FlyTheNest

David Cameron ✔ @David_Cameron
Follow
Ed Miliband won't rule out a vote-by-vote deal with the SNP so he can be PM. It would mean more borrowing and more taxes and you would pay.

graun wrote:It’s worth pointing out a detail in the Survation poll for the Mirror: among Scottish viewers, Sturgeon was judged to have performed best by a massive margin of 68%, to Miliband’s 17%, which bodes ill for Labour’s already thinning chances in its former heartlands.

tinyclanger2 wrote:

David Cameron ✔ @David_Cameron
Follow
Ed Miliband won't rule out a vote-by-vote deal with the SNP so he can be PM. It would mean more borrowing and more taxes and you would pay.

no shame at all.
we used to aspire to decency and now we just aspire to sociopathy. grim.

tinyclanger2 wrote:

graun wrote:It’s worth pointing out a detail in the Survation poll for the Mirror: among Scottish viewers, Sturgeon was judged to have performed best by a massive margin of 68%, to Miliband’s 17%, which bodes ill for Labour’s already thinning chances in its former heartlands.

With the south of England and Scotland both voting Tory (one way or another) the heart of England and Wales are a ****ed.

RobertSnozers wrote:I wish I knew what Christine Lagarde of the IMF was playing at. According to the Today programme (can't find anything online yet) she took the opportunity to give fulsome praise to the UK government's fiscal approach and plan for the future. I find this mystifying, as the performance of the UK economy has been poor for most of the parliament by any objective standards and even when it began to improve in the last few quarters still has some significant problems. (For one thing, surely an economy in deflation can't be in the rudest of health?)

Moreover, when asked about the difference in the IMF's forecast when compared with the OBR's (basically saying that the plans Osborne says will result in a surplus will actually result in a £7bn deficit) she dismissed them rather breezily, saying the figures were not that far apart and could be explained by differences in calculation.

Now Lagarde knows very well that we're three weeks from a general election, and the economy is one of the major issues. She's made some extremely partisan interventions before, and I recall the Tories pushing for her as Head of the EU Commission (even though she wasn't a candidate) so who knows what her agenda is. I'm pretty sure it isn't the role of the head of a supposedly independent body to support any particular party. The IMF meeting was about Ebola, for heaven's sake, and according to the BBC, the point about the IMF forecast wasn't even put to her, it was put to Osborne and she jumped in to answer for him! Distinctly fishy.

RobertSnozers wrote:I wish I knew what Christine Lagarde of the IMF was playing at. According to the Today programme (can't find anything online yet) she took the opportunity to give fulsome praise to the UK government's fiscal approach and plan for the future. I find this mystifying, as the performance of the UK economy has been poor for most of the parliament by any objective standards and even when it began to improve in the last few quarters still has some significant problems. (For one thing, surely an economy in deflation can't be in the rudest of health?)

Moreover, when asked about the difference in the IMF's forecast when compared with the OBR's (basically saying that the plans Osborne says will result in a surplus will actually result in a £7bn deficit) she dismissed them rather breezily, saying the figures were not that far apart and could be explained by differences in calculation.

Now Lagarde knows very well that we're three weeks from a general election, and the economy is one of the major issues. She's made some extremely partisan interventions before, and I recall the Tories pushing for her as Head of the EU Commission (even though she wasn't a candidate) so who knows what her agenda is. I'm pretty sure it isn't the role of the head of a supposedly independent body to support any particular party. The IMF meeting was about Ebola, for heaven's sake, and according to the BBC, the point about the IMF forecast wasn't even put to her, it was put to Osborne and she jumped in to answer for him! Distinctly fishy.

wikipedia wrote:A vegetarian, who rarely drinks alcohol,Lagarde's hobbies include regular trips to the gym, cycling, and swimming.

The “anti-Tory” bloc of Labour, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Green party and the SDLP) – those parties that would vote a Conservative government down – adds up to 333. Piling up all possible sources of support (Lib Dems, Ukip and the DUP) brings Cameron’s tally to 311.

LadyCentauria wrote:I don't think we had this, yesterday:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... st-cameron

The “anti-Tory” bloc of Labour, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Green party and the SDLP) – those parties that would vote a Conservative government down – adds up to 333. Piling up all possible sources of support (Lib Dems, Ukip and the DUP) brings Cameron’s tally to 311.

yahyah wrote:

LadyCentauria wrote:I don't think we had this, yesterday:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... st-cameron

The “anti-Tory” bloc of Labour, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Green party and the SDLP) – those parties that would vote a Conservative government down – adds up to 333. Piling up all possible sources of support (Lib Dems, Ukip and the DUP) brings Cameron’s tally to 311.

That should feel reassuring, but it doesn't somehow.
In a way the Tories are right, the more parties involved in a bloc, each with their own self serving demands aimed at keeping up their core vote, the more difficult it is going to be to get things done.

wikipedia wrote:Tensions had risen between the Flemish and the Walloons: Flanders accuses the Walloon region of being dependent on economic subsidies from the Flemish region; there is also reluctance by the Walloons to learn Dutch. The Walloon population accuses the Flemish of being segregationist with the language policy in the Flemish region.

BBC Debate: Miliband scores and Farage misses

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/04 ... age-misses

As the only candidate with any chance of becoming prime minister, Miliband inevitably came under fire from all sides. But rather than crumbling as many predicted, Miliband remained calm, reasoned and persuasive throughout.

The conventional wisdom in politics is almost always wrong and so it proved last night. Most commentators predicted that the BBC leaders' debate would be a disaster for Miliband and an open goal for Nigel Farage. The opposite turned out to be the case.

yahyah wrote:

tinyclanger2 wrote:

graun wrote:It’s worth pointing out a detail in the Survation poll for the Mirror: among Scottish viewers, Sturgeon was judged to have performed best by a massive margin of 68%, to Miliband’s 17%, which bodes ill for Labour’s already thinning chances in its former heartlands.

With the south of England and Scotland both voting Tory (one way or another) the heart of England and Wales are a ****ed.

I do worry that the Tory 'coalition of chaos' slogan could resonate with voters.

And, I say this as a woman myself, the sight of [as they've been dubbed] the 'three witches', with the self satisified 'we're united against Labour' hugging at the end may jar with a lot of people too.
All you needed was a cauldron, an eye of newt and Wood to let out a throaty cackle and Bennett another shriek.

For a lot of people it isn't about budgets, detailed policies, it is about a gut response and that's what
the whole Tory psych ops battle is about. Wood & Bennett did the Tory work for them last night.
Sturgeon too, just a little more slickly.

tinybgoat wrote:

yahyah wrote:

tinyclanger2 wrote: With the south of England and Scotland both voting Tory (one way or another) the heart of England and Wales are a ****ed.

I do worry that the Tory 'coalition of chaos' slogan could resonate with voters.

And, I say this as a woman myself, the sight of [as they've been dubbed] the 'three witches', with the self satisified 'we're united against Labour' hugging at the end may jar with a lot of people too.
All you needed was a cauldron, an eye of newt and Wood to let out a throaty cackle and Bennett another shriek.

For a lot of people it isn't about budgets, detailed policies, it is about a gut response and that's what
the whole Tory psych ops battle is about. Wood & Bennett did the Tory work for them last night.
Sturgeon too, just a little more slickly.

Cameron's coalition an "Alliance of Lies"?

ohsocynical wrote:

BBC Debate: Miliband scores and Farage misses

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/04 ... age-misses

As the only candidate with any chance of becoming prime minister, Miliband inevitably came under fire from all sides. But rather than crumbling as many predicted, Miliband remained calm, reasoned and persuasive throughout.

The conventional wisdom in politics is almost always wrong and so it proved last night. Most commentators predicted that the BBC leaders' debate would be a disaster for Miliband and an open goal for Nigel Farage. The opposite turned out to be the case.

The Tories have fallen for their own spin on Miliband
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... -miliband/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If the Tories fail to make it back into government after this general election, one of the things they will have to come to terms with is that they fell for their own spin about Ed Miliband, without realising that the public might not. The Labour leader is not so desperately awful that he cannot string a sentence together. He’s not even so desperately awful that he can’t hold his own in a debate where three of the other participants have planned their attack on him beforehand, and the fifth participant is so canny that he makes insulting the audience part of his attack strategy.

Last night Miliband looked like someone who had a good chance of being Prime Minister. He was calm and collected. He leant against the lectern casually as he delivered the sort of unimpressed looks that teachers spend years perfecting for classes of unruly 14 year olds. Throughout these debates Miliband seems to have been perfecting his Nick Clegg look: in the last debate, he stared down the barrel of the camera, as Clegg had done in 2010 (and has Gordon Brown had, rather expensively, been told not to), and in this debate he appeared as relaxed about what was going on as the Deputy Prime Minister had managed to appear in Salford two weeks ago.

rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning folks. Bit bleary at present but ... re yahyah's post on the 'gut reaction' to the sight of the three women leaders hugging etc at the end of the debate. It can go in two opposite ways ... some will find that clearly collaborative approach refreshing ... regardless of what the collaborative effort is about. Others will, as you say, find it concerning both because of its departure from the sterotypical style of our politics - formal and don't let your guard down for a moment for the most part - and what it could represent for the future.

I'm left pondering and concerned about the deeply nationalistic trend we may have in parliament / influencing our politics. SNP clearly nationalist, Plaid clearly nationalist, Greens in Scotland want independence, - I don't know about the Greens in Wales and England, are they for independence for Wales and Scotland too? Plus we have Ukip wanting us out of Europe. It seems to me not so much anti-Tory as a pro nationalist alliance that might worry a lot of people who want the UK to remain as one entity - and produce any 'chaos' that might ensue if we get a very split outcome from the election.

yahyah wrote:And don't forget that when when Labour was the biggest party, but short of a majority at the Senedd in 2007, Plaid went into discussions with the Tories to keep Labour out.


''Discussions between Plaid Cymru, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to form a "Rainbow" Coalition broke down, and a coalition was eventually agreed between Labour and Plaid Cymru.''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_A ... tion,_2007" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 wrote:

yahyah wrote:And don't forget that when when Labour was the biggest party, but short of a majority at the Senedd in 2007, Plaid went into discussions with the Tories to keep Labour out.


''Discussions between Plaid Cymru, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to form a "Rainbow" Coalition broke down, and a coalition was eventually agreed between Labour and Plaid Cymru.''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_A ... tion,_2007" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another attempt at a rainbow coalition was threatened before the last assembly elections too ... people said that that - along with their big mistakes in coalition with Labour (badger cull anyone?) - resulted in the reduced vote for Plaid. Last night a tweet poster was circulating with a quote from Leanne Wood saying they would talk and work with any party including the Tories - from 2013. I'm probably more worried about the possibility of this happening here in Wales than UK wide.

yahyah wrote:The Indie top of online front page story is a shocker.

The anti-Labour sisterhood was never going to embrace Ed, but the Indie ignore the pic where Sturgeon, with her wannabes, is shaking hands and smiling at Ed.

yahyah wrote:

LadyCentauria wrote:I don't think we had this, yesterday:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... st-cameron

The “anti-Tory” bloc of Labour, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Green party and the SDLP) – those parties that would vote a Conservative government down – adds up to 333. Piling up all possible sources of support (Lib Dems, Ukip and the DUP) brings Cameron’s tally to 311.

That should feel reassuring, but it doesn't somehow.
In a way the Tories are right, the more parties involved in a bloc, each with their own self serving demands aimed at keeping up their core vote, the more difficult it is going to be to get things done.

even in the mail - (SORRY) wrote:“It's a no I'm afraid": Ed Miliband rejects Sturgeon's plea for an election pact to 'kick Cameron out of Number 10' telling SNP leader 'it would be a disaster'

graun election live headline today wrote:Election 2015 live: Miliband did not rule out Labour-SNP pact in debate, says PM

tinyclanger2 wrote:Britain under the Tories:

16 April

even in the mail - (SORRY) wrote:“It's a no I'm afraid": Ed Miliband rejects Sturgeon's plea for an election pact to 'kick Cameron out of Number 10' telling SNP leader 'it would be a disaster'

17 April

graun election live headline today wrote:Election 2015 live: Miliband did not rule out Labour-SNP pact in debate, says PM

Scum.

Mark Ferguson @Markfergusonuk · 53m 53 minutes ago
With Labour’s having some momentum, Tories will throw kitchen sink at Miliband. Except they’ve already thrown the whole kitchen and missed

PorFavor wrote:I didn't watch the debate last night (I was on the 'phone for the most part) but it was on with the sound turned down. I turned the sound on occasionally, and one of those occasions happened to coincide with Nigel Farage's rather strange (but amusing) attack on the audience.

However, I was kept abreast of (or should that be "across"?) the general thrust by reading your commentaries. Thanks again.

yahyah wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning folks. Bit bleary at present but ... re yahyah's post on the 'gut reaction' to the sight of the three women leaders hugging etc at the end of the debate. It can go in two opposite ways ... some will find that clearly collaborative approach refreshing ... regardless of what the collaborative effort is about. Others will, as you say, find it concerning both because of its departure from the sterotypical style of our politics - formal and don't let your guard down for a moment for the most part - and what it could represent for the future.

I'm left pondering and concerned about the deeply nationalistic trend we may have in parliament / influencing our politics. SNP clearly nationalist, Plaid clearly nationalist, Greens in Scotland want independence, - I don't know about the Greens in Wales and England, are they for independence for Wales and Scotland too? Plus we have Ukip wanting us out of Europe. It seems to me not so much anti-Tory as a pro nationalist alliance that might worry a lot of people who want the UK to remain as one entity - and produce any 'chaos' that might ensue if we get a very split outcome from the election.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of the predominantly male politics we've had so far.
I am a huggy type of woman myself, but I found the lefty sisters group hug staged, and possibly pre-organised to appeal to women watching. They would have been aware of the photo op opportunity.

Nothing happens by accident.
These 'we're the new politics' women will be just as shifty, manipulative and mendacious, if it serves them, as the previous male lot.

Look how many [idiots] voted Tory because Thatcher was a woman and that she would do things differently.
I've known a few who admit it, and rue it now.

Truss replies: “This was the challengers’ debate, that was the whole premise of it, he wasn’t invited.”

PorFavor wrote:I didn't watch the debate last night (I was on the 'phone for the most part) but it was on with the sound turned down . I turned the sound on occasionally, and one of those occasions happened to coincide with Nigel Farage's rather strange (but amusing) attack on the audience.

However, I was kept abreast of (or should that be "across"?) the general thrust by reading your commentaries. Thanks again.

RobertSnozers wrote:I've read some barking Westminster seat projections recently, but but this takes the bloody biscuit. And pisses all over that biscuit and now I've got to eat it. Well, here's the news, Malcolm - I will not eat the pissy biscuit.*

http://moneyweek.com/election-2015-why- ... -minister/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Under this scenario, Tories and the LibDems remain in coalition, with 302 seats and 31 respectively – a comfortable majority at 333. Although if necessary, they can add in Ukip and the DUP for another 11 seats, taking them to 344.

A Miliband-led opposition, composed of Labour (on 248 seats) and the SNP (on 40), would have 288 seats between them. Even if you add in SDLP, Plaid Cymru and others, that’s still only another 11 seats, for 299 (remember the Speaker and Sinn Fein do not use their votes).

So if the voting goes the way I expect it to, then only Cameron can form a government, even although it’s likely to be in coalition with the LibDems again. In no way can Miliband command a majority.

The 'projection' seems to be based on bookies' odds rather than constituency or even national polling. Just look at his projection for Tory seats in Scotland, for one thing...

Sam, no pissy biscuits.

*With apologies to The Thick Of It.

Take the latest odds, which come following the seven-way leadership debate. The ‘spread’ on seats has hardened to 284-88 (Tory) and softened to 269-73 (Labour). The SNP are marginally better (41-43), Ukip are unchanged (5-7), but the LibDems have weakened notably (23-25).

John Rentoul ‏@JohnRentoul 36m36 minutes ago
Rod Liddle on his decision to vote Labour http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... a-further-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BBC debate: When did the Tories lose their sense of honour?
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/04 ... -of-honour" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But the most dishonourable part of the Conservative response to yesterday evening came at the end, when the party took a screen grab of Miliband shaking the SNP leader's hand and tweeted it out as if it were a warning of things to come.

This is what the Conservative party has come to: attacking common courtesy. Perhaps they would have preferred it if Miliband spat on her and pulled her hair.

Politics is always full of cheap tricks. That is part of its currency. But the tweet spoke to something much deeper in the Conservative campaign, a lack of honour or basic decency in the way it is conducted.

graun wrote:Cameron says we are living through “a jobs miracle”.

RobertSnozers wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote:I wish I knew what Christine Lagarde of the IMF was playing at. According to the Today programme (can't find anything online yet) she took the opportunity to give fulsome praise to the UK government's fiscal approach and plan for the future. I find this mystifying, as the performance of the UK economy has been poor for most of the parliament by any objective standards and even when it began to improve in the last few quarters still has some significant problems. (For one thing, surely an economy in deflation can't be in the rudest of health?)

Moreover, when asked about the difference in the IMF's forecast when compared with the OBR's (basically saying that the plans Osborne says will result in a surplus will actually result in a £7bn deficit) she dismissed them rather breezily, saying the figures were not that far apart and could be explained by differences in calculation.

Now Lagarde knows very well that we're three weeks from a general election, and the economy is one of the major issues. She's made some extremely partisan interventions before, and I recall the Tories pushing for her as Head of the EU Commission (even though she wasn't a candidate) so who knows what her agenda is. I'm pretty sure it isn't the role of the head of a supposedly independent body to support any particular party. The IMF meeting was about Ebola, for heaven's sake, and according to the BBC, the point about the IMF forecast wasn't even put to her, it was put to Osborne and she jumped in to answer for him! Distinctly fishy.

And here's the BBC report on that story http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32346214" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Generally in any election year, the teams that provide the hypotheticals on which future deficits are forecast, err on the side of caution and assume that whatever is announced is not necessarily or inevitably going to happen," she said.

Ms Lagarde added that the UK authorities had managed to provide the right balance of spending cuts and revenue raising.

"It's clearly also delivering results, because when we look at the comparative growth rates delivered by various countries in Europe, it's obvious that what's happening in the UK has actually worked," she said.

Cameron says last night’s debate was a challengers’ debate. That was an idea from the broadcasters. He was not invited.