politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CON 6% lead in latest Ashcroft national poll while in new s

Greenwich_Floater said:

Last 15 polls YG/Populus

Con 32 (3)
Con 33 (7)
Con 34 (4)
Con 35 (1)

Lab 34 (8)
Lab 35 (5)
Lab 36 (2)

Almost unbelievably narrow ranges

What those figures mean is that turnout will be crucial. If the usual disappointing turnout in safe Labour seats materialises it probably means the Tories will win the popular vote.

Barnesian said:

kle4 said:

SeanT said:

@comrespolls

55% of Brits expect the government should be led by the party with the most seats, only 34% accept that a larger Coalition of smaller parties should lead.

https://twitter.com/ComResPolls/status/592733580876447746/photo/1

THIS is why it would be crazy for Miliband to gang up with the Nats and outvote a larger Tory party. Just because it is doable does not mean it is acceptable to the voters.

It will be interesting to see how people react to it, given those views. I do think the word legitimate is a bit wrong on the reliance on SNP MPs - it's not a question of whether it is legitimate for me, because it is legitimate, just whether an avowed nationalist party would be able to act in the best interests of the entire UK;hopefully they will surprise us(and hopefully that comment will stop someone jumping down my throat for voicing the concern; please also see my compliment to the SNP below) - but there's a lot that is allowable and is even likely that significant numbers may have concerns with yet won't vote to prevent happening.

I think it depends on how bold the SNP go in any agreement - heard some interesting views from some people today who think Miliband should play hard ball and dare them to vote him out, which would be fascinating to see - and if they are smart, and they have proven themselves to be so, then that high proportion of people who think the largest party should form the government may not get as riled up as some might fear.

I agree with all that.

Clearly a government based on the second largest party will be legitimate if it has the confidence of the House. Just as it is legitimate for UKIP to get 13% of the vote and only 3 seats, and SNP to get 4% of the vote and 50 seats. Those are the rules until they are changed.

Many people will be unhappy but there is nothing they can do about it except froth.

A lot would depend on the gap. If it was something like Con 280, Lab 272, people wouldn't care.

If it was Con 295, Lab 260, it would be far harder for Labour, even if the numbers otherwise worked.

Richard_Nabavi said:

By the same reasoning so would any claims by the Out camp as to what we would negotiate if we left the EU (a negotiation which wouldn't even have started).

Life is full of uncertainties. Get used to it.

Certainly, any claims as to the precise detail of the settlement that would be negotiated following a decision to secede would be speculative. The fundamental difference is that under article 50 TEU, once a decision to leave has to be made, there is a premium on all sides to negotiate a settlement within two years, since otherwise the member state upon ceasing to be a member will have no formal relationship with the European Union. That is clear ex facie the Treaty which envisages such a process. It is wholly reasonable to suppose a detailed settlement could be negotiated within two years of a decision to leave.

By contrast, no honest and informed person believes that Cameron can effect a fundamental renegotiation within two years of the election. He is attempting a Wilsonian artifice, as you well know.

Danny565 said:

The election essentially comes down to how pumped up you think Labour voters from the less-likely-to-vote demographics (the very poor, ethnic minorities and the young, mainly) are going to be.

If you think they're going to be really excited about the idea of a Labour government (or atleast to kick out the Tories) and all turn out, we're probably on for a YouGov/Populus type result.

If you think they're going to be pretty apathetic and not bother, it's probably going to be an ICM result (since they make the adjustments for historic likelihood to vote).

And a useful starting point for answering your question would be how many people are actually registered to vote.

ie How does the total electorate compare to 2010?

And how does the change in the electorate compare to the change in the population over the same period?

foxinsoxuk said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

A substantial renegotiation by 2017 is impossible, so any purported renegotiation would be an exercise in dishonesty, not a genuine means of informing public opinion.

By the same reasoning so would any claims by the Out camp as to what we would negotiate if we left the EU (a negotiation which wouldn't even have started).

Life is full of uncertainties. Get used to it.

False equivalence. Why am I not surprised?

Cameron is claiming he will have a settled renegotiation by 2017. This is an outright lie. No Outer is making a claim that everything would be settled in our favour until - or even after - we had left.

Cameron is the one who has set an unachievable deadline. Anyone supporting that deadline is either stupid or dishonest.

Our relationship with the rest of the EU is constantly evolving. An in/out vote at any point in time will never allow for discussing these nuances.

Which is why we have government by Westminster rather than endless referenda.

It is evolving in one direction - towards ever closer union.

And what you appear to be suggesting is that we should not bother asking the electorate about whether or not they wish to leave the EU and should just do it so long as their is a Parliamentary majority in favour.

Now whilst I might like the result, I am afraid I can't support such a major decision being made without reference to the electorate. I am kind of surprised you could?

Can someone tell me how Miliband's renting proposals-extremely timid-3 year tenancies, RPI increases to try and mitigate the excesses of the market differs against Cameron's timid proposals to cap rail providers to RPI increases for 5 years? The only difference as far as I can see is that one is for 5 years, and the other 3.

One somehow rallies the righties into claiming Marxism is back, and t'other, well nothing.

Mr. Tyson, I'm against both

The difference is that landlords will simply massively hike prices to start with, to off-set potential loss through inflation going up. There are other arguments for and against, of course (Miss Cyclefree has written of an argument in favour).

Neil

"Roger is having a senior moment - the vast majority of punters in Compton's look like rugby players."

You're right. I was going to change it but got called away. I was going to say the Admiral Duncan but that might have sounded homophobic. Apologies to the drinkers at Comptons a pub I thought no one would know.

Encouraging signs for Labour from the marginal polling and terrifying signs from the two phone polls

Re LibDems: I can't help feel they'll S&C the largest party, but I can't see them getting into bed with anyone again. They need opposition if they want to rebuild.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Crosby, more power, ministerial cars etc etc.

If the numbers stack up and they decline then what's the point of the Lib Dems?

I don't accept that argument. The price of power can well be deemed too much in some circumstances, that doesn't mean the decliner will always decline or has no point.

Mr. Crosby, I'd guess they'd try to bugger the Lords and gerrymander the electoral system.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

snigger....

Lord A and ICM = hand-held at the finish joint gold standards.

ICM is the Paula Radcliffe of pollsters - fantastic performer in her day, but going out with a fun-run sort of frivolity

I thought you were going to say "but every so often it squeezes out a turd in public"

Roger said:

Neil

"Roger is having a senior moment - the vast majority of punters in Compton's look like rugby players."

You're right. I was going to change it but got called away. I was going to say the Admiral Duncan but that might have sounded homophobic. Apologies to the drinkers at Comptons a pub I thought no one would know.

The Admiral Duncan wouldnt have worked either, Roger. Use Ku Bar next time you want to imply that gay men are mincing, nancy-boys incapable of demonstrating leadership. I'll give you a tour of Soho's gay bars with a running commentary on the sociology of the punters if you like. It will have to be soon though as the rate at which Soho venues seem to be closing down there may not be any left after a while.

AndyJS said:

Dadge said:

The Locus adjusted poll of polls today is 35-30-10-14. This gives Con 302 Lab 259, i.e. virtually a standstill from 2010, except of course that there'll only be around 16 LD MPs. Still, unless Ed does something soon, I think Dave's back in.

Yep, it's Dave again. Pity his heart isn't in it, would rather be mooching around Witney / Tuscany / Cornwall.

Seeing him all hyped up today, I wonder if he's done a deal with the party bigwigs: get re-elected and then resign within the year.

Richard_Nabavi said:

tyson said:

Can someone tell me how Miliband's renting proposals-extremely timid-3 year tenancies, RPI increases to try and mitigate the excesses of the market differs against Cameron's timid proposals to cap rail providers to RPI increases for 5 years?

Err, one is a very heavily regulated industry where monopoly franchises are awarded by the government and prices are largely set by the regulator, and the other isn't.

[shakes head in disbelief that anyone can't see the distinction]

So why isn't the other one (housing) regulated? I feel a huge sense of responsibility to my tenants- I could quite easily ruin their lives- either evict them and hoof up the rents. Nothing is stopping me, other than my sense of responsibility to my other human beings.

I am shaking my head in utter bewilderment that something as important as housing is left to the vagaries of the market.

david_herdson said:

It can be done. Whether it will be done is a different matter and depends to a large extent on by how much the key European players want it to be done, but done it can be.

As you say, there's no reason why a negotiation can't be completed for a withdrawing member within two years. Given that the process would be much the same, there's therefore little reason why a British-led reform treaty couldn't be completed in two years. I would be very surprised if there wasn't already a draft treaty ready in the FCO for distribution on May 8 if the results allow. I appreciate that Nick P - who's seen the EU from the inside - disagrees but I think he fails to appreciate what political leadership can achieve when the willpower's there.

The fundamental difference between article 48 and article 50 TEU is that the former requires an IGC and ratification by the member states in accordance with their constitutional requirements, e.g. by referendum in the Irish Republic. An agreement under article 50, by contrast, is concluded on behalf of the Union by the European Council, by QMV, with the consent of the European Parliament. So the procedures are incomparable. Much as I dislike it, there is no prospect of article 50 being invoked without an "Out" vote in a referendum.

tyson said:

So why isn't the other one (housing) regulated?

Because experience shows that heavy regulation of a free market, where many thousands of suppliers are competing for the customers' business, invariably makes it worse. This is not surprising - why would a landlord want to evict good tenants?

Neil

"I'll give you a tour of Soho's gay bars with a running commentary on the sociology"

I know them. My flat's next door to Comptons.

Roger said:

Neil

"I'll give you a tour of Soho's gay bars with a running commentary on the sociology"

I know them. My flat's next door to Comptons.

Oh dear. I apologise for all the times I've pissed on your door.

Richard_Nabavi said:

tyson said:

So why isn't the other one (housing) regulated?

Because experience shows that heavy regulation of a free market, where many thousands of suppliers are competing for the customers' business, invariably makes it worse. This is not suprising - why would a landlord want to evict good tenants?

Why would I want to change my tenants?

One of my tenants I could get at least a grand a month for Richard. Capitalism is about making money and the rest sorts itself yeh. What would happen to this person who has invested in this home for ten years?

The markets only ever work for the rich. Was ever thus.

tyson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

tyson said:

So why isn't the other one (housing) regulated?

Because experience shows that heavy regulation of a free market, where many thousands of suppliers are competing for the customers' business, invariably makes it worse. This is not suprising - why would a landlord want to evict good tenants?

Why would I want to change my tenants?

One of my tenants I could get at least a grand a month for Richard. Capitalism is about making money and the rest sorts itself yeh. What would happen to this person who has invested in this home for ten years?

The markets only ever work for the rich. Was ever thus.

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”

Capitalism has been the greatest bringer of freedom, wealth and security the world has ever known. Without it, we would all be poor.

tyson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

tyson said:

So why isn't the other one (housing) regulated?

Because experience shows that heavy regulation of a free market, where many thousands of suppliers are competing for the customers' business, invariably makes it worse. This is not suprising - why would a landlord want to evict good tenants?

Why would I want to change my tenants?

One of my tenants I could get at least a grand a month for Richard. Capitalism is about making money and the rest sorts itself yeh. What would happen to this person who has invested in this home for ten years?

The markets only ever work for the rich. Was ever thus.

The markets set the market rate. Who says the tenant is poor and the landlord rich? The landlord might be a retired couple trying desperately to eek out a tiny pension, having been shafted by annuity rates collapsing. The tenant might be an IT contractor earning more than the landlords ever dreamt of earning. And the landlord is taking a risk (more risk than they think they are taking, in many cases). A collapse in house prices, or a bad tenant, can kill off years of positive return.

Sights of Labourdoorstep outside their own constituencies

Flint in Glasgow South
Slaughter (Hammersmith MP) in Ealing Central
Newcastle Central MP in Broxtowe
One of the Eagles and McTaggart (Slough) in Reading West
Kendall in Cardiff North
Perkins (Chesterfield) in Hallam
Leslie and Reeves in Hendon
General Secretary in Thurrock
Merthyr AM and Aberavon retiring MP in Vale of Glamorgan
Twigg in Stockton South
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) in Stockton South

SeanT said:

Barnesian said:

kle4 said:

SeanT said:

@comrespolls

55% of Brits expect the government should be led by the party with the most seats, only 34% accept that a larger Coalition of smaller parties should lead.

https://twitter.com/ComResPolls/status/592733580876447746/photo/1

THIS is why it would be crazy for Miliband to gang up with the Nats and outvote a larger Tory party. Just because it is doable does not mean it is acceptable to the voters.

It will be interesting to see how people react to it, given those views. I do think the word legitimate is a bit wrong on the reliance on SNP MPs - it's not a question of whether it is legitimate for me, because it is legitimate, just whether an avowed nationalist party would be able to act in the best interests of the entire UK;hopefully they will surprise us(and hopefully that comment will stop someone jumping down my throat for voicing the concern; please also see my compliment to the SNP below) - but there's a lot that is allowable and is even likely that significant numbers may have concerns with yet won't vote to prevent happening.

I think it depends on how bold the SNP go in any agreement - heard some interesting views from some people today who think Miliband should play hard ball and dare them to vote him out, which would be fascinating to see - and if they are smart, and they have proven themselves to be so, then that high proportion of people who think the largest party should form the government may not get as riled up as some might fear.

I agree with all that.

Clearly a government based on the second largest party will be legitimate if it has the confidence of the House. Just as it is legitimate for UKIP to get 13% of the vote and only 3 seats, and SNP to get 4% of the vote and 50 seats. Those are the rules until they are changed.

Many people will be unhappy but there is nothing they can do about it except froth.

Froth - and then boot the party out of power, at the next, election, in such a fashion that it can never recover.

For evidence of voters thinking and acting this way, see Scotland.

But the frothers wouldn't have voted for Lab or SNP anyway. They'll just vote Con as usual, possibly get the largest number of seats again but again be denied power by Lab + SNP who will be quite enjoying it and not motivated to change the rules.

Scotland voting is not to do with legitimacy. It is pure self interest. I'd vote SNP if I were a Scot.

If I were Miliband, I would disband SLAB and form a permanent alliance with the SNP. With Lab support the SNP could continue to sweep the board in Scotland.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Who said anything about enforcing in the ECJ? It'll be a deal agreed after a gruelling late night session with the other member states. Like any other deal.

Sorry but that is incredibly naive. Any deal done can be examined and overturned by the ECJ if they believe it is not in accordance with the fundamental principles of the EU. Even if it is a treaty they have made a point of finding ways around the treaty agreements to extend EU power by removing opt outs.

Claiming it has nothing to do with the ECJ just shows how little you understand how the EU works.

Swings in Lab targets

Great Yarmouth 4%

Cannock Chase 6.5%

Surely crazy for Con to give up on Cannock.

They won by 7% on 2010. If Con is ahead on national vote share (even if only very slightly) then they would be ahead in Cannock on UNS.

Richard_Nabavi said:

tyson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

tyson said:

So why isn't the other one (housing) regulated?

Because experience shows that heavy regulation of a free market, where many thousands of suppliers are competing for the customers' business, invariably makes it worse. This is not suprising - why would a landlord want to evict good tenants?

Why would I want to change my tenants?

One of my tenants I could get at least a grand a month for Richard. Capitalism is about making money and the rest sorts itself yeh. What would happen to this person who has invested in this home for ten years?

The markets only ever work for the rich. Was ever thus.

The markets set the market rate. Who says the tenant is poor and the landlord rich? The landlord might be a retired couple trying desperately to eek out a tiny pension, having been shafted by annuity rates collapsing. The tenant might be an IT contractor earning more than the landlords ever dreamt of earning. And the landlord is taking a risk (more risk than they think they are taking, in many cases). A collapse in house prices, or a bad tenant, can kill off years of positive return.

I rent, because it happens to suit my personal circumstances at the moment (still want flexibility in where/how I work, so don't want to be tied down by bricks and mortar). Not sure what my landlord's income is, but after deducting expenses of one sort or another, what he gets in rent will certainly be less than half what I earn - and this isn't his only house.

He's a good landlord too - very attentive to keeping the property in good order - which will certainly eat into his income.

rcs1000 said:

Re LibDems: I can't help feel they'll S&C the largest party, but I can't see them getting into bed with anyone again. They need opposition if they want to rebuild.

Would the Lib Dems - or any party for that matter - be entitled to Short Money should they enter into such a deal?

AndreaParma_82 said:

Newcastle Central MP in Broxtowe

I thought we had been informed that Broxtowe was all over.

@LIAMT, @Richard_Tyndall

As a matter of interest, when has the ECJ struck down a portion of a treaty? Surely the EU is defined by the Treaties between its members (starting with the Treaty of Rome). Presumably they could say that Treaties conflicted, and therefore the earlier interpretation should apply, but even that could be worked around in a Treaty could it not?

Just interested.

Ishmael_X said:

rcs1000 said:

tyson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

tyson said:

So why isn't the other one (housing) regulated?

Because experience shows that heavy regulation of a free market, where many thousands of suppliers are competing for the customers' business, invariably makes it worse. This is not suprising - why would a landlord want to evict good tenants?

Why would I want to change my tenants?

One of my tenants I could get at least a grand a month for Richard. Capitalism is about making money and the rest sorts itself yeh. What would happen to this person who has invested in this home for ten years?

The markets only ever work for the rich. Was ever thus.

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”

Capitalism has been the greatest bringer of freedom, wealth and security the world has ever known. Without it, we would all be poor.

Or, Capitalism has been an unwelcome side effect of the world's increasing freedom, wealth and security. Without it, we would all be even better off.

You talk a good game of distinguishing between correlation and causation.

Wow, an epic sentence of G.Brownian socialist tinkering doublespeak

SBUKIPOTS

Essay crisis is such an Oxbridge-establishment meme, isn't it? Fit for the privileged few who breeze through life without trying very hard.

Life_ina_market_town said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

The problem with this line of argument is that it is not a two-sided renegotiation between the EU and UK. If there are to be any substantive changes to the terms of British membership, it will require amendment of TEU and TFEU under the ordinary revision procedure (art 48 TEU), which requires an IGC and then unanimous ratification of the proposal by all the member states. What Cameron might therefore be able to claim by 2017 is that we should vote to stay in on the faith of a promise of a future IGC and future unanimous agreement of the member states. I hate to break it to you but such a "grubby deal" will not be specifically enforceable in the European Court of Justice. In fact, it will be worthless, since there is not a cat in hell's chance of it being implemented if there is a "Yes" vote.

Who said anything about enforcing in the ECJ? It'll be a deal agreed after a gruelling late night session with the other member states. Like any other deal.

Life_ina_market_town said:

As for Cameron's suggestions that there can be renegotiation of the free movement of labour or amendment of provisions relating to European citizenship or non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality, no honest person can believe that at least one state will not veto it.

Cameron hasn't suggested that. However UKIP seem to be claiming that they can negotiate a trade treaty which would not involve any concessions on that point, which is rather optimistic, to put it mildly.

I did prepare a longer reply, but it appears to have vanished. From a quick glance at pp. 29-30 of the Conservative Manifesto, there are several proposals which are inconsistent with articles 18 and 45 TFEU, on non-discrimination on grounds of nationality and the freedom of movement of workers. Whether the proposals are compatible with articles 20 and 21 TFEU on citizenship is a very open question, but one that the Court of Justice would have to answer. There is no chance of any of those treaty provisions, which are fundamental, being renegotiated.

Once there is an "In" vote, any leverage we have will vanish, and the agreement to agree on will be kicked into the long grass.

That applies equally - of course - to any vote ahead of a renegotiation.

MikeL said:

Surely crazy for Con to give up on Cannock.

They won by 7% on 2010. If Con is ahead on national vote share (even if only very slightly) then they would be ahead in Cannock on UNS.

Not quite as crazy as it seems, MikeL. This is a very atypical seat in terms of its ethnic/social makeup. It's dominated by the white lower-middle-class who are usually pretty aspirational but sometimes rely on benefits when times are tight. It's also got quite a lot of big firms that don't treat its employees too well (Amazon) and has some issues around housing - the majority of its social housing is 3 bed, so the bedroom tax hit it quite hard.

As a result of BRown's ineptitude and bungling with benefits, coupled with an effective candidate, it swung overly Conservative last time. Partly through reversion to the mean, partly through these workplace issues (which Ed Miliband has at least claimed to address) partly through the loss of said candidate and the selection of a local Labour candidate and partly because of benefit reforms, it has been heavily trending Labour again. The NHS reorganisation has also been blamed - however, my own view is that its impact has been at best negligible (in the sense that some voters are pleased that actually, Chase Hospital is being upgraded and run from Wolverhampton, and are about equal in number to those who are angry about the running down of Stafford).

Long term, this seat and particularly Cannock and Rugeley will probably become affluent Birmingham commuter country a la Tamworth, which will make it a fairly safe Conservative seat. But that's 15 years off yet, unless it suddenly dawns on people that you can buy an excellent four-bedroom house next to a railway line with a regular service to Birmingham with stunning views for around £200,000 compared to rather more than double that in Sutton Coldfield.

Mortimer said:

rcs1000 said:

tyson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

tyson said:

So why isn't the other one (housing) regulated?

Because experience shows that heavy regulation of a free market, where many thousands of suppliers are competing for the customers' business, invariably makes it worse. This is not suprising - why would a landlord want to evict good tenants?

Why would I want to change my tenants?

One of my tenants I could get at least a grand a month for Richard. Capitalism is about making money and the rest sorts itself yeh. What would happen to this person who has invested in this home for ten years?

The markets only ever work for the rich. Was ever thus.

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”

Capitalism has been the greatest bringer of freedom, wealth and security the world has ever known. Without it, we would all be poor.

Can you found the Adam Smith Party please? You'd get my vote.

And mine.

EPG said:

SBUKIPOTS

Essay crisis is such an Oxbridge-establishment meme, isn't it? Fit for the privileged few who breeze through life without trying very hard.

Possibly, but then I did more essays each week than most of my non-Oxbridge mates did in a term. Essay-crisis mode is damn efficient.

AndreaParma_82 said:

postal votes returned so far in Highlands (source: council)

Caithness and co: 3122
Ross and co: 3259
Inverness and co: 5320

Is that high or low for this point ?

rcs1000 said:

@LIAMT, @Richard_Tyndall

As a matter of interest, when has the ECJ struck down a portion of a treaty? Surely the EU is defined by the Treaties between its members (starting with the Treaty of Rome). Presumably they could say that Treaties conflicted, and therefore the earlier interpretation should apply, but even that could be worked around in a Treaty could it not?

Just interested.

ICR443 in 1997. It circumvented the opt out that Major had secured from the working time directive by reclassifying it as a Health and Safety Measure (which was therefore under the rules of the EU) rather than part of the Social Chapter.

rcs1000 said:

@LIAMT, @Richard_Tyndall

As a matter of interest, when has the ECJ struck down a portion of a treaty? Surely the EU is defined by the Treaties between its members (starting with the Treaty of Rome). Presumably they could say that Treaties conflicted, and therefore the earlier interpretation should apply, but even that could be worked around in a Treaty could it not?

Just interested.

The Court of Justice has not struck down a treaty. I don't believe I have ever said that it has or can. TEU and TFEU are the EU's primary law, from which the Court derives its jurisdiction. The Court therefore has no power to review them. What it can do is give opinions on whether agreements entered into by the Union are compatible with the Treaties (see article 218(11) TFEU). This would include any agreement on British exit negotiated under article 50 TEU (see paragraph (2) of that article). If the Court concludes the agreement is incompatible with the Treaties, it may not be entered into. In December last year, for example, the Court concluded that EU accession to the ECHR was incompatible with the Treaties, which has for all intents and purposes killed off the idea for the foreseeable future.

If therefore in the unlikely event that an amending treaty to TEU and TFEU were agreed strictly in accordance with article 48 TEU, there would be nothing the Court of Justice could do about it.

The nonsense about the EU down thread once again shows the basic cowardice of the euro sceptics. They don't want people to have the choice because they fear Cameron will talk a majority into staying. They are right that this is something to fear.

If the UK has a referendum we don't need a treaty. What we need is a heads of agreement and that is quite doable. We need:

Protection from the EZ using QMV to override our interests.

The right to deny EU citizens the right to our benefits until they have paid into the pot.

Continuing limits on our membership fee.

If they are not willing to agree these matters we leave and take our chances in the big bad world. But I don't see these are insuperable hurdles unless the others see us as more trouble than we are worth. Given the size of our markets and our contributions I don't see that either.

What the Tories are promising is an end to that new Labour nonsense of being at the heart of Europe. We are not and we don't want to be. A part of the EU but not run by the EU. I for one will vote for out if we don't get this. But we will.

ydoethur said:

MikeL said:

Surely crazy for Con to give up on Cannock.

They won by 7% on 2010. If Con is ahead on national vote share (even if only very slightly) then they would be ahead in Cannock on UNS.

Not quite as crazy as it seems, MikeL. This is a very atypical seat in terms of its ethnic/social makeup. It's dominated by the white lower-middle-class who are usually pretty aspirational but sometimes rely on benefits when times are tight. It's also got quite a lot of big firms that don't treat its employees too well (Amazon) and has some issues around housing - the majority of its social housing is 3 bed, so the bedroom tax hit it quite hard.

As a result of BRown's ineptitude and bungling with benefits, coupled with an effective candidate, it swung overly Conservative last time. Partly through reversion to the mean, partly through these workplace issues (which Ed Miliband has at least claimed to address) partly through the loss of said candidate and the selection of a local Labour candidate and partly because of benefit reforms, it has been heavily trending Labour again. The NHS reorganisation has also been blamed - however, my own view is that its impact has been at best negligible (in the sense that some voters are pleased that actually, Chase Hospital is being upgraded and run from Wolverhampton, and are about equal in number to those who are angry about the running down of Stafford).

Long term, this seat and particularly Cannock and Rugeley will probably become affluent Birmingham commuter country a la Tamworth, which will make it a fairly safe Conservative seat. But that's 15 years off yet, unless it suddenly dawns on people that you can buy an excellent four-bedroom house next to a railway line with a regular service to Birmingham with stunning views for around £200,000 compared to rather more than double that in Sutton Coldfield.

OK, fair enough - just feel that if Con can't hold Cannock (or at least be very, very close) then Cameron is no longer PM for 100% certain.

Given he still has over a 40% chance of remaining PM (per Betfair) I feel he should be fighting Cannock hard.

Mortimer said:

EPG said:

SBUKIPOTS

Essay crisis is such an Oxbridge-establishment meme, isn't it? Fit for the privileged few who breeze through life without trying very hard.

Possibly, but then I did more essays each week than most of my non-Oxbridge mates did in a term. Essay-crisis mode is damn efficient.

Sure. I mean that the journalists know what it means, and the politicians know what it means, and they agree that it is a very clever turn of phrase, while also agreeing that anyone who behaved that way in a real-world job like a deli counter would expect to be sacked!