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/...s-football-team

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!

 

 

Great news. Looks like he'll take the seat.

UKIP also ahead in Thurrock, Essex.

 

Behind in Rochester & Strood, one of their by-election gains last year, though.

Which MP is that Mark Reckless or the other one?

Mark Reckless.

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!!

Clegg has made it clear that he will talk first to the leader of the largest party (as he did last time).

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!!

 

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.... :lol:

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.

Edited April 25, 201510 yr by Danny

The trouble is, will anything happen in the intervening months which will make the result of a second election significantly different?

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

Edited April 25, 201510 yr by Danny

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.

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.

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.

You obviously read the same Guardian article as I did yesterday :lol:

 

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.

Behind in Rochester & Strood, one of their by-election gains last year, though.

 

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.

He's within the margin of error, so it's not a certainty. I reckon it'll be quite close.

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.

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.)

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.

Edited April 26, 201510 yr by Danny

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.

:D

 

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).