politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The whole narrative of this campaign would have been very d
Comments
-
I couldn't cope with a Tory as a partner, or a meat eater for that matter. The thought of bits of dead flesh stuck between her teeth. A meat eating Tory- OMG that would be awfulCasino_Royale said:
You need a new girlfriend? ;-)Pulpstar said:Anecdotal: My OH watched the QT last night:
Unimpressed by Dave, but then again she'll never vote for him in a million years.
Thought Ed was doing quite well until he ruled out a deal with the SNP. Echoed the audience thoughts of him playing us for fools on that one. She quite likes the SNP (Has no financial interest in it *cough*) -just likes the left wing line.
"That's a stupid thing to say"
0 -
Ed Miliband admits Labour could work with SNP on a vote-by-vote basis, according to his interview with Sky.0
-
The only difference is that UKIP boot them out. Whereas with Labour or the Tories it helps if you can put it on the CV.Floater said:
What a pathetic post.Innocent_Abroad said:
I've got news for Mr Kevin Smith, UKIP candidate for Hove. No one ever joined UKIP who wasn't a racist, although few of them are much good at looking into their own souls. And with souls like theirs, who can blame them?AndyJS said:
Demonstrating their love of democracy and free speech.MikeK said:Video exclusive: ‘Green activists’ in Brighton Pavilion rip off UKIP advertisements
B & H Independent @BrightonIndy 11h11 hours ago
Supposing Green activists had burned @UKIP adverts: http://bit.ly/1EUvtLe ? Non-story? Or central to free democracy?
ALL parties have racists and other undesirables, even the "progressives"0 -
I watched it. He did cite national polls on one or two occasions to point out that his position was the mainstream one.OblitusSumMe said:
Did anyone watch Farage? Did he go all BBC bias again at the audience?JEO said:
The person that lost out last night was Nigel Farage, who didn't get broadcast until several hours after the program when everyone has gone to bed.Bob__Sykes said:Cameron lost out big time on QT last night. Not to Miliband or Clegg, but to the luck of the draw - he ended up battling Emmerdale on the other side, whereas the other two did not have the same competition. Whilst I doubt the programme will have rated that highly overall, perhaps 4m averaged over the 90 minutes, I reckon Clegg's section will easily have been the most watched. It would be fascinating to see if the "breakdown" of viewing gets reported today.
At least with a proper debate over 90 mins or 2 hours, viewers get to see a bit of everyone in the bit they choose to view. But then, it's karma for Cameron because he was the one who insisted on the sequence of debates we ended up with.
I thought he did the best of the three, but continues to frustrate with his evasiveness and inability to actually confront the guff he gets confronted with on, eg, food banks, bedroom tax. I am beginning to think that as well as being lazy, he's actually not that bright.
But I guess he's history anyway in a week, sadly.
The audience was OK. The moderator however seemed to regard herself as the opposition to Mr Farage.
The programme is available on the BBC iPlayer.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05tzv9l/0 -
I'm sure that would be very satisfying short term, long term that will put Labour sub 25% for a generationNickPalmer said:
Yes. I don't like FPTP but it's the system we've got, and if it produces a majority against the Tories in the Commons, of course we'll use it.TheScreamingEagles said:
If the Tories have won the popular vote, and are comfortably ahead of Labour on seats, will Labour vote down a Tory Queen's Speech?
0 -
Weren't you berating me the other night when I was getting prickly about 'hating' Labour? You said you didn't hate any Tory!tyson said:
I couldn't cope with a Tory as a partner, or a meat eater for that matter. The thought of bits of dead flesh stuck between her teeth. A meat eating Tory- OMG that would be awfulCasino_Royale said:
You need a new girlfriend? ;-)Pulpstar said:Anecdotal: My OH watched the QT last night:
Unimpressed by Dave, but then again she'll never vote for him in a million years.
Thought Ed was doing quite well until he ruled out a deal with the SNP. Echoed the audience thoughts of him playing us for fools on that one. She quite likes the SNP (Has no financial interest in it *cough*) -just likes the left wing line.
"That's a stupid thing to say"0 -
Hah lol No - I thought Ed was pretty dumb to say it too, he's chasing the UKIP-Con switcher vote !Casino_Royale said:
You need a new girlfriend? ;-)Pulpstar said:Anecdotal: My OH watched the QT last night:
Unimpressed by Dave, but then again she'll never vote for him in a million years.
Thought Ed was doing quite well until he ruled out a deal with the SNP. Echoed the audience thoughts of him playing us for fools on that one. She quite likes the SNP (Has no financial interest in it *cough*) -just likes the left wing line.
"That's a stupid thing to say"
He should have said "I'll vote against a Conservative Queens' speech, other parties can choose whether or not to support it - it's up to them. If it is defeated, I'll put forward a Labour Queen speech, other parties can choose to support it or not. That'll be up to them."0 -
Mr. Tyson, meat's delicious! We don't have incisors and canines because we've evolved to hunt cabbages
I think you doth protest too much. Admit it: you secretly fantasise about Margaret Thatcher cooking you a steak!
Mr. Daniel, not surprising. Conservatives should quote that and put it side-by-side with Miliband's QT utterances.0 -
https://royaleleseaux.wordpress.comPulpstar said:
What's your blog again ?Casino_Royale said:
Not all bad news. It did lead me to start my own blog, so I could independently publish in future. Haven't regretted it since.TheScreamingEagles said:
Blame Mark Reckless.Casino_Royale said:
I wrote a guest thread tipping it a 10/1 back in October. You never published it, you naughty boy!TheScreamingEagles said:
I've been tipping Con Minority for agestyson said:
No- they won't. They'd be stupid too. Get on the Tory minority on betfair, it seems to me a real possibility after thinking through the most probable scenarios- i.e. Tories comfortably most seats and most votes and the LD's needing to regroup outside Govt.TheScreamingEagles said:
But you're missing the first thing that needs to happen.Pulpstar said:
What ?TheScreamingEagles said:
Does anyone know if the SNP have any history of toppling Labour governments?Pulpstar said:
Yes, Burnham sounded very confident on the Radio this morning. Labour will put forward a Queen's speech and dare the SNP to vote it down.Slackbladder said:Harry Cole @MrHarryCole 5 mins5 minutes ago
Burnham being helpful as ever on R5: BBC: " there will have to be dialogue, won't there? Yes or no? [with SNP] Andy Burnham: Of course.
0 retweets 0 favorites
So thats the fact of it... there WILL be deals with the SNP to get support.
They won't.
*Innocent Face*
Before they've started ?
Ed Miliband is our next PM - I've twisted in the wind and wriggled and withed and hedged more than a bipolar wotsit, but the SNP won't vote down a Labour Queens' speech.
AStjohnstone has convinced me.
If the Tories have won the popular vote, and are comfortably ahead of Labour on seats, will Labour vote down a Tory Queen's Speech?
Yours was scheduled to go up at 3pm on Saturday the 27th of September.
TPD defecting at 2:27pm that day was annoying.
About 5 mins earlier Everton scored an injury time equaliser in the Merseyside derby.
Not the best 10mins of my life.
ponyonthetories.blogspot.co.uk is mine
0 -
All hells gonna break loose on here if tories post a 7% lead in the next six days.
Why? that poll would be flagged as an outlier.
The premise of this thread is extremely interesting. For me the key point is whether yougov really have a lot to lose from getting the election wrong. Is anybody going to lose their livelihood/Xmas bonus over this? Are clients going to desert to other pollsters? or will it all be forgotten?
0 -
Do you think Labour spent too much?NickPalmer said:
Yes. I don't like FPTP but it's the system we've got, and if it produces a majority against the Tories in the Commons, of course we'll use it.TheScreamingEagles said:
If the Tories have won the popular vote, and are comfortably ahead of Labour on seats, will Labour vote down a Tory Queen's Speech?0 -
Ig are quoting cons as 290.5-294.5 (up 2.5)
that seems too high to me...0 -
Tyson: "what about the vegetables?"Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Tyson, meat's delicious! We don't have incisors and canines because we've evolved to hunt cabbages
I think you doth protest too much. Admit it: you secretly fantasise about Margaret Thatcher cooking you a steak!0 -
MD, hard to beat a bit of hyperbole.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. G, getting a shade hyperbolic there.
0 -
The Scottish Sun is really going for it:
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/ge2015/6436211/The-Force-is-strong-with-this-Sun.html
As well as pushing the SNP hard they're putting the squeeze on the Daily Record, I would love to be a fly on the wall at the DR editorial meetings. The DR is faced with a dilemma, support the London head office position or listen to it's readership, well over 60% must now be likely to vote SNP.0 -
ANECDOTE ALERT
The left is out in full force today when I took Trotsky for a walk. Banners, bands, music, students, choirs, young and old taking pride in their lefty traditions.
OK- it's the Fiesole Piazza, and it's Workers Day, but it makes your heart lift comrades, it really does. Collective lefty politics is uplifting and makes you feel that world can be a better place. Right wing politics gives us individualism, each for their own, food banks and horrible anti people rhetoric.0 -
I predict that all the pollsters will be within margin of error...polls can be good for mood music, but i couldn't put too much on them as a precise prdiction of seats.taffys said:All hells gonna break loose on here if tories post a 7% lead in the next six days.
Why? that poll would be flagged as an outlier.
The premise of this thread is extremely interesting. For me the key point is whether yougov really have a lot to lose from getting the election wrong. Is anybody going to lose their livelihood/Xmas bonus over this? Are clients going to desert to other pollsters? or will it all be forgotten?0 -
Yes and we know how desperate Labour are for power, they will lie , cheat and stoop to anything to get in. I would prefer Tories to get in rather than Labour.peterbuss said:
I very much agree with you Malcolm (Tory though I am!) This idea that somehow Miliband has called the SNP's bluff doesn't stack up to me. If Labour are say 20-30 seats behind the Tories then they will need the SNP in order to win a vote in the HOC. The SNP won't go with an austerity package - they daren't, but in return for something for Scotland from Labour they could be brought on board. Whether it's up front or a back door deal, Miliband will have to have a deal of sorts with them even if it is publicly denied.malcolmg said:
We will see who the poodle isTGOHF said:Gove vs R5 this morning at around 8.25 was class.
Nicola will be Ed's poodle voting for him as he brings in cuts.malcolmg said:
Would have made no difference and we know he will be back if and when power beckonsSMukesh said:Stupid of Ed to have waited this long to rule out a deal with the SNP.
If he had done so earlier,could have slowed the mass hysteria north of the border.0 -
Mr. G, I'd bet you a billion pounds hyperbole's overrated.
Mr. Royale, all he is saying is give peas a chance.0 -
My thoughts exactly, though I'm definitely leaning more to a minority of either shade now.Casino_Royale said:
Betting
For what it’s worth, my personal views on the results are as follows:
Labour will do very well in metropolitan areas, such as London and Manchester
The Conservatives will do well in the south-west, against the Liberal Democrats
The Conservatives will hold up ok in the Midlands battlegrounds
Labour will pick off several key seats from the Conservatives in the North-West
The SNP will clean-up Scotland
So..
The Conservatives won’t drop below 270 seats
Labour will not clock higher than 290 seats
The Liberal Democrats will be below 30 seats (but could have a disaster and drop below 20 seats)
UKIP will be below 6 seats
SNP will be above 45 seats
.........
Next government – back Labour Minority at 2.8, or Conservative Minority at 6.6 or Con-LD coalition at 4.9 on Betfair exchange.0 -
''ANECDOTE ALERT''
Tyson, you are Ken Loach, and I claim my five pounds.0 -
"The trouble with socialism is that you always run out of other people's money."tyson said:ANECDOTE ALERT
The left is out in full force today when I took Trotsky for a walk. Banners, bands, music, students, choirs, young and old taking pride in their lefty traditions.
OK- it's the Fiesole Piazza, and it's Workers Day, but it makes your heart lift comrades, it really does. Collective lefty politics is uplifting and makes you feel that world can be a better place. Right wing politics gives us individualism, each for their own, food banks and horrible anti people rhetoric.
The left is all emotional - the right is pragmatic and rational. And as for 'anti-people rhetoric' - I assume you haven't been on the Guardian website.0 -
Why would white working class Labour voters in England stop voting Labour because the SNP supports certain pieces of legislation put forward by a minority Labour government? Presumably they vote Labour because they want a Labour government.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Palmer, do you not think that would have a seriously negative long-term impact against Labour in England? UKIP could clean up your WWC voters, getting many seats themselves and letting the Conservatives in through the middle elsewhere.
If Scotland crushes Labour, and England rejects Labour, and Labour's leader becomes PM, that won't go down well.
0 -
What was puzzling about last night, at least to us was why both Cameron and Milliband were saying “No no, never” to questions about coalitions. I can understand why Labour with respect to the SNP, but they seemed to be saying that, if they could form a government, ie if they led the largest party, they would and never mind that their overall majority was non-existent.
How would the money markets, or indeed the City in general take that situation?0 -
WHOOSH!!!!!malcolmg said:
We will see who the poodle isTGOHF said:Gove vs R5 this morning at around 8.25 was class.
Nicola will be Ed's poodle voting for him as he brings in cuts.malcolmg said:
Would have made no difference and we know he will be back if and when power beckonsSMukesh said:Stupid of Ed to have waited this long to rule out a deal with the SNP.
If he had done so earlier,could have slowed the mass hysteria north of the border.
Malc's Irony Meter batteries clearly been used for his Invective meter0 -
That lasted less than a day then........Daniel said:Ed Miliband admits Labour could work with SNP on a vote-by-vote basis, according to his interview with Sky.
0 -
Did I use the word hate? I said I couldn't cope with one as a lifelong partner, especially drivelling some of the nonsense that you read on this site. My wife could see no wrong in Blair and that was bad enough to stomach.Casino_Royale said:
Weren't you berating me the other night when I was getting prickly about 'hating' Labour? You said you didn't hate any Tory!tyson said:
I couldn't cope with a Tory as a partner, or a meat eater for that matter. The thought of bits of dead flesh stuck between her teeth. A meat eating Tory- OMG that would be awfulCasino_Royale said:
You need a new girlfriend? ;-)Pulpstar said:Anecdotal: My OH watched the QT last night:
Unimpressed by Dave, but then again she'll never vote for him in a million years.
Thought Ed was doing quite well until he ruled out a deal with the SNP. Echoed the audience thoughts of him playing us for fools on that one. She quite likes the SNP (Has no financial interest in it *cough*) -just likes the left wing line.
"That's a stupid thing to say"
I don't hate Tories at all- even Osborne, who I said yesterday is as likeable as a cockroach crawling around in your undies, but hate, no. I feel a bit sorry for him if anything because he strikes me as not a particularly happy person.0 -
Where is this? Red Square in 1928?tyson said:ANECDOTE ALERT
The left is out in full force today when I took Trotsky for a walk. Banners, bands, music, students, choirs, young and old taking pride in their lefty traditions.
OK- it's the Fiesole Piazza, and it's Workers Day, but it makes your heart lift comrades, it really does. Collective lefty politics is uplifting and makes you feel that world can be a better place. Right wing politics gives us individualism, each for their own, food banks and horrible anti people rhetoric.
If you think Conservativism is about selfishness and inhumanity, then you have badly misunderstood it, my friend*
(*friend - not comrade)0 -
In 2007 there hadn't been a recent Tory-led UK government to stoke the hatred and my view from afar was that Salmond's strategy was to present the SNP as a fairly centrist party to try to get Unionists to vote for them on the grounds they might be competent in government. Sturgeon has now repositioned the SNP to the left and I think no Unionist would now vote for them. Had the IndyRef settled things for a generation, say 25 years, that might be different, but it now looks like we can expect another in 5-10 years.YBarddCwsc said:Despite all the argument about PC and SNP not supporting the Tories, I am not convinced.
PC did support a Rainbow Coalition of Con Lib, PC after 2007 Welsh Assembly elections. It was the Welsh LibDem conference that refused to endorse it.
SNP did run Scotland with the support of the Scottish Conservatives in Holyrood in 2007.
Ultimately, both PC and SNP are in competition with Labour for the same voters. Their campaigning position is to categorically deny any support for the Tories.
After the election, I expect they will look for the very best deal for Wales & Scotland.
Wales is different. OK the recent Tory government is the same, but anyone who is non-Labour or just despairs as the incompetence of the one-party state must be desperate to get them out of office. However PC does have a reputation of mostly being for Welsh speakers, and the LDs of course are tarnished by association with a Tory UK government. Maybe Leanne, who I don't believe is a native Welsh speaker, will be able to pick up some of the SNP civic nationalist vibe.
0 -
Which means the SNP voting with the Tories to bring down a Labour government. Alternatively, if the SNP abstains, Labour could do a deal with other parties - unless the Tories have a majority if the SNP votes are excluded.Life_ina_market_town said:
Will the SNP really vote to express confidence in a government intent on pursuing "austerity" and renewing Trident (both which they have been campaigning vociferously against in North Britain)? It must be doubted. The best that can be hoped for Labour is that they will abstain. The Daily Mail report that Ms Sturgeon has said Miliband will not get a budget through the House of Commons unless "he compromises".Pulpstar said:Not if it means the speech failing to get through. Which it probably will, so they won't abstain.
0 -
NO!malcolmg said:
I would prefer Tories to get in rather than Labour.peterbuss said:
I very much agree with you Malcolm (Tory though I am!) This idea that somehow Miliband has called the SNP's bluff doesn't stack up to me. If Labour are say 20-30 seats behind the Tories then they will need the SNP in order to win a vote in the HOC. The SNP won't go with an austerity package - they daren't, but in return for something for Scotland from Labour they could be brought on board. Whether it's up front or a back door deal, Miliband will have to have a deal of sorts with them even if it is publicly denied.malcolmg said:
We will see who the poodle isTGOHF said:Gove vs R5 this morning at around 8.25 was class.
Nicola will be Ed's poodle voting for him as he brings in cuts.malcolmg said:
Would have made no difference and we know he will be back if and when power beckonsSMukesh said:Stupid of Ed to have waited this long to rule out a deal with the SNP.
If he had done so earlier,could have slowed the mass hysteria north of the border.
REALLY
Well I never.......
0 -
Spin up to 230
-
Richard Nabavi has been warning about this for a while, everyone should have had a good look at their pension and shares.OldKingCole said:What was puzzling about last night, at least to us was why both Cameron and Milliband were saying “No no, never” to questions about coalitions. I can understand why Labour with respect to the SNP, but they seemed to be saying that, if they could form a government, ie if they led the largest party, they would and never mind that their overall majority was non-existent.
How would the money markets, or indeed the City in general take that situation?0 -
If Labour plus LibDem is more than the Tory seat total, then the only way the SNP is going to have significant, on-going influence over a minority Labour government is to vote with the Tories.0
-
It's the phone pollsters who have most at risk.taffys said:All hells gonna break loose on here if tories post a 7% lead in the next six days.
Why? that poll would be flagged as an outlier.
The premise of this thread is extremely interesting. For me the key point is whether yougov really have a lot to lose from getting the election wrong. Is anybody going to lose their livelihood/Xmas bonus over this? Are clients going to desert to other pollsters? or will it all be forgotten?
Everyone knows that if you pay less for a product or service that sometimes you have to accept lower quality - so there will always be a market for online opinion polls even if they are less accurate than phone polls, as we can see from the continued growth of online polling following their relatively poor performance compared to phone polls at GE2010.
No-one is going to pay more for an inferior service, as you would be if phone polls were less accurate than online polls.0 -
Mr. Observer, because Miliband will be on his knees, paying tribute to the northern barbarians to stop them destroying him. And Miliband is, excepting Umunna, the epitome of a pretentious metropolitan arse.
UKIP is often seen as being Conservative Ultra, but some of its rhetoric is Old Labour and has great appeal for the WWC.0 -
How original , your old ones are your only ones. Stuck in the past as ever.CarlottaVance said:
WHOOSH!!!!!malcolmg said:
We will see who the poodle isTGOHF said:Gove vs R5 this morning at around 8.25 was class.
Nicola will be Ed's poodle voting for him as he brings in cuts.malcolmg said:
Would have made no difference and we know he will be back if and when power beckonsSMukesh said:Stupid of Ed to have waited this long to rule out a deal with the SNP.
If he had done so earlier,could have slowed the mass hysteria north of the border.
Malc's Irony Meter batteries clearly been used for his Invective meter0 -
Can we really see the SNP taking down a Labour minority government a year before the next Scottish election? Ed Milliband will not do a deal with the SNP as he does not need to do one.SouthamObserver said:
Which means the SNP voting with the Tories to bring down a Labour government. Alternatively, if the SNP abstains, Labour could do a deal with other parties - unless the Tories have a majority if the SNP votes are excluded.Life_ina_market_town said:
Will the SNP really vote to express confidence in a government intent on pursuing "austerity" and renewing Trident (both which they have been campaigning vociferously against in North Britain)? It must be doubted. The best that can be hoped for Labour is that they will abstain. The Daily Mail report that Ms Sturgeon has said Miliband will not get a budget through the House of Commons unless "he compromises".Pulpstar said:Not if it means the speech failing to get through. Which it probably will, so they won't abstain.
0 -
Someone setup an IRC channel last time, can't remember who. Would be useful this time round as wellAndyJS said:On election night 2010 I seem to remember a special page was set up for PB comments because it was decided that the usual thread wouldn't be able to cope with the volume of traffic. Is that likely to happen this time or has the technology improved? (I remember in particular NP's "close but no cigar" comment).
0 -
Balls is out on his arse at the next GE if Labour is propped up by the SNP.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Observer, because Miliband will be on his knees, paying tribute to the northern barbarians to stop them destroying him. And Miliband is, excepting Umunna, the epitome of a pretentious metropolitan arse.
UKIP is often seen as being Conservative Ultra, but some of its rhetoric is Old Labour and has great appeal for the WWC.
So is Engels, Wakefield will go too. Rother valley as well.
It'll go down dreadfully in these parts.0 -
Well, I don't think some of that's any better than hate ;-)tyson said:
Did I use the word hate? I said I couldn't cope with one as a lifelong partner, especially drivelling some of the nonsense that you read on this site. My wife could see no wrong in Blair and that was bad enough to stomach.Casino_Royale said:
Weren't you berating me the other night when I was getting prickly about 'hating' Labour? You said you didn't hate any Tory!tyson said:
I couldn't cope with a Tory as a partner, or a meat eater for that matter. The thought of bits of dead flesh stuck between her teeth. A meat eating Tory- OMG that would be awfulCasino_Royale said:
You need a new girlfriend? ;-)Pulpstar said:Anecdotal: My OH watched the QT last night:
Unimpressed by Dave, but then again she'll never vote for him in a million years.
Thought Ed was doing quite well until he ruled out a deal with the SNP. Echoed the audience thoughts of him playing us for fools on that one. She quite likes the SNP (Has no financial interest in it *cough*) -just likes the left wing line.
"That's a stupid thing to say"
I don't hate Tories at all- even Osborne, who I said yesterday is as likeable as a cockroach crawling around in your undies, but hate, no. I feel a bit sorry for him if anything because he strikes me as not a particularly happy person.
FWIW, it's the party, its ideology and what it does that I hate. Not the people who support it. What I do hate (detest?) is the moral licence Labour think they have to condemn Tories as somehow sub-human because of the difference in what they think they stand for, and the Tories stand for. In truth, I think there are nasties in every party that's in power, but I resent Labour more because they pretend to be something they're not, and I don't think they have this country's best interests at heart. In fact, many reject the concept of nations and countries entirely.
Patriotism is my primary driving political force. I love this country and could not (and would not) vote for any party that does not feel the same way, and stand up for Britain. For all that's thrown at them I don't think I've ever met a Tory who's not a proud patriot who believes in our country. Excepting one or two europhiles. And I trust them to stand up for our interests more than either Labour or the Liberal Democrats. And, no, I don't think doing that means we do so at the expense of other nations.
I am a happy and sociable person by the way.0 -
Have seen that Miliband is going to Bristol, to an invitation only event.
After last night's confident and commanding performance, I am surprised by this.0 -
Farage was very good, the moderator was terrible but Farage ignored her anyway and answered the questions.anotherDave said:
I watched it. He did cite national polls on one or two occasions to point out that his position was the mainstream one.OblitusSumMe said:
Did anyone watch Farage? Did he go all BBC bias again at the audience?JEO said:
The person that lost out last night was Nigel Farage, who didn't get broadcast until several hours after the program when everyone has gone to bed.Bob__Sykes said:Cameron lost out big time on QT last night. Not to Miliband or Clegg, but to the luck of the draw - he ended up battling Emmerdale on the other side, whereas the other two did not have the same competition. Whilst I doubt the programme will have rated that highly overall, perhaps 4m averaged over the 90 minutes, I reckon Clegg's section will easily have been the most watched. It would be fascinating to see if the "breakdown" of viewing gets reported today.
At least with a proper debate over 90 mins or 2 hours, viewers get to see a bit of everyone in the bit they choose to view. But then, it's karma for Cameron because he was the one who insisted on the sequence of debates we ended up with.
I thought he did the best of the three, but continues to frustrate with his evasiveness and inability to actually confront the guff he gets confronted with on, eg, food banks, bedroom tax. I am beginning to think that as well as being lazy, he's actually not that bright.
But I guess he's history anyway in a week, sadly.
The audience was OK. The moderator however seemed to regard herself as the opposition to Mr Farage.
The programme is available on the BBC iPlayer.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05tzv9l/0 -
That difference between online and phone polls:
https://twitter.com/Adam_Ludlow/status/5940718074870456320 -
This morning Cameron said next week will be a career defining moment...he meant country defining
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/what-defining0 -
Doubters are as mentioned, usually not doubters just too polite, and want to avoid a confrontation. In many cases they just wont be voting. I always have a litmus test, catch them of guard a bit with the follow up if they have ever voted blah blah in the past. Soon as they say no, you are wasting your own time and theirs. It's "sorry for bothering you" "have a nice evening" and down as an against.NickPalmer said:
Agreed. A useful self-test is what "undecideds" say closer to the election and even more what they say after they've cast a postal vote (when they take a certain relish in telling you if they voted the other way). If you thought people like that were genuinely doubtful, you need to adjust your sceptimeter.MarqueeMark said:
Roger, the voters have no problem with "hurting my feelings"! But after 40 years of doorstepping, you get a fair feel for who is polite and who is perplexed....
But we differ on the number of doubtfuls. Not finding many at all, while MM is finding lots. What are others encountering?0 -
What I'm not sure about is what happens if Lab+LD < Tories and Tories + LD = 310 seats *but* Labour + SNP + PC + Green + SDLP > Tories + LD.SouthamObserver said:If Labour plus LibDem is more than the Tory seat total, then the only way the SNP is going to have significant, on-going influence over a minority Labour government is to vote with the Tories.
Messy.0 -
Maybe they're desperate to get back to the old days of black & white, Red or Blue party hegemony. I think they are mistaken though. Having got the habit of voting Lib Dem, the voters now seem to be prepared to vote SNP, Green, UKIP, whatever. We need to get used to having coalitions, and if FPTP has broken down so that it no longer delivers its advantage of one-party government, move to a form of PR.OldKingCole said:What was puzzling about last night, at least to us was why both Cameron and Milliband were saying “No no, never” to questions about coalitions. I can understand why Labour with respect to the SNP, but they seemed to be saying that, if they could form a government, ie if they led the largest party, they would and never mind that their overall majority was non-existent.
How would the money markets, or indeed the City in general take that situation?
I see nothing particularly wrong with a Lab/SNP coalition. It's probably my least favoured option but then I am just one voter. I would rather a Tory party offered the SNP an opportunity to create a proper federal system for the UK, but that seems to have been ruled out by both parties and it seems clear that politicians intend that constitutional change should continue to be a drip feed process.
So why doesn't Miliband say "of course I will work with another progressive party to create a strong and stable government for the UK. However, even a minority Labour party is likely to have 5 to 10 times the MPs of the junior partner and it will very much be a junior partner with commensurate influence on Government. I will certainly never do anything to put the Union at risk".
All this "we will never form a coalition with.../work with..." is basically putting the stability of the country at risk. Labour and Tory would claim they support FPTP because it provides stable government, yet when the opportunity comes to try to form a stable coalition, they would prefer instability if it conforms with their idea of narrow party advantage. And it is tantamount to saying that that portion of the electorate that voted for X party should be ignored and have views that should not be considered.
0 -
I've lost my bank card and have no online betting accounts, this could be a good thing
Ukip over 2.5 seats 10/11 Betfred
Insane0 -
Is anyone else heading down to the London bash btw - would be good to meet some new faces and see some old ones again.0
-
career and country defining, is what he should have said to correct himself.AndreaParma_82 said:This morning Cameron said next week will be a career defining moment...he meant country defining
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/what-defining0 -
I thought he was quite poor last night, he was given a fairly difficult time by the audience. His claim that any coalition he did enter, wouldnt involve him compromising on his manifesto is just ludicrous. How on earth could he enter a coalition without compromising with the partners of that coalition? What would be the point for the junior partner?SeanT said:Miliband has made a bad situation worse with this No Deal No Way OK I'll Do A Deal nonsense. It gives the impression he's taking us for fools, and it's handed his opponents several enormous sticks with which to bash him, if and when he does his "deal".
His biggest mistake of the campaign so far.0 -
Why the surprise? malcg has always appeared to be a relatively right-wing Nat.CarlottaVance said:
NO!malcolmg said:
I would prefer Tories to get in rather than Labour.peterbuss said:
I very much agree with you Malcolm (Tory though I am!) This idea that somehow Miliband has called the SNP's bluff doesn't stack up to me. If Labour are say 20-30 seats behind the Tories then they will need the SNP in order to win a vote in the HOC. The SNP won't go with an austerity package - they daren't, but in return for something for Scotland from Labour they could be brought on board. Whether it's up front or a back door deal, Miliband will have to have a deal of sorts with them even if it is publicly denied.malcolmg said:
We will see who the poodle isTGOHF said:Gove vs R5 this morning at around 8.25 was class.
Nicola will be Ed's poodle voting for him as he brings in cuts.malcolmg said:
Would have made no difference and we know he will be back if and when power beckonsSMukesh said:Stupid of Ed to have waited this long to rule out a deal with the SNP.
If he had done so earlier,could have slowed the mass hysteria north of the border.
REALLY
Well I never.......
0 -
ROFLMAO.Roger said:Mukesh
"Stupid of Ed to have waited this long to rule out a deal with the SNP.
If he had done so earlier,could have slowed the mass hysteria north of the border."
I take the unfashinable view that Nicola has been a huge boost to Ed. Nothing has done as much for his credibility as being visibly woowed by all the other lefty leaders. Nothing is more attractive than someone in demand.....
It not only makes him look powerful and leaderlike but it also gives momentum to all those from the centre and centre left that they are part of a movement as opposed to the rather stale reactionary right.
Think of it the other way round.
Ed Miliband is the minor parties weak patsy whose block of Labour MPs they need to enact their own agenda...
Tail wagging the dog etc...0 -
What are people's views on turnout? Betfair still has 65-70% at over evens I think.
I'm on (long) at 60-65% and I've got a cover on 70-75%. Wondering whether to go in more..0 -
Lets say EICIPM, and almost all Scottish MPs are wiped out, what kind of cabinet are we going to be left with? Don't really know any other labour MPs apart from those in the shadow cabinet.0
-
Do you think that the time is right for a change in the voting system and which variety do you favour?NickPalmer said:
Yes. I don't like FPTP but it's the system we've got, and if it produces a majority against the Tories in the Commons, of course we'll use it.TheScreamingEagles said:
If the Tories have won the popular vote, and are comfortably ahead of Labour on seats, will Labour vote down a Tory Queen's Speech?
Do you think that many in your party would agree?0 -
No surprise.JohnLilburne said:
Why the surprise? malcg has always appeared to be a relatively right-wing Nat.CarlottaVance said:
NO!malcolmg said:
I would prefer Tories to get in rather than Labour.peterbuss said:
I very much agree with you Malcolm (Tory though I am!) This idea that somehow Miliband has called the SNP's bluff doesn't stack up to me. If Labour are say 20-30 seats behind the Tories then they will need the SNP in order to win a vote in the HOC. The SNP won't go with an austerity package - they daren't, but in return for something for Scotland from Labour they could be brought on board. Whether it's up front or a back door deal, Miliband will have to have a deal of sorts with them even if it is publicly denied.malcolmg said:
We will see who the poodle isTGOHF said:Gove vs R5 this morning at around 8.25 was class.
Nicola will be Ed's poodle voting for him as he brings in cuts.malcolmg said:
Would have made no difference and we know he will be back if and when power beckonsSMukesh said:Stupid of Ed to have waited this long to rule out a deal with the SNP.
If he had done so earlier,could have slowed the mass hysteria north of the border.
REALLY
Well I never.......
Its as plain as a pikestaff the SNP would much prefer the Tories in Westminster.
No one does pantomime villain like the Tories......0 -
Maybe they want to exclude business people. After last night.dr_spyn said:Have seen that Miliband is going to Bristol, to an invitation only event.
After last night's confident and commanding performance, I am surprised by this.
0 -
I disagree that the SNP will only support Labour legislation in return for increased spending in Scotland at England's expense. I do not see what the SNP gains by, say, voting with the Tories to not end the Bedroom tax or to prevent an increase in the top rate of tax etc. And for the reasons you outline I just do not see what Labour gets from a deal with the SNP.SeanT said:
Because northerners and Taffs and Brummies would see (correctly or not) Scots getting special treatment and more money cause of the Nats "deal" with Labour. And this despite Scots being richer per capita than, say, Geordies.SouthamObserver said:
Why would white working class Labour voters in England stop voting Labour because the SNP supports certain pieces of legislation put forward by a minority Labour government? Presumably they vote Labour because they want a Labour government.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Palmer, do you not think that would have a seriously negative long-term impact against Labour in England? UKIP could clean up your WWC voters, getting many seats themselves and letting the Conservatives in through the middle elsewhere.
If Scotland crushes Labour, and England rejects Labour, and Labour's leader becomes PM, that won't go down well.
This would
1. Infuriate the WWC of England (and rightly so)
2. Make the WWC see the benefits of not voting Labour
0 -
Just watched QT - clear winners were the audience who asked tough questions politely and didnt give up on waffle.
I thought the poll Cameron > Miliband > Clegg fair0 -
My wife watched Cameron and Milliband but turned off when it was Clegg's turn.Bob__Sykes said:Cameron lost out big time on QT last night. Not to Miliband or Clegg, but to the luck of the draw - he ended up battling Emmerdale on the other side, whereas the other two did not have the same competition. Whilst I doubt the programme will have rated that highly overall, perhaps 4m averaged over the 90 minutes, I reckon Clegg's section will easily have been the most watched. It would be fascinating to see if the "breakdown" of viewing gets reported today.
At least with a proper debate over 90 mins or 2 hours, viewers get to see a bit of everyone in the bit they choose to view. But then, it's karma for Cameron because he was the one who insisted on the sequence of debates we ended up with.
I thought he did the best of the three, but continues to frustrate with his evasiveness and inability to actually confront the guff he gets confronted with on, eg, food banks, bedroom tax. I am beginning to think that as well as being lazy, he's actually not that bright.
But I guess he's history anyway in a week, sadly.
I bet she was far from the only one.0 -
I agree. At least for a year or so. If the SNP immediately brings down a Labour government or prevents it from introducing what might be considered "progressive" policies with UK-wide effect, then it is going to create problems for itself in Scotland. Most Scots, even a large number of Yes voters, are not dyed in the wool nationalists who want independence at any price.hamiltonace said:
Can we really see the SNP taking down a Labour minority government a year before the next Scottish election? Ed Milliband will not do a deal with the SNP as he does not need to do one.SouthamObserver said:
Which means the SNP voting with the Tories to bring down a Labour government. Alternatively, if the SNP abstains, Labour could do a deal with other parties - unless the Tories have a majority if the SNP votes are excluded.Life_ina_market_town said:
Will the SNP really vote to express confidence in a government intent on pursuing "austerity" and renewing Trident (both which they have been campaigning vociferously against in North Britain)? It must be doubted. The best that can be hoped for Labour is that they will abstain. The Daily Mail report that Ms Sturgeon has said Miliband will not get a budget through the House of Commons unless "he compromises".Pulpstar said:Not if it means the speech failing to get through. Which it probably will, so they won't abstain.
0 -
I didn't watch Clegg either. Better half dismissed him as an "irrelevance"Floater said:
My wife watched Cameron and Milliband but turned off when it was Clegg's turn.Bob__Sykes said:Cameron lost out big time on QT last night. Not to Miliband or Clegg, but to the luck of the draw - he ended up battling Emmerdale on the other side, whereas the other two did not have the same competition. Whilst I doubt the programme will have rated that highly overall, perhaps 4m averaged over the 90 minutes, I reckon Clegg's section will easily have been the most watched. It would be fascinating to see if the "breakdown" of viewing gets reported today.
At least with a proper debate over 90 mins or 2 hours, viewers get to see a bit of everyone in the bit they choose to view. But then, it's karma for Cameron because he was the one who insisted on the sequence of debates we ended up with.
I thought he did the best of the three, but continues to frustrate with his evasiveness and inability to actually confront the guff he gets confronted with on, eg, food banks, bedroom tax. I am beginning to think that as well as being lazy, he's actually not that bright.
But I guess he's history anyway in a week, sadly.
I bet she was far from the only one.0 -
Sean is not too bright, the SNP are not looking for special treatment , rather the correct treatment for Scotland. Much of this would be of benefit to his chosen audience. Lots of blinkered thinking from down south , miss the real point of what the SNP are really about due to being fixated that it is against the English when it patently is not at all.SouthamObserver said:
I disagree that the SNP will only support Labour legislation in return for increased spending in Scotland at England's expense. I do not see what the SNP gains by, say, voting with the Tories to not end the Bedroom tax or to prevent an increase in the top rate of tax etc. And for the reasons you outline I just do not see what Labour gets from a deal with the SNP.SeanT said:
Because northerners and Taffs and Brummies would see (correctly or not) Scots getting special treatment and more money cause of the Nats "deal" with Labour. And this despite Scots being richer per capita than, say, Geordies.SouthamObserver said:
Why would white working class Labour voters in England stop voting Labour because the SNP supports certain pieces of legislation put forward by a minority Labour government? Presumably they vote Labour because they want a Labour government.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Palmer, do you not think that would have a seriously negative long-term impact against Labour in England? UKIP could clean up your WWC voters, getting many seats themselves and letting the Conservatives in through the middle elsewhere.
If Scotland crushes Labour, and England rejects Labour, and Labour's leader becomes PM, that won't go down well.
This would
1. Infuriate the WWC of England (and rightly so)
2. Make the WWC see the benefits of not voting Labour0 -
Just watched the Farage Q&A
He is simply in a different league to the others when it comes to dealing with ordinary people0 -
If the SNP vote with the Tories against Labour policies they have to go back and explain to Scottish voters why they did that. "Because we didn't get more money" or "Because Miliband was rude" might convince a lot of their voters, but will it convince enough?SouthamObserver said:
I disagree that the SNP will only support Labour legislation in return for increased spending in Scotland at England's expense. I do not see what the SNP gains by, say, voting with the Tories to not end the Bedroom tax or to prevent an increase in the top rate of tax etc. And for the reasons you outline I just do not see what Labour gets from a deal with the SNP.SeanT said:
Because northerners and Taffs and Brummies would see (correctly or not) Scots getting special treatment and more money cause of the Nats "deal" with Labour. And this despite Scots being richer per capita than, say, Geordies.SouthamObserver said:
Why would white working class Labour voters in England stop voting Labour because the SNP supports certain pieces of legislation put forward by a minority Labour government? Presumably they vote Labour because they want a Labour government.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Palmer, do you not think that would have a seriously negative long-term impact against Labour in England? UKIP could clean up your WWC voters, getting many seats themselves and letting the Conservatives in through the middle elsewhere.
If Scotland crushes Labour, and England rejects Labour, and Labour's leader becomes PM, that won't go down well.
This would
1. Infuriate the WWC of England (and rightly so)
2. Make the WWC see the benefits of not voting Labour
I don't think Miliband has to make any concessions to the SNP, because if they don't support him they are supporting the Tories by proxy.0 -
Populus Con 33%, Lab 33%, UKIP 15%, Lib Dem 8%, Green 4%.
I'd say that's a significant shift.0 -
Dair's tactics sound entirely plausible. They get Ed in as PM then kill his program if they don't like it by amendments.OblitusSumMe said:
If the SNP vote with the Tories against Labour policies they have to go back and explain to Scottish voters why they did that. "Because we didn't get more money" or "Because Miliband was rude" might convince a lot of their voters, but will it convince enough?SouthamObserver said:
I disagree that the SNP will only support Labour legislation in return for increased spending in Scotland at England's expense. I do not see what the SNP gains by, say, voting with the Tories to not end the Bedroom tax or to prevent an increase in the top rate of tax etc. And for the reasons you outline I just do not see what Labour gets from a deal with the SNP.SeanT said:
Because northerners and Taffs and Brummies would see (correctly or not) Scots getting special treatment and more money cause of the Nats "deal" with Labour. And this despite Scots being richer per capita than, say, Geordies.SouthamObserver said:
Why would white working class Labour voters in England stop voting Labour because the SNP supports certain pieces of legislation put forward by a minority Labour government? Presumably they vote Labour because they want a Labour government.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Palmer, do you not think that would have a seriously negative long-term impact against Labour in England? UKIP could clean up your WWC voters, getting many seats themselves and letting the Conservatives in through the middle elsewhere.
If Scotland crushes Labour, and England rejects Labour, and Labour's leader becomes PM, that won't go down well.
This would
1. Infuriate the WWC of England (and rightly so)
2. Make the WWC see the benefits of not voting Labour
I don't think Miliband has to make any concessions to the SNP, because if they don't support him they are supporting the Tories by proxy.
I'd add some filibustering in there too. He's not going to pass jackshit if he doesn't *talk* to them. He'll be PM, but that's all.0 -
The difference is Hammy thinks they are stupid , whereas they will play Labour for Holyrood 2016 and twist the knife at every turn. Labour cutting Scottish budgets will go down a treat.SouthamObserver said:
I agree. At least for a year or so. If the SNP immediately brings down a Labour government or prevents it from introducing what might be considered "progressive" policies with UK-wide effect, then it is going to create problems for itself in Scotland. Most Scots, even a large number of Yes voters, are not dyed in the wool nationalists who want independence at any price.hamiltonace said:
Can we really see the SNP taking down a Labour minority government a year before the next Scottish election? Ed Milliband will not do a deal with the SNP as he does not need to do one.SouthamObserver said:
Which means the SNP voting with the Tories to bring down a Labour government. Alternatively, if the SNP abstains, Labour could do a deal with other parties - unless the Tories have a majority if the SNP votes are excluded.Life_ina_market_town said:
Will the SNP really vote to express confidence in a government intent on pursuing "austerity" and renewing Trident (both which they have been campaigning vociferously against in North Britain)? It must be doubted. The best that can be hoped for Labour is that they will abstain. The Daily Mail report that Ms Sturgeon has said Miliband will not get a budget through the House of Commons unless "he compromises".Pulpstar said:Not if it means the speech failing to get through. Which it probably will, so they won't abstain.
0 -
One interesting wrinkle might be if the SNP vote to bring down a Tory minority govt Queen's speech which had lots of goodies for Scotland.....that could be hung around their necks for decades......'more interested in Socialism than Scotland'.......SouthamObserver said:
I agree. At least for a year or so. If the SNP immediately brings down a Labour government or prevents it from introducing what might be considered "progressive" policies with UK-wide effect, then it is going to create problems for itself in Scotland. Most Scots, even a large number of Yes voters, are not dyed in the wool nationalists who want independence at any price.hamiltonace said:
Can we really see the SNP taking down a Labour minority government a year before the next Scottish election? Ed Milliband will not do a deal with the SNP as he does not need to do one.SouthamObserver said:
Which means the SNP voting with the Tories to bring down a Labour government. Alternatively, if the SNP abstains, Labour could do a deal with other parties - unless the Tories have a majority if the SNP votes are excluded.Life_ina_market_town said:
Will the SNP really vote to express confidence in a government intent on pursuing "austerity" and renewing Trident (both which they have been campaigning vociferously against in North Britain)? It must be doubted. The best that can be hoped for Labour is that they will abstain. The Daily Mail report that Ms Sturgeon has said Miliband will not get a budget through the House of Commons unless "he compromises".Pulpstar said:Not if it means the speech failing to get through. Which it probably will, so they won't abstain.
0 -
This Ukip under over betting is reminding me of la liga 07/08
In the winter Break I made Real Madrid 8/11 to win it and the bookies were 2/1... Stan James went 9/4 and I remortgaged for 5k to get it on... Spent about three months worried I had worked it all out wrong, but they pissed up
Hoping for a similar outcome here... The prices seem mad, literally mad0 -
@PopulusPolls: Latest Populus VI: Lab 33 (-3), Con 33 (-), LD 9 (+1), UKIP 15 (+1), Greens 4 (-1), Others 5 (+1). Tables here: http://t.co/ZeWSdn59sI0
-
We're allllriiightttt.TheScreamingEagles said:@PopulusPolls: Latest Populus VI: Lab 33 (-3), Con 33 (-), LD 9 (+1), UKIP 15 (+1), Greens 4 (-1), Others 5 (+1). Tables here: http://t.co/ZeWSdn59sI
0 -
What looks like 'correct' treatment in Scotland may easily look like 'special' treatment in England......malcolmg said:
the SNP are not looking for special treatment , rather the correct treatment for Scotland.SouthamObserver said:
I disagree that the SNP will only support Labour legislation in return for increased spending in Scotland at England's expense. I do not see what the SNP gains by, say, voting with the Tories to not end the Bedroom tax or to prevent an increase in the top rate of tax etc. And for the reasons you outline I just do not see what Labour gets from a deal with the SNP.SeanT said:
Because northerners and Taffs and Brummies would see (correctly or not) Scots getting special treatment and more money cause of the Nats "deal" with Labour. And this despite Scots being richer per capita than, say, Geordies.SouthamObserver said:
Why would white working class Labour voters in England stop voting Labour because the SNP supports certain pieces of legislation put forward by a minority Labour government? Presumably they vote Labour because they want a Labour government.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Palmer, do you not think that would have a seriously negative long-term impact against Labour in England? UKIP could clean up your WWC voters, getting many seats themselves and letting the Conservatives in through the middle elsewhere.
If Scotland crushes Labour, and England rejects Labour, and Labour's leader becomes PM, that won't go down well.
This would
1. Infuriate the WWC of England (and rightly so)
2. Make the WWC see the benefits of not voting Labour0 -
If the SNP abstain and don't vote with Labour on their key legislative programme, then bill after bill can be brought down by the Tories alone. Particularly if Lab+LD+SDLP+Green+PC < Tory.SouthamObserver said:
I agree. At least for a year or so. If the SNP immediately brings down a Labour government or prevents it from introducing what might be considered "progressive" policies with UK-wide effect, then it is going to create problems for itself in Scotland. Most Scots, even a large number of Yes voters, are not dyed in the wool nationalists who want independence at any price.hamiltonace said:
Can we really see the SNP taking down a Labour minority government a year before the next Scottish election? Ed Milliband will not do a deal with the SNP as he does not need to do one.SouthamObserver said:
Which means the SNP voting with the Tories to bring down a Labour government. Alternatively, if the SNP abstains, Labour could do a deal with other parties - unless the Tories have a majority if the SNP votes are excluded.Life_ina_market_town said:
Will the SNP really vote to express confidence in a government intent on pursuing "austerity" and renewing Trident (both which they have been campaigning vociferously against in North Britain)? It must be doubted. The best that can be hoped for Labour is that they will abstain. The Daily Mail report that Ms Sturgeon has said Miliband will not get a budget through the House of Commons unless "he compromises".Pulpstar said:Not if it means the speech failing to get through. Which it probably will, so they won't abstain.
0 -
It was his persistently appearing to be playing pocket billiards that irritated me. Both C’s used both hands to make points. M had his left hand in his pocket much the time which just looks casual.notme said:
I thought he was quite poor last night, he was given a fairly difficult time by the audience. His claim that any coalition he did enter, wouldnt involve him compromising on his manifesto is just ludicrous. How on earth could he enter a coalition without compromising with the partners of that coalition? What would be the point for the junior partner?SeanT said:Miliband has made a bad situation worse with this No Deal No Way OK I'll Do A Deal nonsense. It gives the impression he's taking us for fools, and it's handed his opponents several enormous sticks with which to bash him, if and when he does his "deal".
His biggest mistake of the campaign so far.0 -
The latest result from each pollster:-
Ashcroft Con +6%,
Ipsos Mori Con +5%,
Survation Con +3%,
BMG Con +3%,
ICM Con +3%,
TNS Con +1%,
Opinium Con +1%
ComRes Tie
Populus Tie
Yougov Lab 1%
Panelbase Lab 2%.
Average Conservative lead 1.7%.
0 -
The three Amigos are incapable of speaking to a normal person. Farage certainly comes across well speaking to real people, while the others need invited only audiences and scripted meetings. All three sound like fake lying oil snake salesmen.isam said:Just watched the Farage Q&A
He is simply in a different league to the others when it comes to dealing with ordinary people0 -
Yep, I agree. There is a largeish minority in Scotland that would take independence at any price and they would be happy with the SNP paralysing a Labour government. But that leaves the rest, including a fair few Yes voters, who probably wouldn't (or who might but for very different reasons).OblitusSumMe said:
If the SNP vote with the Tories against Labour policies they have to go back and explain to Scottish voters why they did that. "Because we didn't get more money" or "Because Miliband was rude" might convince a lot of their voters, but will it convince enough?SouthamObserver said:
I disagree that the SNP will only support Labour legislation in return for increased spending in Scotland at England's expense. I do not see what the SNP gains by, say, voting with the Tories to not end the Bedroom tax or to prevent an increase in the top rate of tax etc. And for the reasons you outline I just do not see what Labour gets from a deal with the SNP.SeanT said:
Because northerners and Taffs and Brummies would see (correctly or not) Scots getting special treatment and more money cause of the Nats "deal" with Labour. And this despite Scots being richer per capita than, say, Geordies.SouthamObserver said:
Why would white working class Labour voters in England stop voting Labour because the SNP supports certain pieces of legislation put forward by a minority Labour government? Presumably they vote Labour because they want a Labour government.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Palmer, do you not think that would have a seriously negative long-term impact against Labour in England? UKIP could clean up your WWC voters, getting many seats themselves and letting the Conservatives in through the middle elsewhere.
If Scotland crushes Labour, and England rejects Labour, and Labour's leader becomes PM, that won't go down well.
This would
1. Infuriate the WWC of England (and rightly so)
2. Make the WWC see the benefits of not voting Labour
I don't think Miliband has to make any concessions to the SNP, because if they don't support him they are supporting the Tories by proxy.
For me, the key score to look for after next Thursday is the Labour plus LD total. If that is more than the Tory one, then the SNP have very limited scope for mischief making - unless they are happy to be seen to vote with or to aid the Tories.
0 -
Rubbish, the only way they would vote with the Tories was if it was in Scotland's interests. They are not fixated against the Tories per see , like the Scottish people, it is their policies and where they are beneficial for Scotland both SNP and Scottish people would be happy with it.OblitusSumMe said:
If the SNP vote with the Tories against Labour policies they have to go back and explain to Scottish voters why they did that. "Because we didn't get more money" or "Because Miliband was rude" might convince a lot of their voters, but will it convince enough?SouthamObserver said:
I disagree that the SNP will only support Labour legislation in return for increased spending in Scotland at England's expense. I do not see what the SNP gains by, say, voting with the Tories to not end the Bedroom tax or to prevent an increase in the top rate of tax etc. And for the reasons you outline I just do not see what Labour gets from a deal with the SNP.SeanT said:
Because northerners and Taffs and Brummies would see (correctly or not) Scots getting special treatment and more money cause of the Nats "deal" with Labour. And this despite Scots being richer per capita than, say, Geordies.SouthamObserver said:
Why would white working class Labour voters in England stop voting Labour because the SNP supports certain pieces of legislation put forward by a minority Labour government? Presumably they vote Labour because they want a Labour government.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Palmer, do you not think that would have a seriously negative long-term impact against Labour in England? UKIP could clean up your WWC voters, getting many seats themselves and letting the Conservatives in through the middle elsewhere.
If Scotland crushes Labour, and England rejects Labour, and Labour's leader becomes PM, that won't go down well.
This would
1. Infuriate the WWC of England (and rightly so)
2. Make the WWC see the benefits of not voting Labour
I don't think Miliband has to make any concessions to the SNP, because if they don't support him they are supporting the Tories by proxy.0 -
TheScreamingEagles said:
@PopulusPolls: Latest Populus VI: Lab 33 (-3), Con 33 (-), LD 9 (+1), UKIP 15 (+1), Greens 4 (-1), Others 5 (+1). Tables here: http://t.co/ZeWSdn59sI
Can we have a new thread please! - a man can only take so much flirting between Mr G and Ms Vance...!
0 -
Happy international workers’ day!
"And then comrades come rally and the last fight let us face, the internationale unites the human race!"
I'm off to enjoy the festivities for the day with a nice lunch and some heart rending renditions of the workers' anthem.0 -
SPUD
The best means of telling the direction of the political wind
This week (13 polls from 11 pollsters)
CON +10
Lab -7
UKIP NC
LD -2
GREEN +4
All time (30 polls from 11 pollsters)
CON +2
LAB -20
UKIP +8
LD -1
GREEN +5
tirer vos propres conclusions
0 -
Chris Skidmore up against a classy opponent in Kingswood.
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Labour-candidate-Kingswood-issues-apology/story-26424317-detail/story.html0 -
Dr. Spyn, he's scared in case a Loiner shows up and terrifies him with more questions 0
-
Kingswood being tipped up at 3-1 here a couple of years back was one of the bets of the election.dr_spyn said:Christ Skidmore up against a classy opponent in Kingswood.
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Labour-candidate-Kingswood-issues-apology/story-26424317-detail/story.html0 -
As long as the fixation exists we appear to be taking half-steps towards a Tory majority/workable minoritymalcolmg said:
Sean is not too bright, the SNP are not looking for special treatment , rather the correct treatment for Scotland. Much of this would be of benefit to his chosen audience. Lots of blinkered thinking from down south , miss the real point of what the SNP are really about due to being fixated that it is against the English when it patently is not at all.SouthamObserver said:
I disagree that the SNP will only support Labour legislation in return for increased spending in Scotland at England's expense. I do not see what the SNP gains by, say, voting with the Tories to not end the Bedroom tax or to prevent an increase in the top rate of tax etc. And for the reasons you outline I just do not see what Labour gets from a deal with the SNP.SeanT said:
Because northerners and Taffs and Brummies would see (correctly or not) Scots getting special treatment and more money cause of the Nats "deal" with Labour. And this despite Scots being richer per capita than, say, Geordies.SouthamObserver said:
Why would white working class Labour voters in England stop voting Labour because the SNP supports certain pieces of legislation put forward by a minority Labour government? Presumably they vote Labour because they want a Labour government.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Palmer, do you not think that would have a seriously negative long-term impact against Labour in England? UKIP could clean up your WWC voters, getting many seats themselves and letting the Conservatives in through the middle elsewhere.
If Scotland crushes Labour, and England rejects Labour, and Labour's leader becomes PM, that won't go down well.
This would
1. Infuriate the WWC of England (and rightly so)
2. Make the WWC see the benefits of not voting Labour0 -
Yes that's the key to it, once the SNP get Miliband into No 10 he is utterly screwed. He is the fluffy toy to the SNP's cat.Pulpstar said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the Queens' speech and the budget are two different things ?Life_ina_market_town said:
Will the SNP really vote to express confidence in a government intent on pursuing "austerity" and renewing Trident (both which they have been campaigning vociferously against in North Britain)? It must be doubted. The best that can be hoped for Labour is that they will abstain. The Daily Mail report that Ms Sturgeon has said Miliband will not get a budget through the House of Commons unless "he compromises".Pulpstar said:Not if it means the speech failing to get through. Which it probably will, so they won't abstain.
Once Ed is in, the FTPA keeps him in. He'd have to bring himself down by recommending a vote of No Confidence to his own party !
I'm just saying Ed gets there. I make no firm predictions about his miserable life once there.0 -
4.3m/21.1% watched Question Time last night0
-
Another example of David Cameron's maxim about Twitter being proved right.dr_spyn said:Christ Skidmore up against a classy opponent in Kingswood.
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Labour-candidate-Kingswood-issues-apology/story-26424317-detail/story.html
He truly is a seer.0 -
SNP are not as stupid and blinkered as you thoughCarlottaVance said:
One interesting wrinkle might be if the SNP vote to bring down a Tory minority govt Queen's speech which had lots of goodies for Scotland.....that could be hung around their necks for decades......'more interested in Socialism than Scotland'.......SouthamObserver said:
I agree. At least for a year or so. If the SNP immediately brings down a Labour government or prevents it from introducing what might be considered "progressive" policies with UK-wide effect, then it is going to create problems for itself in Scotland. Most Scots, even a large number of Yes voters, are not dyed in the wool nationalists who want independence at any price.hamiltonace said:
Can we really see the SNP taking down a Labour minority government a year before the next Scottish election? Ed Milliband will not do a deal with the SNP as he does not need to do one.SouthamObserver said:
Which means the SNP voting with the Tories to bring down a Labour government. Alternatively, if the SNP abstains, Labour could do a deal with other parties - unless the Tories have a majority if the SNP votes are excluded.Life_ina_market_town said:
Will the SNP really vote to express confidence in a government intent on pursuing "austerity" and renewing Trident (both which they have been campaigning vociferously against in North Britain)? It must be doubted. The best that can be hoped for Labour is that they will abstain. The Daily Mail report that Ms Sturgeon has said Miliband will not get a budget through the House of Commons unless "he compromises".Pulpstar said:Not if it means the speech failing to get through. Which it probably will, so they won't abstain.
0 -
They will make his life a nightmare, of that I have no doubt, but they will have 59 MPs at most, and for some of his program Miliband will have acquiescence, if not support, from the Tories.Pulpstar said:
Dair's tactics sound entirely plausible. They get Ed in as PM then kill his program if they don't like it by amendments.OblitusSumMe said:
If the SNP vote with the Tories against Labour policies they have to go back and explain to Scottish voters why they did that. "Because we didn't get more money" or "Because Miliband was rude" might convince a lot of their voters, but will it convince enough?SouthamObserver said:
I disagree that the SNP will only support Labour legislation in return for increased spending in Scotland at England's expense. I do not see what the SNP gains by, say, voting with the Tories to not end the Bedroom tax or to prevent an increase in the top rate of tax etc. And for the reasons you outline I just do not see what Labour gets from a deal with the SNP.SeanT said:Because northerners and Taffs and Brummies would see (correctly or not) Scots getting special treatment and more money cause of the Nats "deal" with Labour. And this despite Scots being richer per capita than, say, Geordies.
This would
1. Infuriate the WWC of England (and rightly so)
2. Make the WWC see the benefits of not voting Labour
I don't think Miliband has to make any concessions to the SNP, because if they don't support him they are supporting the Tories by proxy.
I'd add some filibustering in there too. He's not going to pass jackshit if he doesn't *talk* to them. He'll be PM, but that's all.
Like @SouthamObserver says, when it comes down to a vote, will the SNP vote against ending the bedroom tax, or against increasing the additional rate of income tax to 50%?
There's bollocks all concessions they can extract for their support on measures like that because they'd never be able to defend voting with the Tories to kill them to their new voters in the central belt. Even consider some of their new MPs. Can you imagine Mhairi Black's response if Salmond were to tell her to go through the division lobby with Tories to vote against a 50p tax?
Sure they might have some amendment on reducing the threshold, or applying the rate to capital gains, but that will mostly be theatre so they can differentiate themselves from Labour. The amendments would be defeated because there's not going to be anything to bring the Tories and the SNP to vote on anything together - until they are both ready for another election (which for the SNP would not be until after Holyrood).0 -
Chris Skidmore looks as if he's heading for a comfortable win.TheScreamingEagles said:
Another example of David Cameron's maxim about Twitter being proved right.dr_spyn said:Christ Skidmore up against a classy opponent in Kingswood.
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Labour-candidate-Kingswood-issues-apology/story-26424317-detail/story.html
He truly is a seer.0 -
Mr. Dair, indeed. He'll try and claim the crown, but the SNP will put him in a gimp mask.0
-
Interesting sub samples, strong tory lead amongst women, labour ahead with men. Isn't it usually the other way around ?TheScreamingEagles said:@PopulusPolls: Latest Populus VI: Lab 33 (-3), Con 33 (-), LD 9 (+1), UKIP 15 (+1), Greens 4 (-1), Others 5 (+1). Tables here: http://t.co/ZeWSdn59sI
Otherwise more herding around 33% each for the big two0 -
So essentially, if you vote UKIP you get Labour, and if you vote Labour you get the SNP.
Tories need to hammer this home.0 -
@NCPoliticsUK: Seems there's been a slight methodology change from Populus - they now use a "spiral of silence" adjustment (impact is minor in this poll)0
-
SNP cannot be blamed for greed in EnglandCarlottaVance said:
What looks like 'correct' treatment in Scotland may easily look like 'special' treatment in England......malcolmg said:
the SNP are not looking for special treatment , rather the correct treatment for Scotland.SouthamObserver said:
I disagree that the SNP will only support Labour legislation in return for increased spending in Scotland at England's expense. I do not see what the SNP gains by, say, voting with the Tories to not end the Bedroom tax or to prevent an increase in the top rate of tax etc. And for the reasons you outline I just do not see what Labour gets from a deal with the SNP.SeanT said:
Because northerners and Taffs and Brummies would see (correctly or not) Scots getting special treatment and more money cause of the Nats "deal" with Labour. And this despite Scots being richer per capita than, say, Geordies.SouthamObserver said:
Why would white working class Labour voters in England stop voting Labour because the SNP supports certain pieces of legislation put forward by a minority Labour government? Presumably they vote Labour because they want a Labour government.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Palmer, do you not think that would have a seriously negative long-term impact against Labour in England? UKIP could clean up your WWC voters, getting many seats themselves and letting the Conservatives in through the middle elsewhere.
If Scotland crushes Labour, and England rejects Labour, and Labour's leader becomes PM, that won't go down well.
This would
1. Infuriate the WWC of England (and rightly so)
2. Make the WWC see the benefits of not voting Labour0
