've been putting off the Conservative/UKIP decision for weeks now but today is the day.
Reading PB recently has felt like fifty canvassers knocking on my front door every night.0 -
Have I noticed a slight narrowing in the SPIN spread ?0
-
The scenario put forward was that the government had resigned and the choice for the opposition was to acquiesce and agree to an early election or attempt to form a government themselves and pass a Queens Speech . Your description of PMQs is clearly then not possible .Philip_Thompson said:
The government has no need to resign and force them in if the opposition turns down the opportunity to go to the country. Any opposition that rejects an election would be a total laughing stock and every week the opposition leader would be humiliated in PMQs with a line along the lines of "why are you afraid to face the electorate"? The opposition would be humiliated if they rejected an election.MarkSenior said:
No they would look statesmanlike for attempting to run the country wheras the previous bunch are only interested in fighting a new election . This is not a partisan point , it applies to whichever parties are in which position .RodCrosby said:
But they would be damaged and look foolish, for bottling out of a voluntary election.MarkSenior said:
Any opposition with an ounce of sense would go into government under those circumstances and at least try and get a Queens Speech through . The subsequent GE would then be fought with their leader as PM and other senior party members as Ministers and the former PM would be just that .RodCrosby said:
Tend to agree. A government that wants an election could say they would resign if they don't get it, and put the cowardly Opposition into government, which promptly collapses (on a VoC), triggering an election...Philip_Thompson said:I don't understand why everyone assumes that to call an early election a government deliberately loses a no-confidence vote.
A simple two-thirds majority will get an early election called immediately - no 14 days, no no-confidence nonsense. If the government calls for an early election on a three line whip, the opposition (if it can't form its own government) would essentially be obliged to all three line whip in favour of an election.
Unless the opposition can form their own government (in which case vote for no confidence and try and take over), the opposition can not ever honourably say no we don't want a vote we'd rather you continue to run the government.
Government plus opposition always exceeds well over two thirds, so an election is started.0 -
I'll do it. That offer is too good to turn down.TheScreamingEagles said:
Vote Conservative or the afternoon thread is going to be about AV, electoral reform or Scotland.GeoffM said:My postal vote is sitting on the dining room table.
I've been putting off the Conservative/UKIP decision for weeks now but today is the day.
Reading PB recently has felt like fifty canvassers knocking on my front door every night.0 -
Just caught up with Milliband on Marr. Quite impressive. He's really found his voice in this campaign.
Worth a look.0 -
Spilt on the left in sheffield.
twitter.com/petercoles44/status/592303014255394817/photo/10 -
Jonathan What a surprise that you should think that..amazing..0
-
The shy Kipper theory has 2 problems. First that Libdems are just as shy & phone pollsters put them higher not lower. Second, nearly half of the UKIP voters didnt vote in 2010. The historical evidence is that most voters who dont vote in one Election dont vote in the next either. Theres a strong case for thinking that the polls are overestimating UKIP support.0
-
ROFLMAOrichardDodd said:Jonathan What a surprise that you should think that..amazing..
0 -
Eh? It would in this case (after 14 days) since the alternative would have already resigned.Dair said:
A lost vote of confidence does NOT trigger an election under FTPA.RodCrosby said:
Tend to agree. A government that wants an election could say they would resign if they don't get it, and put the cowardly Opposition into government, which promptly collapses (on a VoC), triggering an election...Philip_Thompson said:I don't understand why everyone assumes that to call an early election a government deliberately loses a no-confidence vote.
A simple two-thirds majority will get an early election called immediately - no 14 days, no no-confidence nonsense. If the government calls for an early election on a three line whip, the opposition (if it can't form its own government) would essentially be obliged to all three line whip in favour of an election.
Unless the opposition can form their own government (in which case vote for no confidence and try and take over), the opposition can not ever honourably say no we don't want a vote we'd rather you continue to run the government.
Government plus opposition always exceeds well over two thirds, so an election is started.
0 -
Have I slept for a couple of weeks and missed the count?Pulpstar said:
Have to admit Mark Senior, you called it right about the Greens not going to win Bristol WestMarkSenior said:
You are viewing things as always through partisan coloured spectacles .
0 -
I've been trying (not that hard) not to drool over the prospect of a Pyrrhic victory for Ed to be followed by the inevitable horrible bloodletting (Unite, SNP, reality etc.) and having to deal with an agenda of general ghastliness. It could be awful for him.RodCrosby said:A weakened Tories could decide their best tactical option would be to install an even weaker Miliband, and let the fun begin with the SNP...
0 -
I think this is complicated by the most prominent phone pollster allocating 50% of don't knows to their 2010 party. It seems to me unlikely to be accurate this time, at least as regards the Lib Dems.paulbarker said:The shy Kipper theory has 2 problems. First that Libdems are just as shy & phone pollsters put them higher not lower. Second, nearly half of the UKIP voters didnt vote in 2010. The historical evidence is that most voters who dont vote in one Election dont vote in the next either. Theres a strong case for thinking that the polls are overestimating UKIP support.
0 -
You asserting that it's not true doesn't mean it to be so.Dair said:
That fundamentally misunderstands the mindset of Unionists in Northern Ireland. Being happy for English MPs to decide certain matters is absolutely different to being legally barred from deciding such matters. It would also mean supporting the move of further powers to Scotland which again, the NI Unionists have a fundamental opposition to.Casino_Royale said:
I don't think that's the case. They will have no objection to Health, Education and English income tax being set in England by English MPs.Dair said:
They will have a fundamental ideological opposition to EVEL. Their MPs are EQUAL to any other MP because NI is an intrinsic and inseparable part of the UK. Any law which diminishes this ideological dogma will be unsupportable by the DUP.Casino_Royale said:
I read the DUP manifesto on Friday. There is a high degree of overlap with the Conservatives, and I don't think they'd have an issue with EVFEL.Dair said:
The DUP will never, ever support a diminishing of their MPs roles. They will not support EVEL. Nevargh, Nevargh, NEVARGH!chestnut said:
Cameron's line would only need to be strong enough for long enough to get EV4EL etc through parliament.FrankBooth said:Just as a re-cap I think we are looking at something like:
Tory 285
Anti-Tory 320
Non-aligned 40
EICIPM. The DUP plus the Lib Dems might just get Cameron over the line but the majority would be paper thin. An anti-Tory majority seems far more credible.
Then you can write off the SNP, Plaid, NI etc etc.
They will want an overall UK voice on the Barnett formula, foreign policy, immigration and defence.0 -
Piss off.MarkSenior said:
LOL , a chicken gone home to roost tries to justify to himself not going out into the bad bad world outside .Casino_Royale said:
I was in the same position as you, GeoffM, a few weeks ago. I reached a point where I decided it was simply too bloody dangerous to do anything other than vote Conservative.GeoffM said:My postal vote is sitting on the dining room table.
I've been putting off the Conservative/UKIP decision for weeks now but today is the day.
Reading PB recently has felt like fifty canvassers knocking on my front door every night.
It's a balancing act of relativities: Ed Miliband is a clear and present danger to the well-being and interests of this country. I actually have had sleepless nights over this election. The man puts the fear of God into me.
And I think the Tory manifesto isn't too bad, actually. It's the best I think we Con-UKIP floaters could have hoped for. And it might be enacted, if Cameron wins.
Which constituency are you in?
0 -
Marginal narrowing at SPIN, some rebound for Cameron in the Betfair "PM after election" market. Convergence?surbiton said:Have I noticed a slight narrowing in the SPIN spread ?
0 -
Gosh, it doesn't take much to get you excited these days.MarkSenior said:
ROFLMAOrichardDodd said:Jonathan What a surprise that you should think that..amazing..
0 -
What about shy Lib Dems, do they exist in Oxford West and Bristol West?0
-
In the absence of a response from @thescreamingeagles about our ICM bet, just want to make it clear for the record that it will be settled as per dead heat rules0
-
Wd.isam said:Leigh Griffiths fgs at 9/2 and anytime at 11/8 look good in this Celtic match to me w Betfred
And to score 2 or more at 8/1unibet0 -
LOL . Like going home to live with mummy and daddy and apologising for all the names you called them when you left first time .Casino_Royale said:
Piss off.MarkSenior said:
LOL , a chicken gone home to roost tries to justify to himself not going out into the bad bad world outside .Casino_Royale said:
I was in the same position as you, GeoffM, a few weeks ago. I reached a point where I decided it was simply too bloody dangerous to do anything other than vote Conservative.GeoffM said:My postal vote is sitting on the dining room table.
I've been putting off the Conservative/UKIP decision for weeks now but today is the day.
Reading PB recently has felt like fifty canvassers knocking on my front door every night.
It's a balancing act of relativities: Ed Miliband is a clear and present danger to the well-being and interests of this country. I actually have had sleepless nights over this election. The man puts the fear of God into me.
And I think the Tory manifesto isn't too bad, actually. It's the best I think we Con-UKIP floaters could have hoped for. And it might be enacted, if Cameron wins.
Which constituency are you in?0 -
A rather odd article by Janet Daley, her line seems to be that anyone who votes for the SNP cannot then expect their democratically chosen party to participate in the UK Government. At the end of the day the DT was so keen to stress how Better Together we would be as part of the UK. For the MSM to now try and dis-enfranchise us Scots is in my eyes an affront to democracy. At the end of the day Labour will likely have 5 times the number of seats as the SNP.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11561626/A-Labour-SNP-pact-would-be-an-outrage-to-democracy.html0 -
I see my Leigh Griffiths tip has copped... Hope some of you were on and others weren't!0
-
Don't be silly. I've regularly criticised the loony tory back bench rump for being thick.MarkSenior said:
You are viewing things as always through partisan coloured spectacles . The Lib Dems did not rubbish the decisions they were part of . That was the practice of a group of Conservative backbenchers a couple of whom even b*ggered off to another party but of course in your eyes these were heroes .Flightpath1 said:
Very nice? To be in politics to be an irrelevance? The Liberals were an irrelevance. The point of them merging with another irrelevance - the SDP - was to become meaningful. Now that they never need actually worry about 'preparing for government' is hailed as 'very nice'??kle4 said:
Possibly. Being able to pick and choose, or pick neither, puts a lot of pressure on a party that will be licking its wounds and needing to figure out how to regroup, but if they can essentially just sit things out? Very nice.Greenwich_Floater said:the Lib Dems might be largely irrelevant in the next government.
To small to help the tories
not needed to help an SNP backed Labour
Probably actually aids their long term electoral prospects.
The LDs have failed totally.
They had a good opportunity, probably never to be repeated, to become a part of government to see that what they represent has some influence. What did they do? 'I'll tell you wot' they did they rubbished the govt they were a part of, they rubbished the decisions they were a part of. And they wonder why they are disparaging into the wilderness of irrelevance.
Where are the LDs going? Nowhere. How can they expect to go anywhere by regularly criticising their own govt from within? Its not being partisan to say that - its pointing out a home truth to them. Just like I point it out to thick tory backbenchers.
However, typical of Clegg was that despite the AV referendum being delivered, he reneged on boundary reform, blaming the failure of Lords reform - which in itself was a dogs breakfast. The tories delivered on the committee to recommend changes which was all the agreement said.0 -
"They will have no objection to Health, Education and English income tax being set in England by English MPs. "Casino_Royale said:
I don't think that's the case. They will have no objection to Health, Education and English income tax being set in England by English MPs.Dair said:
They will have a fundamental ideological opposition to EVEL. Their MPs are EQUAL to any other MP because NI is an intrinsic and inseparable part of the UK. Any law which diminishes this ideological dogma will be unsupportable by the DUP.Casino_Royale said:
I read the DUP manifesto on Friday. There is a high degree of overlap with the Conservatives, and I don't think they'd have an issue with EVFEL.Dair said:
The DUP will never, ever support a diminishing of their MPs roles. They will not support EVEL. Nevargh, Nevargh, NEVARGH!chestnut said:
Cameron's line would only need to be strong enough for long enough to get EV4EL etc through parliament.FrankBooth said:Just as a re-cap I think we are looking at something like:
Tory 285
Anti-Tory 320
Non-aligned 40
EICIPM. The DUP plus the Lib Dems might just get Cameron over the line but the majority would be paper thin. An anti-Tory majority seems far more credible.
Then you can write off the SNP, Plaid, NI etc etc.
They will want an overall UK voice on the Barnett formula, foreign policy, immigration and defence.
Have you thought this through ? So, if you increase health spending, the tax on England goes up and NI gets a rebate ? How will this work ?0 -
Osborne has put into the budget substantial reductions in departmental public spending, which Labour have signed up for in order to balance the books by end of parliament. There are two words describe such a situation. Grim, and Grim.MarkHopkins said:botanically_speaking said:Miliband is the smartest politician on offer. He promises no major reforms. He prmises a range of minor tinkerings which fit I with a popular theme that the rich can pay more and make everything fairer. Neither the tories nor the libdems offer such a simple and popular meme.
Miliband's policies seem to be all quite insignificant and therefor, for the smart politician, easily achievable. Small change to the amount of housing benefit you might receive if you have a spare room. Insignificant and achievable in 1 year. Tinker with casual employment contracts. Insignificant and achievable. Tinker with private rents. Insignificant and achievable. Reduce tuition fees a bit. Ditto. Increase nurse numbers by 0.3%. Ditto. Knock a few quid off your energy bills. Ditto. Rich a bit worse off. Ditto.
After 1 year in office he'll be riding high having achieved everything he promised without changing very much at all. Smart. Very smart when one considers that one year in, the coalition were embarking on a 'courageous' reform agenda that was always going to end in electoral tears, regardless of the economy.
Ed may be crap, he may be weak, or weird. Call him what you like. But he's smarter than the average.
"After 1 year in office he'll be riding high having achieved everything he promised without changing very much at all. "
After a year in office Miliband will be heading down to Hollande's level of dissatisfaction.
The more you are reliant on the state for assistance, the greater the impact. These kind of reductions wont be nice fluffy labour efficiencies as they call them.
The next parliament is going to be so grim. Labour will not be able to protect its special interests. This isnt 1997, three figure majorities with largesse around the corner.0 -
Cheersisam said:In the absence of a response from @thescreamingeagles about our ICM bet, just want to make it clear for the record that it will be settled as per dead heat rules
Unfortunately have lost 10 times the amount won on Griffiths in the Everton vs United game! Grrr
Edit 6 times the amount.. Getting better!0 -
Labour can also show the figures . Look what the Tories left us !notme said:
Osborne has put into the budget substantial reductions in departmental public spending, which Labour have signed up for in order to balance the books by end of parliament. There are two words describe such a situation. Grim, and Grim.MarkHopkins said:botanically_speaking said:Miliband is the smartest politician on offer. He promises no major reforms. He prmises a range of minor tinkerings which fit I with a popular theme that the rich can pay more and make everything fairer. Neither the tories nor the libdems offer such a simple and popular meme.
Miliband's policies seem to be all quite insignificant and therefor, for the smart politician, easily achievable. Small change to the amount of housing benefit you might receive if you have a spare room. Insignificant and achievable in 1 year. Tinker with casual employment contracts. Insignificant and achievable. Tinker with private rents. Insignificant and achievable. Reduce tuition fees a bit. Ditto. Increase nurse numbers by 0.3%. Ditto. Knock a few quid off your energy bills. Ditto. Rich a bit worse off. Ditto.
After 1 year in office he'll be riding high having achieved everything he promised without changing very much at all. Smart. Very smart when one considers that one year in, the coalition were embarking on a 'courageous' reform agenda that was always going to end in electoral tears, regardless of the economy.
Ed may be crap, he may be weak, or weird. Call him what you like. But he's smarter than the average.
"After 1 year in office he'll be riding high having achieved everything he promised without changing very much at all. "
After a year in office Miliband will be heading down to Hollande's level of dissatisfaction.
The more you are reliant on the state for assistance, the greater the impact. These kind of reductions wont be nice fluffy labour efficiencies as they call them.
The next parliament is going to be so grim. Labour will not be able to protect its special interests. This isnt 1997, three figure majorities with largesse around the corner.0 -
I wouldn't read too much into that. Birmingham often has a big mismatch between local and national elections because of how comically incompetent the Council always is.Casino_Royale said:From UK polling report, May 2014:
"Birmingham Northfield local election results with comparison to 2010 (general election day):
Conservative 37.2% (+ 0.5%)
Labour 30.7% (- 4.8%)
Lib Dem 3.3% (-12.9%)
Green 3.8% (+ 1.5%)
UKIP 23.6% (Only 1 candidate)
UKIP hoovered up the sizeable BNP vote and the collapsed Liberal democrat vote, and clearly took votes from Labour here too. The Conservatives gained the marginal Kings Norton ward from Labour, and held Northfield which was lost at the last 2 elections. (C3 L1 this time, L7,C5 total).
The Conservative lead with this good performance is now higher than in Edgbaston."
I think it could be a recount.0 -
Some of the paper columnists should get themselves checked for rabies I reckon.calum said:A rather odd article by Janet Daley, her line seems to be that anyone who votes for the SNP cannot then expect their democratically chosen party to participate in the UK Government. At the end of the day the DT was so keen to stress how Better Together we would be as part of the UK. For the MSM to now try and dis-enfranchise us Scots is in my eyes an affront to democracy. At the end of the day Labour will likely have 5 times the number of seats as the SNP.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11561626/A-Labour-SNP-pact-would-be-an-outrage-to-democracy.html0 -
Is she a non-Dom ?calum said:A rather odd article by Janet Daley, her line seems to be that anyone who votes for the SNP cannot then expect their democratically chosen party to participate in the UK Government. At the end of the day the DT was so keen to stress how Better Together we would be as part of the UK. For the MSM to now try and dis-enfranchise us Scots is in my eyes an affront to democracy. At the end of the day Labour will likely have 5 times the number of seats as the SNP.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11561626/A-Labour-SNP-pact-would-be-an-outrage-to-democracy.html0 -
Don't we hear the same old thing ? He will take it.Prodicus said:
I've been trying (not that hard) not to drool over the prospect of a Pyrrhic victory for Ed to be followed by the inevitable horrible bloodletting (Unite, SNP, reality etc.) and having to deal with an agenda of general ghastliness. It could be awful for him.RodCrosby said:A weakened Tories could decide their best tactical option would be to install an even weaker Miliband, and let the fun begin with the SNP...
0 -
Hope he backed himself fgs then!Dair said:
Griffiths has the biggest incentive to score in football. Goal bonuses are probably the only money he gets to keep for himself.isam said:I see my Leigh Griffiths tip has copped... Hope some of you were on and others weren't!
Edit he has made it 2-0 now... 3/3 tipped on here and I'm almost certain to have a big losing day...0 -
Regarding downthread comments regarding the UKIP campaign,it's hard to see what more they can do. Farage performed well in the debates, got more viewers than the other leaders on the dreadful Evan, and launched a pretty respectable manifesto without any gaffes. The fact the BBC has basically refused to give them any bulletin coverage is out of their control: they are instead quite rightly focussing on the ground war in their 10 targets. Unlike the Tories, they are using local media which people still respect - a full front page ad in a Thurrock paper on St George's Day, for example, advertising their pledge to make it a bank holiday. I forecast 3 seats - Clacton, Reckless holding on and one other - South Thanet, Thurrock, or Great Grimsby. Not a stonking number but quite an achievent after 2010.
0 -
The Conservative candidate has strong local roots and has been campaigning hard. The Labour incumbent has built a reputation of being more interested in foreign policy. It is also one of the Tories 20 target seats to take from Labour, ahead of Birmingham Edgbaston.Danny565 said:
I wouldn't read too much into that. Birmingham often has a big mismatch between local and national elections because of how comically incompetent the Council always is.Casino_Royale said:From UK polling report, May 2014:
"Birmingham Northfield local election results with comparison to 2010 (general election day):
Conservative 37.2% (+ 0.5%)
Labour 30.7% (- 4.8%)
Lib Dem 3.3% (-12.9%)
Green 3.8% (+ 1.5%)
UKIP 23.6% (Only 1 candidate)
UKIP hoovered up the sizeable BNP vote and the collapsed Liberal democrat vote, and clearly took votes from Labour here too. The Conservatives gained the marginal Kings Norton ward from Labour, and held Northfield which was lost at the last 2 elections. (C3 L1 this time, L7,C5 total).
The Conservative lead with this good performance is now higher than in Edgbaston."
I think it could be a recount.
I think it could be close.
0 -
This is because they ultimately want to destroy the Labour party.Pulpstar said:The SNP are going to do their damndest to make Miliband PM whether he likes it or not.
They know the only way they could win a second Indyvote is with a Tory PM in no 100 -
No doubt the DUP will want a good deal on funding for Northern Ireland. I don't see this as incompatible with the Tories plans for EVFEL.surbiton said:
"They will have no objection to Health, Education and English income tax being set in England by English MPs. "Casino_Royale said:
I don't think that's the case. They will have no objection to Health, Education and English income tax being set in England by English MPs.Dair said:
They will have a fundamental ideological opposition to EVEL. Their MPs are EQUAL to any other MP because NI is an intrinsic and inseparable part of the UK. Any law which diminishes this ideological dogma will be unsupportable by the DUP.Casino_Royale said:
I read the DUP manifesto on Friday. There is a high degree of overlap with the Conservatives, and I don't think they'd have an issue with EVFEL.Dair said:
The DUP will never, ever support a diminishing of their MPs roles. They will not support EVEL. Nevargh, Nevargh, NEVARGH!chestnut said:
Cameron's line would only need to be strong enough for long enough to get EV4EL etc through parliament.FrankBooth said:Just as a re-cap I think we are looking at something like:
Tory 285
Anti-Tory 320
Non-aligned 40
EICIPM. The DUP plus the Lib Dems might just get Cameron over the line but the majority would be paper thin. An anti-Tory majority seems far more credible.
Then you can write off the SNP, Plaid, NI etc etc.
They will want an overall UK voice on the Barnett formula, foreign policy, immigration and defence.
Have you thought this through ? So, if you increase health spending, the tax on England goes up and NI gets a rebate ? How will this work ?0 -
I suspect his popularity after 1 year in office will be somewhere between that of Osama Bin Laden and Jimmy Saville.botanically_speaking said:
Miliband is the smartest politician on offer. He promises no major reforms. He prmises a range of minor tinkerings which fit I with a popular theme that the rich can pay more and make everything fairer. Neither the tories nor the libdems offer such a simple and popular meme.surbiton said:
If it has no real effect, then maybe Ed Miliband is a smarter politician than you give him credit for.Big_G_NorthWales said:Re labours rent control policy does anyone think it will become a reality. Rents will be freely negotiated at the beginning of the tenancy between landlord and tenant with some reference to the previous rent and then any rent rise for the max three years will be restricted to inflation. Apparently it will not come in until 2017 and will be policed by the local authority.
Any landlord who neglects the property maintenance will lose tax relief this to be policed by HMRC.
It is so obvious that landlords will calculate their initial rents at a much higher level to allow for this restriction and then at the end of three years will raise rents again. As there is no possibility of there being anything but large rental demand the landlords will have no problem in attracting tenants paying the higher rent. Furthermore it is probable that a lot of tenancies will be allowed to lapse before the regulation comes into force to enable the landlord to negotiate a completely new tenancy contract to protect their interest
The idea that local authorities will have the time and staffing to maintain a new landlord register and that HMRC will be able to investigate landlords re their tax relief is ridiculous.
Another sound bite policy from Ed Miliband who has no knowledge of markets and more worryingly no interest in understanding them
Miliband's policies seem to be all quite insignificant and therefor, for the smart politician, easily achievable. Small change to the amount of housing benefit you might receive if you have a spare room. Insignificant and achievable in 1 year. Tinker with casual employment contracts. Insignificant and achievable. Tinker with private rents. Insignificant and achievable. Reduce tuition fees a bit. Ditto. Increase nurse numbers by 0.3%. Ditto. Knock a few quid off your energy bills. Ditto. Rich a bit worse off. Ditto.
After 1 year in office he'll be riding high having achieved everything he promised without changing very much at all. Smart. Very smart when one considers that one year in, the coalition were embarking on a 'courageous' reform agenda that was always going to end in electoral tears, regardless of the economy.
Ed may be crap, he may be weak, or weird. Call him what you like. But he's smarter than the average.0 -
Botanically speaking wrote: "Ed may be crap, he may be weak, or weird. Call him what you like. But he's smarter than the average. "
Ed took over a party with 46 MSPs and 40 MPs in Scotland. By 2016, there will be almost nothing left, a tiny number of MPs and list MSPs. He will have presided over the complete destruction of Labour in Scotland.
If that is “smarter than average", perhaps Labour would benefit from someone stupider than average in charge?0 -
Surbiton views things through totally different coloured spectacles than you and has a completely different view of the Lib Dems performance in government . You cannot both be right and much more likely both of you are wrong .Flightpath1 said:
Don't be silly. I've regularly criticised the loony tory back bench rump for being thick.MarkSenior said:
You are viewing things as always through partisan coloured spectacles . The Lib Dems did not rubbish the decisions they were part of . That was the practice of a group of Conservative backbenchers a couple of whom even b*ggered off to another party but of course in your eyes these were heroes .Flightpath1 said:
Very nice? To be in politics to be an irrelevance? The Liberals were an irrelevance. The point of them merging with another irrelevance - the SDP - was to become meaningful. Now that they never need actually worry about 'preparing for government' is hailed as 'very nice'??kle4 said:
Possibly. Being able to pick and choose, or pick neither, puts a lot of pressure on a party that will be licking its wounds and needing to figure out how to regroup, but if they can essentially just sit things out? Very nice.Greenwich_Floater said:the Lib Dems might be largely irrelevant in the next government.
To small to help the tories
not needed to help an SNP backed Labour
Probably actually aids their long term electoral prospects.
The LDs have failed totally.
They had a good opportunity, probably never to be repeated, to become a part of government to see that what they represent has some influence. What did they do? 'I'll tell you wot' they did they rubbished the govt they were a part of, they rubbished the decisions they were a part of. And they wonder why they are disparaging into the wilderness of irrelevance.
Where are the LDs going? Nowhere. How can they expect to go anywhere by regularly criticising their own govt from within? Its not being partisan to say that - its pointing out a home truth to them. Just like I point it out to thick tory backbenchers.
However, typical of Clegg was that despite the AV referendum being delivered, he reneged on boundary reform, blaming the failure of Lords reform - which in itself was a dogs breakfast. The tories delivered on the committee to recommend changes which was all the agreement said.0 -
Lol. Agreed. Those who did vote for him will be very shy of admitting that they ever did within months. He will get into power by default, not through popular acclaim.Greenwich_Floater said:
I suspect his popularity after 1 year in office will be somewhere between that of Osama Bin Laden and Jimmy Saville.botanically_speaking said:
Miliband is the smartest politician on offer. He promises no major reforms. He prmises a range of minor tinkerings which fit I with a popular theme that the rich can pay more and make everything fairer. Neither the tories nor the libdems offer such a simple and popular meme.surbiton said:
If it has no real effect, then maybe Ed Miliband is a smarter politician than you give him credit for.Big_G_NorthWales said:Snip
It is so obvious that landlords will calculate their initial rents at a much higher level to allow for this restriction and then at the end of three years will raise rents again. As there is no possibility of there being anything but large rental demand the landlords will have no problem in attracting tenants paying the higher rent. Furthermore it is probable that a lot of tenancies will be allowed to lapse before the regulation comes into force to enable the landlord to negotiate a completely new tenancy contract to protect their interest
The idea that local authorities will have the time and staffing to maintain a new landlord register and that HMRC will be able to investigate landlords re their tax relief is ridiculous.
Another sound bite policy from Ed Miliband who has no knowledge of markets and more worryingly no interest in understanding them
Miliband's policies seem to be all quite insignificant and therefor, for the smart politician, easily achievable. Small change to the amount of housing benefit you might receive if you have a spare room. Insignificant and achievable in 1 year. Tinker with casual employment contracts. Insignificant and achievable. Tinker with private rents. Insignificant and achievable. Reduce tuition fees a bit. Ditto. Increase nurse numbers by 0.3%. Ditto. Knock a few quid off your energy bills. Ditto. Rich a bit worse off. Ditto.
After 1 year in office he'll be riding high having achieved everything he promised without changing very much at all. Smart. Very smart when one considers that one year in, the coalition were embarking on a 'courageous' reform agenda that was always going to end in electoral tears, regardless of the economy.
Ed may be crap, he may be weak, or weird. Call him what you like. But he's smarter than the average.
Right, Sunday lunch beckons. Good afternoon.
0 -
Who else thinks it could be interesting if Sinn Fein, having looked at the numbers, realise they have enough to mess up a deal, and decide to just turn up to cause disarray ? (taking the oath while holding their hands out and visibly crossing their fingers..)0
-
If the Barnett formula for funding the devolved nations is revised then there is no need to object to EVFEL.Casino_Royale said:
No doubt the DUP will want a good deal on funding for Northern Ireland. I don't see this as incompatible with the Tories plans for EVFEL.surbiton said:
"They will have no objection to Health, Education and English income tax being set in England by English MPs. "Casino_Royale said:
I don't think that's the case. They will have no objection to Health, Education and English income tax being set in England by English MPs.Dair said:
They will have a fundamental ideological opposition to EVEL. Their MPs are EQUAL to any other MP because NI is an intrinsic and inseparable part of the UK. Any law which diminishes this ideological dogma will be unsupportable by the DUP.Casino_Royale said:
I read the DUP manifesto on Friday. There is a high degree of overlap with the Conservatives, and I don't think they'd have an issue with EVFEL.Dair said:
The DUP will never, ever support a diminishing of their MPs roles. They will not support EVEL. Nevargh, Nevargh, NEVARGH!chestnut said:
Cameron's line would only need to be strong enough for long enough to get EV4EL etc through parliament.FrankBooth said:Just as a re-cap I think we are looking at something like:
Tory 285
Anti-Tory 320
Non-aligned 40
EICIPM. The DUP plus the Lib Dems might just get Cameron over the line but the majority would be paper thin. An anti-Tory majority seems far more credible.
Then you can write off the SNP, Plaid, NI etc etc.
They will want an overall UK voice on the Barnett formula, foreign policy, immigration and defence.
Have you thought this through ? So, if you increase health spending, the tax on England goes up and NI gets a rebate ? How will this work ?0 -
If you like UKIP, vote UKIP - the Tories are not going to be a position to form a government regardless.GeoffM said:My postal vote is sitting on the dining room table.
I've been putting off the Conservative/UKIP decision for weeks now but today is the day.
Reading PB recently has felt like fifty canvassers knocking on my front door every night.
I could do with a canvasser at my door to be honest - I figured I might vote for whoever put the most effort in to win my vote, but I'll be at work from now until the election so if I haven't received a knock already I'm not sure I'll be around to receive one. Then I'll really be uncertain who to vote for.
0 -
Or turn up, just to confirm 'Oh, we won't be taking any oath, as per usual. See you all in five years'.notme said:Who else thinks it could be interesting if Sinn Fein, having looked at the numbers, realise they have enough to mess up a deal, and decide to just turn up to cause disarray ? (taking the oath while holding their hands out and visibly crossing their fingers..)
0 -
They'll be content just to watch the UK fall apart from the sidelines...notme said:Who else thinks it could be interesting if Sinn Fein, having looked at the numbers, realise they have enough to mess up a deal, and decide to just turn up to cause disarray ? (taking the oath while holding their hands out and visibly crossing their fingers..)
0 -
Any polls today?0
-
You have written exactly what the Er'el is whispering in my right ear. I miss the libertarian slant of the earlier UKIP. A true Don't Tread On Me small government party would get my enthusiastic vote. But UKIP backtracked and decided to take the easy route by counting our spare bedrooms again. Everything about them which I supported - things like less gun control, fewer extra privileges for vocal special interest groups - was "clarified" away when the BBC whined like a jet engine at full revs.Casino_Royale said:
I was in the same position as you, GeoffM, a few weeks ago. I reached a point where I decided it was simply too bloody dangerous to do anything other than vote Conservative.GeoffM said:My postal vote is sitting on the dining room table.
I've been putting off the Conservative/UKIP decision for weeks now but today is the day.
Reading PB recently has felt like fifty canvassers knocking on my front door every night.
It's a balancing act of relativities: Ed Miliband is a clear and present danger to the well-being and interests of this country. I actually have had sleepless nights over this election. The man puts the fear of God into me.
And I think the Tory manifesto isn't too bad, actually. It's the best I think we Con-UKIP floaters could have hoped for. And it might be enacted, if Cameron wins.
Which constituency are you in?
I'm still debating but less so as the afternoon goes on.
My vote is in Gosport; my house there is a legacy of my time based at the Royal Naval Hospital Haslar. In theory a safe-ish Conservative seat but I've always been surprised that it's not on the UKIP radar considering the local demographics and the military tradition.
I've not been having your sleepless nights because I've been able to move what was left of my UK money elsewhere easily enough. Living overseas in a more efficient tax environment has many advantages. The UK house I will sell or board up if these rent controls come in.
I have only two real political desires - for governments to leave people alone and the utter destruction of the LibDems. It's looking like in my lifetime I'm going to have to settle for the second one only.0 -
Sturgeon: Miliband prefers Cameron as PM, rather than work with the SNP...0
-
You may end up disappointed on both I'm afraid. The LDs in earlier incarnations have been more reduced than they are about to be in even the worst of projections, and if the places that vote them in this time did so, when would they ever not vote them in again? So they can surely only improve from hereon out.GeoffM said:
I have only two real political desires - for governments to leave people alone and the utter destruction of the LibDems. It's looking like in my lifetime I'm going to have to settle for the second one only.Casino_Royale said:
I was in the same position as you, GeoffM, a few weeks ago. I reached a point where I decided it was simply too bloody dangerous to do anything other than vote Conservative.GeoffM said:My postal vote is sitting on the dining room table.
I've been putting off the Conservative/UKIP decision for weeks now but today is the day.
Reading PB recently has felt like fifty canvassers knocking on my front door every night.
It's a balancing act of relativities: Ed Miliband is a clear and present danger to the well-being and interests of this country. I actually have had sleepless nights over this election. The man puts the fear of God into me.
And I think the Tory manifesto isn't too bad, actually. It's the best I think we Con-UKIP floaters could have hoped for. And it might be enacted, if Cameron wins.
Which constituency are you in?0 -
Geoff, if you can't decide between the parties then look at your local UKIP and Tory candidates and decide on that basis. I have no idea where you live so this is not to push you in one way or another. You might find your local UKIP candidate is an absolute loon who wants to bring back the death penalty for having the wrong colour eyes or you might find your local Tory candidate is a fanatical pro European federalist who wants us to have no elections except those for a European Parliament. If either is the case - or shades of grey therein - then it will probably help you to make your decision.GeoffM said:My postal vote is sitting on the dining room table.
I've been putting off the Conservative/UKIP decision for weeks now but today is the day.
Reading PB recently has felt like fifty canvassers knocking on my front door every night.
Remember you are voting for a local representative not a party.0 -
3-0 Celtic
Griffiths hat trick
Should've been a street party but it's a drop in the ocean! Bah0 -
I have expressed my willingness to do that in the past on threads here - on several occasions - and said that the SNP should stand outside of Scotland.Alistair said:
SNP - you know it makes sense.GeoffM said:My postal vote is sitting on the dining room table.
I've been putting off the Conservative/UKIP decision for weeks now but today is the day.
Reading PB recently has felt like fifty canvassers knocking on my front door every night.
As a South England voter I;m keen to rid myself of the cash subsidy flowing north. Every other party is offering baubles for my vote. Paying for my spare room or not. Charging me for warm pasties. For me voting SNP is financially a great idea as losing Scotland gets me a vast tax cut.0 -
There are now 117 billionaires on the (Sunday Times British rich) list, up from 104 in 2014, with 80 of them living in London.
Many of them sponsor sporting and other events as well as benefiting charities - do we really want to tax them out of the UK.0
