Looking grim for Labour

[bpoolrover]

If I think the dup will be part of the government with the Tories and they will make a big difference then no I won't vote for them

[bpoolrover]

From what I understand,which is not that much they wouldn't have anywhere near the influence the snp would have thou

[The Red Baron]

Seems like there will be some strange bedfellows after the GE. The DUP are not really a natural fit with the Tories as they are predominantly a working class party.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Personally, I doubt that Labour will go into a formal coalition with the SNP. If Labour were the largest party after the Election, t's more likely that there would be some sort of informal agreement that the SNP would not vote AGAINST Labour on England-only issues, and with LD support, Labour could still carry much of its policy through Parliament.

Barring a big change in the polls, I've stuggling to see how the Tories can put a coalition together. The SNP have said outright that they won't vote with the Tories on anything, so the Tories would not be able to get legislation passed that affected Scotland. There is a big move in the LDs not to go into coalition with the Tories again. Clegg and Laws will be under massive pressure if, as seems likley, they lead the LDs to a drop of 50% in votes and seats, and there will be rebellion from the Left of the LDs if he tried to go into coalition with them again. Plus, Clegg doesn't have the ridiculous and mendacious fig-leaf of an existential crisis to the country that he used to justify dropping their entire economic stance to go into Govt last time.

It's going to be the strangest and most unpredictable outcome to any Election for well over a century.  My money is on a very messy Lab/LD/SNP agreement. Whether it holds is another matter. Whether it badly damages any/all of them is another matter again.

This figure from Electoral Calculus shows what a bizarre situation we are in.


The blue dot showing what was the current state of the polls in the Autumn is a bit out of date. According to UKPR which is one of the most definitive polling sites, the current state of Lab & Con is about 33:32. So the blue dot shouold probably be in the Lab/Nat Coalition zone. Bearing in mind that the SNP effectively ARE the Nats in terms of number of seats that they are going to win, and that they've said categorically that they won't support a Tory Govt, the Con/Nat section is irrelevant. So, for the Tories to get into power, they are going to have to poll >36% or hope that Labour drop well below 29%. In other words, they need an outcome that is at least as good for them as the 2010 election. But that flies against both history (No full term Govt since the War has done as well in an Election as it did in the previous one) and recent polling trends (the Tories have flatlined in the low 30s for three years).

Take your pick of what is going to happen.

[bpoolrover]

Interesting read bst thanks

[IC1967]

My advice would be not to vote for Labour. If you do, there is a strong probability if Labour are the largest party that England will end up being run by the Scotch. Another two reasons not to vote Labour are that every single time they've left office they have increased unemployment. This proves conclusively that they are crap at running the economy. Also they won't let us have a referendum on the EU.

[The Red Baron]

BST. That graphic is interesting indeed. Also, as you say, it is going to be a lot easier for Labour to put together a coalition or a "confidence and supply" arrangement than it is for the Tories.

Indeed, it is possible to foresee a scenario where the Tories are the largest single party by a whisker, yet (after much horse trading) Labour can put together a minority government on the basis of confidence and supply. That could lead to a lot of instability, both politically and economically.

Where I think the big problem will lie is in any relationship between Labour and the SNP. I can't believe Sturgeon and Salmond will agree to any deal that won't involve a second referendum on independence. Agreeing to that would potentially be suicidal for Labour.

[bpoolrover]

I think if labour got in power and the Scottish gained a lot due to the snp,I think that would ruin labour for years

[BillyStubbsTears]

TRB

I could well see that it could lead to political chaos.

I see no reason why it should lead to economic chaos. It was the need for "strong Govt" to give confidence that "hard decisions" would be taken and thus save us from the bond vigilantes that Clegg used as his excuse for going into coalition. It was economic mumbo-jumbo back then and it still is today. A politically weak Govt would in no way lead to economic chaos.

Interesting thought though. Assume for the sake of argument that Lab & Con both get, say, 280 seats, LDs 28, SNP 35, UKIP 4-5, Greens 1-2, PC 2 plus the 18 or so from NI.

Ignoring Sinn Fein, I reckon that would tot up to about 350 MPs from parties who are for relatively mild cut-backs from 2015-20, and 300 who would be for balls out Austerity. Implementing an economic policy like the one that Osborne unveiled in the Autumn Statement, with a plan to cut Govt spending as a proportion of GDP back to Great Depression era levels would not possibly get a Parliamentary majority.

Barring a big change in polling, that's one nightmare we're going to be saved from.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Bpool

If the SNP end up apparently holding the balance of power, I think you'd see some very interesting power politics.

My take is that Labour would not invite them into a formal coalition. Instead, Labour would say: "We're going to put forward these policies. We're not asking for formal support from you. BUT, you have campaigned as a left-wing party, promising a left-wing outcome. If you DONT support us, if you bring us down, you're giving the next Election to the Tories on a plate. And we will ram that story down the Scottish voters' throats. 'The SNP told you they were against the Tories. Now look what they actually do in reality'."

This is the sort of very sophisticated politics that goes on in many other (successful) countries. I guess we're in for some of it over the next few years. What comes out the other end will depend on how string and skilful the various politicians are.

[The Red Baron]

BST- I'm not sure I agree with your sweeping statement that a weak government would not lead to economic chaos. Business, whether domestic or international, dislikes uncertainty more than anything else. I think a lot of investors were nervous about the coalition, but because the Tories (wisely from their point of view) got the Lib Dems to buy into their economic plans we had the stability the investors wanted. (Whether the policies were the right ones is not the point at issue.)

Of course you may be right and Labour may be able to develop a broad centre-left consensus on economic policy. But there is always a chance that they can't. Also, if it takes weeks rather than days to form a government that won't collapse at the slightest issue, then that uncertainty could be damaging economically.

[BillyStubbsTears]

TRB

The sole and only  point that  was put forward to "justify" the coalition was that we needed string Govt to send a message to the markets that our deficit was going to be controlled. Nothing else was so much as mentioned at the time. Nothing about inward investment. Nothing about capital flight.

Plenty of people knew that that was a myth at the time. There is no linkage whatsoever between a nation's debt and the bond rates that it pays, if the country has it's own central bank and it's debts are in it's own currency. Plenty knew it, but plenty more in politics other didn't know it, or pretended they didn't because ignoring that fact made support for austerity easier.

EVERYONE knows it now. It is one issue that has been empirical proven beyond doubt over the last few years. So, even if we DID have weak Govt and even if that DID result in the deficit ballooning (it won't), it would have no effect whatsoever on the bond markets. None at all.

All that said, I see that Clegg, in the absence of anything more useful to fill the space between his ears with, wrote an article in the Telegraph last week, once more suggesting that we might end up like Greece without strong Govt. I guess he's thinking that if the Big Lie worked once, he might as well try it again.

[IC1967]

Red Ed is so out of touch with normal people and so like Mr Bean it's hilarious.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2924842/Help-cried-Ed-m-locked-stuck-garden-ll-late-Gordon-excruciating-misadventures-Calamity-Ed-blistering-memoir-s-got-Labour-squirming.html

[The Red Baron]

It makes an amusing read, though one wonders how much it is exaggerated. Though it seems to be more about Winter trying to settle old scores with the Labour Party than anything else.

I see the book is due out in April (presumably so as to make an impact before the Election). As I've posted before, I wonder if Winter will have much to say about the stadium and Rovers? Not that the Mail will be interested in that bit.

[Glyn_Wigley]

It makes an amusing read, though one wonders how much it is exaggerated. Though it seems to be more about Winter trying to settle old scores with the Labour Party than anything else.

I see the book is due out in April (presumably so as to make an impact before the Election). As I've posted before, I wonder if Winter will have much to say about the stadium and Rovers? Not that the Mail will be interested in that bit.

Settle old scores? He's doing it for the money.

[IC1967]

It makes an amusing read, though one wonders how much it is exaggerated. Though it seems to be more about Winter trying to settle old scores with the Labour Party than anything else.

I see the book is due out in April (presumably so as to make an impact before the Election). As I've posted before, I wonder if Winter will have much to say about the stadium and Rovers? Not that the Mail will be interested in that bit.

Settle old scores? He's doing it for the money.

He was on the Daily Politics today. Seems like his memoirs are getting more and more coverage as time goes on. Poor Ed.

[IC1967]

Right laugh last night watching Ed Balls on Newsnight squirm with embarrassment at not being able to name one business man that supports Labour. The best he could come up with was Bill who is some bloke who used to be a CEO that no-one's ever heard of. He'd been talking to him earlier that evening at some business do. 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/04/ed-balls-newsnight-labour-conflict-business

Watch how often he blinks. As an expert on body language I can tell you it means he is lying. I wonder if silly Billy blinks a lot when he is posting leftie drivel.

[BillyStubbsTears]

You must see life as if lit by a strobe light.

As for Balls, he wears contact lenses and it was 11pm, retard.

[IC1967]

You must see life as if lit by a strobe light.

As for Balls, he wears contact lenses and it was 11pm, retard.

I like blinking I do and as an expert in this field reckon you must have been blinking a lot when you did this post. The average contact lens wearer blinks every 5 seconds. Balls was blinking at more than once a second (nearly twice a second). Watch the video for yourself and time him if you don't believe me.

May I suggest you forward the following information to him so he can get some help for his affliction. Or maybe he could just stop lying.

http://www.andrewgasson.co.uk/info_blinking.htm

[IC1967]

There's so much to choose from for why things are looking grim for Labour. I'll just mention one for now. Ashcroft has got the Tories on 34% and Labour on 31%.

Get in.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2015/02/lord-ashcroft-the-conservatives-lead-by-three-points-in-my-latest-poll.html

[BillyStubbsTears]

You utterly reprehensible idiot.

10 polls last week.

Labour ahead in 7.
Tied in 2.
Tories ahead by 1% in one.

Not a bleat from you.

One poll showing the Tories in front by a bit and you're back again.

Why Mick? Why do you do this? What on earth do you get out of this?

[IC1967]

You utterly reprehensible idiot.

10 polls last week.

Labour ahead in 7.
Tied in 2.
Tories ahead by 1% in one.

Not a bleat from you.

One poll showing the Tories in front by a bit and you're back again.

Why Mick? Why do you do this? What on earth do you get out of this?

Look, it's not my fault that whenever I look at an opinion poll it has the Tories ahead. I try and source my information from a broad spectrum of pollsters to give a balanced picture. I also source the most up to date information unlike you that is always looking at what happened in the past.

[IC1967]

The latest  Yougov poll also has the Tories on 34%.

Get in.

[The Red Baron]

Some interesting thoughts on the GE here. Although it isn't unusual for pundits to forecast a Hung Parliament this time around, their prediction on the largest single party is interesting.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31066643

Given the likely membership of the Commons though, I doubt a minority Tory government would last a year. If they could square off the SNP then a minority Labour one might go on for a while though.

[IC1967]

Some interesting thoughts on the GE here. Although it isn't unusual for pundits to forecast a Hung Parliament this time around, their prediction on the largest single party is interesting.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31066643

Given the likely membership of the Commons though, I doubt a minority Tory government would last a year. If they could square off the SNP then a minority Labour one might go on for a while though.

Interesting read. I agree that the Tories will be the biggest party and a EU referendum is inevitable. Where I disagree is that I also think the Tories will have a majority (maybe with the help of UKIP).

Their comments on an EU referendum are interesting and just shows how out of touch Labour are by not offering one. If they had have done, their electoral prospects would have been much better. The fools.

[The Red Baron]

I think Labour's policy on the EU referendum is also a mistake. I expected that Miliband would agree to a referendum but campaign to stay in. Though the EU may not be a big issue itself in the election, one of UKIP's successes has been to show how issues like immigration are inexorably linked to EU membership.

That said, I'm not convinced that a referendum is inevitable in the coming Parliament. A Labour minority government might still set its face against a referendum, and might have support in that area from the Lib Dems and the Nationalists.

[BillyStubbsTears]

TRB

Miliband's position on the referendum is one of principle. HE doesn't believe we should even consider leaving the EU. Therefore it would be political opportunism to offer a referendum.

We castigate our politicians for being rootless chancers who believe in nothing but gaining power. Here's a counter example. It would have been electorally beneficial for Milband to offer a referendum. But he genuinely believes that the consequence would be seriously detrimental for the UK economy. If he'd said in, say 2013 or 2012 that the next Lab Govt would offer a referendum in, say 2017, that would have guaranteed that a referendum would take place (because the Tories were already offering one). So that would have GUARANTEED that we had 4-5 years of uncertainty, during which time companies would have not known whether setting up/investing in this country would turn out to be a decision that ended up with them not being on the EU inside.

The referendum decision has certainly hurt Miliband and Labour. But sometimes you take a hit if something not important is at stake.

[IC1967]

TRB

Miliband's position on the referendum is one of principle. HE doesn't believe we should even consider leaving the EU. Therefore it would be political opportunism to offer a referendum.

We castigate our politicians for being rootless chancers who believe in nothing but gaining power. Here's a counter example. It would have been electorally beneficial for Milband to offer a referendum. But he genuinely believes that the consequence would be seriously detrimental for the UK economy. If he'd said in, say 2013 or 2012 that the next Lab Govt would offer a referendum in, say 2017, that would have guaranteed that a referendum would take place (because the Tories were already offering one). So that would have GUARANTEED that we had 4-5 years of uncertainty, during which time companies would have not known whether setting up/investing in this country would turn out to be a decision that ended up with them not being on the EU inside.

The referendum decision has certainly hurt Miliband and Labour. But sometimes you take a hit if something not important is at stake.

Given that the majority of people want a referendum then  Milliband is bang out of order. He thinks he knows best. That is the behaviour of a dictator not someone that believes in democracy.

He is clueless in regards to strategy. If he'd offered a referendum at the last general election then UKIP would still be on about 4%. Instead they won the European elections and will take seats off Labour at the general election.

He is not a man of principle. He knew the economy was going to fall off a cliff a year before the crash. He advised Brown to cut and run before disaster hit. He weaponised the NHS. He is as big an opportunist as there is. He's just stupid when it comes to Europe.

[IC1967]

Get in. Ipsos MORI have now got the Tories on 34% as well. It's all going in the right direction.

[wilts rover]

Unique analysis from Mick again there in concluding 'going in the right direction' from data that has hardly moved in the past six months.