Undefined discussion subject.

Neil Indeed, will be a crowded field for the GOP

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Neil Yes, he needs to lose some weight again, however if he wins Iowa and SC he has a shot at the nomination

He has to pass over Scott Walker's dead body for Iowa.

The Iowa GOP caucus could be quite something. There could be 12+ candidates. The winner probably on a very low share of the vote. Latest poll has Walker on 21% which is a good lead seeing as there are 14 or so other candidates polled!

Omnium said:

Speedy said:

Anorak said:

I know he can't say much else, but really...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32605147
Prime Minister David Cameron says he still believes his party can win a majority in Thursday's election.

You know in 1997 on election day the Tories really believed that they were going to win a majority.
It came to them as a real shock that they lost and lost so badly, because of their 1992 experience they thought that the polls must be wrong.

I don't think that's true at all. I was sure that the Tories would lose. I don't even think anyone was surprised at the scale of the loss. The last years of the Major government were pretty awful after all. It all just seemed a mess, but of course we'd never heard of Gordo then.

From my recollection, even Labour were surprised at the scale - but of course that's the way FPTP works as soon as you go from a moderate to a slightly larger lead.

I watched the 2001 election with a gang of Tory researchers. They were evenly split between the "realists" who thought they'd regain 50 seats and the "optimists" who were expecting to be in power.

It was a very sad place by 3am (though a very happy place by 6am given the quantity of alcohol consumed once the outcome had become indisputable).

SeanT said:

noisywinter said:

SeanT said:

DavidL said:

Bit gutted by this poll. Can't pretend otherwise.

Also going to make the call on whether phone or internet has done best more complicated. Very large convergence.

OTOH it's a bad poll for the Nats (in Westminster terms). Their ideal result was a Tory maj, or a Tory led Coalition, able to completely ignore all the new SNP MPs. Then Sturgeon could have said the London government was illegitimate, we want a referendum by tea-time, etc

With Miliband highly likely to edge it in seats, Miliband will be forming a government that relies in part on Nat support. So the Nats won't be able to whinge that Scotland has no say in London.

I suppose the risk is that Miliband does so well he can form a Coalition with just the LDs and SDLP, but he'll need 300+ seats for that? Not likely.

If you are so sure Lab will 'edge it' in seats, may you please take the offer of a 500% ROI in about 36 hours?

I have a massive position on Lab most seats and would like the odds to change!

I made my second ever non-pb bet last night, on Lab Most Seats. The odds were just too ridiculously tempting.

But that's my betting done. If Ed edges it, as I expect, I make a nice few hundred quid to solace my pain, with some fine wines at a fine restaurant.

If somehow Cameron nudges ahead, and becomes PM, it'll be worth the outlay to see the outrage and despair on the Left.

Win win. In general you should bet against your desired outcome, you use a clearer head, that way.

You are describing an "emotional hedge"... along with things like "cash out" buttons its a great way for bookies to make money from amateurs

I think Blair has just proven Nicola's point about SLAB MPs not being heard, 3 sadly departed and GB the only sitting MP has hardly attended the HofC since 2010:

https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/595991966866927616

HYUFD said:

Sunil Indeed, though I think UKIP will still get enough votes to stop Cameron matching Major and getting a majority

HYUFD Kippers may well get plenty of votes but hardly any seats.

I just met Kate Hoey canvassing outside my station. She said she'd have an EU referendum tomorrow and that the UKIP candidate (Ace from Cameroon) has done well in the hustings. She also let slip she thought she might win. I agreed and said I'd wish her good luck but she doesn't need it. It was the 'realest' moment of the election for me so far...

kle4 said:

Alanbrooke said:

kle4 said:

Alanbrooke said:

kle4 said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Casino_Royale said:

Alanbrooke said:

Casino_Royale said:

TimGeo said:

I am not sure about this report about Tory Party having a weak ground game - Just spent day in Tory target seat - really well resourced and organised team - with lots of external support inbound - Fairly impressed by the Get out the vote operation,

The ground game is about the months, even years, leading to the election. Not the last few days.

precisely.

you could tell back in 2012/2013 that Cameron just wasn't doing enough to win a majority, his continued reliance on Ed will scare the voters back is probably one of the worst pieces of political judgement is quite some time.

I don't agree with this level of ruthlessness but I'm sure Cameron knows he won't make it to the men's room if he loses.

He'll quit within hours if all is lost.

I'm sort of left scratching my head how Cameron screwed up.

As has been pointed out before he didn't win against Brown and at best he's got a score draw against Miliband. Really all he had to do was court the centre ( right man for it ) but keep his right wing on board. He's be plus 40% if he'd bothered. But his ridiculous "detox" frankly just saw a whole slice of his supporters walk off or go on vote strike. This election was his for the taking but he lost the plot somewhere along the line.

He got nearly 20% more votes than Brown. He became PM. He got about double the lead over Brown, than Blair got over Howard. That's a win.

ROFL

a win ? Yeah a win like the Nats won the Indyref.

No. He became PM, that counts as a win - it just wasn't a complete win, or the win many of his side had hoped for.

Total nonsense.

I find it completely betation, and I can see the reasoning in things the Greens say (occasionally).

The goal is to get his party over the winning line not himself.

They came with him, and implemented a great deal of Conservative policies, vs the 0% of those policies had he not achieved some kind of win. I understand if that is not enough for some Tories, or that they feel he could and should have done a lot better, but nor is it nothing.

it's something, but against the goals he set himself and the expectations of his supporters it falls some way short.

Final YouGov Nowcast
Con 276, Lab 276, Lib Dem 23, SNP 51, UKIP 1 and Green 1.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/06/its-neck-and-neck-and-times/

Should be one more BJESUS but should see little change.

Wonder if ARSE swings to the left.

FWIW, I'll go with this as a final prediction.

Eagle-eyed PBers will notice it's not vastly out of synch with every other prediction I've posted over the past 6 weeks or so...

Lab 289 (34% share)
Con 268 (35%)
SNP 36
LD 30
PC 4
UKIP 2
Green 1
Respect 1
Speaker 1
NI 18

Other predictions:

* Labour minority government - no coalition.

* Tories back to zero seats in Scotland.

* Farage and Carswell win for UKIP.

* Clegg survives in Hallam

* Cameron resigns in a speedy and dignified manner on Friday morning, and announces a quick Tory leadership contest in hope the Miliband govt falls quickly

* the bloodbath in the Tory party starts on Friday afternoon (though the first mutterings start on the BBC before we even get the Sunderland South result)



I would, of course, love to be desperately wrong on all those fronts!

Artist said:

Final YouGov Nowcast
Con 276, Lab 276, Lib Dem 23, SNP 51, UKIP 1 and Green 1.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/06/its-neck-and-neck-and-times/

It says in that article we are also going to get a final personal Kellner prediction this evening.

One thing I also notice in the Nowcast...they Have Warwickshire North having slipped from a likely Labour to TCTC: Lean Tory, maybe that is the same feedback Labour have been getting and why Ed dragged his lectern there to press the flesh with ordinary hard working Labour Party activists?

They also have Thanet South slipping from UKIP to Con i.e Farage missing out.

Artist said:

Final YouGov Nowcast
Con 276, Lab 276, Lib Dem 23, SNP 51, UKIP 1 and Green 1.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/06/its-neck-and-neck-and-times/

That's not neck and neck times YouGov, it's just tied seats.

It's almost as though other people don't know what EICIPM means.

Polruan said:

From my recollection, even Labour were surprised at the scale - but of course that's the way FPTP works as soon as you go from a moderate to a slightly larger lead.

I watched the 2001 election with a gang of Tory researchers. They were evenly split between the "realists" who thought they'd regain 50 seats and the "optimists" who were expecting to be in power.

It was a very sad place by 3am (though a very happy place by 6am given the quantity of alcohol consumed once the outcome had become indisputable).

2001 was certainly a surprise. I think very highly of Hague, and I think we missed out on having him as a PM. When he was first elected to be leader of the Conservative party I had a bet that he'd become the UK's longest serving PM. I can't recall what I stood to win (the Eiffel Tower maybe?), but it cost me a very large dinner.

TOPPING said:

Omnium said:

TOPPING said:

Bob__Sykes said:

TOPPING said:

Watching GOD on the TV (and earlier hearing him on the radio) the following strikes me:

If, after Cons get more votes than Lab but we are in no-mans land (ie Cons 270-290, LD 20-25) so Dave + Nick don't have enough votes for a majority, why should Dave accept that Ed can form or even try to form a govt when Ed has specifically ruled out an SNP pact?

Dave can point out that Lab + SNP is, according to Ed, a no-no; while Ed can’t say “but we’ve got the SNP.”

Or can he?

Edit: so it's GE II surely...

He can say that unless the LDs and/or DUP can get him over the line, it is clear from the SNP's clear public statements that they will only work to lock him out of No 10 that he has no hope of commanding the confidence of the House, and he will resign. It's not his concern whether Ed can or cannot manage it.

I do think Dave has some honour and will act in the best interest of the country. If he cannot hope to govern, he will go.

I think it's academic anyway because, as basically ALL the polls now show, Ed will lead the largest party. So Dave will probably have had to concede before I even get out of bed on Friday morning.

If basically ALL the polls show Ed will lead the largest party why do Electoral Calculus, Anthony Wells, Election Forecast, Nate Silver and The Guardian all show Cons with most seats?

ALL the polls suggest Ed will not lead the largest party though. I don't think he's been ahead in England and Wales in any poll - and his Scottish fanclub will give him just a couple of seats.

This is why.

If Lab get 260 then the rainbows are pushed as unless Lab > Cons the LDs won't play with them.

I expect the LD's will wait a couple of microseconds (for propriety's sake) before jumping into bed with Labour as "it is clear that the Conservatives cannot form a government, and so with a heavy heart, but for the good of the country, we will reluctantly cling onto power for 5 more years".

Lol, I go out for two hours and the place is in meltdown!
So another poll showing broadly the same picture? Where's the surprise? The basics of this election have not changed one iota - it all comes down to what the waverers do tomorrow. Stick or twist? Any result from Lab 300 to Con 315 or so is possible from where we are. It's most refreshing not caring as the lot of them can go rot, it just makes it all the more fascinating - where is the swing? What will blue kippers and red kippers do on the day? Will they do anything but vote kipper? Will UNS break down given the wildly different swings to and from in all corners of the UK?
Remember two things
1) look at the betting and how it moves twixt now and tomorrow night - someone always knows, someone always tells
2) Ed Stone - yes it was crass and pathetic, but 95% of people won't even have registered it and of them it won't change the vote of 99%. Totemic events to PBers NEVER shift the polls the way the groupthink expects, they never have and never will. Expenses is about the only thing that has dramatically affected voting/mood since the ERM debacle began to play out, and that affected all three.

It's ONE POLL that is incomplete. It's not life or death ;-)

Luckyguy1983 said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Stereotomy said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Labour ahead by 42% to 35% in Conservative held marginals in England & Wales. Small base size of 136, but that makes this ICM an amazingly good poll for Labour.

Link to tables?

MikeSmithson said:

Is there a link to the ICM dataset?

ICM data tables

No prompting for UKIP. Can't see this makes sense given they're polling above the Lib Dems.

Does ICM actually prompt for anyone on the phone:

"Who are you going to vote for?"

vs

"Are you going to vote Conservative, Labour, LibDem or someone else?"

TOPPING said:

Omnium said:

TOPPING said:

Bob__Sykes said:

TOPPING said:

Watching GOD on the TV (and earlier hearing him on the radio) the following strikes me:

If, after Cons get more votes than Lab but we are in no-mans land (ie Cons 270-290, LD 20-25) so Dave + Nick don't have enough votes for a majority, why should Dave accept that Ed can form or even try to form a govt when Ed has specifically ruled out an SNP pact?

Dave can point out that Lab + SNP is, according to Ed, a no-no; while Ed can’t say “but we’ve got the SNP.”

Or can he?

Edit: so it's GE II surely...

He can say that unless the LDs and/or DUP can get him over the line, it is clear from the SNP's clear public statements that they will only work to lock him out of No 10 that he has no hope of commanding the confidence of the House, and he will resign. It's not his concern whether Ed can or cannot manage it.

I do think Dave has some honour and will act in the best interest of the country. If he cannot hope to govern, he will go.

I think it's academic anyway because, as basically ALL the polls now show, Ed will lead the largest party. So Dave will probably have had to concede before I even get out of bed on Friday morning.

If basically ALL the polls show Ed will lead the largest party why do Electoral Calculus, Anthony Wells, Election Forecast, Nate Silver and The Guardian all show Cons with most seats?

ALL the polls suggest Ed will not lead the largest party though. I don't think he's been ahead in England and Wales in any poll - and his Scottish fanclub will give him just a couple of seats.

This is why.

Working backwards, EICIPM relies on Cons > Lab, but Cons < 295 and LD < 25, and Lab > 270 and SNP/PC/GRN > 50.

At present, Cons are predicted to get 280-ish, Lab 260-270 while the rainbows are on target. If Lab get 260 then the rainbows are pushed as unless Lab > Cons the LDs won't play with them.

So it's a mess and GE II (which I have backed, incidentally).

Dream on!!

Anorak said:

TOPPING said:

Omnium said:

TOPPING said:

Bob__Sykes said:

TOPPING said:

Watching GOD on the TV (and earlier hearing him on the radio) the following strikes me:

If, after Cons get more votes than Lab but we are in no-mans land (ie Cons 270-290, LD 20-25) so Dave + Nick don't have enough votes for a majority, why should Dave accept that Ed can form or even try to form a govt when Ed has specifically ruled out an SNP pact?

Dave can point out that Lab + SNP is, according to Ed, a no-no; while Ed can’t say “but we’ve got the SNP.”

Or can he?

Edit: so it's GE II surely...

He can say that unless the LDs and/or DUP can get him over the line, it is clear from the SNP's clear public statements that they will only work to lock him out of No 10 that he has no hope of commanding the confidence of the House, and he will resign. It's not his concern whether Ed can or cannot manage it.

I do think Dave has some honour and will act in the best interest of the country. If he cannot hope to govern, he will go.

I think it's academic anyway because, as basically ALL the polls now show, Ed will lead the largest party. So Dave will probably have had to concede before I even get out of bed on Friday morning.

If basically ALL the polls show Ed will lead the largest party why do Electoral Calculus, Anthony Wells, Election Forecast, Nate Silver and The Guardian all show Cons with most seats?

ALL the polls suggest Ed will not lead the largest party though. I don't think he's been ahead in England and Wales in any poll - and his Scottish fanclub will give him just a couple of seats.

This is why.

If Lab get 260 then the rainbows are pushed as unless Lab > Cons the LDs won't play with them.

I expect the LD's will wait a couple of microseconds (for propriety's sake) before jumping into bed with Labour as "it is clear that the Conservatives cannot form a government, and so with a heavy heart, but for the good of the country, we will reluctantly cling onto power for 5 more years".

... and the alternative is?

Panelbase were talking about a mid to late afternoon poll earlier, weren't they?

Seems late-late afternoon now...

murali_s said:

Aenecdote: Just spoken to a friend of mine who is a friend with a Labour SPAD. Things are not going well on the ground. He expects Cameron to remain as PM, albeit a weak PM...

Interesting?

(I know it's friend of a friend, but still worth feeding back to you guys...)

It's quite bizarre the disconnect between the polls and the mood music from both main parties. This is going to be studied for years ahead, regardless of which is right.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Artist said:

Final YouGov Nowcast
Con 276, Lab 276, Lib Dem 23, SNP 51, UKIP 1 and Green 1.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/06/its-neck-and-neck-and-times/

It says in that article we are also going to get a final personal Kellner prediction this evening.

One thing I also notice in the Nowcast...they Have Warwickshire North having slipped from a likely Labour to TCTC: Lean Tory, maybe that is the same feedback Labour have been getting and why Ed dragged his lectern there to press the flesh with ordinary hard working Labour Party activists?

They also have Thanet South slipping from UKIP to Con i.e Farage missing out.

Where Jacks ARSE leads; othes merely follow. Eve of poll super ARSE to come at 2100!

Ominous: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32604002

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Stereotomy said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Labour ahead by 42% to 35% in Conservative held marginals in England & Wales. Small base size of 136, but that makes this ICM an amazingly good poll for Labour.

Link to tables?

MikeSmithson said:

Is there a link to the ICM dataset?

ICM data tables

No prompting for UKIP. Can't see this makes sense given they're polling above the Lib Dems.

Does ICM actually prompt for anyone on the phone:

"Who are you going to vote for?"

vs

"Are you going to vote Conservative, Labour, LibDem or someone else?"

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Stereotomy said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Labour ahead by 42% to 35% in Conservative held marginals in England & Wales. Small base size of 136, but that makes this ICM an amazingly good poll for Labour.

Link to tables?

MikeSmithson said:

Is there a link to the ICM dataset?

ICM data tables

No prompting for UKIP. Can't see this makes sense given they're polling above the Lib Dems.

Does ICM actually prompt for anyone on the phone:

"Who are you going to vote for?"

vs

"Are you going to vote Conservative, Labour, LibDem or someone else?"

Just going off the question in the tables.

Eve of poll SUPER ARSE with added SUPER APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen Projection Countdown:

150 minutes

chestnut said:

So much euphoria at polls that show Labour narrowly behind or tied

Maybe people are looking at the direction of movement this week. You are also seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that the Tories need to be several points ahead of Labour in order to even get the same number of seats.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TOPPING said:

Omnium said:

TOPPING said:

Bob__Sykes said:

TOPPING said:

Watching GOD on the TV (and earlier hearing him on the radio) the following strikes me:

If, after Cons get more votes than Lab but we are in no-mans land (ie Cons 270-290, LD 20-25) so Dave + Nick don't have enough votes for a majority, why should Dave accept that Ed can form or even try to form a govt when Ed has specifically ruled out an SNP pact?

Dave can point out that Lab + SNP is, according to Ed, a no-no; while Ed can’t say “but we’ve got the SNP.”

Or can he?

Edit: so it's GE II surely...

He can say that unless the LDs and/or DUP can get him over the line, it is clear from the SNP's clear public statements that they will only work to lock him out of No 10 that he has no hope of commanding the confidence of the House, and he will resign. It's not his concern whether Ed can or cannot manage it.

I do think Dave has some honour and will act in the best interest of the country. If he cannot hope to govern, he will go.

I think it's academic anyway because, as basically ALL the polls now show, Ed will lead the largest party. So Dave will probably have had to concede before I even get out of bed on Friday morning.

If basically ALL the polls show Ed will lead the largest party why do Electoral Calculus, Anthony Wells, Election Forecast, Nate Silver and The Guardian all show Cons with most seats?

ALL the polls suggest Ed will not lead the largest party though. I don't think he's been ahead in England and Wales in any poll - and his Scottish fanclub will give him just a couple of seats.

This is why.

Working backwards, EICIPM relies on Cons > Lab, but Cons < 295 and LD < 25, and Lab > 270 and SNP/PC/GRN > 50.

At present, Cons are predicted to get 280-ish, Lab 260-270 while the rainbows are on target. If Lab get 260 then the rainbows are pushed as unless Lab > Cons the LDs won't play with them.

So it's a mess and GE II (which I have backed, incidentally).

How would that come about under fixed term parliament and how would anything change. In my opinion it would be incumbent on the two main parties to go into a grand coalition and put the Country first

Dave tries to form govt, gives QS, voted down, no confidence, Ed tries, fails, GE II

murali_s said:

Aenecdote: Just spoken to a friend of mine who is a friend with a Labour SPAD. Things are not going well on the ground. He expects Cameron to remain as PM, albeit a weak PM...

Interesting?

(I know it's friend of a friend, but still worth feeding back to you guys...)

A theme that if Labour ask "will you vote for me?" it's disheartening, but if others ask "will you vote Labour" less so. My suspicion is that all parties are feeling this effect, and that because of it they're all panicking everywhere.

There's certainly a 'not Ed' theme going on too. Almost universally the office today was talking about how they'd all only met 'not Ed' thoughts. Given what I do for a living the bias is absolutely enormous, but I'm sure the effect is out there more generally.

isam said:

SeanT said:

isam said:

SeanT said:

noisywinter said:

SeanT said:

DavidL said:

Bit gutted by this poll. Can't pretend otherwise.

Also going to make the call on whether phone or internet has done best more complicated. Very large convergence.

OTOH it's a bad poll for the Nats (in Westminster terms). Their ideal result was a Tory maj, or a Tory led Coalition, able to completely ignore all the new SNP MPs. Then Sturgeon could have said the London government was illegitimate, we want a referendum by tea-time, etc

With Miliband highly likely to edge it in seats, Miliband will be forming a government that relies in part on Nat support. So the Nats won't be able to whinge that Scotland has no say in London.

I suppose the risk is that Miliband does so well he can form a Coalition with just the LDs and SDLP, but he'll need 300+ seats for that? Not likely.

If you are so sure Lab will 'edge it' in seats, may you please take the offer of a 500% ROI in about 36 hours?

I have a massive position on Lab most seats and would like the odds to change!

I made my second ever non-pb bet last night, on Lab Most Seats. The odds were just too ridiculously tempting.

But that's my betting done. If Ed edges it, as I expect, I make a nice few hundred quid to solace my pain, with some fine wines at a fine restaurant.

If somehow Cameron nudges ahead, and becomes PM, it'll be worth the outlay to see the outrage and despair on the Left.

Win win. In general you should bet against your desired outcome, you use a clearer head, that way.

You are describing an "emotional hedge"... along with things like "cash out" buttons its a great way for bookies to make money from amateurs

You've completely misunderstood my point. But I have a drinks party to go so your education will have to wait.

No I have completely understood it . It's called an emotional hedge, lots of punters do it for precisely the reasons you give. One if the oldest ways to pay a bookies pension

It's a perfectly rational thing to do in that you minimise your "pain" on either outcome occurring. I agree that it's not the smartest thing to do if you just want to make money.

The Daily Record still seems to be struggling with who they should endorse, they may well try and sit on the fence, as they know coming out for SLAB will undoubtedly cost them circulation:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/

enfant said:

I think that murali_s may be guilty of a 'wind up'

I wish...

After the ICM, that conversation was a massive downer!

Anyway, here in London - things look good for Labour.

I think Dave's shirtsleeve thing was produced at just the right time (whether it's successful or not).

*swoon*

TOPPING said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TOPPING said:

Omnium said:

TOPPING said:

Bob__Sykes said:

TOPPING said:

Watching GOD on the TV (and earlier hearing him on the radio) the following strikes me:

If, after Cons get more votes than Lab but we are in no-mans land (ie Cons 270-290, LD 20-25) so Dave + Nick don't have enough votes for a majority, why should Dave accept that Ed can form or even try to form a govt when Ed has specifically ruled out an SNP pact?

Dave can point out that Lab + SNP is, according to Ed, a no-no; while Ed can’t say “but we’ve got the SNP.”

Or can he?

Edit: so it's GE II surely...

He can say that unless the LDs and/or DUP can get him over the line, it is clear from the SNP's clear public statements that they will only work to lock him out of No 10 that he has no hope of commanding the confidence of the House, and he will resign. It's not his concern whether Ed can or cannot manage it.

I do think Dave has some honour and will act in the best interest of the country. If he cannot hope to govern, he will go.

I think it's academic anyway because, as basically ALL the polls now show, Ed will lead the largest party. So Dave will probably have had to concede before I even get out of bed on Friday morning.

If basically ALL the polls show Ed will lead the largest party why do Electoral Calculus, Anthony Wells, Election Forecast, Nate Silver and The Guardian all show Cons with most seats?

ALL the polls suggest Ed will not lead the largest party though. I don't think he's been ahead in England and Wales in any poll - and his Scottish fanclub will give him just a couple of seats.

This is why.

Working backwards, EICIPM relies on Cons > Lab, but Cons < 295 and LD < 25, and Lab > 270 and SNP/PC/GRN > 50.

At present, Cons are predicted to get 280-ish, Lab 260-270 while the rainbows are on target. If Lab get 260 then the rainbows are pushed as unless Lab > Cons the LDs won't play with them.

So it's a mess and GE II (which I have backed, incidentally).

How would that come about under fixed term parliament and how would anything change. In my opinion it would be incumbent on the two main parties to go into a grand coalition and put the Country first

Dave tries to form govt, gives QS, voted down, no confidence, Ed tries, fails, GE II

Seems quite tortuous

tlg86 said:

TOPPING said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TOPPING said:

Omnium said:

TOPPING said:

Bob__Sykes said:

TOPPING said:

Watching GOD on the TV (and earlier hearing him on the radio) the following strikes me:

If, after Cons get more votes than Lab but we are in no-mans land (ie Cons 270-290, LD 20-25) so Dave + Nick don't have enough votes for a majority, why should Dave accept that Ed can form or even try to form a govt when Ed has specifically ruled out an SNP pact?

Dave can point out that Lab + SNP is, according to Ed, a no-no; while Ed can’t say “but we’ve got the SNP.”

Or can he?

Edit: so it's GE II surely...

He can say that unless the LDs and/or DUP can get him over the line, it is clear from the SNP's clear public statements that they will only work to lock him out of No 10 that he has no hope of commanding the confidence of the House, and he will resign. It's not his concern whether Ed can or cannot manage it.

I do think Dave has some honour and will act in the best interest of the country. If he cannot hope to govern, he will go.

I think it's academic anyway because, as basically ALL the polls now show, Ed will lead the largest party. So Dave will probably have had to concede before I even get out of bed on Friday morning.

If basically ALL the polls show Ed will lead the largest party why do Electoral Calculus, Anthony Wells, Election Forecast, Nate Silver and The Guardian all show Cons with most seats?

ALL the polls suggest Ed will not lead the largest party though. I don't think he's been ahead in England and Wales in any poll - and his Scottish fanclub will give him just a couple of seats.

This is why.

Working backwards, EICIPM relies on Cons > Lab, but Cons < 295 and LD < 25, and Lab > 270 and SNP/PC/GRN > 50.

At present, Cons are predicted to get 280-ish, Lab 260-270 while the rainbows are on target. If Lab get 260 then the rainbows are pushed as unless Lab > Cons the LDs won't play with them.

So it's a mess and GE II (which I have backed, incidentally).

How would that come about under fixed term parliament and how would anything change. In my opinion it would be incumbent on the two main parties to go into a grand coalition and put the Country first

Dave tries to form govt, gives QS, voted down, no confidence, Ed tries, fails, GE II

I read in the Evening Standard tonight that GOD says that if Dave's QS is voted down and Ed becomes PM, Ed won't have to put forward another QS, though presumably he would present one eventually!

The fixed term parliament act was a shocking act of parliament. When Ed or Dave get back in they should just scrap it.

watford30 said:

Freggles said:

JackW said:

Eve of poll SUPER ARSE with added SUPER APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen Projection Countdown:

150 minutes

Extra squeaky edition

Will Jack's ring piece will be narrowing in line with the other polls today?

I expect some small movements but not enough to make a splash.
Whatever happens tomorrow night, someone will be licking their wounds

Pulpstar said:

tlg86 said:

TOPPING said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TOPPING said:

Omnium said:

TOPPING said:

Bob__Sykes said:

TOPPING said:

Watching GOD on the TV (and earlier hearing him on the radio) the following strikes me:

If, after Cons get more votes than Lab but we are in no-mans land (ie Cons 270-290, LD 20-25) so Dave + Nick don't have enough votes for a majority, why should Dave accept that Ed can form or even try to form a govt when Ed has specifically ruled out an SNP pact?

Dave can point out that Lab + SNP is, according to Ed, a no-no; while Ed can’t say “but we’ve got the SNP.”

Or can he?

Edit: so it's GE II surely...

He can say that unless the LDs and/or DUP can get him over the line, it is clear from the SNP's clear public statements that they will only work to lock him out of No 10 that he has no hope of commanding the confidence of the House, and he will resign. It's not his concern whether Ed can or cannot manage it.

I do think Dave has some honour and will act in the best interest of the country. If he cannot hope to govern, he will go.

I think it's academic anyway because, as basically ALL the polls now show, Ed will lead the largest party. So Dave will probably have had to concede before I even get out of bed on Friday morning.

If basically ALL the polls show Ed will lead the largest party why do Electoral Calculus, Anthony Wells, Election Forecast, Nate Silver and The Guardian all show Cons with most seats?

ALL
This is why.

Working backwards, EICIPM relies on Cons > Lab, but Cons < 295 and LD < 25, and Lab > 270 and SNP/PC/GRN > 50.

At present, Cons are predicted to get 280-ish, Lab 260-270 while the rainbows are on target. If Lab get 260 then the rainbows are pushed as unless Lab > Cons the LDs won't play with them.

So it's a mess and GE II (which I have backed, incidentally).

How would that come about under fixed term parliament and how would anything change. In my opinion it would be incumbent on the two main parties to go into a grand coalition and put the Country first

Dave tries to form govt, gives QS, voted down, no confidence, Ed tries, fails, GE II

I read in the Evening Standard tonight that GOD says that if Dave's QS is voted down and Ed becomes PM, Ed won't have to put forward another QS, though presumably he would present one eventually!

The fixed term parliament act was a shocking act of parliament. When Ed or Dave get back in they should just scrap it.

The act itself wasn't so bad, it was the gerrymandering addition that calls for a 2/3 majority for dissolution.

TheKitchenCabinet said:

dyedwoolie said:

Thoughts on Labour apparant gloom.

They know they are narrowly ahead on seats but not by enough to make it without the SNP and possibly Liberals? Therefore they know it's going to go tittius verticus?

That fits the polling, many of the predictions of narrow Labour plurality, and the marginals polling.

Tories relieved because they have the South in the bag, Labour have lost Scotland and they stand to mop up in any possible GE2?

Something like that hmmmm?

Go with the simplest explanation i.e. that they are indeed worried from what they are hearing back. Ever since that Labour Uncut article, the mood music has changed from Labour.

Possibly yes, but what makes Labour gloomy and what we might expect would make them gloomy in terms of expectations are not interchangeable integers!

TheKitchenCabinet said:

dyedwoolie said:

Thoughts on Labour apparant gloom.

They know they are narrowly ahead on seats but not by enough to make it without the SNP and possibly Liberals? Therefore they know it's going to go tittius verticus?

That fits the polling, many of the predictions of narrow Labour plurality, and the marginals polling.

Tories relieved because they have the South in the bag, Labour have lost Scotland and they stand to mop up in any possible GE2?

Something like that hmmmm?

Go with the simplest explanation i.e. that they are indeed worried from what they are hearing back. Ever since that Labour Uncut article, the mood music has changed from Labour.

There is something in the argument that Labour are ALWAYS very pessimistic, though, especially from opposition. There were tons of seats in 1997 where resources were pulled because they assumed they had no chance, which they ended up winning.

That doesn't mean that their pessimism is definitely not well-founded this time, of course.

Alanbrooke said:

kle4 said:

Alanbrooke said:

kle4 said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Casino_Royale said:

Alanbrooke said:

Casino_Royale said:

TimGeo said:

I am not sure about this report about Tory Party having a weak ground game - Just spent day in Tory target seat - really well resourced and organised team - with lots of external support inbound - Fairly impressed by the Get out the vote operation,

The ground game is about the months, even years, leading to the election. Not the last few days.

precisely.

you could tell back in 2012/2013 that Cameron just wasn't doing enough to win a majority, his continued reliance on Ed will scare the voters back is probably one of the worst pieces of political judgement is quite some time.

I don't agree with this level of ruthlessness but I'm sure Cameron knows he won't make it to the men's room if he loses.

He'll quit within hours if all is lost.

I'm sort of left scratching my head how Cameron screwed up.

As has been pointed out before he didn't win against Brown and at best he's got a score draw against Miliband. Really all he had to do was court the centre ( right man for it ) but keep his right wing on board. He's be plus 40% if he'd bothered. But his ridiculous "detox" frankly just saw a whole slice of his supporters walk off or go on vote strike. This election was his for the taking but he lost the plot somewhere along the line.

He got nearly 20% more votes than Brown. He became PM. He got about double the lead over Brown, than Blair got over Howard. That's a win.

ROFL

a win ? Yeah a win like the Nats won the Indyref.

No. He became PM, that counts as a win - it just wasn't a complete win, or the win many of his side had hoped for.

Total nonsense.

I find it completely bizarre anyone could say a situation where someone ends up as Prime Minister is not a win, even if it clearly is not as much as that person hoped for. I literally cannot understand the reasoning that would explain that interpretation, and I can see the reasoning in things the Greens say (occasionally).

The goal is to get his party over the winning line not himself.

He did. He got his party into office, gained his party 97 seats and got his party 7% ahead of the second place party and got his party 49 seats ahead of the second placed party. That's a win.

The Nats came second in Indyref so not sure how its comparable.

Still think Tories will be 3-4% ahead in the popular vote.

Having been in work all day I was about to ask what the best odds were on Labour most seats. I think SeanT got on last night at something like 5s or 6s! I can only assume they've come in with this ICM poll. I might break the habit of a lifetime and fancy a flutter.

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Artist said:

Final YouGov Nowcast
Con 276, Lab 276, Lib Dem 23, SNP 51, UKIP 1 and Green 1.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/06/its-neck-and-neck-and-times/

It says in that article we are also going to get a final personal Kellner prediction this evening.

One thing I also notice in the Nowcast...they Have Warwickshire North having slipped from a likely Labour to TCTC: Lean Tory, maybe that is the same feedback Labour have been getting and why Ed dragged his lectern there to press the flesh with ordinary hard working Labour Party activists?

Decent straw for @Roger to cling onto with Aberdeen South too !

I have Edinburgh South, Aberdeen South and East Lothian down as Labour's best chances as Tories tactically rally to them.

(On paper the same might make Dumfries & Galloway a decent shout, but the Ashcroft poll showing Tories in 2nd place there may have complicated matters.)

Lifelong Labour voter Tom Conti comes out for the Tories
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069437/Why-life-long-Labour-luvvie-backing-Tories-writes-TOM-CONTI.html

OllyT said:

chestnut said:

So much euphoria at polls that show Labour narrowly behind or tied

Maybe people are looking at the direction of movement this week. You are also seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that the Tories need to be several points ahead of Labour in order to even get the same number of seats.

Not sure that is true anymore.

This poll on DayLate Record's site is probably not going the way the management wants.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/jockalypse-coming-heres-top-12-5647647

Currently 81% SNP.

dyedwoolie said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

dyedwoolie said:

Thoughts on Labour apparant gloom.

They know they are narrowly ahead on seats but not by enough to make it without the SNP and possibly Liberals? Therefore they know it's going to go tittius verticus?

That fits the polling, many of the predictions of narrow Labour plurality, and the marginals polling.

Tories relieved because they have the South in the bag, Labour have lost Scotland and they stand to mop up in any possible GE2?

Something like that hmmmm?

Go with the simplest explanation i.e. that they are indeed worried from what they are hearing back. Ever since that Labour Uncut article, the mood music has changed from Labour.

Possibly yes, but what makes Labour gloomy and what we might expect would make them gloomy in terms of expectations are not interchangeable integers!

Danny565 said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

dyedwoolie said:

Thoughts on Labour apparant gloom.

They know they are narrowly ahead on seats but not by enough to make it without the SNP and possibly Liberals? Therefore they know it's going to go tittius verticus?

That fits the polling, many of the predictions of narrow Labour plurality, and the marginals polling.

Tories relieved because they have the South in the bag, Labour have lost Scotland and they stand to mop up in any possible GE2?

Something like that hmmmm?

Go with the simplest explanation i.e. that they are indeed worried from what they are hearing back. Ever since that Labour Uncut article, the mood music has changed from Labour.

There is something in the argument that Labour are ALWAYS very pessimistic, though, especially from opposition. There were tons of seats in 1997 where resources were pulled because they assumed they had no chance, which they ended up winning.

That doesn't mean that their pessimism is definitely not well-founded this time, of course.

The key difference with 1997 is that this time Labour started being optimistic overall but that optimism has faded. One of the things that gets missed about Ed is that he is a big numbers geek: he knows the data inside out and he would have been more aware than anyone that, despite what the press said, the numbers favoured him on seat distribution. Hence how he has brushed off the insults. But that has now changed -you do not rush to Russell Brand or do #EdStone if you think you are on course to win, which opinion poll numbers suggest. The most likeliest explanation is that the data they are getting back is not what they predicted.

volcanopete said:

YouGov Nowcast makes it a dead-head on 276 Con and Lab.Worth a covering bet for all those committed to most seats market.Shadsy was offering 33-1,WH 25-1.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/06/its-neck-and-neck-and-times/

Somebody, presumably a statistician, wants to wager £5000 @ 49/1 on a seat tie.

http://sports.betfair.com/Index.do?mi=118634367&ex=1&origin=MRL

tlg86 said:

TOPPING said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TOPPING said:

Omnium said:

TOPPING said:

Bob__Sykes said:

TOPPING said:

Watching GOD on the TV (and earlier hearing him on the radio) the following strikes me:

If, after Cons get more votes than Lab but we are in no-mans land (ie Cons 270-290, LD 20-25) so Dave + Nick don't have enough votes for a majority, why should Dave accept that Ed can form or eve

Dave can point out that Lab + SNP is, according to Ed, a no-no; while Ed can’t say “but we’ve got the SNP.”

Or can he?

Edit: so it's GE II surely...

I do think Dave has some honour and will act in the best interest of the country. If he cannot hope to govern, he will go.

I think it's academic anyway because, as basically ALL the polls now show, Ed will lead the largest party. So Dave will probably have had to concede before I even get out of bed on Friday morning.

If basically ALL the polls show Ed will lead the largest party why do Electoral Calculus, Anthony Wells, Election Forecast, Nate Silver and The Guardian all show Cons with most seats?

ALL the polls suggest Ed will not lead the largest party though. I don't think he's been ahead in England and Wales in any poll - and his Scottish fanclub will give him just a couple of seats.

This is why.

Working backwards, EICIPM relies on Cons > Lab, but Cons < 295 and LD < 25, and Lab > 270 and SNP/PC/GRN > 50.

At present, Cons are predicted to get 280-ish, Lab 260-270 while the rainbows are on target. If Lab get 260 then the rainbows are pushed as unless Lab > Cons the LDs won't play with them.

So it's a mess and GE II (which I have backed, incidentally).

How would that come about under fixed term parliament and how would anything change. In my opinion it would be incumbent on the two main parties to go into a grand coalition and put the Country first

Dave tries to form govt, gives QS, voted down, no confidence, Ed tries, fails, GE II

I read in the Evening Standard tonight that GOD says that if Dave's QS is voted down and Ed becomes PM, Ed won't have to put forward another QS, though presumably he would present one eventually!

Did he say he would have 14 days to form the govt which presumably (as people have said on here) would be with SNP by default in deed if not action.

So Lab with fewer seats would govern with no pact whatsoever with SNP but with SNP support (at least for their budget) so how is that no pact?

= smell test fail.

What can be done about it, involving as it would extraordinary disingenuousness, yet fait accompli on behalf of Ed, goodness only knows.