politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » ICM phone poll naming Clegg has him holding Sheffield Halla

Dair said:

SouthamObserver said:

Carnyx said:

Roger said:

The Nats don't look good. Their thuggish behaviour should help get the tactical voters out in the secret of the polling booths.

The Scots have always been the most thoughtful of the four nations but for some reason they think their nationalism is different and more attractive than other forms of nationalism when everyone can see it's just the same just as chauvinistic and just as ugly.

It's the Labour party or elements in it which have been organising the behaviour seen today - see previous thread. Who and why remain to be seen, but at least two newspapers' journos have picked up on the issue at least on Twitter.

That's simply untrue:

https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/595285375372890113

Lol desperate stuff from McDougall.

Are you saying he has made it up? Presumably the individuals concerned will be demanding apologies, at the very least. The bald bloke is apparently the charming Piers Doughty Brown:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11529177/The-bullying-behind-the-SNPs-smiles.html

I do love progressive, positive, friendly, inclusive civic nationalism. It's so unlike other nationalisms. .

I am not too surprised at this poll. Personally, I'd vote tactically for the LibDems only in two cases: Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander.

The_Apocalypse said:

AndyJS said:

antifrank said:

The New Statesman seems to think that Labour think that they're losing.

The Sunday Times reported that Labour privately expects to come "5 to 10 seats" behind the Tories. Obviously that means they also expect to lose the popular vote.

P.S Dan Hodges....I think he should wait until Thursday night before there's egg on his face.

A bit late for him to be worrying about that.

AndyJS said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/595278477751951360

Hodges delivers the kiss of death to Clegg, Labour can rest easy in their beds tonight !!

Roger said:

Carnyx

"It's the Labour party or elements in it which have been organising the behaviour seen today - see previous thread."

We've just seen it on TV. We've just seen the thugs interviewed. Why peddle such nonsense?

Because it is an inconvenient truth. Rather like the price of oil and the huge gaps in Scotland's finances, hidden by the way wealth is redistributed across the UK (just as it should be, of course).

Natalie Bennett! (related to Gordon perhaps?)

She's droning on again on a debate on London Live - a channel I didn't even know I had until just now. Clobbered by Mark Reckless is never good.

kle4 said:

The_Apocalypse said:

AndyJS said:

antifrank said:

The New Statesman seems to think that Labour think that they're losing.

The Sunday Times reported that Labour privately expects to come "5 to 10 seats" behind the Tories. Obviously that means they also expect to lose the popular vote.

P.S Dan Hodges....I think he should wait until Thursday night before there's egg on his face.

A bit late for him to be worrying about that.

I wonder if he'll feel vindicated by Friday morning? While the Tories' will have the most seats, it's unlikely they'll have a majority with LDs even if (and it's quite a big one) if such an arrangement gets LD approval. In that scenario, we are probably going to get a second election sooner or later, and Hodges will have to test his prediction again...

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Bow Group, one of the oldest Tory groups has urged Tories to vote tactically for UKIP in seats where the Tories aren't in contention.

I'm glad I'm part of the Tory Reform Group (and signed up to the No Turning Back Group)

You really can't do sums can you ?

If the kippers take northern seats from Labour where the Tories haven't a hope in hell of winning then Ed is toast.Makes sense

It's not even as if Cameron gives a shit about the Northern cities.

The plans for the Northern Powerhouses say otherwise.

I'm not a fan of the Kippers. They'll be like an STD. Very hard to shift once they get a seat.

It's a plan, they haven't actually done much. Other plans include reducing the deficit, rebalancing the economy and building a high speed rail system. Where once again it's all talk no action.

Make up your mind, is Ed the scariest thing ever or is it you just can't bear to work with people you don't like to keep him out ?

I could never vote for UKIP.

So I'm letting my bias show.

I mean if I wanted to vote tactically for narrow little nationalists I'd move to Scotland or Norn Iron.

Or for a Cameroon like yourself the South East of England

Polls still suggesting the anti-Tory parties will get about 320 MPs. Hard to see Cameron surviving on those numbers.

Will the Blairite 5th column come to his rescue?

Dair said:

ThomasNashe said:

Dair said:

SouthamObserver said:

Carnyx said:

Roger said:

The Nats don't look good. Their thuggish behaviour should help get the tactical voters out in the secret of the polling booths.

The Scots have always been the most thoughtful of the four nations but for some reason they think their nationalism is different and more attractive than other forms of nationalism when everyone can see it's just the same just as chauvinistic and just as ugly.

It's the Labour party or elements in it which have been organising the behaviour seen today - see previous thread. Who and why remain to be seen, but at least two newspapers' journos have picked up on the issue at least on Twitter.

That's simply untrue:

https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/595285375372890113

Lol desperate stuff from McDougall.

Really? It looks persuasive to me?

How hard do you think it is to get your photograph taken with Alex Salmond or Nicola Sturgeon.

Here's Blair McDougall, Jim Murphy's campaign chief.

https://twitter.com/NeilHHDiamond/status/595285947320786944

Unlike the pics with Salmond and Sturgeon, that pic is not something completely outside Blair McDougall's control. He's there by choice.

Piers Doughty Brown is an SNP activist. So, clearly, is the bloke with the megaphone. They are both nationalist thugs. The bloke attacking Murphy seems to be rather fond of Alec Salmond. The idea, propagated by you and other nationalists on here, that they are in cahoots with Labour is risible.

If you're ignoring the candidate and just voting for a party, why have candidates at all? This isn't tactical voting, it's just voting for who you want to represent you. Good MPs rightly earn a personal vote.

O/T:

Some fool is going through the Scottish pages on UKPR predicting that Labour will hold most of their seats:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/motherwellandwishaw/#comments

FB Depends if the Tories are largest party and Tories + LD +DUP + maybe UKIP = 326 or more Cameron almost certainly stays PM

surbiton said:

AndyJS said:

Pulpstar said:

AndyJS said:

antifrank said:

The New Statesman seems to think that Labour think that they're losing.

The Sunday Times reported that Labour privately expects to come "5 to 10 seats" behind the Tories. Obviously that means they also expect to lose the popular vote.

10 seats behind the Tories means that basically they've won, unless the Nats massively underperform and Lib Dems outperform.

Belfast South could get into the mix at the margins too.

If Labour loses both on seats and votes I just don't see a Labour government being viable. And many Labour MPs probably think the same.

Part of EICIPM is based on Labour loses both on seats and votes.

I thought that was the whole point of EICIPM. Labour wins seats and votes is EIGIPM and nobodies calling that!

SouthamObserver said:

Dair said:

How hard do you think it is to get your photograph taken with Alex Salmond or Nicola Sturgeon.

Here's Blair McDougall, Jim Murphy's campaign chief.

https://twitter.com/NeilHHDiamond/status/595285947320786944

Unlike the pics with Salmond and Sturgeon, that pic is not something completely outside Blair McDougall's control. He's there by choice.

Piers Doughty Brown is an SNP activist. So, clearly, is the bloke with the megaphone. They are both nationalist thugs. The bloke attacking Murphy seems to be rather fond of Alec Salmond. The idea, propagated by you and other nationalists on here, that they are in cahoots with Labour is risible.

Post evidence of : -

1. That Doughty Brown is a member of the SNP.
2. That any thuggish behaviour has been perpetrated by Doughty Brown or the megaphone guy.

Protesting against war criminals is still legal in this country. As is protesting against the dying husk of Scottish Labour. It is not a crime in any way and nothing Doughty Brown or megaphone guy or Scottish Resistance guy have done is wrong.

I never said they were in cahoots with Labour. I said and they have stated, it is East Renfrewshire PLC who is telling them where Murphy will be.

Dair said:

SouthamObserver said:

Are you saying he has made it up? Presumably the individuals concerned will be demanding apologies, at the very least. The bald bloke is apparently the charming Piers Doughty Brown:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11529177/The-bullying-behind-the-SNPs-smiles.html

I do love progressive, positive, friendly, inclusive civic nationalism. It's so unlike other nationalisms. .

No, I'm saying its desperate stuff.

Only Clerkin's behaviour is worthy of any criticism.

We live in a democracy where you have a right to protest against people like Murphy and they do not have free reign to spout their lies without challenge. Pictures of three people taken in connection with the SNP just show that the three have had pictures taken in connection with the SNP. It's irrelevant. None of those three have done ANYTHING wrong or unacceptable.

Good luck to them all in Scotland but I did have to laugh at Eddie Izzard (and not in the way I have done many times when seeing him on stage), when, upon being told that the protesters included anarchists, he countered, winningly, if a bit desperately: but it's democracy.

Um no, they are anarchists.

Dadge said:

I've put my money on there being another ConDemNation government, but the discussion in this thread is interesting and important. It would seem a bit odd, the LibDems switching horses after May 7th, since they've achieved a seemingly excellent working relationship with the Tories for 5 years, but in theory they are supposed to be politically equidistant between Con and Lab, and many of their supporters have always considered themselves centre-left. Of course the latter are those voters who have deserted them now, and if the LibDems get back into bed with the Tories they'll probably be lost for ever.....

I'd question that the remaining LDs are 'right-leaning' - going on that, it seems very odd that both the The Guardian and The Times have reported on series LD reluctance - within all levels of the party - at renewing the coalition for a second time. I'd say their grassroots base, and most of their MPs are still pretty centre-left. The Orange Booker gang, of Clegg, Laws and Alexander are the exception to rule within the LDs, even now. I think the trouble with the LDs, is that there only option is to really try to return to being a centre-left party. They have tried, in these last five years to position themselves towards the centre of British politics, with a differentiation strategy employed to give the LDs some kind of identity to voters, and that has failed. They have lost members, councilors, and popular support in the polls in large numbers - and are set to lose MPs by the same scale, too.

As for the LDs moving to the centre-right - that seems fairly impossible, if they want to be successful. It seems as though UKIP have successfully occupied the ground as a second centre-right party, and it certainly doesn't seem that the LDs could be electorally successful from the centre-right as a pro-EU party, who is fairly liberal on crime and immigration, as well as socially liberal. Much that ground is occupied by other parties - pro-EU by left of centre-parties', social liberalism by other centre-left, and indeed also partly by Cameron's Conservatives. Arguably, if you're looking for a socially liberal but economically centre-right party, that is what Cameron has attempted to morph his party into.

I think the best option for the LDs, is opposition - although a LD-Lab coalition may go someway to restoring their old reputation, and with Farron as LD leader rather than Clegg, I can't see LD influence being too limited. But the LDs desperately need to re-establish themselves as a credible force, because many voters don't know what they exactly stand for these days.

Neil said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I am not too surprised at this poll. Personally, I'd vote tactically for the LibDems only in two cases: Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander.

Harsh on Steve Webb!

I'd add him to the list if he were standing in a Lab/LD contest with the Tories nowhere.

Has he ever done this before?

France's Front National suspends founder Jean-Marie Le Pen over inflammatory remarks

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32585531

Dirty tricks done darn cheap. Pretty repeatable the world over. Labour Oz and Labour UK, not much difference it seems

http://m.adelaidenow.com.au/news/gillard-and-abbott-run-protest-gauntlet/story-e6frea6u-1226254435221

FB Would be a damn sight more stable than Labour on 260 odd seats and about 20-30 behind the Tories + SNP+PC+Green+LD+SDLP+Respect+Lady Hermon

NoEasyDay said:

rcs1000 said:

NoEasyDay said:

rcs1000 said:

NoEasyDay said:

This two stage question is utter nonsense. The second question "and now turning to you own constituency" is the equivalent to saying "right lets see how bright or thick you are, do you know what's going on in your own constituency" of course peeps are going to give a different answer they don't want to appear uninformed. And any one who think naming the MP/candidates is anymore accurate is utterly deluded. Virtually no-one knows the name of their MP and the candidates ROFL.

If that were the case, you would see people change their minds in non LD constituencies. They do not.

Look at every single Ashcroft poll: the significant shift between Q1 and Q2 happens only in LibDem constituencies, and only in some of them. So, in Cambridge, you see the Conservative vote almost halve between Q1 and Q2, and to the LibDems benefit.

Now, you can deride it all you like, as somehow persuading people to change their minds. But if it simply was a reprompt that encouraged people to reappraise, and therefore got a false result, then it would happen in a great many seats. And it does not.

OK so firstly I agree there are exceptions well known figures like Clegg and particularly active MPs. On that I concede.

But they do change their mind in non Lib Dem constituencies, that is the whole theme of this stupid "it's different in the marginals" stuff.

Go on then: give me the URL of the Ashcroft poll which proves your point

give me half an hour I need to take the dog for a walk....

Dear Mr RCS 1000

This URL proves my point and not surprisingly I didn't have to look hard it was the first one I came across. Con - Lab marginals

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/04/more-conservative-labour-marginals/

Two stage question is Boll@cks and sadly reflects the sad little world many on this site live in.

Richard_Nabavi said:

I am not too surprised at this poll. Personally, I'd vote tactically for the LibDems only in two cases: Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander.

I'd vote tactically for Nick Clegg, John Hemming, Lord Thurso, Alistair Carmichael, Danny Alexander, Simon Hughes, and Greg Mulholland.

JackW said:

PBers would do well to assess which constituencies would also likely provide a bounce for notable named candidates and seek some value in those seats.

Broxtowe? :InnocentFace

Dair said:

SouthamObserver said:

Dair said:

SouthamObserver said:

Are you saying he has made it up? Presumably the individuals concerned will be demanding apologies, at the very least. The bald bloke is apparently the charming Piers Doughty Brown:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11529177/The-bullying-behind-the-SNPs-smiles.html

I do love progressive, positive, friendly, inclusive civic nationalism. It's so unlike other nationalisms. .

No, I'm saying its desperate stuff.

Only Clerkin's behaviour is worthy of any criticism.

We live in a democracy where you have a right to protest against people like Murphy and they do not have free reign to spout their lies without challenge. Pictures of three people taken in connection with the SNP just show that the three have had pictures taken in connection with the SNP. It's irrelevant. None of those three have done ANYTHING wrong or unacceptable.

Yes, I am sure you truly believe that. It is what nationalism does to people. Only yesterday you were talking about Labour being slime that needed to be wiped out in Scotland. When you see things that way what happened today in Glasgow is perfectly acceptable. I do understand.

The only thing was that an angry, failing politician went out in St Enoch's Square to yell at passing members of the public and some of those members of the public protested against him.

Nothing bad happened.

I accept you genuinely believe that. I understand that for a fundamentalist such as yourself nothing bad can ever be done in the name of Scottish nationalism.

Why would the lib Dems go into coalition with labour, they lost half or more of their support by goiing with the tories so to get into bed with labour will risk the rest, opposition or join up with the Tories are the only options

Final ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown :

777 minutes

............................................................

The SUPER ARSE eve of poll has been advanced one hour to 9:00pm on Wednesday.

https://twitter.com/Election4castUK/status/595302282729758720

JackW Ashcroft also asked those polled to consider their own constituencies, I would expect the majority of his results to be pretty accurate

AndyJS said:

RobD said:

Just checked with USPS, looks like my postal ballot won't make it in time for polling day, which is a bummer. I should have flown back and cast it in person, or nominated a proxy. Oh well, live and learn.

My brother in Boston, MA didn't receive his postal vote until a few days ago which was a lot later than he was expecting. Had to send it back by the fastest available service to ensure it gets there in time.

Yeah, I didn't use a priority service since I sent it just under a fortnight prior to polling day. Still not enough time apparently.

I've been up to Nottingham and Rushcliffe today. After a couple of hours I turned the radio on and they were talking about the election and I realised I hadn't seen a single election poster or anything. After several hours, still almost nothing. One of the reasons that the need for PR is so urgent is that the country has polarised alarmingly between The Marginals and The Rest. Twenty years ago the whole country showed strong evidence that an election was going on; these days the voters in non-marginals still have The Vote, but that's the limit of their democratic offer.

Here's a SLAB MP with a NF chief.

https://twitter.com/Gux7McGuckin/status/595304177737273344

TheScreamingEagles said:

NoEasyDay said:

FrankBooth said:

Polls still suggesting the anti-Tory parties will get about 320 MPs. Hard to see Cameron surviving on those numbers.

Will the Blairite 5th column come to his rescue?

Your maths is a bit awry old bean. if the anti tories get 320 the then by definition the pro tories get 320 the difference of course being made up of Sinn Fein 10 mps whom I assume would abstain.= a draw
Now that would be funny.

Which 10 Seats are Sinn Fein going to win?

WELL there are the 5 Sinn Fein Mps, The 3 SDLP MPs, an independent and an alliance type.....

I concede

If turnout in Scotland rises by say 10 points from 64 to 74% it would mean the Labour vote won't seem as if it's collapsing in terms of raw numbers because most of the new voters will be voting SNP. Could be a bit confusing on election night if so.

The_Apocalypse said:

Dadge said:

I've put my money on there being another ConDemNation government, but the discussion in this thread is interesting and important. It would seem a bit odd, the LibDems switching horses after May 7th, since they've achieved a seemingly excellent working relationship with the Tories for 5 years, but in theory they are supposed to be politically equidistant between Con and Lab, and many of their supporters have always considered themselves centre-left. Of course the latter are those voters who have deserted them now, and if the LibDems get back into bed with the Tories they'll probably be lost for ever.....

I'd question that the remaining LDs are 'right-leaning' - going on that, it seems very odd that both the The Guardian and The Times have reported on series LD reluctance - within all levels of the party - at renewing the coalition for a second time. I'd say their grassroots base, and most of their MPs are still pretty centre-left. The Orange Booker gang, of Clegg, Laws and Alexander are the exception to rule within the LDs, even now. I think the trouble with the LDs, is that there only option is to really try to return to being a centre-left party. They have tried, in these last five years to position themselves towards the centre of British politics, with a differentiation strategy employed to give the LDs some kind of identity to voters, and that has failed. They have lost members, councilors, and popular support in the polls in large numbers - and are set to lose MPs by the same scale, too.

As for the LDs moving to the centre-right - that seems fairly impossible, if they want to be successful. It seems as though UKIP have successfully occupied the ground as a second centre-right party, and it certainly doesn't seem that the LDs could be electorally successful from the centre-right as a pro-EU party, who is fairly liberal on crime and immigration, as well as socially liberal. Much that ground is occupied by other parties - pro-EU by left of centre-parties', social liberalism by other centre-left, and indeed also partly by Cameron's Conservatives. Arguably, if you're looking for a socially liberal but economically centre-right party, that is what Cameron has attempted to morph his party into.

Of course I agree but as far as voters are concerned it's a matter of perception and how they're seen in practice. The Coalition Agreement was very one-sided (understandably given the balance of the parties) and has given the simple and factual impression that LibDems support Tories.

kle4 said:

AndyJS said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jonathan Trott has retired from international cricket.

Sad but why did he come back for such a short time?

To see if he still had it, obviously. It didn't work out.

He needed to give it a bit more time IMO, provided the selectors gave him a few more matches.

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I am not too surprised at this poll. Personally, I'd vote tactically for the LibDems only in two cases: Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander.

I'd vote tactically for Nick Clegg, John Hemming, Lord Thurso, Alistair Carmichael, Danny Alexander, Simon Hughes, and Greg Mulholland.

Nick Clegg, David Laws and Danny Alexander (only) for me.

Edit: unless it was a choice of them or Labour, in which case Simon Hughes might come into play. Maybe.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/595304265876377600

They want the coalition to be more Large L Liberal ?!

No chance.

Sean

How many seats are you expecting Labour to gain from the Tories?

Staggers (not my usual reading matter), attacking the SNP as anti-progressive:

'With the creation of a single national police force, the routine use of armed response units, a stop and search rate four times higher than the rest of the UK and plans to create an integrated ID database, the SNP has strayed into areas that even Tony Blair’s Home Secretaries backed away from. A new ‘named person’ law will create an army of state employed snoopers with a right to pry into the affairs of every family. The party has also taken a lurch towards democratic centralism with a new gagging rule that obliges its MPs to "accept that no member shall within or outwith the parliament publicly criticise a group decision, policy or another member of the group".'

Well, stap me, as Anthony Aloysius would say.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Eff me the Indy are endorsing the coalition (I think)

Wow, they really do take some minority positions over at the Indy. Bold.

AndyJS said:

If turnout in Scotland rises by say 10 points from 64 to 74% it would mean the Labour vote won't seem as if it's collapsing in terms of raw numbers because most of the new voters will be voting SNP. Could be a bit confusing on election night if so.

Scottish turnout is definitely a bit confusing at to what it means - for instance if it is ~ 80% it could mean a decent night for SLAB somewhat counterintuitively.

Dadge said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Dadge said:

I've put my money on there being another ConDemNation government, but the discussion in this thread is interesting and important. It would seem a bit odd, the LibDems switching horses after May 7th, since they've achieved a seemingly excellent working relationship with the Tories for 5 years, but in theory they are supposed to be politically equidistant between Con and Lab, and many of their supporters have always considered themselves centre-left. Of course the latter are those voters who have deserted them now, and if the LibDems get back into bed with the Tories they'll probably be lost for ever.....

I'd say their grassroots base, and most of their MPs are still pretty centre-left. The Orange Booker gang, of Clegg, Laws and Alexander are the exception to rule within the LDs, even now. I think the trouble with the LDs, is that there only option is to really try to return to being a centre-left party. They have tried, in these last five years to position themselves towards the centre of British politics, with a differentiation strategy employed to give the LDs some kind of identity to voters, and that has failed. They have lost members, councilors, and popular support in the polls in large numbers - and are set to lose MPs by the same scale, too.

As for the LDs moving to the centre-right - that seems fairly impossible, if they want to be successful. It seems as though UKIP have successfully occupied the ground as a second centre-right party, and it certainly doesn't seem that the LDs could be electorally successful from the centre-right as a pro-EU party, who is fairly liberal on crime and immigration, as well as socially liberal. Much that ground is occupied by other parties - pro-EU by left of centre-parties', social liberalism by other centre-left, and indeed also partly by Cameron's Conservatives. Arguably, if you're looking for a socially liberal but economically centre-right party, that is what Cameron has attempted to morph his party into.

Of course I agree but as far as voters are concerned it's a matter of perception and how they're seen in practice. The Coalition Agreement was very one-sided (understandably given the balance of the parties) and has given the simple and factual impression that LibDems support Tories.

Not sure that's true - they got a fair deal, it's just most of their political reform initiatives failed which they'd clearly traded heavily for with the Conservatives:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8619630.stm

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78977/coalition_programme_for_government.pdf

TheScreamingEagles said:

Eff me the Indy are endorsing the coalition (I think)

But we prize strong, effective government, consider nationalism guilty until proven innocent, and say that if the present Coalition is to get another chance, we hope it is much less conservative, and much more liberal.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/in-defence-of-liberal-democracy-10224221.html

Tim Garton Ash made more or less the same sort of point tho' more obliquely in the Groan today. I was surprised they ran it, actually.

surbiton said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Eff me the Indy are endorsing the coalition (I think)

A hung parliament is certain this week. For all his talk of no deals with the SNP, Miliband is bound to rely on that party to get his legislative programme through. This would be a disaster for the country, unleashing justified fury in England at the decisive influence of MPs who – unlike this title – do not wish the Union to exist. If that were to be the case while Labour were the second biggest party either in terms of vote share, or seats – or both – how could Labour govern with authority? They could not. Any partnership between Labour and the SNP will harm Britain’s fragile democracy. For all its faults, another Lib-Con Coalition would both prolong recovery and give our kingdom a better chance of continued existence.

This title casts no vote. But we prize strong, effective government, consider nationalism guilty until proven innocent, and say that if the present Coalition is to get another chance, we hope it is much less conservative, and much more liberal.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/in-defence-of-liberal-democracy-10224221.html

Rentoul is a Blairite and another bitter loser of the Ed v David saga.

It's not a Rentoul article.

Sean_F said:

My prediction:-

Con 282
Lab 266,
Lib Dem 28,
SNP 50,
NI 18,
UKIP 4,
Squeaker 1,
Green 1

Mine - from my blog:

https://royaleleseaux.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/picking-the-players-our-next-government/

Con 289
Lab 259
LD 24
DUP 9
SNP 51
UKIP 3
Others 15

Basically the same, except I gift a further 7 x Con/Lab marginals into the Con column. I'm also slightly more pessimistic about the chances for the LDs.

Ishmael_X said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Eff me the Indy are endorsing the coalition (I think)

A hung parliament is certain this week. For all his talk of no deals with the SNP, Miliband is bound to rely on that party to get his legislative programme through. This would be a disaster for the country, unleashing justified fury in England at the decisive influence of MPs who – unlike this title – do not wish the Union to exist. If that were to be the case while Labour were the second biggest party either in terms of vote share, or seats – or both – how could Labour govern with authority? They could not. Any partnership between Labour and the SNP will harm Britain’s fragile democracy. For all its faults, another Lib-Con Coalition would both prolong recovery and give our kingdom a better chance of continued existence.

This title casts no vote. But we prize strong, effective government, consider nationalism guilty until proven innocent, and say that if the present Coalition is to get another chance, we hope it is much less conservative, and much more liberal.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/in-defence-of-liberal-democracy-10224221.html

Tipping point.

Seriously, it feels like this has been the 48 hours where it slipped away from ed.

There is zero chance of the coalition becoming much less conservative and much more liberal. The ratio of MPs would be more like 10:1 rather than 5:1. I think that change in ratio is the most under-discussed thing about the post-election shenanigans.

Sean_F said:

IOS said:

Sean

How many seats are you expecting Labour to gain from the Tories?

C. 35.

I think you're too pessimistic. I'm in the 25-30 box.

The Indy is making the point I made yesterday, if Labour finish second in terms of seats and votes takes power with the assistance of the SNP would be utterly disastrous for Labour