I'm agog at the spectacle of people demanding that a party which hasn't retained a single by-election deposit all parliament should somehow be considered a major party by OFCOM.

I'm agog at the spectacle of people demanding that a party which hasn't retained a single by-election deposit all parliament should somehow be considered a major party by OFCOM.

 

The Lib Dems? :lol:

The Lib Dems? :lol:

:D

 

Believe it or not, even THEY'VE been managing the odd one...

The Lib Dems? :lol:

 

The Lib Dems will be delighted to know that people have already forgot that they won a by-election in 2013. :D

And managed to cling on to a deposit with HERCULEAN EFFORT in Heywood & Middleton (though PISS knows how...)

possibly through being (relatively) balanced in a world of political slash movies and extremist nutters.

 

Now that Labour have stolen the Mansion Tax I have a voting dilemma - do I vote for Labour (a wasted vote round these parts) or do I vote Lib Dem to try and keep out the loonies? What a problem. Then again, I work for local government, so I should vote for the party that will hit it least hardest, and with a chance of winning a seat.

 

Nah, sorry, it's still the Lib Dems, any other vote is a total waste of a vote.

 

That's how the Lib-dems win seats, you see - there's no other realistic alternative:lol:

I'm sure Cameron's "principled stand" has nothing to do with the fact that he could do with an excuse for there being no debates at all. After all, he's shown such a marvellous grasp of detail and isn't likely to be caught out telling lies. Something like that anyway.

possibly through being (relatively) balanced in a world of political slash movies and extremist nutters.

 

Now that Labour have stolen the Mansion Tax I have a voting dilemma - do I vote for Labour (a wasted vote round these parts) or do I vote Lib Dem to try and keep out the loonies? What a problem. Then again, I work for local government, so I should vote for the party that will hit it least hardest, and with a chance of winning a seat.

 

Nah, sorry, it's still the Lib Dems, any other vote is a total waste of a vote.

 

That's how the Lib-dems win seats, you see - there's no other realistic alternative:lol:

That's the tactic the Lib Dems are going to have to adopt in the Con / Lib Dem marginals. Similarly, in Scotland, Labour need to convince potential SNP-switchers that they risk helping the Tories to be the largest party.

They aren't helped by the fact that the Tories are busy screaming that an SNP vote is a vote for a labour government just as loudly as Labour are screeching about it being a vote for a Tory government. All of this plays into the SNPs hands rather nicely.

They aren't helped by the fact that the Tories are busy screaming that an SNP vote is a vote for a labour government just as loudly as Labour are screeching about it being a vote for a Tory government. All of this plays into the SNPs hands rather nicely.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if SNP managed to overtaking Lib Dems as the third biggest party. They will dominate Scotland in the General Election at the current rate.

possibly through being (relatively) balanced in a world of political slash movies and extremist nutters.

 

Now that Labour have stolen the Mansion Tax I have a voting dilemma - do I vote for Labour (a wasted vote round these parts) or do I vote Lib Dem to try and keep out the loonies? What a problem. Then again, I work for local government, so I should vote for the party that will hit it least hardest, and with a chance of winning a seat.

 

Nah, sorry, it's still the Lib Dems, any other vote is a total waste of a vote.

 

That's how the Lib-dems win seats, you see - there's no other realistic alternative:lol:

What on Earth makes you think that the Lib Dems wouldn't try and reduce the deficit themselves?

 

(other than being part of a government which has failed hopelessly to do so on that front, but whatever)

 

In all seriousness, I'd still consider tactically voting Lib Dem if I was in a Lib-Con marginal and I liked the candidate. Thankfully, neither is true.

What on Earth makes you think that the Lib Dems wouldn't try and reduce the deficit themselves?

 

(other than being part of a government which has failed hopelessly to do so on that front, but whatever)

 

In all seriousness, I'd still consider tactically voting Lib Dem if I was in a Lib-Con marginal and I liked the candidate. Thankfully, neither is true.

 

fairly sure they would try and reduce the deficit themselves, it's all a question of least-bad really amongst the lot of 'em, which of course is a matter of interpretation and a case of who you believe is telling more of the truth than the others.

 

On another issue, I saw Ed on Andrew Marr this morning. I managed 15 minutes before I wanted to throttle him for avoiding answering questions, being evasive, mouthing cliches and electioneering in every sentence. I don't see this lack of forthrightness and giving voters a bit of credit for intelligence amongst the main party leaders doing anything remotely like boosting their chances in the general election. It can only help the minor parties.

 

Of course, if he answered everything clearly and honestly, and explained exactly how policy would be budgeted for after I switched off the TV then I apologise and look forward to hearing about it.....

fairly sure they would try and reduce the deficit themselves, it's all a question of least-bad really amongst the lot of 'em, which of course is a matter of interpretation and a case of who you believe is telling more of the truth than the others.

 

On another issue, I saw Ed on Andrew Marr this morning. I managed 15 minutes before I wanted to throttle him for avoiding answering questions, being evasive, mouthing cliches and electioneering in every sentence. I don't see this lack of forthrightness and giving voters a bit of credit for intelligence amongst the main party leaders doing anything remotely like boosting their chances in the general election. It can only help the minor parties.

 

Of course, if he answered everything clearly and honestly, and explained exactly how policy would be budgeted for after I switched off the TV then I apologise and look forward to hearing about it.....

Of course who you trust the most is up to you, I was just surprised that you thought the Lib Dems would make smaller cuts to local government than Labour would.

After 2010 I trust the Liberal Democrats less than I trust the Conservatives and UKIP. At least with those parties I know they'll be c**ts. The LibDems, that I didn't see coming.

 

 

I read a month old article on The Observer/Guardian earlier where Jim Murphy proclaims that Scottish Labour won't lose a single seat. I've never laughed so hard in my entire life at a politics story and I follow Australian Politics!!!!

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/d...our-murphy-poll

 

20% behind in the polls and he doesn't think he'll lose a seat :rofl: He'll be lucky to keep his!

It's possible (and was looking like it'd be the case as recently as August), but pretty unlikely as things are. I wouldn't exactly pick up on a target he set to boost party morale and get boots on the ground in his first speech anyway!

 

That said, it's amusing seeing the SNP change in their attitudes to how changeable and relevant landslide polls are four months out in the space of eight months.

Labour aren't going to hold all their seats, but I do think they could still stay the largest party in Scotland. For whatever reason, Scottish polls aren't very good at predicting outcomes of elections very far in advance -- ahead of the 2010 election, the SNP also held a big lead over Labour for general election polls until a dramatic turnaround in the final months. Then a year later it was the exact opposite, with Labour miles ahead in Scottish Parliament polls before it disintegrated when the campaign got underway. My guess would be that Scottish pollsters aren't very good at getting people to distinguish between their preferences between the different types of election, until a certain election is imminent.

 

Also worth noting the SNP didn't do particularly well in the European elections (there was actually a small swing from them to Labour compared to 2009).

I think the SNP will get the most votes but Labour will still have the most seats.

Labour aren't going to hold all their seats, but I do think they could still stay the largest party in Scotland. For whatever reason, Scottish polls aren't very good at predicting outcomes of elections very far in advance -- ahead of the 2010 election, the SNP also held a big lead over Labour for general election polls until a dramatic turnaround in the final months. Then a year later it was the exact opposite, with Labour miles ahead in Scottish Parliament polls before it disintegrated when the campaign got underway. My guess would be that Scottish pollsters aren't very good at getting people to distinguish between their preferences between the different types of election, until a certain election is imminent.

 

Also worth noting the SNP didn't do particularly well in the European elections (there was actually a small swing from them to Labour compared to 2009).

I didn't think the SNP were ahead on voting intentions for Westminster in 2010. :unsure:

 

The problem with Scottish Polls is that both parliaments are polled so I find it takes a few minutes to remember which poll they are talking up. In 2011 the Polls were actually spot on. Labour did have the lead pretty much set in stone until Ian Grey crumbled in a subway in Glasgow when faced with people who weren't hardcore Labour supporters. That was a complete embarrassment for Labour and the massive bad press against the leader just saw the SNP rise like a phoenix. The Sun switching to SNP really didn't help Labour either.

 

Their record in Holyrood is actually rather good so the 2016 polls saying another majority isn't something that surprises me at all.

 

The SNP will win more seats for sure as the LibDem vote has to go somewhere. It's certainly not staying where it is. The telling thing will be how much of Glasgow actually follows through on the YES vote with an SNP vote. I read that Glasgow City Council had confirmed that every single constituency in Glasgow voted Yes, which is a big problem for Labour.

I didn't think the SNP were ahead on voting intentions for Westminster in 2010. :unsure:

 

The problem with Scottish Polls is that both parliaments are polled so I find it takes a few minutes to remember which poll they are talking up. In 2011 the Polls were actually spot on. Labour did have the lead pretty much set in stone until Ian Grey crumbled in a subway in Glasgow when faced with people who weren't hardcore Labour supporters. That was a complete embarrassment for Labour and the massive bad press against the leader just saw the SNP rise like a phoenix. The Sun switching to SNP really didn't help Labour either.

 

Their record in Holyrood is actually rather good so the 2016 polls saying another majority isn't something that surprises me at all.

 

The SNP will win more seats for sure as the LibDem vote has to go somewhere. It's certainly not staying where it is. The telling thing will be how much of Glasgow actually follows through on the YES vote with an SNP vote. I read that Glasgow City Council had confirmed that every single constituency in Glasgow voted Yes, which is a big problem for Labour.

 

In May 2009, the SNP had a 16% lead in a Westminster poll. Admittedly Labour had taken the lead by this point, 4 months before the election, but it's possible the referendum means things are running "behind schedule" so to speak.

 

I agree with you that the SNP will probably win the Scottish Parliament election, quite likely with another majority, since that will boil down a to a choice over who people want to run Scotland (and people SHOCKINGLY seem unmoved by Jim Murphy's much-trumpeted dazzling charisma thus far), but isn't it possible that the general election will like usual boil down to a choice between whehter people want a Labour government or Tory government in Westminster? Admittedly it's hard to know from the outside just how fundamentally the referendum has changed things in Scotland. Any result there wouldn't surprise me tbh.

Edited January 12, 201510 yr by Danny

The referendum irreversibly changed things this side of the border. Whatever side of the 45/55 split you fall on it can be unanimously agreed that the referendum has been incredible for Scotland and for getting people engaged. The highest turnout in Scottish history (iirc) and 2nd or 3rd all time in the UK really does speak for itself.

 

As much as it is pure SNP rhetoric, there is some truth in the idea that Labour will have been damaged by standing alongside the Tories in the campaign. You don't fraternise with enemy and my god are the tories still hated in large swathes of Scotland. Thatcher is still a swearword and in the Glasgow heartlands of Labour the Bedroom tax is really affecting them. What they currently see is an SNP Holyrood Government doing it's hardest to remove the effects of the bedroom tax up here and Labour not really doing much to assist them in that endeavour.

 

The fact that Jim Murphy, the utter f***twatcuntsock that he is, is continually contradicting his MSPs isn't making Labour look competent right now either. The 1,000 extra nurses pledge I think will backfire like f*** for Labour across the UK.

 

 

I don't think this is business as usual because of the Smith Committee thing. Labour had the weakest proposal to it, the Tories were marginally better and the SNP are doing pretty well with the line that only they can be trusted to deliver what was promised. After all they are the only party that didn't get what they wanted so have the motivation to ensure that what was hard won is actually delivered.