politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This could have been the moment when Boris lost the next C

edmundintokyo said:

The obvious reason would be to get more publicity than if you drop all your policy announcements in one go in the manifesto, and to set a favourable news narrative nearer the election.

Proably not a secret to comment that EiT is as usual right - there was a deliberate strategy to have a quiet manifesto setting the framework (essentially no reckless economics) and then a new announcement every couple of days, which under election coverage practice means decent coverage for each policy in turn, instead of one day's orgy.

Edin_Rokz said:

People don't like chaos, and with all the posturing that the minority parties will have to do to try and provide reasons for their continued existence at Westminster, it will not be pleasant in the meantime.

I've found that expectation of a hung parliament is now universal among voters not involved with a party. They aren't enthusiastic about the prospect but accept that all parties will need to make the best of it (which is why the "horrors, they'll talk to the SNP" stuff isn't cutting through). A curious side-effect is that the "your vote will decide the government" line isn't working either way even in a marginal - people say "I suppose the government will be decided by negotiations later, however we vote". Very Continental.

Peter_the_Punter said:

Dixie said:

Labour activists are very calm wherever I go. Either then know they have won or know they have lost. Most PVs have not sent them in yet. Some never will.

That's an interesting view, Dixie.

When canvassing last week one of my tasks was to check voters had received their postal ballot and encourage them to send it off. More than half had completed and returned the form within 24 hours of receiving it.

What is the experience of other PB canvassers?

80% of people who said they'd support us, unless people are actually lying about sending in votes (why should they?). I assume the same for Tory pledges, though we aren't going out of our way to disturb them.

SandyRentool said:

Here is an anecdote that I imagine most of you will think I have made up - I was talking to an undecided voter from Broxtowe last night, and just about managed to persuade her to vote for NP. If you win by one vote Nick, lit was all down to me!

Ta! May 5 mini-PBmeet in the Crown pub is still on, from 2000.

weejonnie said:

Fernando said:

The easy way to resolve this Pandas v. Tory MPs in Scotland is to kill the bl**dy pandas.

Will that make it a tie? And anyway China might send two or three more over, having put a large bet on the outcome.

Seriously - I just cannot imagine Johnson as Prime Minister. The other countries would take him as seriously as the Minister for the Swiss Navy or the Greek Minister of Finance.

There is a Swiss navy (lacustrine flotilla on the big lakes). But don't google-search Swiss Navy at work, as I have just discovered what else one gets ...

Peter_the_Punter said:

another_richard said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

SandyRentool said:

Here is an anecdote that I imagine most of you will think I have made up - I was talking to an undecided voter from Broxtowe last night, and just about managed to persuade her to vote for NP. If you win by one vote Nick, lit was all down to me!

Lol !

I was there for a couple of days myself recently. It's looking good for Labour, which undoubtedly has the TV vote sewn up.

By coincidence, Eddie Izzard was also there at the same time.

http://www.eastwoodadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/eddie-izzard-joins-labour-in-broxtowe-ashfield-1-7228511

IIRC you helped NickP in 2010 as well.

If so have you any thoughts as to how 2015 compares with 2010 in Broxtowe ?

If you are tempted to back Anna Soubry, don't.

Or, if you insist, back her with me.

20 to win 50 ok, PtP?

NickPalmer said:

Proably not a secret to comment that EiT is as usual right - there was a deliberate strategy to have a quiet manifesto setting the framework (essentially no reckless economics) and then a new announcement every couple of days, which under election coverage practice means decent coverage for each policy in turn, instead of one day's orgy.

On the other hand it's intellectually dishonest and means the Salisbury Convention won't apply.

Peter the Punter is going to vote Lib Dem now

https://twitter.com/auntysarah/status/592618815759908866

paulyork said:

isam said:

Me thinks looking at the Betfair markets that Ukip over 3.5 at odds against won't last long

Are they [UKIP] favs in 4 seats?

I have them to win in Clacton, Thanet S and Thurrock.
50% chance in Thanet N.
33% chance in Castle P and Grimsby.
16% chance in Great Yarmouth.

Overall, I have them down for four seats.

From last week: that speech by Gordon Brown promising £5K for every foodbank in Scotland within 24 hours of the election - it emerges that this was to be from the Scotland Office budget which (a) has no budget for such and (b) reportedly London Labour HQ wouldn't support it.

Source - Sun report herein -

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-bonfire-of-policies/

We love Mandy

Note from Mandelson’s firm warns that SNP will drag Labour to the left

http://bit.ly/1djdyBC

Pulpstar said:

hamiltonace said:

paulyork said:

If we are looking at

TheScreamingEagles said:

scotslass said:

TORIES v PANDAS

One of the most told and well worn jokes in Scottish politics is the question of more panda than Tories. I was struck yesterday on Murnihan on Sky when Alex Salmond suggested that the Tory anti-Scottish campaign was about to settle this contest as PANDAS 2 TORIES 0.

And so I had a look for the evidence from the daily YouGov a poll which has shown no discernable impact at UK level of the Tory assault on Labour and the SNP.

Uintil the last week the Tories support in the Scottish sub samples has been chugging along in the high teens - not brilliant but enough to entertain hopes of preventing a wipeout.

Now look at the last five ending in today's just published sub sample 17-14-15-15-11. They are sub samples etc etc but it is at least arguable that the one discernable impact of the Crosby attack dog anti-Scottish nonsense will be - to wipeout the Scottish Tory!

Or you could look at the full Scotland poll conducted in the last week that sees the Tories up 2 in Scotland.

I'm surprised at that. I imagined most existing scottish tory voters would detest the snp and all it stands for.

There is no love lost between Tories and the SNP and this is of great benefit to the Tories here. The fight in Scotland is between the SNP and the rest. If you vote Tory you know you will not get the SNP through the backdoor. The unionist voters are older and richer and more likely to vote. It is not outside the realms of possibility to see the Tories get 20% or more of the vote in Scotland. While this may not get them many MPs it does put them in a good place for the Scottish election next year.

Yep - what on earth is a vote for Labour for in Scotland now one has to ask.

A Wasted Vote. Might as well try to get real Tories in rather than tribute band.

I see that lots of PBers who are not Conservative members seem to think he wouldn't be a popular choice amongst members for leader of the party.

This is wrong.

Yes, of course it is true that he is slightly to the left of Cameron, and is even more a representative of the metropolitan mindset than Cameron. In addition his private life has been a little more colourful than would normally be considered desirable by upright Tory ladies in the shires. From that point of view, you might think members wouldn't vote for him, but the fact is that he is incredibly popular - especially amongst those upright Tory ladies.

His biggest obstacle would be getting through the MPs' stage to get to be one of the two candidates put to members. Those MPs will take a hard-headed approach on this; the criterion will basically be whether he's considered a winner.

If he were to get through to the members' ballot, it would depend on who the alternative candidate was, but he'd have a very good chance.

Overall, he's by no means a shoo-in, but he's certainly one of the front-runners.

I think the biggest obstacle is that he's probably not the right person to extend the Conservative vote in the Midlands and North.

isam said:

Me thinks looking at the Betfair markets that Ukip over 3.5 at odds against won't last long

The betting markets do seem to be offering short odds on Ukip doing badly. One seat exactly is still at 11/4 or 3/1, despite the Ashcroft and Ukip polls.

Tissue_Price said:

NickPalmer said:

Proably not a secret to comment that EiT is as usual right - there was a deliberate strategy to have a quiet manifesto setting the framework (essentially no reckless economics) and then a new announcement every couple of days, which under election coverage practice means decent coverage for each policy in turn, instead of one day's orgy.

On the other hand it's intellectually dishonest and means the Salisbury Convention won't apply.

Where's the intellectual dishonesty? I mean, it's not like they're trying to avoid scrutiny of the policy - the goal will be to get more coverage, and it'll also result in more criticism.

As for the Salisbury Convention, are the Lords going to make trouble about some minor little rent tinker? (More detail on how minor the little rent tinker is here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/04/27/britain-goes-wild-as-ed-miliband-proposes-rent-controls/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter )

If the Lords really are going to stick their noses in, that actually doesn't sound like a bad thing; I mean, aren't these little populist crowd-pleasers just the kind of thing that a second chamber should be scrutinising and checking for adverse consequences?

Carnyx said:

From last week: that speech by Gordon Brown promising £5K for every foodbank in Scotland within 24 hours of the election - it emerges that this was to be from the Scotland Office budget which (a) has no budget for such and (b) reportedly London Labour HQ wouldn't support it.

Source - Sun report herein -

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-bonfire-of-policies/

LOL, they also back peddled on zero hours contracts, Glasgow Labour council has 2000 on zero hours contracts, not it is just exploitative ones they will ban.
Seeing/hearing both Murphy and Alexander it is unbelievable how practiced they are at lying but come across as shifty snake oil salesmen, both creepy.

paulyork said:

isam said:

Me thinks looking at the Betfair markets that Ukip over 3.5 at odds against won't last long

Are they favs in 4 seats?

3 I think but that isn't how id work it out really

Hypothetically a party could be favourites in zero seats and over 100.5 would be value

hamiltonace said:

Edinburgh South is shaping up to be a real cliff hanger. A 4 way marginal where the SNP decided to call No voters quislings and suggested that senior citizens have their votes taken away from them. My son who lives in the ward with 3 other young guys is sick and tired of people knocking on their door. He will not vote SNP but one of his flatmates will and the other 2 probably wont vote or green if anything. This is a fairly typical student house.

Typical lying nasty Tory. You just made that absolute crap up. You Tories have no shame whatsoever. Pathetic smear tactics from real nasty Tory.

TGOHF said:

Pulpstar said:

hamiltonace said:

paulyork said:

If we are looking at

TheScreamingEagles said:

scotslass said:

TORIES v PANDAS

One of the most told and well worn jokes in Scottish politics is the question of more panda than Tories. I was struck yesterday on Murnihan on Sky when Alex Salmond suggested that the Tory anti-Scottish campaign was about to settle this contest as PANDAS 2 TORIES 0.

And so I had a look for the evidence from the daily YouGov a poll which has shown no discernable impact at UK level of the Tory assault on Labour and the SNP.

Uintil the last week the Tories support in the Scottish sub samples has been chugging along in the high teens - not brilliant but enough to entertain hopes of preventing a wipeout.

Now look at the last five ending in today's just published sub sample 17-14-15-15-11. They are sub samples etc etc but it is at least arguable that the one discernable impact of the Crosby attack dog anti-Scottish nonsense will be - to wipeout the Scottish Tory!

Or you could look at the full Scotland poll conducted in the last week that sees the Tories up 2 in Scotland.

I'm surprised at that. I imagined most existing scottish tory voters would detest the snp and all it stands for.

There is no love lost between Tories and the SNP and this is of great benefit to the Tories here. The fight in Scotland is between the SNP and the rest. If you vote Tory you know you will not get the SNP through the backdoor. The unionist voters are older and richer and more likely to vote. It is not outside the realms of possibility to see the Tories get 20% or more of the vote in Scotland. While this may not get them many MPs it does put them in a good place for the Scottish election next year.

Yep - what on earth is a vote for Labour for in Scotland now one has to ask.

Well in Argyll and Bute it's for a left winger who isn't a bigot.

The Conservatives are the clear unionist vote in Argyll. They start out ahead of Labour !

YouGov theoretical TV splits in Scotland - NB the initial categorisation of the voters presumably already includes tactival voters, which explains some of the otherwise odd-looking data

If only Lab or SNP can win

Tories split Con 47 Lab 44 LD 1 SNP 8
Lib Dems split Con 5 Lab 55 LD 29 SNP 9

If only Con or SNP can win

Labour split Con 24 Lab 41 LD 0 SNP 31
Lib Dems split Con 56 Lab 1 LD 30 SNP 11

If only LD or SNP can win

Tories split Con 45 Lab 0 LD 49 SNP 6
Labour split Con 1 Lab 37 LD 35 SNP 25

All this is largely theoretical I think, and will already be baked into some of the Ashcrofts in the obvious two-party contests like Glasgow.

Mr. Owls, I think we can agree on that.

Mr. Calum, I've been confident of SNP success prior to the short campaign, but even so, exceeding 50 would be a staggeringly good result.

Lestuh said:

isam said:

Me thinks looking at the Betfair markets that Ukip over 3.5 at odds against won't last long

The betting markets do seem to be offering short odds on Ukip doing badly. One seat exactly is still at 11/4 or 3/1, despite the Ashcroft and Ukip polls.

Must be hopers I reckon.

Also things like the newsnight index, BJESUS etc which put Ukip at 1 seat by using analysis that went out of fashion with political correctness

edmundintokyo said:

Tissue_Price said:

NickPalmer said:

Proably not a secret to comment that EiT is as usual right - there was a deliberate strategy to have a quiet manifesto setting the framework (essentially no reckless economics) and then a new announcement every couple of days, which under election coverage practice means decent coverage for each policy in turn, instead of one day's orgy.

On the other hand it's intellectually dishonest and means the Salisbury Convention won't apply.

Where's the intellectual dishonesty? I mean, it's not like they're trying to avoid scrutiny of the policy - the goal will be to get more coverage, and it'll also result in more criticism.

As for the Salisbury Convention, are the Lords going to make trouble about some minor little rent tinker? (More detail on how minor the little rent tinker is here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/04/27/britain-goes-wild-as-ed-miliband-proposes-rent-controls/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter )

If the Lords really are going to stick their noses in, that actually doesn't sound like a bad thing; I mean, aren't these little populist crowd-pleasers just the kind of thing that a second chamber should be scrutinising and checking for adverse consequences?

You write a manifesto, it gets costed by the IFS etc. and people have already postal-voted on that basis. And then, after the event, people refer back to the manifesto to pledge-check.

I don't have a problem with the Lords sticking their noses in, but the fact that the (presumably popular) policy is now less deliverable because of that is probably lost on the electorate who may vote for it.

Richard_Nabavi said:

I think the biggest obstacle is that he's probably not the right person to extend the Conservative vote in the Midlands and North.

One of the problems here, which also applies to Labour (eg see John Denham) is that this can become a self-reinforcing situation. The Conservative party will be dominated by MPs representing Southern constituencies and they may not be best placed to work out how to win a debate for Conservatism outside their own backyard.

Far easier to deride people who don't vote for Tory MPs as victims of a Labour client state than to be self-critical.

Tissue_Price said:

edmundintokyo said:

Tissue_Price said:

NickPalmer said:

Proably not a secret to comment that EiT is as usual right - there was a deliberate strategy to have a quiet manifesto setting the framework (essentially no reckless economics) and then a new announcement every couple of days, which under election coverage practice means decent coverage for each policy in turn, instead of one day's orgy.

On the other hand it's intellectually dishonest and means the Salisbury Convention won't apply.

Where's the intellectual dishonesty? I mean, it's not like they're trying to avoid scrutiny of the policy - the goal will be to get more coverage, and it'll also result in more criticism.

As for the Salisbury Convention, are the Lords going to make trouble about some minor little rent tinker? (More detail on how minor the little rent tinker is here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/04/27/britain-goes-wild-as-ed-miliband-proposes-rent-controls/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter )

If the Lords really are going to stick their noses in, that actually doesn't sound like a bad thing; I mean, aren't these little populist crowd-pleasers just the kind of thing that a second chamber should be scrutinising and checking for adverse consequences?

You write a manifesto, it gets costed by the IFS etc. and people have already postal-voted on that basis. And then, after the event, people refer back to the manifesto to pledge-check.

I don't have a problem with the Lords sticking their noses in, but the fact that the (presumably popular) policy is now less deliverable because of that is probably lost on the electorate who may vote for it.

Fairy nuff, you've convinced me.

TGOHF said:

malcolmg said:

TGOHF said:

Pulpstar said:

hamiltonace said:

paulyork said:

If we are looking at

TheScreamingEagles said:

scotslass said:

TORIES v PANDAS

One of the most told and well worn jokes in Scottish politics is the question of more panda than Tories. I was struck yesterday on Murnihan on Sky when Alex Salmond suggested that the Tory anti-Scottish campaign was about to settle this contest as PANDAS 2 TORIES 0.

And so I had a look for the evidence from the daily YouGov a poll which has shown no discernable impact at UK level of the Tory assault on Labour and the SNP.

Uintil the last week the Tories support in the Scottish sub samples has been chugging along in the high teens - not brilliant but enough to entertain hopes of preventing a wipeout.

Now look at the last five ending in today's just published sub sample 17-14-15-15-11. They are sub samples etc etc but it is at least arguable that the one discernable impact of the Crosby attack dog anti-Scottish nonsense will be - to wipeout the Scottish Tory!

Or you could look at the full Scotland poll conducted in the last week that sees the Tories up 2 in Scotland.

I'm surprised at that. I imagined most existing scottish tory voters would detest the snp and all it stands for.

There is no love lost between Tories and the SNP and this is of great benefit to the Tories here. The fight in Scotland is between the SNP and the rest. If you vote Tory you know you will not get the SNP through the backdoor. The unionist voters are older and richer and more likely to vote. It is not outside the realms of possibility to see the Tories get 20% or more of the vote in Scotland. While this may not get them many MPs it does put them in a good place for the Scottish election next year.

Yep - what on earth is a vote for Labour for in Scotland now one has to ask.

Well in Argyll and Bute it's for a left winger who isn't a bigot.

A loser you mean , what a joke to imagine labour would have a left winger as a candidate.

Well rather a loser than a vile republican. Some of the screenshots of other social media formats are out there - the grovelling apology at the weekend may be the first of many...

Dear Dear Harry, you need to get that loser chip off your shoulder. If you tried you would find that Catholics are just normal people. Little words are scary for you boys , your inferiority complex is amazing. Only mixing with people who wear sashes affects your thinking, you need to get out more.

Mr. Price, I convinced someone once that an English Parliament rather than either EVEL or regional assemblies was necessary.

malcolmg said:

TGOHF said:

Pulpstar said:

hamiltonace said:

paulyork said:

If we are looking at

TheScreamingEagles said:

scotslass said:

TORIES v PANDAS

One of the most told and well worn jokes in Scottish politics is the question of more panda than Tories. I was struck yesterday on Murnihan on Sky when Alex Salmond suggested that the Tory anti-Scottish campaign was about to settle this contest as PANDAS 2 TORIES 0.

And so I had a look for the evidence from the daily YouGov a poll which has shown no discernable impact at UK level of the Tory assault on Labour and the SNP.

Uintil the last week the Tories support in the Scottish sub samples has been chugging along in the high teens - not brilliant but enough to entertain hopes of preventing a wipeout.

Now look at the last five ending in today's just published sub sample 17-14-15-15-11. They are sub samples etc etc but it is at least arguable that the one discernable impact of the Crosby attack dog anti-Scottish nonsense will be - to wipeout the Scottish Tory!

Or you could look at the full Scotland poll conducted in the last week that sees the Tories up 2 in Scotland.

I'm surprised at that. I imagined most existing scottish tory voters would detest the snp and all it stands for.

There is no love lost between Tories and the SNP and this is of great benefit to the Tories here. The fight in Scotland is between the SNP and the rest. If you vote Tory you know you will not get the SNP through the backdoor. The unionist voters are older and richer and more likely to vote. It is not outside the realms of possibility to see the Tories get 20% or more of the vote in Scotland. While this may not get them many MPs it does put them in a good place for the Scottish election next year.

Yep - what on earth is a vote for Labour for in Scotland now one has to ask.

Well in Argyll and Bute it's for a left winger who isn't a bigot.

A loser you mean , what a joke to imagine labour would have a left winger as a candidate.

Was this stuff dug up by the Daily Record by any chance.

Front page May 7th:

VOTE LABOUR OR ELSE

Rest of front page:

"Shocking new research reveals that the SNP will vote FOR a Conservative Gov't"

"Please vote Labour, please please please we beg you. The SNP will let the evil Tory baby eaters in. Please vote Labour, please. Dougie and Jimmy beg you. PLlleeeeeeeeeeeeease"

MarkSenior said:

peter_from_putney said:

Casino_Royale said:

AndyJS said:

Big change with ElectionForecast: now Con 286, Lab 267, SNP 48, LD 24.

http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/

Also, it ain't going to be much fun for Ed running a government on those figures.

If he doesn't get the LDs to support a Lab-SNP pact (of whatever sort) then he's relying on the PC/SDLP/Green odds and sods, and would still be short of an overall majority even then.

If the LDs go into opposition with the Tories then they have an "ambush" minority of 310 seats. It'd only take 6 Labour or SNP MPs to break ranks or abstain to block legislation.

Casino - I think you're forgetting that there's a majority of the LibDem Parliamentary party who are longing, just longing I tell you to get into bed with Labour and who will grab such an opportunity once they are free of the shackles of Clegg as their leader or probably even sooner if possible.

You know very little about the Lib Dems and LibDem Parliamentary party do you ?

Mark

Are you saying there is an appetite to continue the coalition with the conservatives?

Actually, I think there was some polling that said that was a preferred option, or did I imagine it?

Among the unusual feedback from election emails I got this one today from someone I'd written to as Ms ... rather than "Sally":

"I also really appreciate your use of formal address, given that we've never met. I know that's quite trivial, but it does make me feel that you respect me as an equal. Thank you."

I'm conscious that many younger people don't even know the last names of their friends, but it still irritates me a bit when parties and NGOs send me computer-generated stuff saying "Nick, you can help change the future of..." The unsolicited chumminess strikes an entirely false note to my ears. Is that a common view, or just a fusty anachronism? Presumably it's all market-researched...

Labour tinkering with their policies now does suggest a lack of confidence they have done enough to do well in England.

TNS Scotland Poll blinking Nora edition

SNP 54% (+2), Lab 22% (-2), Con 13% (0), LD 6% (0), Green 2% (-1), UKIP 2% (+1)

http://www.tnsglobal.com/uk/press-release/tns-poll-momentum-is-still-with-the-snp-but-many-remain-undecided

NickPalmer said:

Among the unusual feedback from election emails I got this one today from someone I'd written to as Ms ... rather than "Sally":

"I also really appreciate your use of formal address, given that we've never met. I know that's quite trivial, but it does make me feel that you respect me as an equal. Thank you."

I'm conscious that many younger people don't even know the last names of their friends, but it still irritates me a bit when parties and NGOs send me computer-generated stuff saying "Nick, you can help change the future of..." The unsolicited chumminess strikes an entirely false note to my ears. Is that a common view, or just a fusty anachronism? Presumably it's all market-researched...

This might be the first time I've ever agreed with you on anything. Well said.

Tissue_Price said:

edmundintokyo said:

Tissue_Price said:

edmundintokyo said:

Tissue_Price said:

NickPalmer said:

Proably not a secret to comment that EiT is as usual right - there was a deliberate strategy to have a quiet manifesto setting the framework (essentially no reckless economics) and then a new announcement every couple of days, which under election coverage practice means decent coverage for each policy in turn, instead of one day's orgy.

On the other hand it's intellectually dishonest and means the Salisbury Convention won't apply.

Where's the intellectual dishonesty? I mean, it's not like they're trying to avoid scrutiny of the policy - the goal will be to get more coverage, and it'll also result in more criticism.

As for the Salisbury Convention, are the Lords going to make trouble about some minor little rent tinker? (More detail on how minor the little rent tinker is here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/04/27/britain-goes-wild-as-ed-miliband-proposes-rent-controls/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter )

If the Lords really are going to stick their noses in, that actually doesn't sound like a bad thing; I mean, aren't these little populist crowd-pleasers just the kind of thing that a second chamber should be scrutinising and checking for adverse consequences?

You write a manifesto, it gets costed by the IFS etc. and people have already postal-voted on that basis. And then, after the event, people refer back to the manifesto to pledge-check.

I don't have a problem with the Lords sticking their noses in, but the fact that the (presumably popular) policy is now less deliverable because of that is probably lost on the electorate who may vote for it.

Fairy nuff, you've convinced me.

Wow, first time ever on pb that someone has convinced someone else of something?!

No, I remember somebody convinced me of something before, although it turned out to be wrong.

@NickPalmer

'I'm conscious that many younger people don't even know the last names of their friends, but it still irritates me a bit when parties and NGOs send me computer-generated stuff saying "Nick, you can help change the future of..." The unsolicited chumminess strikes an entirely false note to my ears. Is that a common view, or just a fusty anachronism? Presumably it's all market-researched...'

Spot on, at last something you've said I agree with!

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Owls, I think we can agree on that.

Mr. Calum, I've been confident of SNP success prior to the short campaign, but even so, exceeding 50 would be a staggeringly good result.

It would be pretty surprising for the SNP to fall short of 50 given what we know now. To get to 10 non-SNP seats would be something like:
Orkney & Shetland
Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross
The three Borders seats
Edinburgh West
Edinburgh South
Glasgow NE
Jo Swinson's seat
That's nine and now I'm struggling and I only have the last one on the list because it's repeatedly mentioned on here. Ashcroft doesn't give her a chance.

https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/592630472313872384

TheScreamingEagles said:

Robert_Of_Sheffield said:

Gordon Brown is campaigning in Sheffield today. I'm informed he''ll be giving a speech on current affairs, visiting a new housing development with Harry Harpham (Labour candidate for Sheffield Brightside & Hillsborough), and doing a Q&A on British values with David Blunkett and 40 schoolchildren.

Sheffield is pretty safe territory for Gordon Brown. There's a always a chance something will go wrong - e.g getting flummoxed by an unexpected question from one of the children, or making some kid cry with his brusque dismissal of them - but overall, this should be an uncontroversial visit, with minimal effect on the national campaign.

How will Labour MPs feel about Gordon Brown campaigning in safe Labour seats? Would they rather see him appear in a marginal, or would they be worried he might be a liability? After all, if the floating voters in the marginals liked Gordon Brown, he'd probably still be in No 10.

He's coming to Hallam as well.

That's going to galvanise the Tories to vote tactically for Clegg

I didn’t think Tories “did” tactical voting.

TheScreamingEagles said:

TNS Scotland Poll blinking Nora edition

SNP 54% (+2), Lab 22% (-2), Con 13% (0), LD 6% (0), Green 2% (-1), UKIP 2% (+1)

http://www.tnsglobal.com/uk/press-release/tns-poll-momentum-is-still-with-the-snp-but-many-remain-undecided

I've just had £20 with Lads on the SNP in Glasgow North East. I can't see how Labour will hold that on these sort of numbers.

OldKingCole said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Robert_Of_Sheffield said:

Gordon Brown is campaigning in Sheffield today. I'm informed he''ll be giving a speech on current affairs, visiting a new housing development with Harry Harpham (Labour candidate for Sheffield Brightside & Hillsborough), and doing a Q&A on British values with David Blunkett and 40 schoolchildren.

Sheffield is pretty safe territory for Gordon Brown. There's a always a chance something will go wrong - e.g getting flummoxed by an unexpected question from one of the children, or making some kid cry with his brusque dismissal of them - but overall, this should be an uncontroversial visit, with minimal effect on the national campaign.

How will Labour MPs feel about Gordon Brown campaigning in safe Labour seats? Would they rather see him appear in a marginal, or would they be worried he might be a liability? After all, if the floating voters in the marginals liked Gordon Brown, he'd probably still be in No 10.

He's coming to Hallam as well.

That's going to galvanise the Tories to vote tactically for Clegg

I didn’t think Tories “did” tactical voting.

There's quite a few of us planning to do so here.

Whatever happens the next parliment is going to be an utter cluster f**k

Magnus Gardham ‏@GardhamHT 8 mins8 minutes ago
Put the latest TNS figures through the Scotland Votes online seat forecaster and you get SNP 57, Lab 1, LD 1

Another weekend of Mail/Express/Tele/Lynton hysteria and we'll be in whitewash territory.

TGOHF said:

malcolmg said:

TGOHF said:

malcolmg said:

TGOHF said:

malcolmg said:

TGOHF said:

Pulpstar said:

hamiltonace said:

paulyork said:

If we are looking at

TheScreamingEagles said:

scotslass said:

TORIES v PANDAS


Now look at the last five ending in today's just published sub sample 17-14-15-15-11. They are sub samples etc etc but it is at least arguable that the one discernable impact of the Crosby attack dog anti-Scottish nonsense will be - to wipeout the Scottish Tory!

Or you could look at the full Scotland poll conducted in the last week that sees the Tories up 2 in Scotland.

I'm surprised at that. I imagined most existing scottish tory voters would detest the snp and all it stands for.

Yep - what on earth is a vote for Labour for in Scotland now one has to ask.

Well in Argyll and Bute it's for a left winger who isn't a bigot.

A loser you mean , what a joke to imagine labour would have a left winger as a candidate.

Well rather a loser than a vile republican. Some of the screenshots of other social media formats are out there - the grovelling apology at the weekend may be the first of many...

Dear Dear Harry, you need to get that loser chip off your shoulder. If you tried you would find that Catholics are just normal people. Little words are scary for you boys , your inferirity complex is amazing. Only mixing with people who wear sashes affects your thinking, you need to get out more.

So why did the SNP issue a grovelling apology at the weekend ?

Harry, stop kidding yourself, on these matters even though you have done nothing , you still have to grovel and apologise that is politics today. He is still there and when elected will Labour still be whinging and crying. The frothing that is going on in the media is pathetic , The daily Retard/ Daily Heil are hilarious.

PS: Both sides with their pathetic "Hun" and "Tim" etc are pathetic cretins , it is only a football team for F**** sake, they all need to get over the chips they carry and get a life. Luckily they are a dying breed on both sides in Scotland, will be a great day when they are extinct.

SF gain Argyll and Bute.

harry, you really are bitter , you will have HammyAce saying the Tories will save the day shortly.

TheWatcher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TNS Scotland Poll blinking Nora edition

SNP 54% (+2), Lab 22% (-2), Con 13% (0), LD 6% (0), Green 2% (-1), UKIP 2% (+1)

http://www.tnsglobal.com/uk/press-release/tns-poll-momentum-is-still-with-the-snp-but-many-remain-undecided

It's North Korea in a kilt!

Terrifying image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQe6RZ39eNo

I didn’t think Tories “did” tactical voting.

Its interesting. I saw a tweet Farage advised supporters to go blue where he can;t win (EG Peterborough).

On the other hand, Nuttall claimed UKIP are the only opposition to labour in the North.

Are we starting to see signs the right leaning parties starting to co-ordinate?

richardDodd said:

300,000 seems an awfully high figure for first time buyers...Not everyone lives in inner London.

I know I couple who bought their first house for 300K in North Essex - mind you he is a trader!

Brand new four bed town house as first house - not bad going - a fair step up from my first house!!!