Printable version of thread
Click here to view this topic in its original format
BuzzJack Music Forum _ News and Politics _ OPINION POLLS III · Yay, democracy!
Posted by: Brett-Butler 30th March 2015, 05:16 PM
Now that parliament has been dissolved, it's time for a new thread to begin (plus the last thread was getting a bit big for its boots).
Here's the current polling, taking from today's (30/3/15) BBC poll of polls:
Lab 34%
Con 34%
UKIP 13%
Lib Dem 8%
Other 6%
Green 5%
Posted by: Danny 31st March 2015, 01:41 PM
The election now plastered all over the media, so I kind of think we could see a decisive shift in the polls in the coming days. I actually think a lot of people until now were not even aware an election was coming.
Imo, most likely is a shift to the Tories, quite possibly into a majority-winning position, as the many people who prefer Dave as PM move over, especially since people still perceive little difference between the two parties on policy so they'll figure they may as well go with the leader who "looks the part" and will "stand up to Putin" the best.
On the other hand, less likely, people getting into an election mindset could mean the many people who are terrified of a Tory government (which still outnumbers people who are terrified of a Labour government) rally round Labour, squeezing down the Green, "Labour-Kipper" and non-votes columns.
Posted by: Qassändra 31st March 2015, 02:36 PM
Given most of our media messaging (billboards, PPBs) at the moment is focused more on solidifying the Labour-inclined vote than winning over switchers, I'd guess we're aiming for the latter. Ed's going all out for the 35% strategy *.*
Ed's ratings are going right up though - he's narrowing the gap on things like best PM, and he's only net -9 on 'Capable of being Prime Minister' at the moment, which is pretty damn good with six weeks to go considering where he was a few months ago. When it comes down to it, I don't think enough people feel threatened enough by Putin currently (touch wood) for that to be the big question on their mind in the polling booths that decides the election.
Also there's been a pretty big shift on 'I have a good idea of what he stands for' for Ed too. If it carries on, I can't see people seeing both Labour and the Tories as the same on policy by the election. Not that I think many do now - I think it's just more a case of people not knowing where to begin in deciding which they'd prefer out of the two prospectuses.
Posted by: Danny 31st March 2015, 02:52 PM
Ed's ratings are going right up though - he's narrowing the gap on things like best PM, and he's only net -9 on 'Capable of being Prime Minister' at the moment, which is pretty damn good with six weeks to go considering where he was a few months ago. When it comes down to it, I don't think enough people feel threatened enough by Putin currently (touch wood) for that to be the big question on their mind in the polling booths that decides the election.
Also there's been a pretty big shift on 'I have a good idea of what he stands for' for Ed too. If it carries on, I can't see people seeing both Labour and the Tories as the same on policy by the election. Not that I think many do now - I think it's just more a case of people not knowing where to begin in deciding which they'd prefer out of the two prospectuses.
Well, yes, but Miliband's personal beliefs are a different thing to people thinking the policies are actually different. You're right that people seem to be finally starting to believe Ed as a man stands for something and that he personally cares about the poor (whereas previously people just thought he was a career politician who believed in nothing), but - anecdote alert - people still don't seem to think there'd be any difference between the Tories and Labour in what they'd actually do. People don't have the loony-leftie view that I have that Labour are purposely choosing to sign up to needless austerity - the consensus seems to be that there's no money "available" for Ed to do anything differently to the Tories even if he wanted to. Unless Labour counter that and try to dispute the belief that cuts don't have to be inevitable, they're screwed, because it will mean the battleground gets shrunk down to "best statesman" since they'd believe there was only possible course on economic policies (irrespective of what Labour might like to do differently in an ideal world).
Posted by: Suedehead2 31st March 2015, 05:34 PM
The Tory strategy seems to be two-fold. First, they try to scare people away from their opponents, particularly Labour. They also question the legitimacy of other opponents, principally the SNP. If that means telling lies, that's what they will do. Witness their nonsense about Labour's plans costing £3,000 per household.
Then, there are their own promises. Their strategy here seems to be to make increasingly outlandish promises on the assumption that they will not be subjected to any scrutiny. First, we had the promise that GP surgeries will be open 12 hours per day, seven days a week. One of the current problems with the NHS is a lack of GPs. Where are all these extra GPs going to come from all of a sudden? Or do the Tories expect existing GPs to cover all the extra hours? What about all the other staff, such as receptionists? How is all this going to be paid for within the existing budget? If any other party had suggested opening surgeries for an extra half-an-hour per week, the Tories would be denouncing it as an uncosted pledge, leaving a multi-billion pound hole in their plans.
Today, they have promised that everybody who wants a job will have one. How is that going to work? When was the last time this happened? Perhaps they will redefine job-seeking as a job.
At this rate, by the end of the campaign, the Tories will be promising that we will all own at least seven homes and that each family will have their own individual planet to escape to.
Posted by: jark 31st March 2015, 06:11 PM
You just described the strategy of every political party who ever campaigned for any election anywhere. Congratulations!
And yes they are rightly spelling out for people that the SNP are idiots whose goals are not realistic and who vocally dislike our country and want to break up from us... And yet also think they have a right to be a part of our government. We should all be thankful that somebody is slating the SNP, and you know it sure as hell won't be labour because their only hope of governing England is to get into bed with the very same people who want a divorce from us.
Posted by: Suedehead2 31st March 2015, 06:27 PM
And yes they are rightly spelling out for people that the SNP are idiots whose goals are not realistic and who vocally dislike our country and want to break up from us... And yet also think they have a right to be a part of our government. We should all be thankful that somebody is slating the SNP, and you know it sure as hell won't be labour because their only hope of governing England is to get into bed with the very same people who want a divorce from us.
Not true. Politicians frequently exaggerate or use statistics in a misleading way. They generally avoid outright lies. They also tend not to question an opponent's very legitimacy. The SNP have as much right to vote in the House of Commons as any other party. Other parties can attack their policies; they should not question their right to use any power they might have after the election. Opinion polls suggest that the SNP will get a higher share of the vote in Scotland than either Labour or the Tories will manage to get in England. They have every right to use that mandate to do what they think is best for the people who elected them, i.e. Scots.
Of course, the effect of the Tories' strategy could be to persuade Labour / SNP waverers to vote Labour.
Posted by: popchartfreak 31st March 2015, 06:43 PM
Interesting assessment today in the i on the relative thoroughness of both parties election promises.
As in vague evasive filled with promises of free gifts presumably fallen off the back of an uncosted lorry.
Maybe they are waiting to release the financial detail the day before the election so no one has time to go over the figures....
Or maybe they are still counting after all they've only had 5 years wouldn't want to rush into these things!
Posted by: Silas 31st March 2015, 07:36 PM
Oh f*** off.
The w*n**rs in the Better Together campaign spent the entire referendum chanting "we're stronger together" "you belong with us" etc like some form of sick cult. Yet, when the SNP want to join in that's suddenly not kosher. Piss off. You can't have your cake and eat it. We're either all in this together or we go it alone. We're entitled to our fair say.
I don't recall seeing anyone levelling that strategy at UKIP during the Euros.
The SNP have been honest that they're still aiming for an independent Scotland but absolutely nowhere in their manifesto is even a hint of a referendum. The party accepts that the 55% won and it's saying that you can't just shove Scotland back in it's box and put it on a a shelf. 45% of the country and 2 of the 4 largest cities voted to leave the Union in the most participated in election or referendum in British history (since universal suffrage). That's not something that can be ignored. The SNP is saying that Scotland want's to stay and while we're here we may as well do our best to improve the system we're stuck with.
Posted by: Suedehead2 31st March 2015, 07:46 PM
I don't recall seeing anyone levelling that strategy at UKIP during the Euros.
Indeed. Similarly, nothing was said when the Tories stood for the Scottish Parliament (or the Welsh assembly) after they had opposed devolution.
Posted by: popchartfreak 31st March 2015, 07:53 PM
If the SNP can get a Labour party coalition or minority gov to lean more leftwards, do more for the poor and less for the rich and create a socially fairer UK, I say good luck to 'em....
Posted by: Danny 31st March 2015, 08:19 PM
Yup!
I really wish that Nicola Sturgeon was the leader of UK Labour tbh.
Posted by: Rooney 31st March 2015, 08:28 PM
Gotta admit that I agree with Jark on most politics, but I disagree with his stance on the SNP. I think unlike the Labour party, they had clear ideologies and know what they want to achieve (however absurd it may be). The Labour party have let the people of Scotland down, so you can see why support has turned to the SNP for the time being. Scotland is a part of the UK so they should have as much say as how the country is run as anyone. What I don't like is the attitude that is given off, that 'we will mug the English'. Fair play we're an United Kingdom, but if the SNP try and screw over England then they're just as bad as before really!
What I do find hilarious is both parties insistence that both will not get in to bed with each other 
I can guarantee that will not be the case in May, and I know which of the two parties will get the better side of the deal!
Posted by: jark 31st March 2015, 08:53 PM
The w*n**rs in the Better Together campaign spent the entire referendum chanting "we're stronger together" "you belong with us" etc like some form of sick cult. Yet, when the SNP want to join in that's suddenly not kosher. Piss off. You can't have your cake and eat it. We're either all in this together or we go it alone. We're entitled to our fair say.
I don't recall seeing anyone levelling that strategy at UKIP during the Euros.
The SNP have been honest that they're still aiming for an independent Scotland but absolutely nowhere in their manifesto is even a hint of a referendum. The party accepts that the 55% won and it's saying that you can't just shove Scotland back in it's box and put it on a a shelf. 45% of the country and 2 of the 4 largest cities voted to leave the Union in the most participated in election or referendum in British history (since universal suffrage). That's not something that can be ignored. The SNP is saying that Scotland want's to stay and while we're here we may as well do our best to improve the system we're stuck with.
A sick cult? Or just a union of countries who, all economic experts are fully agreed, are far better off together than alone? And please don't tell me you truly don't believe the SNP have designs on getting free from the union Phil. I know you can't be that naive. Independence is their entire ethos, it's the reason they exist and the reason they've gained popularity, and they won't give up on that regardless of what they're saying in order to get a foothold in Westminster. What exactly about the system you're "stuck with" demands improvement? Scotland gets more capita per head from money generated in England than it would if it strikes out alone. Where do you honestly imagine all this mythical money will come from to keep you afloat?
Anyway I digress. My point was that the notion of England being ruled by a coalition including the SNP is absurd, given that the Scots have such a large chip on their shoulder about being ruled by England, and I stand by that. It's true that you can't have your cake and eat it, and about time Scotland realised it.
Posted by: Suedehead2 31st March 2015, 09:04 PM
You mean the way Scots objected to having the Poll Tax imposed on them by a government that won ten of the 72 Scottish seats (a significantly lower proportion of seats than the two coalition parties at the last election) at the previous election? I think I can understand why they might not have been too keen on that.
BTW, yes the Tories really did win as many as ten seats in 1987. What would they give to repeat that?
Posted by: Danny 31st March 2015, 10:49 PM
Today's two polls had a 1% Tory lead and 1% Labour lead.
The Lib Dems are projected to get just 7 seats on tonight's YouGov poll. The rising Tory score is fatal for them, because they were relying on keeping the swing down in the Tory/LD marginals since most of the Lib-Lab marginals are write-offs.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 31st March 2015, 11:08 PM
The w*n**rs in the Better Together campaign spent the entire referendum chanting "we're stronger together" "you belong with us" etc like some form of sick cult. Yet, when the SNP want to join in that's suddenly not kosher. Piss off. You can't have your cake and eat it. We're either all in this together or we go it alone. We're entitled to our fair say.
I don't recall seeing anyone levelling that strategy at UKIP during the Euros.
It helps that at least your lot tend to show up at Westminster.
Posted by: Danny 1st April 2015, 11:55 AM
Clegg behind again in new Sheffield Hallam poll: Labour on 36%, Clegg on 34%.
Posted by: steve201 1st April 2015, 07:30 PM
And yes they are rightly spelling out for people that the SNP are idiots whose goals are not realistic and who vocally dislike our country and want to break up from us... And yet also think they have a right to be a part of our government. We should all be thankful that somebody is slating the SNP, and you know it sure as hell won't be labour because their only hope of governing England is to get into bed with the very same people who want a divorce from us.
Some ridiculous statements here, who's country do you mean when you say 'our'?!
Posted by: Danny 3rd April 2015, 11:14 AM
Last night will be a good test of whether "the centre ground" really is where elections are won. Miliband could not have been more "centrist" on the spending cuts question if he tried, he was literally equidistant between the "extremes" of Cameron and Sturgeon.
It could be that he seems the most in-line with the mainstream, but my suspicion is that in the long run his arguments were too weak and convoluted to make any real impression on people, whereas Cameron's argument (whether you agree with it or not) was much more straightforward and powerful.
Posted by: jark 3rd April 2015, 01:28 PM
You're blinkered. Cameron's rhetoric seemed robotic and unconvincing.
Posted by: Rooney 3rd April 2015, 01:41 PM
Purposely done though I think. I think for both the Milliband and Cameron this type of debate is a lose-lose. Neither can really have the same conviction in their speeches as the other minority party leaders as both of them are the only people who could actually be Prime Minister. Both tried to attack and score points off each, but it's a bit more difficult when you have others trying to wade in as well. I think David Cameron tried to put his points about as best he could, and Ed Milliband saw it as an attempt to try and boost his general popularity (yes Ed we can definitely see you have had some very creepy media training!!!).
Posted by: steve201 3rd April 2015, 01:42 PM
Indeed Cameron purposely sat in the sidelines and couldnt wait for the proceedings to end. He was like a footballer who played the 90mins with the ball at the corner flag. Hope people seen how shifty he was.
Posted by: popchartfreak 3rd April 2015, 01:54 PM
I did. When asked a direct question about financing the NHS he completely avoided giving an answer and instead rattled on about his son for some sympathy and to divert attention. Most of his answers were well-rehearsed "usual suspect" soundbites. There was no sincerity, no personality, it was media-speak-boll*cks.
What I'd like is to hook them all up to an electric-shock podium, and everytime one uses cliches like "hard working families" or fails to answer a question yes or no (assuming it is one that can be answered that simply), they get a shock and buzzers and lights go off, and they lose their ability to comment.
Would be a very short programme.
Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd April 2015, 03:05 PM
Which, of course, is why he didn't want a two-way debate with Miliband or a three-way debate with Miliband and Clegg. Both formats would have meant that he would need to say more, thereby giving people more chance to see how poorly he performed.
Posted by: Danny 3rd April 2015, 03:05 PM
His delivery/performance was not great, but I feel the Tories' main message of "we need to keep cutting spending to get the deficit down" is getting through. If you asked random people on the street, I think quite a few would say that if you asked what the Tories' main message was (even though many would disagree with that message). On the other hand, if you asked those same people what the main message of Labour's campaign was, I think you'd get blank stares all round.
Posted by: steve201 3rd April 2015, 03:15 PM
Exactly i hope Milliband can point this out more to people but he cant even do this in the opposition debate. Typical the PM gets away with dominating the timing and the make up of the debates - democracy my arse.
Posted by: steve201 3rd April 2015, 03:17 PM
Its understanding theres a deficit that will be brought down but ensuring theres growth in the economy and creating a more fairer capitalism that government intervenes in to create markets that work for people!
Posted by: Danny 3rd April 2015, 06:13 PM
Miliband has a positive approval rating (more people saying they think he's doing well as leader than say he's doing badly) for the first time since his first few weeks as leader in 2010.
Still a few points behind Cameron, though.
Posted by: Qassändra 3rd April 2015, 06:36 PM
Catchy.
Posted by: steve201 3rd April 2015, 08:17 PM
Straight from Edwards mouth 
Posted by: Soy Adrián 3rd April 2015, 10:33 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11514933/Nicola-Sturgeon-secretly-backs-David-Cameron.html
Taking this with a pinch of salt, but a lot have been wondering...
Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd April 2015, 10:45 PM
Taking this with a pinch of salt, but a lot have been wondering...
In many ways, a dream scenario for the next few years for the SNP would be
1) A Tory majority in May
2) A vote to leave the EU in a 2017 referendum with no provision that all four nations have to vote to leave
3) A new referendum on independence
The likelihood is that Scotland would prefer to remain in the EU rather than staying with a UK outside the EU. This is the big paradox for Tory right-wingers. Their dream of leaving the EU could well lead to the break-up of the UK. One day, some of them might begin to understand that.
Posted by: Rooney 4th April 2015, 01:44 AM
Taking this with a pinch of salt, but a lot have been wondering...
I thought this was common knowledge!? A Tory win is the best option for the SNP long term. It only strengthens their core message and power in Scotland. A Labour win will lessen their power as they would make concessions that a Tory government wouldn't.
Posted by: Qassändra 4th April 2015, 02:24 AM
It's common knowledge that strategically a Tory win would help the SNP a lot more than otherwise, but it would harm them if they were seen to be doing anything to make that happen given so much of their current vote is the anti-Tory vote transferring from Labour to the SNP. Given how fanatical so much of the SNP vote is though I can see it just being dismissed as a conspiracy theory, even though there's no obvious reason for the Telegraph to make this up - they want to see the SNP do well as it's in the Conservatives' interests that they take as many seats off Labour as possible to reduce Labour's legitimacy when it comes to confidence and supply talks.
Posted by: Apricot 4th April 2015, 08:27 AM
It's also common knowledge that Ed Miliband isn't Prime Minister material.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 4th April 2015, 08:43 AM
Are you actually related to Grant Shapps or is it just a weird crush?
Posted by: Qassändra 4th April 2015, 09:31 AM
That isn't so much knowledge as an opinion. What is Prime Minister material, having a square jawline and saying 'Let me be very clear about this' while holding your fist in front of your tits?
Posted by: Apricot 4th April 2015, 09:42 AM
Gosh, it's just a joke. Lighten up!
Posted by: Danny 4th April 2015, 11:08 AM
They won't have made up the memo, but the civil servant who wrote the memo says he suspects Sturgeon had not actually said it and that it was probably lost in translation! It's pretty desperate stuff for Labour to be trying to make hay out of this.
Also, tbf, it's possible to think Ed isn't PM material, while still preferring him over the greater evil of Cameron.
Posted by: Silas 4th April 2015, 11:09 AM
Taking this with a pinch of salt, but a lot have been wondering...
Both the SNP and the French have categorically denied this.
When a paper has time to approach someone as irrelevant as the head of the Scottish Lib Dems for comment but not the First Minister or the French Ambassador you know it's utter bullshit.
What's hilarious is how badly Labour fell for it and then how hastily and sharply they performed that u turn.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 4th April 2015, 11:33 AM
As others said, until the French came out and denied everything it seemed pretty legit - especially given the Torygraph have been falling over themselves to big up Sturgeon recently. The Labour press team had made a campaign video out of Ed's one minute debate speech within an hour of it being aired. A quick three sentence response while out on the campaign trail does not constitute "falling for it" in 2015.
Posted by: Silas 4th April 2015, 02:23 PM
All the campaign offices for my area are located in Cupar and quite tellingly I haven't seen a Labour one. The Tories, bless their hearts, are back again. The SNP has got a prime local and the LibDems have had an office here for as long as I've lived here.
Even UKIP have steered clear!
Posted by: Qassändra 4th April 2015, 05:24 PM
I like that the French Civil Service denying that they're responsible for a potential diplomatic incident is seen as proof it didn't happen. I find McBride's take on it food for thought:
If this was all a grand misunderstanding, I think the various parties would have come together by now to explain what they think has happened, e.g. perhaps Nicola Sturgeon used the word ‘expect’, that got turned into ‘espoir’ back in the French embassy, and then relayed to the FCO as ‘hope’. That’s pretty plausible, but we’ve heard no such explanation yet.
If it’s not a genuine misunderstanding, we’re left with the uncomfortable conclusion that one or more parties may have got their version of events wrong. And to my mind, there are three options in that regard:
(i) Perhaps the senior FCO official who spoke to the Consul General has misheard or chosen to embellish what the Consul General said. From my experience, this is borderline impossible. The stock in trade of FCO officials is producing memos like this: a verbatim record of conversations they’ve had, with a minor bit of commentary in the margins. This is a classic of its kind. I think we can state with some degree of certainty that what the FCO official wrote down is exactly what the Consul General said to him/her;
(ii) So perhaps the Consul General has misheard or chosen to embellish what Nicola Sturgeon said to the Ambassador. Mr Coffinier has been working as a civil servant in the French foreign affairs department for almost 30 years. In interviews, he comes across as dry and conscientious. Just look at the rest of the memo: his careful discussion of sensitivities around a meeting with a French minister; his concern over being able to provide a speaker for the Edinburgh Science Festival. Is this the sort of man to get something like the Sturgeon-Ambassador exchange wrong, or embellish it? Absolument pas;
(iii) This takes us to Sturgeon and the Ambassador themselves. We cannot know what was said between them, but they have both denied that Sturgeon ‘expressed a preference’ over the identity of the next PM. And to back them up, the Consul General says there is nothing in his notes of the meeting indicating the expression of a preference, “which suggests neither Nicola nor my ambassador said anything.”
So we have a mystery: if the denials of Sturgeon, the Ambassador and the Consul General are to be believed, we must wonder how the nature and detail of their conversation was so radically altered by the time the FCO official wrote it down, based on the account of the Consul General. Mr Coffinier himself has so far offered no explanation for this point.
Of course, there have been countless conversations in political history where the parties who took part come away with a different view of what was said (Oh, Granita!). That is not because one party is lying: it is just because people remember what they want to remember, depending what suits their interests.
In this instance, both parties are agreeing that was said is not what has elsewhere been written down. That may be true, but it should also be noted that it suits both parties to remember the conversation in this way: both Sturgeon and the French embassy would like the highly embarrassing version of events contained in the FCO memo to be discredited as soon as possible.
So that is where we currently are, and unless more information comes to light, that is where we will probably stay. But in the interests of unraveling this mystery, here are two questions it might be useful to answer:
1. Was the Consul General present for the Sturgeon-Ambassador meeting? I’m not clear on this point, but it would be useful to establish whether whatever account he gave to the FCO of the conversation was a first-hand account from a direct witness to the exchange, or a “third-hand account” as Nicola Sturgeon’s spokeswoman has claimed?; and
2. Are Sturgeon, the Ambassador and the Consul General disputing the entire version of the conversation reported in the FCO memo, or just the line about the First Minister’s supposed preference for David Cameron as PM. Did she say, for example, that “she wouldn’t want a formal coalition with Labour”; that “the SNP would almost certainly have a large number of seats”; that “she had no idea ‘what kind of mischief’ Alex Salmond would get up to”; and that she “didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material”. If those four points are accurate, then it makes it all the more remarkable that the fifth point (about the preference for Cameron) was not. If, on the other hand, all five points are disputed, then it raises even more serious questions about how this account of events found its way into the official FCO memo.
Perhaps if we can get the answers to those two questions, we can get closer to solving this puzzle. Or perhaps all sides will finally get together and work out what has caused this giant diplomatic misunderstanding.
Posted by: Danny 4th April 2015, 05:50 PM
She probably just said "Ed isn't prime minister material", and her supposedly preferring Cameron was just this diplomat's conjecture. Remember even if the memo is accurate (as in, hasn't been doctored), it's only a second-hand account based on what someone had heard from someone else.
Posted by: Qassändra 4th April 2015, 07:29 PM
The wording of the memo did say 'and confessed that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material)', which seems like a bit of a stretch from that given the Ambassador is fluent in English and it's the job of these officials to write down these verbatim conversations...
I seriously doubt it would be doctored. That's the kind of thing that could totally sink the Telegraph if it were found to be false - the fact there's an internal investigation into the leak in the Civil Service implies it's real, otherwise they would just deny its existence.
Posted by: popchartfreak 4th April 2015, 07:39 PM
The SNP has to be in it for the well-being of the whole of the UK, and needs to be seen to be supporting that view. Any suspicions that they'd willingly endorse or hoist another era of Thatcherism on everyone, INCLUDING Scotland, just to try and grab another quick referendum and push independence would be seen for what it is. Just as it was last time they did it and they declined for the next 30 years. I expect her to whole-heartedly deny they want Cameron to win....
Posted by: Silas 4th April 2015, 07:48 PM
The FCO has reportedly denied the existence of such a memo...
Posted by: Suedehead2 4th April 2015, 07:55 PM
I seriously doubt it would be doctored. That's the kind of thing that could totally sink the Telegraph if it were found to be false - the fact there's an internal investigation into the leak in the Civil Service implies it's real, otherwise they would just deny its existence.
The Daily Mail is still here, ninety years after the Zinoviev letter
Posted by: Qassändra 4th April 2015, 08:06 PM
Has it?
In a letter to Ms Sturgeon he said: "You have asked me to investigate issues relating to the apparent leak of a Scotland Office memo that forms the basis of this morning's Daily Telegraph story.
"I can confirm that earlier today I instigated a Cabinet Office-led leak inquiry to establish how extracts from this document may have got into the public domain."
That doesn't sound like the response of an organisation that presumably would've made its first task establishing whether or not the document even existed. The content of the rest of the transcript sounds pretty legitimate for the sheer banality of it all - it'd be a remarkable fake if it didn't at all exist.
Posted by: Doctor Blind 4th April 2015, 08:19 PM
The Telegraph is already sunk. Following the https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-have-resigned-from-telegraph in Private Eye about the Barclay Brothers and the recent resignation of Peter Oborne the paper has very quickly lost any respect it once had.
Posted by: Qassändra 4th April 2015, 09:54 PM
By sink, I mean News of the World style.
Posted by: Danny 4th April 2015, 10:08 PM
Farage struggling a bit in his South Thanet seat:
Conservatives 31%
UKIP 30%
Labour 29%
(ComRes)
Posted by: Silas 4th April 2015, 10:16 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32177315
Usually tend to trust the BBC when they say "A Foreign Office spokeswoman said they had no record of the memo."
Posted by: Qassändra 4th April 2015, 10:52 PM
The quote I posted's from the same article...I presume if it were verified that it didn't exist then they wouldn't be bothering with an inquiry, and it would be the main line the Civil Service were going with. We'll know soon enough anyway.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 4th April 2015, 11:17 PM
Conservatives 31%
UKIP 30%
Labour 29%
(ComRes)
Did not expect us to be back in it like this. Would be a massive coup.
Posted by: Suedehead2 4th April 2015, 11:33 PM
It would be hilarious if Farage loses to Labour
Posted by: Qassändra 4th April 2015, 11:33 PM
We're at the worrying point where it's very conceivable that we could defeat the leaders of both UKIP and the Lib Dems and still lose the election.
I'm too busy biting my nails and cursing to say it enough, but fucking hell I love politics at the moment *.*
Posted by: Suedehead2 4th April 2015, 11:40 PM
I'm too busy biting my nails and cursing to say it enough, but fucking hell I love politics at the moment *.*
It's a bit of a cliche to say that a general election is a set of 650 elections. That cliche is probably truer of this election than any other for a very long time. There are still hundreds of seats whose result is a foregone conclusion, but there will be a lot of interesting result on the night. I'm actually rather pleased that I am no longer involved. That means I can watch the results unfold rather than being at a count.
Posted by: Qassändra 4th April 2015, 11:42 PM
I love what he's done but I actually feel like we've lost a little something because of Ashcroft's polling. Just imagine going into results night not knowing what we already know so far...
Posted by: Suedehead2 4th April 2015, 11:51 PM
The Observer did something similar in 1997. Their polls in individual constituencies gave the first hint that Portillo could lose his seat.
I know what you mean though. Some "shock" results may not be as shocking as they might have been. Indeed, constituency polls might make those "shock" results more likely.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 5th April 2015, 08:29 AM
If it weren't for the Ashcroft polls we wouldn't have the same momentum in Hallam, so I'm bloody grateful.
Posted by: popchartfreak 5th April 2015, 09:30 AM
thanks for the link. The rich and powerful really DO need taking down several pegs, they think just cos they own the world they can do what they like with truth and freedom of speech.
Posted by: Suedehead2 6th April 2015, 11:10 PM
So, after the nonsense of the memo about Nicola Sturgeon and the French ambassador, we now have another story where we have to try and decide who is telling the truth.
Danny Alexander has claimed that, in a Budget meeting in 2012, a minister said to him something along the lines of "You look after the workers, we'll look after the bosses". Naturally, I have no idea whether this is true or not. However, the Tories haven't helped themselves by getting Sajid Javid to deny the claim. Javid became a Treasury minister in September 2012, so we have to assume this was an early meeting on the 2013 Budget. He claimed today that the Tories were always in favour of increasing the personal allowance. This is a blatant lie. In the 2012 leaders' debate, Cameron denounced the Lib Dem proposal to do just that as "unworkable". So, if Javid is lying about that, can we trust him to be telling the truth about the alleged bosses / workers statement?
Meanwhile, Labour are in danger of allowing the Tories to get away with something which, if not an out-and-out lie, is a massive distortion. They have been claiming that the average household would be £3,000 per year worse off under Labour. Naturally, Labour disputes the way the figure has been calculated. However, they haven't challenged the biggest deceit. Labour have already proposed raising the top rate of income tax back to 50% and imposing the (Lib Dem) mansion tax. These would raise a significant sum, but most people would not pay a penny extra. For example, somebody on £2m p.a. would pay almost £100,000 extra in income tax. Even if they don't pay the mansion tax, you could add in 30 households who pay nothing extra and you still end up with an average of £3,000 per household.
Posted by: popchartfreak 7th April 2015, 06:33 AM
Labour really not helping themselves there...
In terms of who I believe, well, I'm obviously biased, but I wouldnt trust anything the Tories say or do. It's part of human nature to conveniently rewrite recent history in the mind to suit one's current self-opinion. The problem for politicians is those annoying things called recorded facts which just will not go away, short of sending them all to the shredder (such as those unfortunate lost files relating to alleged paedophile politicians).
Me, I believe Danny Alexander's version of events, he's spent a large chunk of time as the Tory whipping boy for unpopular policies, to take the flack, and it sounds rather like the sort of statement an egotistical Tory might make. The Lib Dems did what they had to do for the good of the country, as voters chose, and haven't really complained about the hand they were dealt. The Tories were dragged kicking and screaming into policies they are now trying to take credit for, and let the Lib Dems take the flack for some of theirs.
Posted by: Doctor Blind 7th April 2015, 02:09 PM
Sajid Javid actually wants to make me throw my television out of the window, it is quite clear that the only reason that the personal allowance increased so much under this parliament was because of pressure from the Lib Dems. If the Conservatives had their way we'd have seen a pretty minimal increase compared with the massive cut for the 40% band they want to bring in (as well as the cut given to the new additional higher rate for >£150K) I tend to think that most things he says are a complete and utter lie, and generally block out anything he says.
His resemblance to a certain evil manipulative character from the Gerry Anderson TV show, The Hood, is uncanny. Difference is, one of them is a demonic puppet hellbent on getting his own way - the other is the Hood from Thunderbirds.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 7th April 2015, 09:46 PM
It looks like breaking Tony Blair out of the Home for Ex-Prime Ministers (population: 3) has spurred the Liberal Democrats into action. They just https://twitter.com/LibDems/status/585551404820901888, claiming that he would put an end to Zero Hour contracts.
Posted by: Rooney 7th April 2015, 09:54 PM
Haha I knew Blair popping up for Labour was going to lead to some awful PR.
Posted by: Suedehead2 7th April 2015, 10:02 PM
To be fair, zero-hours contracts were much less of a problem twenty years ago than they are now. It's a shame the Lib Dems haven't reminded us of his promise of a referendum on the electoral system.
Posted by: Danny 7th April 2015, 10:22 PM
Hilariously, the last time there was polling on it, Blair rated lower than both Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband.
Unfortunately Blair himself doesn't have the self-awareness to just shut up.
Posted by: Qassändra 7th April 2015, 10:32 PM
Heaven forbid we should focus on the worth of what someone says rather than who's saying it.
Posted by: Danny 7th April 2015, 10:48 PM
Labour 2% ahead in two polls today.
Within the margin of error, but any Labour leads at all should not be in the script this late in the game if the Tories were to get close to a majority...
Posted by: Qassändra 7th April 2015, 10:54 PM
Let's bring back Craig anyway, I'm sure he'd find a theory to make it happen.
Posted by: Suedehead2 7th April 2015, 11:03 PM
Judging by the report in today's Guardian ahead of the speech, I agree with most of what he said. No surprise that the (post-speech) Telegraph spin is that he has said people cannot be trusted with a vote on the EU.
Posted by: Silas 7th April 2015, 11:56 PM
The truth is that they can't. Years of Eurosceptic press has meant that the perverted views of the few are prevailing over what is best for the nation as a whole.
Until people start to see through the rhetoric of the Torygraph, Daily c**t, The Scum et al then they can't be trusted with a decision as important our nations future as part of the EU.
We were told categorically that the only way to remain a member of the European Union was to vote no. If the Tories somehow cling to power come May and there is a vote, the right-wing press will have it's way on Europe but have to stand by as the Union they printed lie after lie after lie to save disintegrates. It's so hypocritical I have a migraine from rolling my eyes so much.
Posted by: Doctor Blind 8th April 2015, 10:06 AM
In the Independent today David Cameron has accused the Liberal Democrats of leaking the memo alleging that Nicola Sturgeon wanted to see him remain prime minister.
Asked if he suspected the hand of the Lib Dems, Mr Cameron replied: “I have heard very clearly David Mundell [the Tory Scotland Office Minister]saying it wasn't him, so one does wonder.”
Posted by: Danny 8th April 2015, 11:09 AM
Just watched yesterday's Scottish debate:
http://player.stv.tv/programmes/scotland-debates/
I knew Jim Murphy wasn't in Sturgeon's league, but he was outclassed even by the Scottish Tory leader. I still think Labour could pull back some ground against the SNP in this election as some people give into the scaremongering about how they risk letting the Tories back in, but God help them in next year's Scottish Parliament election.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 8th April 2015, 01:23 PM
In other news, it looks like the Green Party has given up before they've even started. This is their Party Political Broadcast -
Posted by: Suedehead2 8th April 2015, 01:40 PM
Isn't this a week late? April Fool's Day was last week.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 8th April 2015, 01:44 PM
Also, I've been going through some of the smaller parties who are standing candidates in this election, and perhaps the most surprising is the return of the Whig Party, a progressive party which claims it will offer "a fresh choice to the British people", by reviving a party founded in the 17th century. It looks like their website http://whigs.uk/ as well.
Can't say I'm fond of them, I can't forgive the Whigs for their intellectually dishonest view of history.
Posted by: Harve 8th April 2015, 02:04 PM
Still not quite as bad as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIH-2lZF2yw or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1J0lwqDPgk but it's pretty close!
Posted by: Suedehead2 8th April 2015, 02:44 PM
The one saving grace with the Lib Dem one is that it isn't a serious broadcast. That doesn't alter the fact that it is terrible, of course.
Posted by: Qassändra 8th April 2015, 04:06 PM
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/04/back-to-the-con-lab-battleground/#more-11195 showing solid Labour leads over the Tories in Stockton South (5pt lead, 7th on target list), Morecambe and Lunesdale (6pt lead, 14th on target list), Hove (6pt lead, 28th on target list) and Harrow East (4pt lead, 52nd on target list), and a tie in Pudsey (26th on target list), with most of the Tory leads in seats between 40th and 60th on the target list.
It'd take something big to not be making many gains from the Conservatives on election night at this rate.
Posted by: popchartfreak 8th April 2015, 04:17 PM
so the political gloves are off, the electorate are apparently mindless idiots who are swayed by politicians slagging each other off, hinting, making snide remarks, backtracking on broken promises, glossing over the truth, or spewed propaganda by crap newspapers.
Is there an election shortly...?
Posted by: steve201 8th April 2015, 06:17 PM
It'd take something big to not be making many gains from the Conservatives on election night at this rate.
It's looking good then in terms of middle England - if Scotland returned their 2010 results Labour would easily have a majority!!
Posted by: Qassändra 8th April 2015, 06:41 PM
Not quite - we're not winning all of the seats in our first 66 targets, which would take us to a majority if we didn't lose a single seat from 2010. We would very easily be the biggest party though.
Posted by: steve201 8th April 2015, 08:55 PM
The fact even seats in Edinburgh are having 25% swings from labour to SNP shows things are looking dire up north!
Posted by: Silas 8th April 2015, 09:04 PM
I think Glasgow falling to the SNP is a real possibility but realistically I don't see Edinburgh following suit.
I'm looking forward to the Scottish announcements to see just how accurate the polls are and to hope we can at least pull of 25-30 seats.
Posted by: Danny 8th April 2015, 09:59 PM
I'm looking forward to the Scottish announcements to see just how accurate the polls are and to hope we can at least pull of 25-30 seats.
Is there even a 0.05% chance of my "Labour winning North East Fife" bet coming good? *sob*
Posted by: Qassändra 8th April 2015, 10:06 PM
There's still a month for the SNP candidate to endorse child molestation.
Posted by: Silas 8th April 2015, 10:37 PM
I'm not entirely convinced that Labour will even beat the LibDems here.
Posted by: Qassändra 8th April 2015, 10:43 PM
The Lib Dems will probably be second there - I think the candidate's local.
Posted by: Silas 8th April 2015, 10:54 PM
I'm not so sure about that. The Tory vote here is fairly strong at around 8k. It's also not tied to a candidate as the '01 & '05 Tory candidate stood as UKIP in '10 and his vote plummeted to 1k (He's standing as an Indie this year and we have no UKIP candidate this year 
)
This will be the first election where one of the LibDems and the Tories doesn't finish in the top 2. While the Tories won't win, I can see their support holding firm enough for them to maintain second as the SNP take it from the LibDems.
(The candidate is local, he's a councillor)
Posted by: Qassändra 8th April 2015, 10:57 PM
There's a *lot* of tactical unionist voting that's going to be happening in seats like that - it's been coming up in our polling fieldwork! A lot of Tories have been saying they'll be voting Lib Dem as the best anti-SNP option. Not enough for them to win in most seats, but enough to make a close enough second to launch a fightback in 2020 a realistic possibility.
Posted by: steve201 9th April 2015, 09:51 AM
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/04/no-really-snp-are-going-win-least-50-scotland-s-59-seats
Posted by: Brett-Butler 9th April 2015, 11:59 AM
Given that Trident's back in the news today, and knowing that I will never turn down any opportunity to insert a Yes (Prime) Minister video in here -
Posted by: Danny 9th April 2015, 12:02 PM
Whiff of panic starting to come from the Tories with their desperate attack on Ed "stabbing his brother in the back". I don't really think these types of personal attacks work -- even though people themselves think/say all the things about Ed being disloyal and weird and out-of-his-depth, they (hypocritically) judge politicians when they stoop to their standards. All the "focus groups" after the Jeremy Paxman interviews showed people got annoyed when the questions got too personal.
Posted by: steve201 9th April 2015, 01:06 PM
Ha the tories election campaign really has been awful so far - Milliband will increase his lead in the polls over the weekend i would say if this continues!
Posted by: Suedehead2 9th April 2015, 01:21 PM
Coming next week - "Under Labour, you will be forced to sell your granny. Under the Conservatives, everybody will have at least one granny."
Posted by: Soy Adrián 9th April 2015, 01:31 PM
The Tories have three lines of attack with Miliband - weird, weak, and backstabbing. The latter two contradict each other and people seem to care less and less about the first one. Not going well...
Posted by: Brett-Butler 9th April 2015, 02:10 PM
I hate to be pedantic, but that's not the case. Backstabbing implies cowardice, a form of weakness, as stabbing someone in the back gives them no prior warning of attack. A strong person would willingly stab someone from the front with plenty of warning, knowing full well that their power would overcome them.
Actually, I lie. I love being pedantic.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 9th April 2015, 03:43 PM
Actually, I lie. I love being pedantic.
It's more that their "weak" line hinges on him being indecisive, which contradicts the backstabbing.
Posted by: Danny 9th April 2015, 04:00 PM
Labour have leads of 3%, 4% and 6% in today's polls.
Posted by: Qassändra 9th April 2015, 04:35 PM
Even Tories pro-Miliband's non-dom policy *.*
Posted by: popchartfreak 9th April 2015, 04:42 PM
I read it more as being so power mad he would even stab his brother in the back - and therefore being desperate to get power he would do any deal with the snp. Not indecisive nor weak but calculating.
Or practical depending on how you view things
Posted by: Danny 9th April 2015, 04:46 PM
One drawback though is, a Newsnight vox pop last night found only one person who knew what a "non-dom" was.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 9th April 2015, 04:49 PM
Or practical depending on how you view things
The point is that they could have gone with any of the three attack lines, but they've completely fudged it by trying to use all of them.
Posted by: Qassändra 9th April 2015, 05:10 PM
Our poster on it's shit too. Not that anyone would've seen it anyway!
Posted by: Brett-Butler 9th April 2015, 06:34 PM
The nominations have closed in Northern Ireland (and presumably in the rest of the UK as well) and the candidate lists have been http://www.eoni.org.uk/Elections/Election-results-and-statistics/Election-results-and-statistics-2003-onwards/Elections-2015/UK-Parliamentary-Election-Candidates-Nominated. I must admit I feel a little bit sorry for Paul Shea, the Conservative candidate that's been made to stand in Belfast West.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 9th April 2015, 06:40 PM
And in a moment of absolute hilarity, almost every Conservative that's running in Northern Ireland has a home address in either London or Durham. Just shows that they've got so much support over here that they have to ship in Tories from the mainland to run.
Posted by: Suedehead2 9th April 2015, 07:10 PM
Am I alone in hoping that the Tories in Witney, Tatton, Chingford, Brentwood and Uxbridge have somehow managed to cock up their nomination papers?
Posted by: Suedehead2 9th April 2015, 07:13 PM
Yes, they all closed today.
The lists of nominees can be found here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies. It looks like they may not be completely up-to-date yet, but that should be remedied soon enough.
I have a candidate standing under the Patria label. Something tells me he might be ever-so-slightly right-wing.
Posted by: steve201 9th April 2015, 07:20 PM
It's ridiculous they are allowed to stand. What 300 people vote for them every election? People who don't like the sectarian head count here and are upper middle class. A fair few probably live in hills borough. I think the Tories just want to make n.ire feel like the mainland. I'm in South Belfast so I might vote sdlp to keep a unionist out. Would love to vote Naiomi Long in East Belfast - would love her to win after the tactics unionists are using to win the seat back.
Gerry Carroll got any chance in the west I wonder?!
Posted by: Brett-Butler 9th April 2015, 07:24 PM
The lists of nominees can be found here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies. It looks like they may not be completely up-to-date yet, but that should be remedied soon enough.
I have a candidate standing under the Patria label. Something tells me he might be ever-so-slightly right-wing.
Yes, I had the misfortune of reading their manifesto a few days ago. they make the BNP look like the Socialist/Trade Unionist Coalition.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 9th April 2015, 07:26 PM
Gerry Carroll got any chance in the west I wonder?!
He's got no chance. Belfast West is the most staunchly Sinn Fein constituency in NI, and I can't see any change with that in the past 5 years. A strong 3rd place is the best he can hope for.
Posted by: steve201 9th April 2015, 07:32 PM
Which wouldn't be too bad!
Posted by: Danny 9th April 2015, 09:12 PM
Still no swingback at all for Labour in Scotland -- SNP have 49% to Labour's 25% in new poll.
Jim Murphy bombed in the Scottish debate, rating 3rd with 13% behind Sturgeon on 56% and the Tories' Ruth Davison on 14%.
Posted by: steve201 9th April 2015, 09:59 PM
Are they the same polls that showed Cameron winning last weeks debate? #spindoctors
Posted by: Qassändra 9th April 2015, 11:18 PM
Is that for the first or second debate Danny?
Posted by: Danny 9th April 2015, 11:39 PM
Tuesday's. (I hadn't realised there'd been another last night)
Posted by: Brett-Butler 10th April 2015, 07:27 PM
It looks as if the seat with the least amount of people standing in it is Buckingham, where the current Speaker, John Bercow is standing. It's usually tradition that the major parties don't stand against the speaker as it's more of a formality, with Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dems declining to field a candidate. Although interestingly, the other two parties standing are UKIP and the Greens. I doubt that Bercow will lose his seat, and I imagine it would be next to impossible for one of the candidates to lose their deposit.
Now here's one for you - which constituency has the most candidates standing in it?
Posted by: Suedehead2 10th April 2015, 07:41 PM
The PM's constituency is always a good contender, so I'll go for Witney.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 10th April 2015, 07:53 PM
Witney's got twelve candidates listed amongst them a party looking to reduce the VAT for Sport, the Wessex Regionalists, and some party going by the rather strange name of "Give Me Back Elmo". I do have a feeling that there's at least one constituency with more candidates running though.
Posted by: Suedehead2 11th April 2015, 09:23 PM
Meanwhile, the Tories have announced their latest bright idea. They want to reduce inheritance tax on homes worth £1 million. How many people do they think will benefit form that? How many of those people are already Tory voters (and probably members)? You really have to wonder what planet some of these people are living on.
Posted by: Suedehead2 11th April 2015, 09:34 PM
Just an extra thought. Let's say somebody dies and leaves a large empty home. At the moment, their beneficiaries might try to sell the property for, say £900K. If a property worth up to £1 million is exempt from inheritance tax, they will put it on the market for £1 million and hope to get somewhere near that. So, we have yet another policy which will increase property prices.
These blithering idiots don't seem to understand that property prices are already too high. They are throwing increasing amounts of money at keeping them artificially high. That means that future governments will be reluctant to reverse these barmy policies. After all, no party wants to be accused of implementing measures which will lead to a fall in property prices.
Posted by: popchartfreak 11th April 2015, 11:00 PM
And any economy based around property bubbles is heading for disaster - oh we've seen that already from the previous governments of the world haven't we?! Fact.
Posted by: Doctor Blind 11th April 2015, 11:12 PM
Help to Buy, Help to Buy ISAs, Funding for Lending..
Anything but actually addressing the actual issue. Conservatives. Building a shittier, debt-driven economy that may implode at any moment.
Posted by: steve201 12th April 2015, 10:15 AM
That's what they want tho, a Victorian style society in 2015 where everyone gets into debt because they believe buying a house is the thing to do which will lead to more individuality and less solidarity.
Posted by: Doctor Blind 12th April 2015, 10:18 AM
Yes, and you can even leave your £1 million 1 bed flat in Kingston-upon-Thames to your children (that you haven't even paid half the mortgage off yet at 0.00005% interest rate) TAX FREE. Rejoice! Rejoice!
Posted by: Qassändra 12th April 2015, 02:00 PM
Well actually, I'd imagine quite a lot of people own homes worth between £325,000 and £1m, and not necessarily just Tory voters.
Posted by: Suedehead2 12th April 2015, 02:36 PM
It will still benefit relatively few people. Even those whose estates will be affected can only die once. However, the tabloids make it sound like a massive giveaway that will make us all rich. Of course, as ever, there is no mention of where the money is coming from. No doubt they will use the same line as they have used for their extra £8 billion for the NHS - "Trust us". I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw Eric Pickles. Using one finger.
Posted by: Qassändra 12th April 2015, 03:46 PM
I would presume a lot of people are related to a large proportion of the 64% of people who own their homes (I'm guessing, with house prices as they are, that ~80+% of those are worth over £325k). Let's not pretend this won't affect a lot of people.
The criticism of where the money's coming from is totally right, but given the ideological side to this I can't see them not bringing this in if they can help it.
Posted by: dandystar 12th April 2015, 04:04 PM
Suedehead is right, not that many people own homes worth over 325K... and those that do tend to be concentrated in the areas already dominated by the Tories anyway.
About 8% or so of people in this country have to pay Inheritance Tax so the scope for affecting the population as a whole is automatically rather limited and will only benefit those that are already wealthy.
Posted by: Qassändra 12th April 2015, 04:20 PM
About 8% or so of people in this country have to pay Inheritance Tax so the scope for affecting the population as a whole is automatically rather limited and will only benefit those that are already wealthy.
8% is based on people dying as we speak. Given the house price spike is a relatively recent phenomenon, we'd probably see a lot more being affected by it in about 20-30 years time - and I'd say there are probably a *lot* of people part way through a mortgage on homes over 325k, or who see themselves at some point getting one.
I don't think this policy will have as much of an effect as the first time it was announced in 2007, but it's not by any means an irrelevant one!
Posted by: dandystar 12th April 2015, 04:30 PM
8% is indeed based upon current volumes... but we're talking about a current election, not one in 30 years time. When you keep in mind most couples actually only pay on estates above £650,000 and the average house price is a comparatively low £180,000 (according to land registry data), this policy is only going to benefit the people who are already comparatively rich and it will yet again be funded by cuts elsewhere that are need by the poorer elements of society. I don't think it's irrelevant, I think it's disgraceful.
Posted by: Qassändra 12th April 2015, 04:32 PM
When it comes to inheritance tax policy, most people do tend to bear in mind that they'll be dying in the future!
That as it is, it's still the kind of thing that changes minds.
Posted by: Danny 12th April 2015, 04:35 PM
What minds is it going to change? The Tories already have wholesale command over the whole of the wealthiest 20% or so, except for the diehard Guardianish lefties who don't mind paying higher taxes anyway.
Posted by: dandystar 12th April 2015, 04:39 PM
Yes... and the policies and threshold levels change over time to reflect that to keep it at a level where it affects a similar proportion of the population at any given time - the £325,000 is at that level to reflect the wealth of people who are actually likely to be passing away now, not the wealth of those who will die in the future! It's an absolute con to suggest that this policy is to safeguard anything for the future as that would happen naturally over time with incremental rises to reflect the wealth of that generation, the reality of implementing any such policy now is that it's to protect the richer people in societies homes at this point in time.
Posted by: dandystar 12th April 2015, 04:41 PM
It will change the minds of the comparatively stupid voters who believe what they read in the Daily Mail and who actually believe that a policy change now is intended for them in 40-50 years time when they MAY own a house that is worth more. You would be amazed how many people worry about these things when in reality they will never have to pay anything at all.
Posted by: Common Sense 12th April 2015, 04:56 PM
About 8% or so of people in this country have to pay Inheritance Tax so the scope for affecting the population as a whole is automatically rather limited and will only benefit those that are already wealthy.
Anyone who pays large amounts of inheritance tax is a fool imo. It's a very unfair tax. My cousin's died, leaving over 1.3 million with house and savings and my daughter 's one of 5 beneficiaries as a second cousin. He's bypassed his first cousins!
According to the letter she's received, with preliminary estate estimates, over 426k will go in inheritance tax and he paid 300k when he inherited from his mother! It's ridiculous that all this money goes to the Treasury. People should do what the wife's rich employers are doing gradually and put most money and property in their offspring's names before they die!!
Posted by: dandystar 12th April 2015, 05:05 PM
I think I'd just be grateful to be receiving 180K that I'd never had to work to earn... but each to their own etc.
Posted by: Common Sense 12th April 2015, 05:10 PM
Well yes but it doesn't seem right that in theory this tax can be paid over and over again on the same money!
I think the Tory policy is a good one by the way. As I say, imo inheritance tax is a very unfair one.
Posted by: Suedehead2 12th April 2015, 05:24 PM
I think the Tory policy is a good one by the way. As I say, imo inheritance tax is a very unfair one.
It seems perfectly fair to me. I assume you would also abolish VAT on the grounds that people have already paid income tax. I hate to think how high income tax would need to be.
Posted by: dandystar 12th April 2015, 05:26 PM
It is one way or another regardless though... if you earn it and spend it then it goes back into the economy and is taxed through income or capital gains or whatever else. It's a bit naive to think that money should only be taxed once, part of the function of the economy is to keep it circulating.
Essentially any tax you reduce from wealth tax will end up being paid for by other means, whether that be more tax paid in income etc or a worse standard of public services. Or both. I have literally no problem with taxing people as they pass away, they are the one type of person who categorically does not need it any longer.
Posted by: popchartfreak 12th April 2015, 05:46 PM
or nother way at looking at it is it's a Tory policy based on keeping the rich in control and in power by having children of rich people stay rich and so on and so on, while the poor get poorer, being as the paltry sums they own for cheap shit housing gets snatched away by the state the second you become infirm, and your kids get sod all, so they stay poor.
Why should someone who happens to have rich parents get all their riches by virtue of doing nothing other than being born? Ridiculous, that's not the Tory ethic of working hard to get the wages you deserve, that's 2-faced hypocrisy, attempts to attract traditional voters away from UKIP as the morons who are enthusiastic supporters for them are largely well-off, very poor, or badly informed on any number of issues. The rest are voting UKIP to give both Labour and Conservatives a bloody nose for being so casual and carefree in government with lots of our well-being.
Posted by: Danny 12th April 2015, 06:06 PM
Why should someone who happens to have rich parents get all their riches by virtue of doing nothing other than being born? Ridiculous, that's not the Tory ethic of working hard to get the wages you deserve, that's 2-faced hypocrisy, attempts to attract traditional voters away from UKIP as the morons who are enthusiastic supporters for them are largely well-off, very poor, or badly informed on any number of issues. The rest are voting UKIP to give both Labour and Conservatives a bloody nose for being so casual and carefree in government with lots of our well-being.
Exactly. I love the irony of them screaming about benefit-claimants getting things supposedly without having "earned" it, yet are happy for rich people to get handed these things on a plate and be excused from actually having to work for a living.
Posted by: Danny 13th April 2015, 02:17 AM
So, after a week where Labour got a boost by finally attacking the hated fat-cats, they seem to have decided to sabotage themselves again by making the main headline of their manifesto dull and uninspiring wishy-washiness about "no extra borrowing", and attacking the Conservatives for planning to spend too much on the NHS.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32279977
Posted by: Danny 13th April 2015, 12:41 PM
Robert Peston @Peston · 5h 5 hours ago
Gripping that @edballsmp refusing to match @George_Osborne unfunded pledge to spend £8bn more on NHS
They REALLY don't want to win this election do they.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 13th April 2015, 02:04 PM
A rogue poll or a sign of tides turning? A Guardian poll has given http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/13/conservatives-six-point-lead-guardian-icm-poll-labour?CMP=share_btn_tw.
Posted by: Suedehead2 13th April 2015, 02:25 PM
The detail suggests that this is a rogue poll. It puts the Tories ahead of Labour (albeit on a very small subsample) by 3 to 1 in Scotland. It also shows the Tories ahead with DE voters (the lowest paid) and with a clear lead among C2s (the next lowest paid). The whole poll seems to have been seriously bodged.
Posted by: Danny 13th April 2015, 02:28 PM
The hilarity of the Tories taking a lead over Labour literally within hours of Labour saying they would spend less than them.
Posted by: Suedehead2 13th April 2015, 02:52 PM
And those two things are related how? The sampling for the poll finished yesterday. Your statement also assumes the poll is accurate. For the reasons I gave above, I don't think it is.
Posted by: Danny 13th April 2015, 03:02 PM
I wasn't being serious
I do think if Miliband now intends to spend the rest of the election posturing about how tough he'll be on the deficit and bragging about how he'll spend less than the Conservatives, he'll eventually spark another exodus of Labour voters to Green/UKIP/SNP/non-voting, though.
Posted by: Suedehead2 13th April 2015, 03:20 PM
The latest Ashcroft poll (published twenty minutes ago) has Lab and Con tied on 33%, UKIP 13%, LD 9% and Green 6%. That seems far more likely than the Guardian poll.
Posted by: Cupid 13th April 2015, 03:27 PM
UKIP 13%?
Let's round 'em up and ship 'em out the country, that'll solve overcrowding. We don't want those 13% of voters here thanks xo
Posted by: Silas 13th April 2015, 04:57 PM
The UK Labour Party and the Scottish Labour party really need to have a sit down chat and co-ordinate their message as they are currently shooting each other in the face.
TNS poll today has SNP at 52%, Labour on 24% Greens on 3%, LibDem on 6%, Other on 2%, UKIP on 0% and the Tories on 13%.
http://www.tnsglobal.com/uk/press-release/snp-increases-its-lead-in-latest-tns-poll?hc_location=ufi
Posted by: Danny 13th April 2015, 05:16 PM
The UK Labour Party and the Scottish Labour party really need to have a sit down chat and co-ordinate their message as they are currently shooting each other in the face.
TNS poll today has SNP at 52%, Labour on 24% Greens on 3%, LibDem on 6%, Other on 2%, UKIP on 0% and the Tories on 13%.
http://www.tnsglobal.com/uk/press-release/snp-increases-its-lead-in-latest-tns-poll?hc_location=ufi
Miliband is going to get absolutely slaughtered by Nicola in Thursday's debate with his new message of "the Tories' cuts plans don't go far enough".
Posted by: Soy Adrián 13th April 2015, 05:29 PM
Ashcroft's polls have constantly rated Labour lower than most as well.
Posted by: Common Sense 13th April 2015, 05:45 PM
Let's round 'em up and ship 'em out the country, that'll solve overcrowding. We don't want those 13% of voters here thanks xo
Don't talk so stupidly.
Of course we do. Everyone's entitled to an opinion and to vote for whom they like. I'm voting UKIP as a protest vote even though they've no chance here in East Ham, as we have far too much immigration. Nigel was spot on about the Aids tourists coming here and getting 25k a year treatment ande had the gutsw to say it.
Posted by: popchartfreak 13th April 2015, 06:02 PM
Of course we do. Everyone's entitled to an opinion and to vote for whom they like. I'm voting UKIP as a protest vote even though they've no chance here in East Ham, as we have far too much immigration. Nigel was spot on about the Aids tourists coming here and getting 25k a year treatment ande had the gutsw to say it.Tourists don't get long-term NHS care. The thing with HIV is the pills have to be forever and daily once it's decided you need them. Stop taking them, and you go back to where you started. Tourists leave the country. So they must be people who live here, and they get free NHS care as much as, say, any rich imported American banker does, the fact he's employed is irrelevant, still free health care and he's taking up a (very well-paid) job as much as any european toiling for crap wages in farmers fields so we can all have cheap food does.
Only difference is one of them has a useful job and the other works for organisations that bankrupt the rest of us at the drop of a hat. Let's see farage start camapaigning about all those nasty rich foreigners coming over from non-EU countries (about half of the people coming to the UK are non-EU) and taking up all those rich jobs in the city, or the film industry, or music biz, or industry leaders, or footballers, or megastore owners, or mansion-magnates, oil tycoons, or indeed his own parasitic wife getting the benefit of the NHS while being paid by the taxpayer (as indeed he is).
Hypocrite thy name is Farage.
Posted by: Qassändra 13th April 2015, 07:56 PM
Of course we do. Everyone's entitled to an opinion and to vote for whom they like. I'm voting UKIP as a protest vote even though they've no chance here in East Ham, as we have far too much immigration. Nigel was spot on about the Aids tourists coming here and getting 25k a year treatment ande had the gutsw to say it.Your wife's a fucking immigrant and the overwhelming majority of HIV patients born abroad lived here before they contracted the condition you bigoted prick.
Posted by: steve201 13th April 2015, 08:55 PM
He will love it, make him look prime ministerial taking a serious position on the economy with all the left wing parties around and no DC!
Posted by: Danny 13th April 2015, 08:56 PM
It's not a serious position, it's a right-wing position which the majority of the public don't agree with, and where in Scotland in particular there's a party tailor-made to pick up the votes of all those people who don't agree.
Posted by: Silas 13th April 2015, 09:04 PM
The big problem Labour have in Scotland is Jim Murphy. He just prances about contradicting himself and the UK party every time he opens his mouth. I think he's actually driving more support to the SNP!
Posted by: Cupid 14th April 2015, 03:16 AM
Of course we do. Everyone's entitled to an opinion and to vote for whom they like. I'm voting UKIP as a protest vote even though they've no chance here in East Ham, as we have far too much immigration. Nigel was spot on about the Aids tourists coming here and getting 25k a year treatment ande had the gutsw to say it.A protest vote? Oh hunny... now that's stupidity.
Posted by: Doctor Blind 14th April 2015, 05:33 AM
Haha, UKIP a protest vote - yeah just like shitting in your hotel bed to protest against bad service, and then realising you have to sleep in it. Good one Chris!
Posted by: popchartfreak 14th April 2015, 07:10 AM
So the Tories plan to extend right to buy to housing associations. This is a political bribe for votes paid for by the tax payer yet again.
The morons plan to make councils pay for the discount by selling off the better housing stock needed for larger families and replace it with cheap crap. So where exactly will the current occupants of this stock go? This is financial sleight of hand and is yet another hit on councils. And the poor. Anyone who can afford a discounted council house can afford to go private. Tory tits
Posted by: Common Sense 14th April 2015, 07:28 AM
My wife pays full taxes unlike all these Eastern European immigrants on benefits and taking council houses.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 14th April 2015, 08:30 AM
It's also not his position. There's a world of difference between "where's the money going to come from" and "you should be cutting more". That difference is basically the crux of the two parties' economic plans beyond 2016. Apart from the fact that we've technically got wiggle room on massive capital spending.
You sound like you must know a lot of them in person.
Posted by: Common Sense 14th April 2015, 09:03 AM
I know some and there's lots around us here in East London.
Posted by: Suedehead2 14th April 2015, 09:25 AM
The morons plan to make councils pay for the discount by selling off the better housing stock needed for larger families and replace it with cheap crap. So where exactly will the current occupants of this stock go? This is financial sleight of hand and is yet another hit on councils. And the poor. Anyone who can afford a discounted council house can afford to go private. Tory tits
The Tory plan is that councils should sell their best properties as and when they become vacant. Of course, that means they have to rely on people in those properties wanting to move (or dying). Of course, as you say, it is yet another hit on councils. After all, they are effectively being asked to fund the discount on sales of their own properties and housing association properties.
Cameron will be interviewed by Evan Davis on BBC1 tomorrow (he did Clegg yesterday). The interview is only 30 minutes, so there won't be time to get him to explain all the flaws in the policies they have announced so far.
Posted by: Qassändra 14th April 2015, 10:12 AM
Are they also taking all of our jobs?
Posted by: Danny 14th April 2015, 01:33 PM
Miliband said yesterday that the Tories were going to "spend recklessly". The obvious implication of that is that Labour would spend less.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 14th April 2015, 01:41 PM
The correct implication is that they haven't costed their plans while we have.
We've already announced a whole host of tax rises, so sticking to the same budget is categorically not the same as spending the same (or less).
Posted by: Danny 14th April 2015, 01:54 PM
We've already announced a whole host of tax rises, so sticking to the same budget is categorically not the same as spending the same (or less).
There's been hardly any.
I feel like the manifestos the last couple of days will be seen as the turning point of the election. Labour just completely miscalculated: people don't want "credibility", they want HOPE that things are going to get better, and on that score the Tories are now getting the upper-hand (irrespective of whether they'll actually follow through on their promises). People don't want to hear nitpicking about how "realistic" or "costed" things are, they WANT to believe things are going to get better and so will take anything that politicians say at this point pretty much at face value.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 14th April 2015, 02:08 PM
Danny, out of interest, what are thoughts on TUSC?
Posted by: Danny 14th April 2015, 02:15 PM
I actually saw before that they're standing in my seat!
I don't like the "hard left" usually because they tend to get obsessed with fringe issues like "nationalising the railways" or "abolishing Trident" (or batshit conspiracy theories about 9/11).
Posted by: Qassändra 14th April 2015, 02:24 PM
!!
Posted by: Qassändra 14th April 2015, 02:26 PM
You what? If anything people have lost faith in politicians overpromising and underdelivering. Actually showing how you're going to bring about the change you're promising by saying how you'll pay for it is always worth more than just sounding off like some Green Party freak promising the moon with no idea or plan for how to get there.
Posted by: Danny 14th April 2015, 02:29 PM
So you think the last couple of days have gone well for Labour, then?
Posted by: Qassändra 14th April 2015, 02:32 PM
The last few days have been way better than the first week, but I don't get the sense that anybody's particularly 'won' the last couple of days to be honest. I do think we'd have lost the campaign in about an hour if we'd just gone out and promised the world without a single way of saying how we'd pay for it - we can't get away with that the way the Tories can.
Posted by: steve201 14th April 2015, 09:23 PM
There's truth in both positions Cameron believes the hype that people believe the Tories are good at steering the economy so he thinks he can go forward with massive promises not funded beforehand.
But also it's true that people don't trust politicsns.
It's clear that being stuck at 30% has meant both main parties have to branch out to others so Tories have morphed into the party of working people whereas labour is all of a sudden prudent in a Ramsay Macdonaldesque Labour Party way.
I wonky wish newspapers would scrutinise the Tories the way they do for labour!
Posted by: Suedehead2 14th April 2015, 09:30 PM
But also it's true that people don't trust politicsns.
It's clear that being stuck at 30% has meant both main parties have to branch out to others so Tories have morphed into the party of working people whereas labour is all of a sudden prudent in a Ramsay Macdonaldesque Labour Party way.
I only wish newspapers would scrutinise the Tories the way they do for labour!
There's not much chance of that. Of course, the Tories know it and act accordingly.
Posted by: popchartfreak 14th April 2015, 09:36 PM
The council house waiting list round here is 10 years, those with children get priority and the taxpayer pays private property-owners huge sums of money for them to live there because there aren't enough council houses. This of course means the taxpayer supports the private sector instead of recycling the money within local government, is hugely expensive, and helps keeps the rich rich and the poor poor. Oh and it's more expensive. Most immigrants don't qualify to jump to the top of the housing waiting list, and the ones I know of locally tend to live in one-bed slums, or rent a bedroom, or even sleep 2 or 3 to a room on mattresses on the floor - I know, I once spent a night on a mattress with Brazilian (non-EU) students/workers before they got forced to go home. Non-EU admittedly, but most of them work in low-paid jobs, and there's essentially no difference between someone who works and pays tax in a well-paid job, and someone who works in low-paid jobs when both are not born in the country and are here legally. Nor is it any different for all the British people working abroad in the holiday industry in sunnier climes. They are there legally, and pay taxes to the country they work in.
Posted by: Common Sense 14th April 2015, 10:20 PM
Has anyone here actually ever been phoned by one of the polling organisations? My terminally ill mum, 89, was rung by Populus last week whilst I was up there and asked whom she planned to vote for and she told him to mind his own business!! Didn't think they bothered with rock solid safe seats like Barnsley Central!
Posted by: steve201 14th April 2015, 10:25 PM
Indeed and the privately educated media moguls in turn benefit from Tory policies!
Posted by: Brett-Butler 14th April 2015, 10:40 PM
I had a guy from Ipsos-Mori come to the door last year in the run up to the European elections to poll me about my feeling about the elections. I'd asked him why they do it door-to-door instead of over the phone/internet, and he said that it's because he feels that they get more accurate results that way. I would dispute that, but then again, they're the professionals.
Posted by: Suedehead2 14th April 2015, 11:29 PM
They select people at random, regardless of constituency. They then adjust their figures to allow for the discrepancy between a random sample and a truly representative sample. Obviously, nobody would bother doing a constituency poll in Barnsley Central, any more than they would do one in Witney.
Posted by: Suedehead2 14th April 2015, 11:34 PM
Face-to-face polls used to be the norm. However, there has been a gradual move towards phone and internet polling. All methods have their merits and their flaws. For example, the relative anonymity of an internet poll may mean respondents are more honest.
Posted by: steve201 15th April 2015, 08:57 AM
I feel like the manifestos the last couple of days will be seen as the turning point of the election. Labour just completely miscalculated: people don't want "credibility", they want HOPE that things are going to get better, and on that score the Tories are now getting the upper-hand (irrespective of whether they'll actually follow through on their promises). People don't want to hear nitpicking about how "realistic" or "costed" things are, they WANT to believe things are going to get better and so will take anything that politicians say at this point pretty much at face value.
So you wouldnt say this manifesto is Labours most radical in a generation then?
Posted by: Qassändra 15th April 2015, 10:05 AM
Apparently 'radical' had its definition changed to 'increase spending loads' (which doesn't strike me as especially radical a solution in and of itself, but there we go), so apparently not.
Posted by: Danny 15th April 2015, 11:48 AM
You're right, the real definition of socialism is "cut away the safety net for the poor even more when it's already in tatters".
Posted by: Qassändra 15th April 2015, 01:18 PM
Who said the cuts would be to the safety net?
Posted by: Common Sense 15th April 2015, 04:00 PM
There's an interesting thread on Digital Spy asking whether the general public really care or are interested in the deficit. I doubt most of the electorate gives a toss about it and whether we bring it down, halve it or leave it as it is as it doesn't affect them personally! I certainly don't care about it yet politicians are going on and on about it this election. Voters surely care far more about how much tax they're paying and how much they have in their pay packet every month and the state of schools and the NHS.
Posted by: Qassändra 15th April 2015, 04:21 PM
They might not care now. They probably will care the next time we hit a recession and can't borrow as much as we need for a proper stimulus to stop ordinary people being hit worst by a downturn.
Posted by: Silas 15th April 2015, 04:29 PM
That would require the current shower of morons to be replaced by those who rightly believe that stimulus trumps austerity.
The deficit does matter, but not as much as the Tories or the LNP would have you believe. It depends on why you're running a deficit. If you're struggling to cover the basics like pensions, welfare, NHS, teachers salaries et al then we're in hot water. But if you're running a deficit to invest in capital infrastructure and generally investing in growth then actually it's a good thing because in the long run you generate greater returns.
Currently it is very cheap for the UK Government to borrow, so the smart plan is the SNP's. I'm not just saying this as a member. Moderate increases in spending, investment in growth and job creation while ensuring that the government is operating efficiently and effectively will pay greater dividends than an ideological drive to have a budget surplus that has destroyed public services and done shit all to help the economy.
Posted by: Danny 15th April 2015, 05:45 PM
"Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine. It may make you feel like you're flying high at first, but it won't take long before you feel the impact."
Said not by a raving "TUSCite", but by the president of the socialist hotbed that is the US. The country which has even lower borrowing rates despite not giving a crap about the deficit.
Posted by: Qassändra 15th April 2015, 06:27 PM
Said not by a raving "TUSCite", but by the president of the socialist hotbed that is the US. The country which has even lower borrowing rates despite not giving a crap about the deficit.
Which is why Labour have ringfenced education spending and said that investment borrowing wouldn't be included in their deficit calculations.
And it's not about rates, it's about how much you can actually realistically borrow at those rates if a crisis hits - if you're going to borrow for a proper stimulus, you'll be borrowing amounts that would almost certainly command higher rates or just be refused outright compared to typical borrowing rates, especially if you haven't stabilised your deficit from the last recession. Not that it's that hard to have low borrowing rates when you have the world's reserve currency.
Posted by: Qassändra 15th April 2015, 06:31 PM
Dunno if you'd guessed, but I'm kind of campaigning for that at the moment.
Posted by: Danny 15th April 2015, 06:39 PM
The same principle applies to health and welfare, and all the local government funding which indirectly goes into those areas. Though again, I can see we've hit into the ironic definition of "economic credibility" where you can make masses of cuts without somehow affecting anything that matters, all with magical "reforms" no doubt.
Posted by: Qassändra 15th April 2015, 07:06 PM
Putting the moral case aside (where yeah, I obviously see the case), it's pretty difficult to argue that continuing unlimited child and housing benefit supports the economy more than having the option of proper stimulus borrowing in the event of a recession.
Posted by: Danny 15th April 2015, 07:14 PM
Child benefit maybe, but Britain's tourism industry would go up in flames if the streets were suddenly filled with homeless people as a result of scrapping housing benefit.
The point is, the logical conclusion of your argument that "it's possible to cut spending without affecting anything that matters" is the logical conclusion is that huge amounts of current spending aren't necessary. Why would those programmes have been set up in the first place if there wasn't a need for them?
Posted by: popchartfreak 15th April 2015, 07:36 PM
Build council houses is the blatantly obvious answer. Stop Right To Buy instantly. Gets rid of waiting lists, cuts money given out in housing benefits to the private sector and gives it back to councils who can use the money. Creates tons of jobs in house building, all 2nd and 3rd home owners suddnely struggle to rake in enough cash to keep themselves gainfully lazy and are forced to sell or seriously drop rents for the private sector, property returns to realistic prices and becomes affordable to young people and poorer people. Housing becomes somehting to live in, not something to invest and make money out of.
Suddenly wages go much further, and there are more jobs, and society is fairer.
So why is this not happening? Vested interests amongst politicians to keep housing market bubbles going by the well-off who financially support them, or vote for them, and gain from keeping the current very unfair system. Oh, and to keep the b*stard banks afloat, still those nasty years of insane lending on the books just biding their time for housing values to rise....
Posted by: Qassändra 15th April 2015, 11:20 PM
The point is, the logical conclusion of your argument that "it's possible to cut spending without affecting anything that matters" is the logical conclusion is that huge amounts of current spending aren't necessary. Why would those programmes have been set up in the first place if there wasn't a need for them?
You're talking in absolutes again. I'm not advocating scrapping housing benefit, am I? Even the bloody Tories aren't advocating scrapping housing benefit. It's like turning around to your doctor when they say you should cut back on salt and shouting 'BY THE LOGICAL ABSOLUTE OF THAT I WOULD DIE BECAUSE YOU NEED SALT TO LIVE'. And I didn't say it wouldn't affect anything that matters. But I think people would be far, far worse off if another recession hit and we couldn't borrow enough to do a proper stimulus than they would if we let the deficit carry on as is for the sake of declaring all spending, welfare and all, totally sacrosanct when there is no chance that every penny that is being spent right now is being put to best use.
Posted by: Danny 15th April 2015, 11:35 PM
But the point still stands. Cutting housing benefit would increase homelessness -- otherwise, why would those people have been getting housing benefit in the first place? Or do you think benefit fraud makes up a lot of the bill? I'm genuinely not understanding where you're coming from. For there to be all this scope to massively cut back on spending, you must surely believe that a lot of the increased spending the last Labour government introduced was "waste".
Posted by: Qassändra 16th April 2015, 12:51 AM
I was using housing benefit as an example - I doubt it'd be one of the benefits cut, I only use the example as the precedent is already there for a cap. If there had to be cuts within the welfare budget I'd probably go for getting rid of things like free TV licences for pensioners - my point was more that the pain of, say, reducing the benefits cap to £20k per year (or whatever - take your pick of whatever cuts one or two billion out of welfare spending) would probably be less than the pain of the next recession hitting and a government genuinely not being able to borrow enough to start the economy up again.
Posted by: Common Sense 16th April 2015, 08:52 AM
I think Child Benefit should be abolished for all but the poorest families such as those on other benefits and the minimum wage earners. A couple on two graduate wages of 30k for example, shouldn't receive any Child Benefit at all. They don't need it. In fact I'd stop it for joint incomes of say 40k. They wouldn't be happy but so what.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 16th April 2015, 10:19 AM
There's a massive gap between the press narrative of Labour's plans and the reality. The party (for better or worse, and we'll find out soon enough) has decided that the best way to win the election is to posture about being fiscally responsible. It doesn't bother pointing out things like the fact that 1) we'd be able to stop cutting next year or that 2) our targets don't include capital spending because it doesn't fit with the rhetoric. To be frank I'm bored of the endless criticism from people who willfully ignore one or both of those facts and a whole host of other things in the manifesto which, if they were being promised by the Greens or the SNP, they'd be shouting from the rooftops about.
Posted by: steve201 16th April 2015, 11:45 AM
Indeed they are focusing on one thing and not the overall picture. If they were like the Greens they would have no credibility and no chance of being elected!
Posted by: Suedehead2 16th April 2015, 11:53 AM
This government has restricted entitlement to child benefit. However, thanks to the Tory press, they ended up with a far more complicated (and, therefore, expensive to administer) system than the one they originally proposed.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 16th April 2015, 01:07 PM
The Leaders (But Not All Leaders) Debate is on the BBC this evening. I must say this line from the http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32328664description gave me a wee giggle -
Posted by: Danny 16th April 2015, 01:40 PM
I've said before that I'm genuinely confused what Labour's economic policies are since different people say completely different things. But earlier this week, Miliband denied that they would stop cutting next year, and said they would be making cuts every year. Was he flat-out lying??
Posted by: Soy Adrián 16th April 2015, 03:22 PM
Where was this?
Posted by: Qassändra 16th April 2015, 04:54 PM
Contrary to all that 'the British public are YEARNING FOR MORE DEFICIT SPENDING', the budget lock turns out to be, uh, actually the most popular policy in the Labour manifesto.
Posted by: Danny 16th April 2015, 05:12 PM
Despite the rhetoric on the deficit, Miliband made no new commitments on the subject, save to emphasise that spending in non-protected departments will be cut in each year of the next parliament.
Both he and Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, brutally slapped down the hopeful suggestion of the Scottish leader Jim Murphy, who argued that the Institute of Fiscal Studies had claimed there might not need to be spending cuts after 2015-16 if Labour put back balancing the current account until late in the parliament.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/13/labour-manifesto-launch-ed-miliband-said-ready-no-10-looks-it
LMAO, who wouldn't want the deficit reduced if there were no consequences to it? If you asked me in isolation whether I wanted it reduced in an ideal world, even I'd say yes. This is a classic example of one of the "pony polling" things you always rightly decry.
But questions which ask whether people want the deficit reduced at the cost of massively reduced spending for public services ALWAYS produce different results.
Posted by: Qassändra 16th April 2015, 05:29 PM
LMAO, who wouldn't want the deficit reduced if there were no consequences to it? If you asked me in isolation whether I wanted it reduced in an ideal world, even I'd say yes. This is a classic example of one of the "pony polling" things you always rightly decry.
But questions which ask whether people want the deficit reduced at the cost of massively reduced spending for public services ALWAYS produce different results.
No, that's a fair criticism. But at the same time, it then becomes difficult to argue that the Labour Party pledging to reduce the deficit and balance the budget is damaging as a statement in itself, which you were doing the other day!
Posted by: Common Sense 16th April 2015, 05:45 PM
They should have two empty chairs in the middle to remind people that the PM and Deputy PM are too scared to be there.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 16th April 2015, 06:01 PM
Nick Clegg wanted to be there, but he wasn't invited by the BBC.
Posted by: Qassändra 16th April 2015, 06:21 PM
*.*
Posted by: steve201 16th April 2015, 06:32 PM
The bbc said he couldn't come as he would be a government representative in a challengers debate!
Posted by: Brett-Butler 16th April 2015, 06:38 PM
*Insert 'well why's Nigel Farage there then' joke here.*
Posted by: Suedehead2 16th April 2015, 07:21 PM
Clegg wasn't invited because the BBC were too scared to invite him and incur the wrath of Cameron.
Posted by: Suedehead2 16th April 2015, 07:22 PM
Incidentally, because the BBC refused to invite Clegg, I'm refusing to watch it.
Posted by: popchartfreak 16th April 2015, 08:02 PM
Ditto
Posted by: Soy Adrián 16th April 2015, 10:01 PM
If the debate in Sheffield was anything to go by, he'd had just refused and sent a 19 year old in his place.
Posted by: Qassändra 16th April 2015, 10:05 PM
Badman Eddie M WINS THE DEBATE according to Survation's snap poll *.*
Wishlist peddlers, racists and Celtic whingers SCHOOLED (by margin of 4%)
Posted by: steve201 16th April 2015, 10:43 PM
Best tweet was taking the piss out of the Torygraph that Cameron had won the debate by 103% according to poll!
Posted by: LeeWallace 17th April 2015, 04:48 AM
I don't think the SNP have been in a better position, I wouldn't be surprised to see Labour forced into collation with them either. The ongoing support for SNP is incredible and I'm now positive in my lifetime I will see an independent Scotland.
Posted by: Common Sense 17th April 2015, 06:59 AM
I thought Ed did really well and certainly looked Prime Ministerial.
Posted by: Qassändra 17th April 2015, 11:28 AM
Nope. Just because the 45% turned into weird cultists who act like they lost on a technicality doesn't mean it's about to happen, considering the bulk of undecided voters who went for No did so on the basis that there were too many unanswered questions about independence. If anything, independence is even less viable now with the oil collapse. It'll recover, but it just goes to show how dangerous any plan which props itself up so much on oil tax receipts is for the lives of ordinary Scots.
Posted by: Danny 17th April 2015, 03:06 PM
Yikes. The closer we get to the election, the worse the polling gets for Scottish Labour:
They really need to hide Jim Murphy (and keep Miliband south of the border) and wheel out Gordon Brown at any opportunity from now until election day. The Scottish polling has got worse for Labour since Murphy took over, in a timeframe when the UK-wide Labour polling has got slightly better.
Posted by: Qassändra 17th April 2015, 03:10 PM
It's not even just Labour - that's gotten even worse for Charles Kennedy too.
I think it's more down to Sturgeon's visibility these last few weeks than it is to Murphy - his ratings aren't negative among any group other than SNP voters, whereas Sturgeon's are stratospheric in general.
Posted by: Danny 17th April 2015, 03:16 PM
I think it's more down to Sturgeon's visibility these last few weeks than it is to Murphy - his ratings aren't negative among any group other than SNP voters, whereas Sturgeon's are stratospheric in general.
Kennedy is only down a couple of points since the last poll -- the SNP have mainly gained from other parties.
And saying Jim Murphy has decent ratings "apart from SNP voters" is a bit of a red herring when SNP voters make up half of the bloody electorate
Even Ed would have decent ratings "among Labour voters" if Labour had haemorraged to a rump of 25% or so. Clearly there's numerous factors causing this, but a negative reaction to Murphy is atleast part of it, especially considering he's apparently regarded even worse than the Scottish Tory leader. Though the immature "if you vote for the SNP then we won't work with them just to spite you" from Labour is probably also a factor.
Posted by: Qassändra 17th April 2015, 03:23 PM
And saying Jim Murphy has decent ratings "apart from SNP voters" is a bit of a red herring when SNP voters make up half of the bloody electorate
Even Ed would have decent ratings "among Labour voters" if Labour had haemorraged to a rump of 25% or so. Clearly there's numerous factors causing this, but a negative reaction to Murphy is atleast part of it, especially considering he's apparently regarded even worse than the Scottish Tory leader.He isn't regarded 'even worse' than the Scottish Tory leader - Ruth Davidson (who's pretty impressive by Tory standards anyway) did better in the first debate, but her approval ratings are still below Jim's. Jim in Scotland has pretty similar ratings to David Cameron in the UK (hovering between -10 and 0), which is fairly impressive when 40% of the electorate loathes you for being one of the most prominent campaigners against independence.
Posted by: #BJSCSLAYERRRRRR 17th April 2015, 03:24 PM
Why split up a tiny island for nationalistic pride?
If Scotland leaves, it will be a powerless player on the worldstage with no material resources and reduce the UK to a side-player in the world. Many in England/ Wales would feel aggrieved at the betrayal of the UK and not support anything Scottish, leading Scotland's economy down into a gutter as it sets up a pointless man-made border across a tiny island. And for what? Scotland and Scottish are already far more recognised than most independent countries and it's not like the UK is a harsh totalitarian master!! Hopefully people see sense before it's too late. Unless they want to leave ONE union to join ANOTHER the European Union lol.
Posted by: #BJSCSLAYERRRRRR 17th April 2015, 03:26 PM
This. The 45% number was inflated by the jingoistic, though excellent, campaigns by the SNP which have convinced people that independence is necessary for, well, I'm not sure why. 20 years ago this wasn't even an issue. We're not living in Braveheart times anymore. Small countries have to compete against HUGE countries like Brasil and India in today's world and becoming smaller still makes no sense.
And especially if the Shetland islands decided to hold ANOTHER referendum, as they are loyal to the UK, meaning the UK would still be in control of SEVENTY PERCENT of the (rapidly diminishing) oil reserves. Oil prices have desperately plunged too, and with more renewable energies being used, and the depleting stock AND increased costs, it becomes less and less viable.
Posted by: Danny 17th April 2015, 03:29 PM
A YouGov in March (which I think is the most recent one) put Murphy's net rating on -26.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/2i4cik3x8y/Times_Scotland_150312_Website.pdf
Posted by: Qassändra 17th April 2015, 04:17 PM
!
Okay that one's genuinely news to me.
I'd still like to know exactly what part of the platform he's on you're taking issue with - I can't see Neil Findlay having said literally anything different from the likes of the things Jim's been promising so far.
Posted by: steve201 17th April 2015, 06:09 PM
Ignore Westminster - set up your own parliament -
Oh wait this isn't Ireland in 1919
Posted by: steve201 17th April 2015, 06:16 PM
They really need to hide Jim Murphy (and keep Miliband south of the border) and wheel out Gordon Brown at any opportunity from now until election day. The Scottish polling has got worse for Labour since Murphy took over, in a timeframe when the UK-wide Labour polling has got slightly better.
Is that a Tory gain??
Posted by: steve201 17th April 2015, 06:18 PM
They really need to hide Jim Murphy (and keep Miliband south of the border) and wheel out Gordon Brown at any opportunity from now until election day. The Scottish polling has got worse for Labour since Murphy took over, in a timeframe when the UK-wide Labour polling has got slightly better.
Is that a Tory gain??
Overall I think this view of the 45% who voted Yes is quite patronising, clearly unionists still haven't learned why they voted yes. Their comeuppance will come on May 7th unfort. If the SNP win more than 40 seats it'll be the biggest political change in uk politics since 1918.
Posted by: Qassändra 17th April 2015, 06:18 PM
Yeah, but it's a. a Lib Dem seat, and b. the Tories, SNP and Lib Dems are all polling in the margin of error there.
Posted by: Silas 17th April 2015, 06:19 PM
With a margin on 1% though. Can't see that remaining a tory gain come May 7th
They really need to hide Jim Murphy (and keep Miliband south of the border) and wheel out Gordon Brown at any opportunity from now until election day. The Scottish polling has got worse for Labour since Murphy took over, in a timeframe when the UK-wide Labour polling has got slightly better.
Oooh my seat is there!
LibDem vote holding up much better than I expected it would actually. The 'other' being down 1% is most likely due to UKIP not standing here this time. (HURRAH!)
Posted by: steve201 17th April 2015, 06:19 PM
Better not get another Tory seat, il be disappointed if it is - berkshires near the border isn't it?
Posted by: Qassändra 17th April 2015, 06:21 PM
The SNP have basically managed to convert the whole 45% over to become SNP voters though - there's not really much you can do to switch people back from a position that's essentially an article of faith in the space of seven months, and 45% would smash pretty much any first past the post voting system with more than two parties anywhere.
Posted by: Silas 17th April 2015, 06:27 PM
There's rather a lot of SNP supporters who voted No back in September, so it's not just the 45% that make up their support.
For the record. The people on this side of the border will decide what is best for them and their future. If you don't live here then you can't possibly know the realities of life in Scotland so please stop f***ing telling us how to vote, how to live and what is best for us. We'll decide that thank you very much and if you don't like it we will happily take our oil and f*** off.
(For all this talk about the Scottish Government deficit running at 7.8% in the event of fiscal autonomy, has anyone worked out what the rUK one would be once you strip out Scottish Tax revenues? Without Oil the UK would be in a serious hole so lets not pretend it's only an Independent/fiscally autonomous Scotland that suffers from downside risk with Oil.)
Posted by: Silas 17th April 2015, 06:29 PM
Yes. Its the seat directly to the right of the current tory seat. Part of the posh Edinburgh commuter belt.
Given that the SNP are reopening the rail link the Tories shut, i'd expect this to end up an SNP gain rather than a Tory gain.
Posted by: steve201 17th April 2015, 06:30 PM
So it's all just because of labour supporting the no camp last sept then?
Posted by: Silas 17th April 2015, 06:38 PM
Personally I believe there are 3 reasons for the drop in Labour support and the rise of the SNP.
1 - They've been in government here since 2007 and are doing a fairly decent job of it. Even before I switched sides and was anti-SNP I couldn't deny they'd done a great job.
2 - General disillusionment with the Westminster establishment that cares more about what happens inside the M25 than out of it and even less about the other side of Hadrian's Wall.
3 - The referendum. While the SNP lost, their entire campaign was built on a positive message of a brighter future. Labour stood hand in hand with the Tories who are utterly hated throughout large swathes of the central belt. This isn't the sole cause of the switch though. It's likely to be the switch in Westminster allegiances. The SNP took massive chunks out of Labour and the LibDems in 2011 at Holyrood.
Posted by: Danny 17th April 2015, 06:40 PM
Okay that one's genuinely news to me.
I'd still like to know exactly what part of the platform he's on you're taking issue with - I can't see Neil Findlay having said literally anything different from the likes of the things Jim's been promising so far.
You're right, i don't disagree with most of what he's been saying on the issues from what I've seen - hilarious and ironic though his conversion to anti-austerity is.
Tbh, the main problem is him. He could be a great backroom strategist for all I know, but he just isn't a frontman, even less so than Ed is. His voice and stage presence in interviews is so boring and droning -- it's shallow and unfair, yes, but it's still going to be a deal-breaker for most people whether they even listen to what he's got to say.
Oooh my seat is there!
LibDem vote holding up much better than I expected it would actually. The 'other' being down 1% is most likely due to UKIP not standing here this time. (HURRAH!)
I really should've bet on whether Labour would even save their deposit in NE Fife rather than them winning it outright...
Do you know if your seat voted for independence? (I know Fife as a whole was 55/45 against but don't know how each area broke down.)
Posted by: Qassändra 17th April 2015, 06:51 PM
Nah mate. Same country and all, we reserve the same right to express an opinion on how people vote in Scotland as we do on how they vote in Yorkshire, Wales, and the Home Counties. That result last September was a No - you are British. I wouldn't presume to say to any Scot that they had no right to say how people in the rest of the UK should vote - indeed, Sturgeon and Salmond have.
Posted by: Qassändra 17th April 2015, 06:52 PM
Except we're not the ones advocating independence. Saying the UK would be worse off if Scotland left doesn't really work as a criticism when the point is that we're (KLAXON) better together.
Posted by: Suedehead2 17th April 2015, 06:59 PM
Are you trying to claim large parts of England for Scotland?
Posted by: Silas 17th April 2015, 07:17 PM
Do you know if your seat voted for independence? (I know Fife as a whole was 55/45 against but don't know how each area broke down.)
I've not seen the breakdown for Fife. I would imagine that we would have voted No (St Andrews, more affluent than county average, RAF base, Farmers + a lot of old people) and counterbalanced central Fife saying Yes. Think Dunfermline & West Fife would have voted No too (Edi commuter belt, more affluent).
Posted by: steve201 17th April 2015, 07:32 PM
You are beginning to sound like unionists in N.Ireland coming out with stuff like that...
Posted by: Qassändra 17th April 2015, 07:37 PM
If anything the concept of 'you people don't have a right to comment on our politics' is more of a unionist idea, given that was their line to both the British and Irish governments during the Troubles.
But yes, I am an unashamed (British) unionist, and deeply resent the idea (that has just been rejected) that only Scottish people have the right to comment on Scottish affairs. It's a fucking poisonous idea, and it's the normalisation of that idea that is exactly what the SNP want, because it separates Scotland from the rest of the nation.
Posted by: steve201 17th April 2015, 07:37 PM
In reality though I think the surge for the SNP is much more complex than looking at internal British politics the same is happening across Europe with Podemos in Spain and Syriza in Greece.
2015 is very much like 1935(in an economic sense, hopefully not in a political sense). When a lot especially the centre right parties are advocating austerity policies and there are more left wing parties advocating Keynesianism.
Posted by: Suedehead2 17th April 2015, 07:37 PM
Perhaps we should start reclaiming bits of France
Posted by: Qassändra 17th April 2015, 07:43 PM
Of course fiscal autonomy will make Scotland worse off than it currently is (which is the point being made specifically, not that it'll be worse off than the rest of the UK) - if you don't want to take that from me, take it from the SNP's projections for fiscal autonomy which were based on oil prices being double what they are now, and double what they'll likely be for the foreseeable future. It'd need either taxes, cuts, or large deficits during a time of growth. Sturgeon already has rights to adjust the former and has done nothing and has ruled out the latter two. Something would have to give with oil prices as they are.
Posted by: Qassändra 17th April 2015, 07:44 PM
2015 is very much like 1935(in an economic sense, hopefully not in a political sense). When a lot especially the centre right parties are advocating austerity policies and there are more left wing parties advocating Keynesianism.
Labour is advocating Keynesianism. Keynes specifically made the point that you reduce the deficit in times of growth to fund stimulus in times of recession. He was never about permanent deficits, and given how many on the left idolise him it's surprising how few seem to grasp that.
Posted by: popchartfreak 17th April 2015, 08:00 PM
For the record. The people on this side of the border will decide what is best for them and their future. If you don't live here then you can't possibly know the realities of life in Scotland so please stop f***ing telling us how to vote, how to live and what is best for us. We'll decide that thank you very much and if you don't like it we will happily take our oil and f*** off.
(For all this talk about the Scottish Government deficit running at 7.8% in the event of fiscal autonomy, has anyone worked out what the rUK one would be once you strip out Scottish Tax revenues? Without Oil the UK would be in a serious hole so lets not pretend it's only an Independent/fiscally autonomous Scotland that suffers from downside risk with Oil.)
as long as the SNP voters stop deciding to speak for everyone in Scotland on every issue (and Scottish people living outside Scotland) assuming everyone has an identikit Scottish opinion (which I know for a fact is not the case, yes shock horror I have many Scottish friends!), and assuming that anybody expressing an opinion on a nationwide poll, where every elected seat will affect the outcome in deciding who's going to run the UK (including Scotland), then yes we can express an opinion on anything, thank you very much, just as you express an opinion on everything south of the border which affects Scotland (or not).
Until Scotland goes independent (if ever), we are one United Kingdom. Sorry, fact of life. I am, by the way, in favour of the SNP doing well, because I think it will be good for the UK to have a decent left-leaning government rather than a Tory-lite version.
People south of the border, incidentally, are most definitely NOT one homogenous mass of posh rich London MP's, so please stop lumping everyone into one convenient anti-Scottish nosey busybody package. I come from a mining community, officially the most-educationally-challenged town in the UK, possibly something to do with all the mines closing, the ones like my brother who actually and literally fought for well over a jobless year against Thatcherism and everything negative she wrought on the UK. So to turn your phrase around somewhat, perhaps you should therefore revisit this quote and imagine someone from a midlands ex-mining-town saying it instead:
"For the record. The people on this side of the border will decide what is best for them and their future. If you don't live here then you can't possibly know the realities of life in England so please stop f***ing telling us how to vote, how to live and what is best for us"
Just a suggestion....
Posted by: steve201 17th April 2015, 08:01 PM
I know they are I was talking generally!
Posted by: Silas 17th April 2015, 08:04 PM
I'm well aware of the 7.8% figures and where it came from. It's also be compared to the UK stat every single time it's raised as a scare tactic.
All I want to know is what the rUK figure would be. It's not for a political reason I want to know. I'm just curious.
Posted by: Danny 17th April 2015, 08:06 PM
2015 is very much like 1935(in an economic sense, hopefully not in a political sense). When a lot especially the centre right parties are advocating austerity policies and there are more left wing parties advocating Keynesianism.
Yup. I still think that a lot of the disillusioned Scottish Labour voters' complaints (that the Tories and Labour are too close together on policy, that Labour doesn't care about the working class anymore, that Miliband is crap) are mostly the same as you get throughout northern England (and, I would assume, in Wales). The only difference is they don't have a party precision-packaged to mop up Labour voters as the SNP.
Posted by: steve201 17th April 2015, 08:13 PM
It is hard for labour though with populist nationalist parties able to beat labour on their left flank in each part of the uk and then in England there is a large group of voters who are clearly Tory/centrists so they have to give a more middle way message since Thatcherism proved so popular.
It just shows the divisive effect that UK governance has on the regions of the country.
Posted by: Rooney 17th April 2015, 08:41 PM
Yes I will be voting for Yorkshire First.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 17th April 2015, 09:09 PM
Now here's one for you - which constituency has the most candidates standing in it?
The definitive answer now seems to be Uxbridge & South Ruislip, where a certain Mr Boris Johnson is standing. 13 candidates taking part there.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 17th April 2015, 09:14 PM
Also, is there anywhere which lists how many candidates are standing for each party, including the smaller ones? I've been looking for a list for the past few days and can't seem to find one definitive one.
Posted by: #BJSCSLAYERRRRRR 17th April 2015, 09:29 PM
For the record. The people on this side of the border will decide what is best for them and their future. If you don't live here then you can't possibly know the realities of life in Scotland so please stop f***ing telling us how to vote, how to live and what is best for us. We'll decide that thank you very much and if you don't like it we will happily take our oil and f*** off.
(For all this talk about the Scottish Government deficit running at 7.8% in the event of fiscal autonomy, has anyone worked out what the rUK one would be once you strip out Scottish Tax revenues? Without Oil the UK would be in a serious hole so lets not pretend it's only an Independent/fiscally autonomous Scotland that suffers from downside risk with Oil.)
Oops, and the Shetland Islands would remain part of the Uk with 70% of that vastly diminishing oil supply oops.
WHy would ANYONE want to leave the UK, whilst being heavily subsidised by the rest of the country AND having interlinked economies, only to pluge themselves into economic uncertainty on a small corner of a small island in the north-west of Europe with nothing to help them except vanishing oil? God forbid if RUSSIA ever started anything - Scotland would be the first place invaded, leading to the UK after that, the powerhouse of Europe. Oops.
Posted by: #BJSCSLAYERRRRRR 17th April 2015, 09:31 PM
And this. Scotland is my country too. This is ALL the same island. Stop dividing people, put our heads together, work together and let's get on with it - together. We're all human, we're all on the same island, and that should be the end of it.
Posted by: #BJSCSLAYERRRRRR 17th April 2015, 09:33 PM
Come and take them then.
And here was I thinking we'd evolved since the days of Braveheart oops. Well, something HAS evolved - the power dynamic and economic strength on both sides of the border. Scotland now gets funded by students from the rest of the UK to keep its free education going, just for example.
But yes, I am an unashamed (British) unionist, and deeply resent the idea (that has just been rejected) that only Scottish people have the right to comment on Scottish affairs. It's a fucking poisonous idea, and it's the normalisation of that idea that is exactly what the SNP want, because it separates Scotland from the rest of the nation.
This.
The WHOLE country should have a say on politics within the WHOLE country, and that includes independence for a part of it.
I find the very idea of it offensive, separatist and elitist although so VERY human. 'This is MINE - not OURS - MIIIINE!!!'
And why want POLITICAL independence for one of the most famous nationalities in the world? Scottish and English are no less famous for being part of the UK and much better off working together than with a contentious border and nationalist egos getting in the way, 'this land mine. Not yours', when you can't have FISCAL independence and still want to use the pound and be linked to the BoE? Oops. Also, do you really think business would stay in Scotland? Of course not. A lot would move and the UK would NEVER build ships in a 'foreign' territory. There is no plan A economically or politically. Hiding behind NATo and the EU will not exactly give you much independence. Getting smaller in a globalised world with large power players getting more powerful and influential by the day is NOT the way to go. And for what? To say you're independent. Great trade-off.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 17th April 2015, 11:20 PM
Isn't nationalism charming?
Posted by: Qassändra 17th April 2015, 11:36 PM
Honestly I thought we LEFT THIS ALL BEHIND AT THE DAYTON ACCORDS
Posted by: steve201 18th April 2015, 09:08 AM
WHy would ANYONE want to leave the UK, whilst being heavily subsidised by the rest of the country AND having interlinked economies, only to pluge themselves into economic uncertainty on a small corner of a small island in the north-west of Europe with nothing to help them except vanishing oil? God forbid if RUSSIA ever started anything - Scotland would be the first place invaded, leading to the UK after that, the powerhouse of Europe. Oops.
Ireland wanted to leave at the beginning of the twentieth century. They had to fight for that right though.
And also your arguements about the division of an island nation remain relevant to Ireland today.
Posted by: #BJSCSLAYERRRRRR 18th April 2015, 11:53 AM
And also your arguements about the division of an island nation remain relevant to Ireland today.
Ireland is a separate island and was not really so much part of the country as a colony in Empire and was mistreated. It's a shame but it was and so the case is totally different.
Posted by: Silas 18th April 2015, 12:37 PM
The Kingdom of Scotland was formed in 843. The Kingdom of England was formed the century after. We existed as a nation for longer than England did before the act of Union in 1707. In the 13th and 14th centuries the Kingdom of England invaded multiple times until after the second wars of independence where England just let us be and turned its attention to the empire instead. That is until they saw the opportunity to strike so they got together with the French, Spanish, Dutch and Portugese to make the Scottish empire persona non grata and force the Scottish state into bankruptcy at which point the English offered up a poisoned chalice. The rich c**ts would get their money back for Scotland joining the empire. So the rich rules voted yes and signed the act of union in a secret location so they didn't have to face the angry public who were against the union. So not really different from Ireland. It was all part of the empire building.
And there was me thinking the years of Scottish history in school would never come in handy.
As an aside, I'm English born and raised in an English family. this isn't some braveheart bullshit. I support a federal United kingdom with Devo Max for all four nations. I voted yes because it was cameron refused to put devo Max on the ballot and general disillusionment with the Westminster establishment.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 18th April 2015, 02:26 PM
Devolution of powers to Scotland is far closer to where it should be than devolution within England. It's a sad reality that nationalistic posturing seems to be having far more effect than local leaders sitting down and thrashing out a decent deal (Manchester aside).
Posted by: Qassändra 18th April 2015, 02:28 PM
I don't like the idea of extensive devolution mainly as I don't like the idea of some UKIP council in Kent or wherever suddenly having the power to change the curriculum to preach the evils of bumming and the glories of the Empire (ironically), but regional devolution really is the least worst option in the face of old sausage-face spreading EVEL wherever he goes.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 18th April 2015, 04:20 PM
The future looks informal as city and county regions are too messy to legislate for centrally.
Posted by: Danny 18th April 2015, 05:39 PM
Tories have a 4% lead in new Opinium poll as Labour's tactic of endlessly prattling on about "economic credibility" reaps dividends. The pattern of there being an inverse relationship between the plaudits they get from the Tory/Blairite political commentariat and their poll ratings continues.
Posted by: Suedehead2 18th April 2015, 05:42 PM
Opinium have consistently had the Tories ahead recently. As ever, it is impossible to conclude anything from a single poll.
Posted by: Qassändra 18th April 2015, 07:29 PM
Cute.
Posted by: Danny 18th April 2015, 08:23 PM
OK, YouGov have Labour up 3%.
If only you guys hadn't quoted me so that I could covertly edit that post 
Posted by: Qassändra 18th April 2015, 08:47 PM
Posted by: popchartfreak 19th April 2015, 07:39 AM
...and yet another last minute desperate bribe to voters from the Tories as they decide it's time for the taxpayer to not get a return on the money paid out to save Lloyds, and instead divert that cash into an election bribe for anyone with enough cash to buy shares.
Why are commentators not ripping them apart for consistent diversion of taxpayer money into election bribes for policies that benefit a few at the expense of the many.
Answers on a virtual postcard, and feel free to use asterixed expletives...
Posted by: steve201 19th April 2015, 10:48 AM
But yes, I am an unashamed (British) unionist, and deeply resent the idea (that has just been rejected) that only Scottish people have the right to comment on Scottish affairs. It's a fucking poisonous idea, and it's the normalisation of that idea that is exactly what the SNP want, because it separates Scotland from the rest of the nation.
I was making the point in relation to the 'you are British' point and relate it to unionist position in N.Ireland when they tell nationalists whether they like it or not they are British and that in turn leads them to positions of having union flags flying 365 days a year on council offices.
I also take issue with the view that the SNP are the only 'nationalists' in the arguement and unionists aren't in someway nationalists too.
Posted by: Qassändra 19th April 2015, 11:31 AM
I also take issue with the view that the SNP are the only 'nationalists' in the arguement and unionists aren't in someway nationalists too.
The difference is that, short of UKIP, British nationalism doesn't seek to isolate large parts of the country it's part of.
Posted by: steve201 19th April 2015, 04:03 PM
No but it mismanages areas making them feel isolated. In Ireland I am a nationalist and in Scotland I have sympathy with the lack of a workable situation in terms of a uk parliament. I am a Devo max supporter.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 19th April 2015, 04:16 PM
I also take issue with the view that the SNP are the only 'nationalists' in the arguement and unionists aren't in someway nationalists too.
The difference is that nationalism is miles down on the priority list for most unionists, as opposed to being above education and health for a lot of nationalists - both of the Scottish and British variety.
Posted by: steve201 19th April 2015, 10:10 PM
But that is obv the case for a nationalism which is dominant?!
Posted by: Danny 20th April 2015, 02:58 PM
Scottish Labour may have finally found a seat they can win: only 3% behind in Edinburgh South.
This was one of the most anti-independence seats of all.
SNP close to 60% in the Scottish subsamples of today's national polls.
Posted by: Qassändra 20th April 2015, 03:12 PM
This was one of the most anti-independence seats of all.
Which just goes to show how influential the crossover from a referendum to a first past the post vote can be!
*zooms to parallel universe where the Lib Dems held off the AV vote until 2014 and are heading into the general election polling at 33%*
Posted by: Danny 20th April 2015, 03:28 PM
*zooms to parallel universe where the Lib Dems held off the AV vote until 2014 and are heading into the general election polling at 33%*
And also shows how successful an unapologetically left-wing/social-democratic agenda can be if they have leaders who don't lose their nerve whenever the press starts criticising them.
Posted by: Qassändra 20th April 2015, 04:03 PM
Electorally, yeah - we've been on the same page on this for over a year now! My point was always that I don't see it succeeding for long once it reaches office. The SNP have the luxury of being able to blame everything that goes wrong on Westminster - which isn't a luxury a national government gets.
Posted by: Danny 20th April 2015, 09:45 PM
YouGov Scotland poll: SNP 49%, Labour 25%.
Posted by: Danny 21st April 2015, 05:33 PM
Latest personal ratings from Scotland:
Nicola Sturgeon +42
Jim Murphy -22
David Cameron -29
Ed Miliband -31
Nick Clegg -49
It's debateable whether Murphy or Ed is the bigger hindrance to Labour in Scotland. Although Murphy has a better net rating overall, that's only because he polls well among Tory voters. With 2010 Labour voters (i.e. the people Labour desperately need to win back), Ed does better.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/1yn2exbcsl/TheTimesResults_Scotland_150420_Website.pdf
Posted by: Soy Adrián 23rd April 2015, 01:30 PM
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/04/snps-anti-austerity-rhetoric-does-not-reflect-its-plans-says-ifs
Awkward.
Posted by: Doctor Blind 23rd April 2015, 10:21 PM
My favourite news story of the week remains http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/grant-shapps-wikipedia-claims-the-strange-case-of-contribsx-the-tory-chairs-biggest-fan-10196614.html.
Posted by: steve201 23rd April 2015, 11:12 PM
He really is one arrogant wee shite Grant Shapps no matter what comes out about him he denies everything.
In other news Farage had a 7 point lead in South Thanet!
Posted by: Suedehead2 23rd April 2015, 11:37 PM
I love his claim that he couldn't possibly have done it because he "was elsewhere at the time". Does this mean that he has evidence that he was somewhere with no internet access? Of course, it could have been a supporter of Shapps (I suppose they exist) acting without his knowledge. However, his denials, echoed - naturally - by Michael Green, are less than convincing. This, of course, is the man who threatened to sue a constituent for making an allegation which we now know to have been true.
Posted by: Suedehead2 25th April 2015, 10:22 AM
Cameron has regularly claimed to be a passionate Aston Villa supporter. Unfortunately for him, he seems to have forgotten that when making this speech.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/04/watch-david-cameron-forgets-his-football-team
Posted by: Common Sense 25th April 2015, 01:59 PM
In other news Farage had a 7 point lead in South Thanet!
Great news. Looks like he'll take the seat.
Posted by: Danny 25th April 2015, 02:32 PM
UKIP also ahead in Thurrock, Essex.
Behind in Rochester & Strood, one of their by-election gains last year, though.
Posted by: steve201 25th April 2015, 06:43 PM
Which MP is that Mark Reckless or the other one?
Posted by: Brett-Butler 25th April 2015, 06:49 PM
Mark Reckless.
Posted by: steve201 25th April 2015, 06:53 PM
Ah cheers he seems to be the less popular of the two anyway.
Not looking good for Labour now IMO, they are prob gonna have to get the maj of seats to have a chance of first dibs at coalition and if clegg wins his seat he will help the Tories again as he's a wee orange bk Tory himself in reality!!
Posted by: Suedehead2 25th April 2015, 07:02 PM
Clegg has made it clear that he will talk first to the leader of the largest party (as he did last time).
Posted by: popchartfreak 25th April 2015, 07:10 PM
Not looking good for Labour now IMO, they are prob gonna have to get the maj of seats to have a chance of first dibs at coalition and if clegg wins his seat he will help the Tories again as he's a wee orange bk Tory himself in reality!!
errr, no. One joins the Tory party if one is a Tory, people who join the Libdems do it out of conviction and reason, given they know they will never be in power, and the best they can do is temper the more extreme policies of the big 2 somewhat (and for which the electorate is not remotely grateful - let's not forget Clegg's choice was between a disgraced failed party in power who wanted to have major cuts, and an opposition party who also wanted to have major cuts but who won more seats). The Libdems have been more leftwing than Labour have for most of the last 20 years or so in many policies. Clegg has already stated the party with most seats is first up for coalition talks (if there are any) which is entirely right, though he has thrown a wobbly about third-party deals with the SNP and UKIP - for now.
things could get very interesting if Labour plus SNP plus Plaid and Conservatives plus A.N.Others ends up less than a 20-seat difference and the LibDems still hold the balance of power. Election night could be more exciting than a Eurovision Song Contest final....
Posted by: Danny 25th April 2015, 07:47 PM
Unless the polls are way out of kilter, it's starting to look like a second election within months is unavoidable. It's hard to see how any combination on current poll numbers is going to come close to a majority, unless Labour were to actually grow a pair for a change and defend the DISGRACEFUL concept of Scotland contributing to the government of the country that they're still part of.
Posted by: Suedehead2 25th April 2015, 07:56 PM
The trouble is, will anything happen in the intervening months which will make the result of a second election significantly different?
Posted by: Qassändra 25th April 2015, 08:23 PM
Well it isn't really in Labour's interests to actively argue for the SNP propping them up as a good thing *before* the election, as it justifies the SNP's big message of 'Labour voters can vote for us safe in the knowledge that it's basically a Labour vote anyway'. After the election when an SNP deal (inevitably at this stage) comes about it'll be a different matter.
I can't see how a second election will happen though - where's the two thirds parliamentary majority for another election going to come from? God knows Labour won't have the money to fight another one in six months time. If the Tories 'win' the election but lose confidence I imagine Labour will be happy to switch with a minority government without another election, build a record by only putting forward the things they're confident they'll secure SNP/Lib Dem rebel votes on, and then maybe try for another election in a year.
There's also the nuclear option of offering a deal to the Tories to scrap Fixed Term Parliaments at the same time as bringing in electoral reform, but I can't see that offer getting past the dinosaurs on either side.
Posted by: Danny 25th April 2015, 08:29 PM
I can't see how a second election will happen though - where's the two thirds parliamentary majority for another election going to come from? God knows Labour won't have the money to fight another one in six months time. If the Tories 'win' the election but lose confidence I imagine Labour will be happy to switch with a minority government without another election, build a record by only putting forward the things they're confident they'll secure SNP/Lib Dem rebel votes on, and then maybe try for another election in a year.
There's also the nuclear option of offering a deal to the Tories to scrap Fixed Term Parliaments at the same time as bringing in electoral reform, but I can't see that offer getting past the dinosaurs on either side.
But, judging by the Scottish polls, it's had the opposite effect because Scots have apparently seen it as Labour joining in with the anti-Scottish bile, thus making people even more determined to vote SNP.
And isn't the Fixed Term Parliaments Act a red herring? If no majority can be formed, then a new election is called automatically, just as it always was.
EDIT: Apparently if a "vote of no confidence" passes in Parliament, then there's a two-week period where a new government can be formed, and if one can't be formed then it's a new election. So it is essentially the same as votes of no confidence before, the process is just stretched out a bit longer.
Posted by: Qassändra 25th April 2015, 08:37 PM
You're doing that thing where you assume that because one thing happened it's the reason for a poll rise/fall. Saying that we're fighting for a majority and ruling out a coalition with the SNP would be a really weird reason for someone who was planning to vote Labour switching to the SNP. It's far more likely it's down to Sturgeon getting a far higher profile over the last month and being far more impressive, humble and accessible than Salmond ever was.
On the FTPA, not necessarily. If no party can command *confidence* within two weeks then a general election is held - we can assume that if there's a majority there to bring down the government, there's a majority there to put another government in place. Hence, it's not likely that Labour would bring a motion of no confidence unless they were confident they'd be able to at least secure a minority government deal. I'm working on the assumption that:
- if the Tories 'win' the election but it comes to pass that they lose confidence, Labour will want to avoid another election within the next twelve months as it would be extremely difficult to afford, and as such would only do a motion of no confidence if they could command the support for at least a minority switch-in
- if Labour 'win' the election but are rickety on confidence, they'll try and play government in as populist a way as possible to command the confidence of the SNP, Plaid and the Greens and blackmail the SNP with the threat of being responsible for another Tory government at every step to prevent losing that confidence.
Posted by: Silas 25th April 2015, 08:42 PM
Remember also that the SNP can't really vote down a Labour government without screwing themselves over with the Scottish electorate. Nicola has had one eye on Holyrood 2016 this entire campaign. They cannot let their actions let in a Tory government again, we'll be stuck with a shit government instead of a third successive SNP government.
Posted by: Suedehead2 25th April 2015, 08:53 PM
I can't see how a second election will happen though - where's the two thirds parliamentary majority for another election going to come from? God knows Labour won't have the money to fight another one in six months time. If the Tories 'win' the election but lose confidence I imagine Labour will be happy to switch with a minority government without another election, build a record by only putting forward the things they're confident they'll secure SNP/Lib Dem rebel votes on, and then maybe try for another election in a year.
There's also the nuclear option of offering a deal to the Tories to scrap Fixed Term Parliaments at the same time as bringing in electoral reform, but I can't see that offer getting past the dinosaurs on either side.
You obviously read the same Guardian article as I did yesterday
Why do you assume Lib Dem votes for Labour legislation would be "rebel votes"? If, for example, Labour try to introduce some form of mansion tax, the Lib Dems will almost certainly vote for it.
There are plenty of local councils which have operated for years with no party having an overall majority. The SNP lasted for four years where they only had one more seat than Labour in the Scottish Parliament. That, of course, was largely with the help of the Tories. Besides, if all possible leaders are unable to win a vote of confidence, there can still be an election without a two-thirds vote to dissolve parliament.
If the Tories are the largest party (but not by much), here's what I think could happen.
The Tories will attempt to get a Queen's Speech through. Technically, the vote on the QS is a vote of thanks to the sovereign, rather than an endorsement of its contents. It has been suggested that the speech would actually be delivered by the Tory Leader of the Lords to avoid the possible embarrassment of that vote of thanks being defeated. If they do that (assuming it is possible), I suspect they will be defeated.
So, let's say Her Maj delivers the speech as normal. Labour could choose to abstain on the vote to allow a government to be formed. The risk there is that the SNP will use that to bash Labour in the Scottish Parliament elections next year. Furthermore, if they know Labour will abstain, the Lib Dems might decide to vote against the speech (depending on whether they want to risk getting flack for voting against the monarch) to try and distance themselves from the Tories. While the Tories get on with trying to govern, the Lib Dems can get on with replacing Clegg as leader (assuming he wins his seat). Once they have done that, there is more chance that they would vote for a motion of no confidence in the government and discuss a deal (not necessarily a formal coalition) with Labour. Labour may well try to make sure that happens before the Scottish elections in May next year.
Posted by: Doctor Blind 26th April 2015, 01:04 AM
Not surprised- Reckless doesn't seem that popular (I think it was more 'UKIP effect' than him providing the votes to propel him to the win this time around) compared to Carswell. His majority is pretty weak too and I think he will be a goner.
Posted by: Qassändra 26th April 2015, 01:29 AM
He's within the margin of error, so it's not a certainty. I reckon it'll be quite close.
Posted by: Qassändra 26th April 2015, 01:32 AM
I more meant in the scenario that the Lib Dems were still led by that pious dickhead.
(By which I mean Clegg. CHRIST it says a lot when that could equally be applied to pretty much every viable leader.)
Posted by: Danny 26th April 2015, 04:46 PM
Cameron is campaiging in Yeovil today, Paddy Ashdown's former seat and previously thought to be a rock-solid LibDem fortress. The whispers have previously been that the Tories are doing very well in the South West up against the Lib Dems.
It's getting to the point now where you could make a case for a Lib Dem loss in virtually all their seats bar Tim Farron's.
Posted by: Qassändra 26th April 2015, 04:53 PM
It's getting to the point now where you could make a case for a Lib Dem loss in virtually all their seats bar Tim Farron's.
Yeah, most of the South West (apart from the likes of Thornbury and Yate) is basically a write-off for the Lib Dems at this stage, but I still think they'll hold on to about twenty or so seats - they're oddly safe in Midlands seats against Labour (Southport and Birmingham Yardley et al) and South East/London seats against the Tories (Eastbourne, the Kingston/Carshalton/Sutton ring plus maybe Twickenham, Colchester).
Posted by: Qassändra 26th April 2015, 04:56 PM
Not to mention that we'll know something fucked up really HAS gone down if the SNP manage to take the Orkneys off the Lib Dems, given they've held it for all but about 2 elections since the 1830s.
Posted by: Danny 26th April 2015, 04:59 PM
Yeah, most of the South West (apart from the likes of Thornbury and Yate) is basically a write-off for the Lib Dems at this stage, but I still think they'll hold on to about twenty or so seats - they're oddly safe in Midlands seats against Labour (Southport and Birmingham Yardley et al) and South East/London seats against the Tories (Eastbourne, the Kingston/Carshalton/Sutton ring plus maybe Twickenham, Colchester).
Southport, Midlands? It's more north than me!
Some of us on Politicalbetting were talking about how much store can be put in the Ashcroft results in Lib Dem seats. I'm not sure there can be tbh. The question that he asks that gives the good Lib Dem results is prompting people specifically to "think about your local area" -- but a lot of people surely AREN'T going to be thinking about the local area on election day, they're going to be thinking about the national picture and who they want in government. And in virtually all Lib Dem seats that Ashcroft has polled, the generic voting intentions question (which he asks before the "local area" question) puts the Lib Dems behind.
Posted by: Qassändra 26th April 2015, 05:14 PM
Some of us on Politicalbetting were talking about how much store can be put in the Ashcroft results in Lib Dem seats. I'm not sure there can be tbh. The question that he asks that gives the good Lib Dem results is prompting people specifically to "think about your local area" -- but a lot of people surely AREN'T going to be thinking about the local area on election day, they're going to be thinking about the national picture and who they want in government. And in virtually all Lib Dem seats that Ashcroft has polled, the generic voting intentions question (which he asks before the "local area" question) puts the Lib Dems behind.
The difference is that most Lib Dem MPs make a virtue of being a super local candidate and being really good MPs that are frequently in touch with voters. It isn't likely to be enough always to overcome the *huge* national swing against them, but if you'd normally vote Labour and the local MP is fairly dug in against a Tory (or vice versa), it can be enough to sway a lot of them. Generally there's been a pretty good case for there being a specific incumbency bonus for Lib Dems in the past - and this time you only have to look at the likes of Eastleigh to see it's likely to still exist in up to about 20 seats.
Posted by: Silas 26th April 2015, 06:24 PM
Even in SNP #GE15 wet dreams, Orkney and Shetland is still a LibDem seat.
Posted by: Suedehead2 26th April 2015, 06:36 PM
The "thinking about your local area" part of the question is meant to prompt people to think about the situation in their constituency, i.e. "Does my first-choice party have any chance of winning? If not, is there a chance of trying to make sure the party I hate the most does not win?".
As for the idea that Southport is a) in the Midlands and b) a Lib Dem / Labour battle, Labour got under 10% of the vote last time.
Posted by: Qassändra 26th April 2015, 06:42 PM
Merseyside totes counts as the Midlands.
Posted by: Danny 26th April 2015, 06:56 PM
Highly likely I agree, but surely not a complete certainty? Support for independence in O&S was roughly equal to in the Scottish Borders, but the SNP apparently are in with a shot in the seats there...
Posted by: popchartfreak 26th April 2015, 06:57 PM
The Midlands ends and the north begins in Mansfield, notts. According to my geography rules, that is.
There is of course the outside chance that a lot of voters might actually LIKE their local candidate and vote for them with personal votes against the national trend. Conversely, there's also some who will vote against their local MP cos they hate them, or think they are useless. I know I do, and will. I would vote for The Chuckle Brothers if they seemed most likely to beat the local Tory MP, though I draw the line at UKIP....
Posted by: Danny 26th April 2015, 07:00 PM
I have a feeling that Labour might be stronger there than they look, based on how Labour have constantly got stronger in Crosby/"Sefton Central". The Lib Dems imo might have a strong grip on tactical Labour voters there, which they should probably keep this time since the LibDem MP has been a bit independent from the coalition and has a high profile locally, but if in the future he steps down or becomes unpopular then I wouldn't be surprised to see Labour jump right up, as in Sheffield Hallam.
Posted by: Qassändra 26th April 2015, 07:05 PM
I count the North as Lancashire and Yorkshire up.
Posted by: Qassändra 26th April 2015, 07:06 PM
That's mainly due to the unionist vote being split between the Lib Dems and the Tories in the Borders (hence why the Lib Dem border seat is potentially SNP, as it's a three-way marginal), whereas it's pretty much all Lib Dem in O&S.
Posted by: Suedehead2 26th April 2015, 07:20 PM
The north begins in Salisbury
Posted by: Soy Adrián 26th April 2015, 08:00 PM
Balls to that.
Posted by: popchartfreak 26th April 2015, 09:26 PM
That is a common perception in these earrr parrrts, wherrre's it tooo?
Posted by: steve201 26th April 2015, 09:49 PM
The North for me begins in County Down or Armagh, unless your in Donegal where your further north but in the South technically
Posted by: Qassändra 26th April 2015, 10:19 PM
SHUT IT MIDLANDER
Posted by: Danny 27th April 2015, 05:51 PM
There's a really interesting surveys of a few Scottish seats by Lord Ashcroft asking people why they'd switched from Labour to the SNP.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/04/ashcroft-national-poll-con-36-lab-30-lib-dem-9-ukip-11-green-7/
The main reasons cited were how close Labour are on policies to the Tories (“Boris Johnson said Ed Miliband was dangerously left wing, but I see him as being centre-right”), how the Scottish party just had its strings pulled by the Westminster party (“It’s the UK party that pulls the strings for the Labour party in Scotland. The referendum made people see that. Scotland is different”), and how Labour used such negative arguments in the independence referendum (“They could have been ‘Labour for No’ and made a socialist case for a No vote, and let the Conservatives focus on their core voters. It seemed like they were pushing a homogenous establishment view rather than a Labour view”).
That said, there's a slight shred of hope for Labour at the end, some of the people saying they were considering SNP said they were worried they might help the Tories get in, and some were uneasy about some of the more...ahem..."distinctive" SNP candidates.
Posted by: Suedehead2 27th April 2015, 06:02 PM
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/04/ashcroft-national-poll-con-36-lab-30-lib-dem-9-ukip-11-green-7/
The main reasons cited were how close Labour are on policies to the Tories (“Boris Johnson said Ed Miliband was dangerously left wing, but I see him as being centre-right”), how the Scottish party just had its strings pulled by the Westminster party (“It’s the UK party that pulls the strings for the Labour party in Scotland. The referendum made people see that. Scotland is different”), and how Labour used such negative arguments in the independence referendum (“They could have been ‘Labour for No’ and made a socialist case for a No vote, and let the Conservatives focus on their core voters. It seemed like they were pushing a homogenous establishment view rather than a Labour view”).
That said, there's a slight shred of hope for Labour at the end, some of the people saying they were considering SNP said they were worried they might help the Tories get in, and some were uneasy about some of the more...ahem..."distinctive" SNP candidates.
Such as?
I assume some of their candidates were selected on the assumption that they had no hope of winning. In 1983 and 1997, there were some pretty useless / awful MPs elected in what would normally have been hopeless seats.
Posted by: Doctor Blind 27th April 2015, 06:25 PM
From the Guardian:
The Conservatives lead Labour by 36 per cent to 30 per cent in this week’s Ashcroft National Poll, conducted over the past weekend. The Tories are up two points since last week and Labour are unchanged. The Liberal Democrats are down a point at nine per cent, Ukip down two at 11 per cent, the Greens up three at seven per cent and the SNP down two at four per cent. The Conservatives have now led in six of the last eight rounds, and this week’s finding equals the highest the party has yet recorded in the ANP – though the figures are within the margin of error of a much closer result.
The polls seem to be moving..
Posted by: Grandwicky 27th April 2015, 06:51 PM
Meanwhile Labour have been ahead for five days in a row on YouGov and both parties are ahead in two polls each!
I refuse to believe they're that far ahead with the amount of ridiculous gaffes they've made in this campaign tbh.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 27th April 2015, 07:03 PM
Ashcroft always has the Tories ahead. Not by this much, but it's well within the margin of error of his usual gap.
Posted by: Qassändra 27th April 2015, 07:17 PM
The Conservatives lead Labour by 36 per cent to 30 per cent in this week’s Ashcroft National Poll, conducted over the past weekend. The Tories are up two points since last week and Labour are unchanged. The Liberal Democrats are down a point at nine per cent, Ukip down two at 11 per cent, the Greens up three at seven per cent and the SNP down two at four per cent. The Conservatives have now led in six of the last eight rounds, and this week’s finding equals the highest the party has yet recorded in the ANP – though the figures are within the margin of error of a much closer result.
The polls seem to be moving..
There've been a few random polls this campaign showing either Labour or the Tories 5 or 6 points ahead. I'd pay this one as much heed as the last few, especially with a three point bounce out of nowhere for the Greens.
Posted by: Silas 27th April 2015, 07:32 PM
Not surprised in the ANP the record of the SNP in government is being highlighted as a reason people are considering a vote for them at Westminster. After a term as a minority government and then 4/5ths of a term as a majority government they've successfully carried out the vast majority of their key pledges.
Posted by: Doctor Blind 27th April 2015, 07:35 PM
Ok, fair enough - I guess we are still at DEADLOCK.
Posted by: Danny 27th April 2015, 07:41 PM
The polls basically come down to how pumped up you think the less-likely-to-vote groups of Labour voters (mainly the very poor and young) are going to be. The pollsters which generally show Tory leads (ICM and ComRes) apply filters which down-weights people who didn't vote last time, while the pollsters which generally show Labour leads (YouGov and Populus) have most people expressing a preference taken into account regardless.
Posted by: steve201 27th April 2015, 07:48 PM
I think the Tories are in the lead now no matter what the polls say - I just have a feeling they'll get 295+ seats and Labour will get 265 or something - the marginal English constituencies will have been pushed to the blue side by the scare mongering of the establishment to the SNP, just like during the referendum!
Posted by: Qassändra 27th April 2015, 07:59 PM
If that were happening, you'd have expected it to show up in more of the Ashcroft constituency polls recently - and Labour are still ahead in a lot of them. And Yes were never in the lead, so it wasn't really a case of independence only losing because of 'last-minute scare-mongering'.
Posted by: steve201 27th April 2015, 09:07 PM
Was the poll 10 days before the referendum that put it at the centre of the media news not showing yes ahead? That's why the Vow was produced and downing st released a daily threat from business leaders a bit like the Telegraph front pages during this campaign?
Anyway most polls I see have a Tory lead now - I just think the crossover has arrived although I hope against hope I'm wrong...
Posted by: Silas 27th April 2015, 09:30 PM
Project:Fear had been at top speed long before that Yes lead poll.
Posted by: steve201 27th April 2015, 09:32 PM
Indeed one of the things which disgusted me about the referendum and the sheep believed it and continued to live in fear and live their lives on their knees!
Posted by: Suedehead2 27th April 2015, 10:30 PM
Anyway most polls I see have a Tory lead now - I just think the crossover has arrived although I hope against hope I'm wrong...
One poll showed the Yes vote ahead. It is reasonable to assume that that poll was a rogue, so the Yes side were never ahead.
Posted by: Qassändra 27th April 2015, 10:42 PM
Anyway most polls I see have a Tory lead now - I just think the crossover has arrived although I hope against hope I'm wrong...
There was one poll out of going on a hundred in that month leading up showing Yes in the lead. It's pretty safe to assume (given it wasn't replicated at all) that Yes were never in the lead, much as a statistically-illiterate Westminster went mad over it.
I should also add that The Vow basically played no part in the victory either - the British Election Study after found only about 3% of No voters (so about 1.5% of those voting) said it was the main reason they voted No. The 45 are trying to play this myth that Scotland only voted No because of The Vow and otherwise it was heading for independence, but there's literally nothing to substantiate it at all. The majority of the undecideds just weren't convinced by the sums for the plan for independence - as has since been borne out. Hope's nice and all, but it doesn't put food on the table.
Posted by: Danny 27th April 2015, 11:24 PM
I should also add that The Vow basically played no part in the victory either - the British Election Study after found only about 3% of No voters (so about 1.5% of those voting) said it was the main reason they voted No. The 45 are trying to play this myth that Scotland only voted No because of The Vow and otherwise it was heading for independence, but there's literally nothing to substantiate it at all. The majority of the undecideds just weren't convinced by the sums for the plan for independence - as has since been borne out. Hope's nice and all, but it doesn't put food on the table.
Again, this is exactly the type of argument the Right always uses to defeat any "progressive" cause and get poor people to vote against their own self-interests.
Posted by: Qassändra 27th April 2015, 11:46 PM
Not really - most progressive causes *do* put food on the table!
Posted by: Silas 28th April 2015, 03:08 PM
TNS Scotland has SNP on 54% and 57 seats! *.*
Posted by: Common Sense 28th April 2015, 04:12 PM
Did anyone see the BBC1 Panorama last night, giving Nate Silver's predictions? He's the guy who correctly predicted the last two US elections and got every state correct. What a waste of 30 minutes and to think I postponed watching the second Corrie for that. He told us nothing new and predicted that UKIP will only get 1 seat. Carswell will hold and looking like Farage will win too. I think Reckless will hold so that's three or surely a certain two?
Posted by: Qassändra 28th April 2015, 04:16 PM
It's probable that Farage will win but it's really not a certain two at all.
Nate's good for US predictions but his model for the UK in 2010 was wayyyy out, and he's basically piggybacking on Electionforecast.co.uk this time around.
Posted by: Suedehead2 28th April 2015, 04:55 PM
It's a lot less complicated to predict a US Presidential election. For a start, you don't have to worry about tactical voting.
Posted by: Silas 28th April 2015, 07:55 PM
Full list of Scottish Candidates: http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/316781-full-list-of-candidates-in-scotland-for-the-uk-parliamentary-election/
Posted by: steve201 28th April 2015, 09:58 PM
Can I ask a English politics question - why do the Tories and lib dems dominate the south west?
Posted by: Danny 28th April 2015, 10:10 PM
Even in most of the poor areas of the south west, the trade union movement never took off properly, so there wasn't really fertile ground for Labour. The Lib Dems have traditionally been the party of the poor there. Also loads of rich people go to retire in the south west (and old rich people = Tories, simplistically).
(The exception is Bristol which has always been decent for Labour and, like most of the big cities, looks set to be a strong result for them again this time.)
Posted by: Qassändra 28th April 2015, 11:51 PM
Also farming. It's why East Anglia's mostly Tory/Lib Dem too.
Posted by: popchartfreak 29th April 2015, 07:11 AM
which is ironic considering the farming Tolpuddle Martyrs were having wages systematically slashed and were transported for daring to try and stop the halving of wages as industrialisation took off and spare labour drove wages down.
So the rich and powerful try and stamp on anything that threatens their profits and power. Some things never change.....
Posted by: steve201 29th April 2015, 09:28 AM
Ah i see, so they are Tories with a heart then basically. Always wondered as iv always had a decent outlook toward William Gladstone as he believed he now was to ' pacify Ireland' as he said in 1868 but he closely followed free market economics and was part of the classical school in economic terms in comparison to the new Liberals in the 20th century who became more statist. But i guess tis was the time we lived in so Lloyd George and the like moved towrds keynesianism as it became popular and they felt pressure from the Labour movement to their left in the 1900s.
Posted by: Danny 29th April 2015, 12:20 PM
New Scottish poll: SNP 54%, Labour 20%, Tories 17%, Lib Dems 5%
The SNP would take every single seat bar Orkney & Shetland Islands, where they would only be 4% behind the Lib Dems on a uniform swing.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 29th April 2015, 12:59 PM
New Ashcroft polls out this afternoon. Thanet and Hallam will be exceedingly interesting.
Posted by: Common Sense 29th April 2015, 02:14 PM
A major cock-up in safe Labour seat Hull East. Postal ballot papers sent out with two candidates, Labour and Green, missing, for the second time! Is no-one checking at least a few of every batch before they go in envelopes? If there's a suspicious swing or it's a lot close than anticipated, the election may have to be re-run.
Posted by: Silas 29th April 2015, 02:28 PM
The SNP would take every single seat bar Orkney & Shetland Islands, where they would only be 4% behind the Lib Dems on a uniform swing.
Bloody hell. If this actually happens on May 7th then this country will never be the same.
Posted by: Qassändra 29th April 2015, 02:39 PM
Free markets actually worked better for the less well-off (well, more of them) back then, as they ensured the cheapest food came into the UK rather than having tariffs on foreign imports boosting prices. British farmers got screwed over by that though, and they weren't especially well off either.
Posted by: Danny 29th April 2015, 02:51 PM
It does now seem the polls are moving the Tories' way. 5 of 6 polls since Monday have had them in the lead.
Posted by: Danny 29th April 2015, 03:01 PM
Sheffield Hallam: Labour 37%, Clegg 36%, Tories 15%
South Thanet: Tories 34%, Farage 32%, Labour 26%
Posted by: Silas 29th April 2015, 03:40 PM
STV has a pic of that latest Scottish poll that shows all 59 seats in SNP yellow *.*
Posted by: Suedehead2 29th April 2015, 04:05 PM
If there's a suspicious swing or it's a lot close than anticipated, the election may have to be re-run.It has only affected a few hundred papers, so it is highly unlikely to affect the outcome. Nevertheless, it is unbelievably incompetent.
Posted by: Suedehead2 29th April 2015, 04:07 PM
South Thanet: Tories 34%, Farage 32%, Labour 26%
That is slightly misleading. The candidates were not named in the poll, as per Ashcroft's standard method. Effectively, both constituencies are a dead heat.
Posted by: popchartfreak 29th April 2015, 04:18 PM
Hmm, nothing is forever. Depends on how well they are viewed to have done in Scotland in 5 years time, and 10 years time and any consequences good or bad on any influence they have had. Look at the Libdems and what a difference 5 years has made essentially over one minor policy c*ck-up and doing what was democratically voted for by the electorate. Looks like the SNP's turn to learn from their mistakes...
Posted by: Common Sense 29th April 2015, 04:40 PM
Yes but still within the margin of error.
Posted by: Common Sense 29th April 2015, 04:42 PM
South Thanet: Tories 34%, Farage 32%, Labour 26%
Still both too close to call really. Should be an exciting sleepness night with plenty of Red Bull, coffee and snacks! Anyone else staying up all night?
Posted by: Qassändra 29th April 2015, 04:47 PM
I think the big test of how influential the SNP surge will be will be how the seats stand up in 2020 - the way it stands currently, the SNP gain a *lot* of seats quite suddenly past a certain threshold (I think around ~17% swing?), and then lose them again quite suddenly past that point. If Labour can't regain those types of seats in five years then we're probably in for another referendum.
Posted by: Danny 29th April 2015, 04:50 PM
I'm leaning towards a Farage win because I think UKIP are being underestimated by people too ashamed to admit to pollsters that they're voting for them. Sheffield Hallam is a complete toss-up, though.
Probably staying up, yes, even at the risk of f***ing up my sleep pattern in the middle of my exams
As things stand though, The inevitable chaos of the days following the election might be more exciting than election night itself.
Posted by: Common Sense 29th April 2015, 05:01 PM
.
I agree. This was discussed on one of the news channels today. A lot of people don't want to admit to voting for UKIP, bit like not wanting to admit voting for the BNP, to their friends, colleagues and, surprisingly, the pollsters. The resident polling "expert" confidently preduicted that UKIP would get 19% and 5 seats, including Farage, Reckless and Carswell. We'll see.
Posted by: Silas 29th April 2015, 05:28 PM
They've been the party of government here for 8 years now and their support has only grown. The fact that they've done such a good job at that is part of what is behind the SNP surge.
Posted by: Qassändra 29th April 2015, 05:34 PM
LOL. Which expert was this?!
Posted by: Doctor Blind 29th April 2015, 05:42 PM
There's no way that UKIP will be getting more than about 13 or 14% IMO. They will get maybe 100 second places, but only about 4 seats.
God bless FPTP. *.*
Posted by: Common Sense 29th April 2015, 05:47 PM
I don't know. I flick between channels all day long.
Posted by: Common Sense 29th April 2015, 05:47 PM
I don't know. I flick between channels all day long.
Posted by: Qassändra 29th April 2015, 05:49 PM
NO
Posted by: Doctor Blind 29th April 2015, 05:58 PM
I think the results on May 8th will be the final death knell for it anyway.
Posted by: Common Sense 29th April 2015, 06:04 PM
I wouldn't be so sure. Turkeys don't usually vote for Christmas so Labour and the Tories will always try to keep FPTP.
Posted by: Qassändra 29th April 2015, 06:15 PM
Well, half the Labour Party did support AV. And First Past The Post will be a big reason for the annihilation in Scotland if the SNP end up with around 95% of the seats on 45-50% of the vote.
Posted by: steve201 29th April 2015, 09:00 PM
So is it true the Tories have made the break through in the last few days, I'm like Danny think the Tories will push ahead!
Posted by: Danny 29th April 2015, 09:09 PM
Well, we just had a new plot wrinkle with ComRes (previously one of the Tories' best pollsters) putting Tories and Labour tied on 35%, with Labour up 3 from the last one.
Posted by: steve201 29th April 2015, 11:06 PM
Hanging in there, fingers crossed!
Took next Friday off work so it'll be an all nighter for me 
Posted by: Suedehead2 29th April 2015, 11:52 PM
I've been up all night for every election since 1979, so this will be no different. I even saw some of the October 1974 election night. In 1979, there was a short break in coverage, which meant I did get a little sleep. In 1983, I was at the count (for the Southwark seats), so I missed most of the results programme.
Posted by: steve201 30th April 2015, 08:22 AM
Ive saw the 64, 74 and 79 ones on bbc parliament and watched the 97 ne partially and the others from then fully!
Posted by: Soy Adrián 30th April 2015, 10:05 AM
They were, however, asked to think about their own constituency. There's not many people in Hallam who don't know that Clegg is their MP.
Posted by: Suedehead2 30th April 2015, 12:50 PM
The jury is still out on whether that questioning is sufficient. If they were asked for their general preference before being asked the constituency question, that (in my view) would be more reliable.
Posted by: Danny 30th April 2015, 01:45 PM
I still don't think the "thinking about your constituency specifically" question is going to be accurate. Obviously Lib Dem MPs are very good at being "champions locally" and getting dog mess cleared off the roads and whathaveyou, and some people will be voting for them on that basis, but there's no way that EVERYONE is going to be thinking first and foremost about who they think is best for the constituency rather than who they want in government. Imo, it's not much different to asking a loaded question like "thinking about which party you most trust on immigration, who would you vote for?" or "thinking about which party you most trust on the NHS, who would you vote for?"
I'm going off the assumption that the Lib Dems will land somewhere inbetween the results of Ashcroft's generic question, and the constituency-specific question, which would leave them with about 15 seats.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 30th April 2015, 01:56 PM
They are.
I'm going off the assumption that the Lib Dems will land somewhere inbetween the results of Ashcroft's generic question, and the constituency-specific question, which would leave them with about 15 seats.
It's a little different to that given that the local candidate is the one who's going to be on the ballot paper when they actually go and vote. Clegg is known by 99% of the constituency (barring the senile and students who think they're in Central, which is a mistake the Greens have also somehow made in student halls) but I'm not sure which way his name will push people. There's still a significant pro-Clegg feeling in wealthier areas.
Posted by: Qassändra 30th April 2015, 02:05 PM
I'm going off the assumption that the Lib Dems will land somewhere inbetween the results of Ashcroft's generic question, and the constituency-specific question, which would leave them with about 15 seats.
The difference is that your ballot paper doesn't ask you 'thinking about immigration, which party would you vote for?'. It's rare that people will say which *person* they're voting for - apart from for Lib Dem constituencies.
The phenomenon of incumbency effects for Lib Dems is *really* well documented - the question isn't 'will people vote on a local basis in an election where they're choosing a government?' (we know that a lot will), but 'how will the Lib Dem incumbencies stand up to the collapse of their national reputation?'.
Posted by: Common Sense 30th April 2015, 03:00 PM
I do too. I think they'll have quite a few more seats than Labour and may even get a small majority. Look at how many undecideds there are according to the Mail today. They may decide, "better the devil you know". I think Cameron will stay in No.10.
Posted by: Silas 30th April 2015, 03:12 PM
I very much doubt that anyone will get a majority. Too many seats, outside of scotland, would need to change hands and most seats just don't.
Posted by: Qassändra 30th April 2015, 03:15 PM
And which Labour seats do you think the Conservatives will gain to get a majority exactly? While losing none to Labour or UKIP and being limited to about 15 Lib Dem gains on a good night?
Posted by: steve201 30th April 2015, 03:20 PM
I think they will take the lib dem seats in the south and west and will hold their ground in the midlands etc due to the snp threat the tories have went on about so much in the past 2 weeks. They will get near 290-300 seats - but will that be enough to get their Queens Speech through?! (in terms of support from elesewhere)
Posted by: Qassändra 30th April 2015, 03:34 PM
That depends entirely on how many seats you have the other parties on in that scenario.
At a guess, you've got the Tories taking 15 or so seats off the Lib Dems (which would be a good night for them). That implies the Tories are losing about 25-30 seats to Labour. Let's say the SNP are taking 30-35 off Labour too, and Labour are taking 15 off the Lib Dems, and the SNP are taking 10 off the Lib Dems. Let's give 2 Tory seats to UKIP. (This is all rough maths by the way, based on what we've got here)
Tories 291
Labour 267
SNP 47
LD 17
UKIP 3
PC 3
GR 1
NI (DUP 9, SDLP 3, SF 5, Sylv 1)
In that scenario, the Tories would probably whip up some kind of moral authority to govern, but the numbers don't really add up. Labour + SDLP (who already take the Labour whip so this isn't the extra hassle it looks) + SNP adds up to more than Con + LD (317 > 308), so the Tories would need to get the DUP on board just to equal that, plus UKIP, and it would still only add up to 320. It really is all at the margins.
Posted by: Danny 30th April 2015, 04:03 PM
The phenomenon of incumbency effects for Lib Dems is *really* well documented - the question isn't 'will people vote on a local basis in an election where they're choosing a government?' (we know that a lot will), but 'how will the Lib Dem incumbencies stand up to the collapse of their national reputation?'.
The ballot paper also doesn't tell you specifically to "think about your constituency", after previously asking who you'd generally vote for (thus, arguably, encouraging a different answer for the second question).
With the exception of MPs who were first elected in 2010, the incumbency effects will already be baked into the 2010 results (which is why Eastbourne and/or Cambridge might be saved on smallish swings). Otherwise, there's no reason at all to think the swing in their seats will be lower than the national average, because the strong reputations of individual MPs will ALREADY be reflected in their starting points. In 2010 itself, even LibDem seats generally swung with the national trend apart from first-time incumbents.
Posted by: Qassändra 30th April 2015, 04:16 PM
The second question is surely closer to the actual ballot paper though, given it has the names there. We've got years of election experience demonstrating that Lib Dem candidates can sway a big shift from national voting preferences, tripping up countless confident predictions of 'oh, well, people vote nationally in a general election don't they?'. People are more than happy to lend votes tactically if they know their preferred party doesn't stand a chance locally *and* they think the MP does a good job.
Posted by: Qassändra 30th April 2015, 04:17 PM
OT: who knew that Craig was called Andrew all along?!
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9512952/five-arguments-for-voting-tory-and-one-for-anything-but/
Posted by: Danny 30th April 2015, 04:17 PM
The Tories are probably on for 20+ gains from the Lib Dems IMO, and I could see them picking up a handful of Labour seats in the Midlands or somewhere if Labour leak some votes to UKIP. It's touch and go if the Tories get a majority but I wouldn't be totally shocked to see them do it.
Posted by: Qassändra 30th April 2015, 04:36 PM
Which seats would they be taking from Labour though? Because there hasn't been a single constituency poll which has shown them anywhere near picking up a seat from Labour in their targets - even the Tories' internal echoes (there was an article in the Staggers recently) have pretty much given up on getting any more than one or two, if *that*.
Not to mention that 20 Tory gains from the Lib Dems would have the Lib Dems losing pretty much *every* seat where the Tories came second last time (if we're discounting Sheffield Hallam, Cambridge and the Scottish seats). That includes the four South West London seats where the Tories have given up and diverted all resources to Croydon Central (and includes seats where the Lib Dems have been twenty points ahead in Ashcroft polling). That includes Colchester, where Bob Russell is basically a local icon. That includes Eastleigh, where even a by-election couldn't get the Lib Dems out. That includes Thornbury and Yate, and Eastbourne, where the Lib Dems have been twenty points ahead in polling. That includes Westmoreland and Lonsdale.
They could lose one or two of those. But there is no way in hell the Lib Dems are losing all of those - twenty Lib Dem losses to the Tories is really, really, really bloody unlikely.
Posted by: #BJSCSLAYERRRRRR 30th April 2015, 04:41 PM
Aren't Tory voters, i.e the more conservative lot, more likely to vote UKIP anyway? Hence why Call ME Dave didn't want a debate with only 4 parties as he knew he'd lose votes to them so wanted more Left Wing parties for Labour to lose votes to as well.
Posted by: Qassändra 30th April 2015, 04:44 PM
The UKIP vote's getting squeezed the closer it gets to election day. It's more a case of how many votes UKIP have picked up over the Parliament from the Tories stay UKIP rather than how many the Tories lose to UKIP.
Posted by: Qassändra 30th April 2015, 05:03 PM
I'll take part of that back - I've had a check and there are more potential Lib Dem-Tory battles than I thought (I really need to set up a spreadsheet), but I still can't see the Tories making it all the way to twenty...
(this isn't totally sourced for each one but most results are based on Ashcroft polls, and he's done all but three/four of the safest)
# / Maj / Maj as % of turnout / Seat / MP
- 00175 / 00.32 / Solihull / Lorely Burt
- 00269 / 00.57 / Dorset Mid & Poole North / Annette Brooke (stepping down)
- 00800 / 01.43 / Wells / Tessa Munt
- 01312 / 02.78 / St Austell & Newquay / Stephen Gilbert
- 01817 / 03.00 / Somerton & Frome / David Heath (stepping down)
- 01608 / 03.31 / Sutton & Cheam / Paul Burstow
- 01719 / 03.74 / St Ives / Andrew George
- 02470 / 04.72 / Chippenham / Duncan Hames [Ashcroft 11/14, Tory 15pt lead]
- 03272 / 06.23 / Cheadle / Mark Hunter [Ashcroft 10/14, LD 4pt lead]
- 02981 / 06.36 / North Cornwall / Dan Rogerson
- 03435 / 06.59 / Eastbourne / Stephen Lloyd
- 03993 / 06.87 / Taunton Deane / Jeremy Browne (stepping down)
- 02690 / 07.00 / Berwick-upon-Tweed / Alan Beith (stepping down) [Ashcroft 08/14, Tory 3pt lead]
- 03864 / 07.20 / Eastleigh / Mike Thornton [Ashcroft 08/14, 15pt LD lead]
- 04078 / 08.29 / Torbay / Adrian Sanders
- 04920 / 09.32 / Cheltenham / Martin Horwood [Ashcroft 11/14, 8pt LD lead]
- 03747 / 09.65 / Brecon & Radnorshire / Roger Williams
- 05821 / 11.34 / North Devon / Nick Harvey
- 05260 / 11.46 / Carshalton & Wallington / Tom Brake [Ashcroft 11/14, LD 20 pt lead]
- 05675 / 11.58 / Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk / Michael Moore [three-way marginal w/ SNP]
- 05200 / 12.60 / Portsmouth South / Mike Hancock (deselected) [local pervert/behind in polls]
- 07560 / 13.24 / Kingston & Surbiton / Ed Davey
- 06024 / 13.77 / Southport / John Pugh [Ashcroft 13pt lead]
- 07116 / 14.76 / Thornbury & Yate / Steve Webb
- 06982 / 15.13 / Colchester / Bob Russell [Ashcroft 11/14, 14pt LD lead]
- 06371 / 15.18 / Hazel Grove / Andrew Stunell (stepping down) [Ashcroft 11/14, 6pt LD lead]
- 07647 / 15.27 / Lewes / Norman Baker [Ashcroft 8pt lead]
- 12140 / 20.33 / Twickenham / Vince Cable
- 13036 / 22.81 / Yeovil / David Laws
- 11626 / 23.41 / Norfolk North / Norman Lamb
- 12264 / 23.82 / Westmorland & Lonsdale / Tim Farron
- 11883 / 25.24 / Bath / Don Foster (stepping down)
in balance but leaning Tory gain
in balance
in balance but leaning LD hold
safe
Posted by: Danny 30th April 2015, 05:30 PM
What do you mean *even* a by-election?! By-elections are their forte since they can usually be focussed purely on who they want representing the local area and sorting out all the little problems. But I still stand by that a general election is going to have a lot more minds focussed on the national picture (not all minds, admittedly), since people would that who they choose as their MP really could affect who makes the government, whereas a by-election wouldn't. There's ALWAYS been a pattern of Lib Dems performing better in local elections and by-elections, which is what I think tbh Ashcroft's constituency-specific polling reflects.
Posted by: Suedehead2 30th April 2015, 05:33 PM
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9512952/five-arguments-for-voting-tory-and-one-for-anything-but/
Wow, he really is utterly deluded.
Posted by: LexC 30th April 2015, 05:49 PM
Hancock is still standing as an Independent in Portsmouth South though and is quite popular as a constituency MP so that one could be a funny one (He says, clinging onto any hope of it not going blue).
Posted by: Brett-Butler 30th April 2015, 06:06 PM
Russell Brand has just gone and endorsed Caroline Lucas in Brighton Pavilion. That's her seat lost then.
Posted by: Qassändra 30th April 2015, 06:13 PM
Eh?! By-elections are normally the ultimate message of 'bugger off' to the government - by the token of the Lib Dems losing all respect nationally to the degree it erodes their incumbency totally, a by-election would be the perfect opportunity to send a message to the Lib Dems. Hence why they've collapsed in basically every by-election where they weren't already embedded.
(And on not all minds - that still doesn't deal with the tactical voting argument. Hence the collapse in national voting intentions for whichever party doesn't stand a chance in the seat when transferred to Q2)
You don't even seem to be making that argument though - you seem to be making the argument that incumbency effect for parties other than the Tories and Labour doesn't at all exist in general elections. I don't think you'd find a single political scientist *or* pollster who'd agree with you on that!
Posted by: Qassändra 30th April 2015, 06:14 PM
Well the Lib Dems may be the traditional party of oddball perverts, but even then I doubt that was much of the appeal for local MPs. He might save his deposit but there's pretty much no chance of him holding the seat as a disgraced independent.
Posted by: popchartfreak 30th April 2015, 08:15 PM
I don't see the Libdems holding a Tory government in power if they can't make a majority on their own, and the logic of voters switching from Libdem to Tory is bizarre given they would presumably not have been in favour of Tory policies and now suddenly are (as opposed to the other party thats been jointly in power toning them down).
Another Tory coalition for Libdems would kill them off entirely, I would imagine they would prefer to sit it out and watch others try to manage if Labour remain opposed to the Libdems. Even a handy block of 20 MP's could influence policy in a close call while letting someone else get the blame for unpopular policies......
Posted by: Suedehead2 30th April 2015, 08:58 PM
She does have the support of David Attenborough and Joanna Lumley though.
Posted by: steve201 30th April 2015, 10:23 PM
Anyone else think the QT special tonight was bad for Milliband?
Posted by: Danny 30th April 2015, 10:29 PM
In the least surprising news of the election, Ed Miliband is giving into bullying from the Tory press yet again:
Posted by: steve201 30th April 2015, 10:45 PM
Polls post debate were
Cameron 44%
Milliband 38%
Clegg 19%
Thought that was generous for Ed - that lady in the audience teared him apart as did saying that labour didn't overspend (technically they didn't and it was a crash caused by overspending by government but people don't believe that due to the Tory press these past 5 yrs)!
Posted by: Qassändra 30th April 2015, 11:03 PM
He's going for a minority then. This could actually be far cannier than it looks - if he's first on seats, it's academic. He'll easily be able to govern on a vote-by-vote basis without having to do a specific deal with the SNP, as they've already committed to not bringing in a Tory government.
If he's second on seats, we'd face an absolute PR obliteration - the papers and the Tories will be screeching about their moral authority to govern, and (sadly) I think the public would buy the argument that first on seats means you should 'win' (regardless of how meaningless that is when you don't have a majority). It's actually probably better in terms of long-term legitimacy to let the Tories crow their way into a minority government and have an utterly chaotic time failing to get anything through for a couple of months, before losing a vote of no confidence - the argument having been proved that being first on seats is utterly meaningless in itself if you don't have the votes together.
Posted by: Danny 30th April 2015, 11:10 PM
Vote-by-vote deals with the SNP with are going to be spun by the press as him "breaking his promise", surely? He's backed himself into a corner just to try and get the bullying to stop for a couple of days, as usual.
Posted by: Danny 30th April 2015, 11:14 PM
Also, I think this assumption that SNP MPs are going to all happily vote for Labour budgets so that they don't risk letting in the Tories is pretty naive. Even IF Nicola Sturgeon would want to do that, the Mhari Black's (the 20-year-old anarchist running against Douglas Alexander) are not going to be voting for Labour legislation that they totally disagree with. These largely aren't going to be a bunch of career politicians who give up their principles just to keep the peace.
Posted by: Qassändra 30th April 2015, 11:16 PM
I presume he's planning on basically just putting forward bills where there's manifesto overlap or where the SNP would have a hard time explaining why they voted against, but without any specific deal on each vote; or where he may be able to pick off votes from other parties - even if the Lib Dems didn't join a coalition, that wouldn't necessarily bind all of them to vote against on any bill, and it would probably be in the interests of a fair few Lib Dem MPs to vote in favour of a lot of Labour manifesto pledges.
Posted by: Qassändra 30th April 2015, 11:17 PM
Thank god she's not going to win then!
(I'm really tempting fate there but if we don't win Dougie's then we're literally losing everything so me being wrong would be the LEAST of our worries in that event!)
Regardless, the SNP tried to spin letting in Thatcher as a principled vote too and that didn't exactly work either. If she wants to get a reputation as someone happy to bring in a Tory government she can be my guest!
Posted by: Qassändra 30th April 2015, 11:20 PM
(I hope you aren't bored of this conversation and the obvious to-and-fro 'no YOU'RE bringing in the Tories' 'NO YOU'RE BRINGING IN THE TORIES!' high-stakes tete-a-tete already because off the back of this promise that's pretty much what politics is going to be for the foreseeable future if Labour become the next government.)
(Yes, it's almost enough to make you want a disastrous Tory minority.)
(YES, the thought does appeal.)
Posted by: Suedehead2 30th April 2015, 11:27 PM
His suggestion that he would prefer Cameron to remain PM over doing any sort of deal with the SNP was weird. Of course, he has to say that he is going for a majority Labour government. However, as one audience member said, he might gain some respect if he admitted that he might need the support (in some unspecified way) of another party. I didn't see the Cameron part as I gave up within three seconds of him opening his over-priveliged gob.
Posted by: Danny 30th April 2015, 11:29 PM
Exactly. Him furiously saying he wouldn't deal with the SNP isn't convincing those who are deadset in hatred of the idea (if it was going to work then it would be working already since he's been saying it nonstop for weeks), and on top of it he makes himself look even more weak and easy to push around by his critics.
Posted by: #BJSCSLAYERRRRRR 30th April 2015, 11:42 PM
If we lose this election, it's Ed's fault.
Still don't understand choosing him over David at ALL.
Posted by: Qassändra 30th April 2015, 11:52 PM
David would've made the current fracturing of the left look like a mild tiff.
Posted by: LexC 1st May 2015, 12:14 AM
In a way it would be crueller for Cameron to be left as a really impotent leader who couldn't get any legislation passed (even with the odious right wing one-two of UKIP and the DUP) so the sadist in me wouldn't mind that.
Posted by: Iz~ 1st May 2015, 12:21 AM
Watching Ed tonight was the first time throughout this campaign I've felt cringing a bit at him, that audience was ruthless (to be fair they were ruthless to all three but especially Ed it felt like), but all that shit about the last Labour government spending too much got tiring very quickly and it didn't seem like he had a great defence.
But the notion that he is going for a minority government is rather intriguing, I hope it doesn't backfire on him, he's got to be under an extra onus to deliver what he says now that he's made such a big deal of being an honest underpromising guy.
Posted by: Common Sense 1st May 2015, 07:38 AM
Yes. Cameron on the other hand looked passionate, fire-up and more Statesman like.
Posted by: Common Sense 1st May 2015, 07:41 AM
LOL. I didn't see Clegg but understand someone told him he'd be looking for another job next week!
Posted by: jark 1st May 2015, 08:17 AM
Cameron performed worse than Ed. He literally sidestepped every question that was too awkward to answer, again (food banks) and looked visibly uncomfortable when somebody asked why they should trust him or whatever. Sorry but Ed did better and only a 6% difference in the snap poll, when Cameron's approval ratings are historically far higher, suggests as much.
Posted by: steve201 1st May 2015, 08:32 AM
I agree on your point about dodging the questions but unfort DC is better at dodging questions and coming out better. The problem with Ed is he actually tries to answer them instead of lying in all bar the coalition question.
He was between a rock with the post election coalition stuff - if he had gave in at all every tory paper tomorrow morning would have led with it and he would have lost alot of undecided middle england votes next thursday. He stod his ground ok i thought. I missed the guy from the financial centre who said a Labour government want to destroy the money making sector of the economy. What did he say?
Posted by: steve201 1st May 2015, 08:33 AM
Yeh he answered it very well though dismissing him without being insulting like the guy was being. He just replied "Charming, No!"
Posted by: Soy Adrián 1st May 2015, 08:35 AM
He was between a rock with the post election coalition stuff - if he had gave in at all every tory paper tomorrow morning would have led with it and he would have lost alot of undecided middle england votes next thursday. He stod his ground ok i thought. I missed the guy from the financial centre who said a Labour government want to destroy the money making sector of the economy. What did he say?
He basically took huge offence when Ed said that the crash came because we were too reliant on the financial sector and we needed to diversify.
Posted by: steve201 1st May 2015, 08:39 AM
But the notion that he is going for a minority government is rather intriguing, I hope it doesn't backfire on him, he's got to be under an extra onus to deliver what he says now that he's made such a big deal of being an honest underpromising guy.
That stuff was ridiculous and the prop DC had of Liam Byrnes note left behind was all done to control the debate and ignore the fact the economy hasnt recovered yet because of Osbornes financial austerity measure and the deficit hasnt been reduced. I was shouting at the screen when that silly 'small business woman' said if Ed Balls had said that as a ceo he would have got sacked - BEING A POLITICAN ISNT THE SAME AS BEING A CEO OR AN ACCOUNTANT!!!!!
Milliband didnt successfully swipe away these views on the last labour government by saying the economy was growing in May 2010 and it was a global financial crisis not labour overspending. And most annoyingly of all the tories had agreed to follow labours spending plans from 2007-10 before lehman bros. But these arguements are probably too hard to narrate to the public in a way most will understand compared to the rights simplistic narrative of the crash.
Posted by: steve201 1st May 2015, 08:41 AM
Imagine wanting a balanced economy not in awe of one sector which isnt regulated at all??
Posted by: Soy Adrián 1st May 2015, 09:13 AM
So it turns out one and possibly two of the questions to Ed last night were Tory plants.
http://labourlist.org/2015/05/about-that-question-time-audience/
Posted by: steve201 1st May 2015, 09:18 AM
I havent recieved my Labour List today yet, was wondering what happened. This doesnt surprise me in the slightest!!
Posted by: Silas 1st May 2015, 12:00 PM
Millibands little SNP announcement last night is going to go down about as well as UKIP this side of the border. If anything it's going to push more people too the SNP and not bring people back to Labour.
Firing Jim Murphy would make a difference. He's probably the biggest f***wit outside of UKIP in Scottish politics. honest to God want to smack him in the face with a shovel every time he opens his mouth. He makes my skin crawl
Posted by: steve201 1st May 2015, 12:25 PM
Will the SNP support Labour in the House of Commons?
Posted by: Suedehead2 1st May 2015, 12:57 PM
Why is Murphy opening your mouth?
Posted by: Silas 1st May 2015, 01:36 PM
that'll teach me to try and be sneaky and browse Buzzjack on my phone at work
Posted by: Soy Adrián 1st May 2015, 01:51 PM
It helps when feeding someone a Cornetto
Posted by: Qassändra 1st May 2015, 02:30 PM
Bloody Scottish politicians and their pseudo-sexual ice cream feeding sessions.
Posted by: steve201 1st May 2015, 03:44 PM
The new Ashcroft polls are in - Jim Murphy looks like hes getting some tory support as hes reduced the gap in his seat!!
Esther McVey also closing the gap in Wirral West!
Posted by: Danny 1st May 2015, 03:54 PM
One thing that should help Labour in the Wirral is that the Greens aren't standing (purely to try and unseat Esther McVey), but Ashcroft is still including them in his polls for it. That said, Labour would still probably need to keep within about 3% of the Tories nationally to have a chance to have a chance, which is increasingly doubtful.
In any case, it just shows what a nonsense the media mantra that Miliband's problems are with "Middle England" when they're competitive there while apparently well behind in far poorer constituencies.
Posted by: Qassändra 1st May 2015, 04:04 PM
*.* (by and large)
That Battersea Tory majority does pain me though. Talk about the ground zero of homeless spike and poor door Britain.
Posted by: popchartfreak 1st May 2015, 04:27 PM
If one were to choose 2 celebrity supporters I can think of none better to have on board.
Posted by: steve201 1st May 2015, 05:36 PM
That Battersea Tory majority does pain me though. Talk about the ground zero of homeless spike and poor door Britain.
I'm not overly knowledgable about specific uk seats but I always assumed Batersea was a labour area - the name sounds poor - or is it a UKIP target?!
Posted by: Soy Adrián 1st May 2015, 06:01 PM
The fact that they're not doing the same in Hallam may save Clegg his seat.
Posted by: Grandwicky 1st May 2015, 06:52 PM
The TORY I mean erm.. MORI poll has a 6 point Tory lead, YouGov has a 1 point labour lead, Survation now has a 1 point Labour lead after having a 4 point Labour lead not so long ago.
Interestingly The Guardian are not saying they are now a Labour paper but they are saying that they are backing Labour! http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/01/guardian-view-britain-needs-new-direction-needs-labour
But yeah their poll of polls has the Tories 2 points ahead as some said already unfortunately.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 1st May 2015, 06:55 PM
May2015's Poll of Polls has Labour 0.1 ahead.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 1st May 2015, 06:57 PM
This is the man who's in the best position to take Nigel Dodds' seat in North Belfast -
Did no-one at any point stop and think that maybe this isn't the best advertisement for a candidate?
Posted by: Suedehead2 1st May 2015, 07:21 PM
Did no-one at any point stop and think that maybe this isn't the best advertisement for a candidate?
If the election was on May 4th, it might make some sort of sense. Not much sense, but at least a little bit.
Posted by: RabbitFurCoat 1st May 2015, 07:50 PM
Surely Ed's positon with what he says about coalitions and the SNP is the ultimate no-win? If he says yes he'd consider some form of agreement with the SNP it'll make more people in Scotland go to SNP from Labour thinking it's still a Labour government they're voting for and more people in England who don't want SNP meddling more likely to vote tory. If he says he's no interest in having any deal or agreement he's then called a liar if it happens.
Think he was brave and/or stupid to be that adamant in denial last night though.
He should really have taken a leaf out of Dave's book and say he doesn't want to do something, not that he won't do it.....
Posted by: Danny 1st May 2015, 07:58 PM
Think he was brave and/or stupid to be that adamant in denial last night though.
He should really have taken a leaf out of Dave's book and say he doesn't want to do something, not that he won't do it.....
Imo, it's the other way round. The more Labour run away from the SNP, the higher the SNP go in the polls as Scots interpret it as him joining in with the English anti-Scottish hysteria.
Posted by: Silas 1st May 2015, 08:16 PM
I think that's the aim though. They're trying to pull people back to Labour without actually understanding why they've left in the first place. Jim Murphy really isn't helping matters. He's a complete hinderance to this campaign for Labour.
They're between a rock and a hard place though because down south seems to have bought the Austerity message but up here the majority haven't and want it to stop. So while they have to say they'll continue to be tough on the deficit to attract rUK votes, it's pushing more people to the SNP every time they mention it.
Plus the general attitude of Labour/Conservatives right now is 'Better Together, but on our terms, our way and not in our parliament'. If you wanted us to say so badly you then can't have a hissy fit because we are exercising our democratic right to be heard. Austerity is affecting the country as a whole and we have just as much right as anyone else living in the UK to try to stop this injustice.
Posted by: popchartfreak 1st May 2015, 09:00 PM
They're between a rock and a hard place though because down south seems to have bought the Austerity message but up here the majority haven't and want it to stop. So while they have to say they'll continue to be tough on the deficit to attract rUK votes, it's pushing more people to the SNP every time they mention it.
Plus the general attitude of Labour/Conservatives right now is 'Better Together, but on our terms, our way and not in our parliament'. If you wanted us to say so badly you then can't have a hissy fit because we are exercising our democratic right to be heard. Austerity is affecting the country as a whole and we have just as much right as anyone else living in the UK to try to stop this injustice.
Spot on I'd say there. The 2 old parties need to accept people don't think either of them deserve to govern overall so they should accept the fragmented political reality. Cameron meanwhile says nothing which is politically deceitful and is essentially treating the electorate like they are fools. I look forward to coalitions it's not the end of the political world no matter how much they keep saying it
Posted by: Danny 1st May 2015, 09:24 PM
His ratings are now lower than the Scottish LibDem leader
Posted by: Qassändra 1st May 2015, 09:50 PM
It's a very, very demographically polarised seat (very poor council estates next to affluent yuppie flats that go for a million a pop) just south of the Thames in London that's been your standard swing seat for a while - Tory in the 80s, Labour 97-10. The Tories being on 50% there is basically the final sign that it's demographically shifted far too much for us to get it again on anything other than a Tony style swing - and also a symptom of how much central London is being totally hollowed out.
Posted by: Silas 1st May 2015, 10:05 PM
If your ratings are lower than a libdem in Scotland you either belong to ukip or you should quit politics. If you're in ukip you should quit politics too but I'd prefer if coburn quit breathing.
Posted by: Qassändra 1st May 2015, 10:08 PM
After the focus groups I'm beginning to think Jim Murphy may be the Michael Howard of Scottish Labour - literally the only option available for avoiding a total morale obliteration in the face of disaster (and he's running by far the most professional campaign a Scottish Labour leader has run), but sadly defined too much in opposition to the people he has to win back to make much headway. Findlay was so utterly useless that he wouldn't be doing better, but it's really difficult to see what other options are available at the moment, short of Gordon Brown.
Posted by: Suedehead2 1st May 2015, 10:21 PM
If Scotland had voted for independence, one of the options was that Scotland would not have participated in this election. Scottish constituencies would just have retained their current MPs until Scotland left the UK. If that had happened, Labour could now be heading toward being comfortably the largest party, Indeed, if the Tories lost support, as the party that presided over the breakup of the UK, Labour could even have been heading for a majority. Don't you just love Ifs?
Posted by: Qassändra 1st May 2015, 10:36 PM
There's basically zero chance the Tories would've allowed that option. We're talking about the party that thought the most appropriate response to the referendum result was changing the subject to England to try and get the upper hand over Labour, for crying out loud.
Posted by: Danny 1st May 2015, 10:45 PM
It was always going to be tough for Labour, but pretty much anyone else could've probably salvaged about 25-30% I reckon, even Johann Lamont. Considering Scottish Labour were being deserted for being too much like the Tories / for taking part in the negative anti-independence campaign / for being too focussed on Westminster / for having such uncharismatic leaders compared to the SNP, selecting a Blairite Westminster MP who was fresh off being one of the main faces of the independence campaign and who had no discernible charisma couldn't have been a more laughably misguided choice if they tried. He literally confirms every single thing that the SNP are using as arguments against Labour.
Posted by: Qassändra 1st May 2015, 10:50 PM
'No discernable charisma' doesn't really take into account that countless MPs did a tour of all the constituencies to do public appearances during the referendum campaign and literally none of the others got any response or attention when they did that. And Jim Murphy wasn't a Blairite - he was New Labour. The point of New Labour is that you apply your values to the relevant political context rather than holding to dogma. You couldn't really call Murphy's campaign Blairite, or focused on Westminster, or similar to the Tories.
Posted by: Qassändra 1st May 2015, 10:51 PM
And I'm pretty sure Labour will manage 25-30% of the vote in Scotland come next Thursday.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 1st May 2015, 10:54 PM
I actually think a faceless Lamont type would be worse - it would embody the fact that Scottish Labour is regarded by most Scots as nothing more than an outpost for the national party. Murphy being outspoken (which he is, his profile in the referendum showed us that much) isn't the problem, it's that he comes across as disingenuous. Putting Miliband in an awkward position by being to the left of his rhetoric works better if you actually ARE to the left of him. Murphy isn't.
Posted by: Qassändra 1st May 2015, 10:55 PM
If nothing else, he's to the left of Diane Abbott *.*
(quite possibly one of my favourite political circumstance curios of all time)
Posted by: Soy Adrián 1st May 2015, 11:13 PM
(quite possibly one of my favourite political circumstance curios of all time)
Mansion tax?
Posted by: steve201 1st May 2015, 11:17 PM
Exactly right down in Westminster he was centre right then he went up north and became a Michael Foot figure - disingenuous to say the least and siding with the Tories on independence won't have helped.
Posted by: steve201 1st May 2015, 11:18 PM
How many seats would that equate to - 12-14?
Posted by: Qassändra 1st May 2015, 11:24 PM
Independence isn't a Tory-exclusive position. You may as well say vegetarians are siding with Hitler.
Posted by: Qassändra 1st May 2015, 11:25 PM
First past the post means there's basically no way of knowing, but Labour ~29-30% is the rough threshold below which the SNP really start destroying us.
Posted by: steve201 2nd May 2015, 12:35 AM
Indeed but there's reason why wrapping labour in the Union Jack infected them with Toryism in the eyes of the Scottish people.
Also being Irish led to that opinion as it's more easy to link Toryism and unionism over hear as that's the reality even though most Irish nationalist have backgrounds that are quite to the right economically and socially but nationalism is always associated with left politics here.
Posted by: Qassändra 2nd May 2015, 01:57 AM
You only have to look at Irish politics to see that it was always an illusion that nationalism led to progressive outcomes.
Posted by: steve201 2nd May 2015, 09:05 AM
Indeed and who caused the violence - UK government policy.
Posted by: Silas 2nd May 2015, 10:44 AM
Although all of them this side of the border are a limp and uninspiring lot.
When we eventually become independent (even Murdoch admits it's a when, not an if) I'm petitioning the government to ship him to westminster and ban him from the country.
Posted by: Common Sense 2nd May 2015, 10:51 AM
Does anyone else think that the national feelgood factor of a new royal princess arriving may favour the Tories?
Posted by: Suedehead2 2nd May 2015, 11:07 AM
There is no evidence whatsoever of events within that family of parasites having any effect on the polls. Where is this feelgood factor?
Posted by: Qassändra 2nd May 2015, 12:42 PM
LOL. Where the fuck did you get this from? Thinking the least off would be worse off if Scotland were independent =/= supporting the Tories' economic plans.
Posted by: Qassändra 2nd May 2015, 12:45 PM
That wasn't really the point I was making (although it's still only half true - the Irish Civil War was kind of a thing.). Nationalism in Ireland didn't lead to a progressive country, much as the nationalists tried to sell that vision.
Posted by: Danny 2nd May 2015, 01:16 PM
But until his recent hilarious conversion, he was all in favour of yet more spending cuts.
I have to admit I wouldn't've expected Scottish voters to know about him being right-wing (I thought his personality and him being a high-profile part of the Better Together campaign would be the main reasons for his unpopularity), but the focus groups from Ashcroft and the Financial Times the other day had people apparently spontaneously saying how right-wing they thought he was for a Labour leader.
As for the bit about him being successful with his "tour" during the independence campaign - he might well be more engaging in the flesh, but on TV, he comes across terribly, would you agree?
Posted by: steve201 2nd May 2015, 01:29 PM
I would rather a free and independent Ireland which makes its own decisions and mistakes even if the country as a whole elects conservative politicans. It's up to ourselves alone (see what I did there) to convince the people of the merits of progressive politics. Britain was hardly a progressive country at various stages in the last 200 yrs.
And the Irish civil war was basically an arguement over a republic vs a free state within a commonwealth and having to swear an oath to the king of England. This arguement venerated from bad uk governance throughout the 19th century. The majority if Irish people aren't republican or anti British naturally they were moved toward those positions by events.
Posted by: Qassändra 2nd May 2015, 01:34 PM
Silas's statement was that Jim 'is a Tory economically speaking'. Last time I checked Jim's never advocated for spending cuts to fund tax cuts. And it would be utterly laughable to try and claim that Ed were a 'Tory economically speaking' with the same claim. Or that Keynes were a 'Tory economically speaking'. Characterising someone's entire economic worldview on the basis of whether or not they're in favour of spending cuts during a time of growth with a historically huge deficit is a bit reductive really.
Posted by: Qassändra 2nd May 2015, 01:40 PM
All that may well be the case. Again, my argument:
I'm well aware of why the Irish Civil War happened - my point was that Ireland's problems or violence aren't and weren't wholly down to Britain. It annoys me that this would doubtless be the next argument if independence ever came to be in Scotland and (shock! horror!) utopia didn't result despite the SNP's fairytales.
Posted by: Danny 2nd May 2015, 01:55 PM
If being in favour of yet more spending cuts to the poor's safety net at a time when the super-rich's wealth is enough to pay off the deficit about 10 times over, does not make someone a Tory, then what does?
Posted by: Qassändra 2nd May 2015, 01:57 PM
I must have missed the bit where welfare was the only spending we had, or where Ed Miliband ruled out increasing the top rate of tax and said tax avoidance wasn't a concern for him.
Posted by: #BJSCSLAYERRRRRR 2nd May 2015, 02:02 PM
When we eventually become independent (even Murdoch admits it's a when, not an if) I'm petitioning the government to ship him to westminster and ban him from the country.
[/quote]
You're gonna be waiting a looooooong time.
And besides you'd have more pressing issues like raisining money, Russian intimidaton and stayibg a 1st world country to deal with dirst oops.
Posted by: steve201 2nd May 2015, 02:06 PM
Hence, it's a bit of a cheek to argue with the implication that you can't be a progressive *and* oppose nationalism when you freely admit that sovereignty is your concern rather than progressive outcomes.
I'm well aware of why the Irish Civil War happened - my point was that Ireland's problems or violence aren't and weren't wholly down to Britain. It annoys me that this would doubtless be the next argument if independence ever came to be in Scotland and (shock! horror!) utopia didn't result despite the SNP's fairytales.
Yeh I agree with your point of you can be progressive and oppose nationalism fair enough. I don't agree all Irish problems in this eg are Britain but the Westminster system was so inefficient and unequal it inevitably became a source of protest hence the gradual development of democracy/Irish interest parties through the 19th century. The famine became the watershed and the point where violence by some traditions became acceptable in a way. I oppose political violence but understand WHY some turn to it. You just have to look at the current deputy first minister in N.Ireland I oppose the violence he was in loved in and don't think he was born with a gun in his hand but when you grow up in his environment totally understand where his views come from.
Posted by: Qassändra 2nd May 2015, 02:11 PM
I wouldn't say I always oppose violence - it's often the only option in times of systematic oppression (hence I think the War of Independence was justified but the Civil War wasn't, and De Valera was a fucking snake for what he did to Michael Collins.).
It's a moot point though - I wouldn't say the situations of Ireland in the 19th century, Catholics in Northern Ireland in the 20th century, and Scotland now have much to compare themselves other than secession being offered as a solution. Certainly Scots aren't being systematically oppressed right now - quite the opposite since devolution and the Barnett formula.
Posted by: Common Sense 2nd May 2015, 02:33 PM
Not a Royalist I see Suedy. Well it's a bit like when England do well in the World Cup or Euros. Very rare I know but they say there's a "feelgood factor" and that tends to favour the encumbent.
Posted by: Qassändra 2nd May 2015, 02:40 PM
I wouldn't say there's that much excitement for it to be a feelgood effect. I don't think there was a noticeable boost for the government after the Royal Wedding or George being born.
Powered by Invision Power Board
© Invision Power Services