It never ceases to amaze me how many Tory supporters forget that the Lib Dems only stopped boundary reform AFTER and BECAUSE of the Tory backbenchers going back on the agreement for Lords reform.
Aye the Tories love to trot out this line about the Lib Dems about them breaking their promise on tuition fees while they quietly ignore Camerons promise to cut immigration to the tens of thousands and to have got rid of the deficit by the end of this parliament.
There was NEVER ANY agreement on Lords reform. Been over this one with you before...
YES, CAPS!!! and lots of exclamation marks
What matters is that the Lib Dems thought they had an agreement, and when they didn't get what they wanted, they didn't keep their side of the empty bargain.
Still, there's one thing most of us can agree with: we wouldn't trust the Lib Dems with anything, even if they made it a personal pledge.
What matters is that the Lib Dems thought they had an agreement, and when they didn't get what they wanted, they didn't keep their side of the empty bargain.
Still, there's one thing most of us can agree with: we wouldn't trust the Lib Dems with anything, even if they made it a personal pledge.
More fool the Lib-Dems then. They nailed the Tories down tight on the AV referendum ("We will whip both Parliamentary parties in both Houses to support a simple majority referendum on the Alternative Vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum.)" but did no such thing on the HofL reform.
More fool the Lib-Dems then. They nailed the Tories down tight on the AV referendum ("We will whip both Parliamentary parties in both Houses to support a simple majority referendum on the Alternative Vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum.)" but did no such thing on the HofL reform.
It takes two to tango, and the Tories didn't get what they wanted because the Lib Dems didn't get what they wanted. It happened, get over it, but don't put all the blame on the Lib Dems, it was the Tory back benchers who were equally guilty.
The "never to be trusted again"LibDems have frustrated the Tories plenty of times over the 5 years, most publicly reneging on the boundary changes, despite the Tories delivering the referendum on vote reform.
The one-trick SNP would have a stranglehold over Labour (it only wants one thing and this would be their one and only chance to get it).
As for Milliband's plans, great - all we need is yet more government!
Yes we certainly don't want more government and more wasted money.....The Tories did tried to reduce the numbers of MPs down to 500 but that was opposed by the Lib Dems and Labour.....
It takes two to tango, and the Tories didn't get what they wanted because the Lib Dems didn't get what they wanted. It happened, get over it, but don't put all the blame on the Lib Dems, it was the Tory back benchers who were equally guilty.
What were they guilty of? Certainly not of "going back on the agreement for Lords reform". There never was any agreement - despite your best attempts to claim otherwise.
What were they guilty of? Certainly not of "going back on the agreement for Lords reform". There never was any agreement - despite your best attempts to claim otherwise.
Ho hum, if there was never any agreement, even tacit, why did the Lib Dems pull out of HoC reform?
Ho hum, if there was never any agreement, even tacit, why did the Lib Dems pull out of HoC reform?
Because when they lost the House of Lords reform, that represented their last chance of constitutional reform - something they'd been campaigning for for decades. Clegg didn't say it was tacit, he claimed it was "in the Coalition Contract" and that the Conservatives couldn't pick and choose what they liked in the Coalition agreement.
And the Greens will no doubt be looking to become Labour's main challenger when they go after the seats in Bristol, Norwich and Brighton in time for 2020...if the voting system ever gets changed.
Because when they lost the House of Lords reform, that represented their last chance of constitutional reform - something they'd been campaigning for for decades. Clegg didn't say it was tacit, he claimed it was "in the Coalition Contract" and that the Conservatives couldn't pick and choose what they liked in the Coalition agreement.
We will establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The committee will come forward with a draft motion by December 2010. It is likely that this will advocate single long terms of office. It is also likely that there will be a grandfathering system for current Peers. In the interim, Lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election.
Those proposals were published - did not get any further and this is what the Liberals complained of and they then decided to torpedo the move to fixed sized constituencies. Thus continuing the current bias in favour of Labour. The Conservatives did what the agreement said - the Liberals did not like the result.
Those proposals were published - did not get any further and this is what the Liberals complained of and they then decided to torpedo the move to fixed sized constituencies. Thus continuing the current bias in favour of Labour. The Conservatives did what the agreement said - the Liberals did not like the result.
You mean the current bias in favour of Labour and the Conservatives over every other party?
You mean the current bias in favour of Labour and the Conservatives over every other party?
Your point?
While the bias which exists favours both parties - the bias in favour of Labour is considerably more - which is why Cameron got 1% more of the vote than Blair but the former ends up with a minority of seats and the latter a large majority.
It is ironic that in siding with Labour the liberals did themselves no favours. All because they did not like the result of what they were promised.
Now how does that saying go 'Be careful what you wish for - you might get it'
While the bias which exists favours both parties - the bias in favour of Labour is considerably more - which is why Cameron got 1% more of the vote than Blair but the former ends up with a minority of seats and the latter a large majority.
It is ironic that in siding with Labour the liberals did themselves no favours. All because they did not like the result of what they were promised.
Now how does that saying go 'Be careful what you wish for - you might get it'
My point is that both Labour and the Conservatives do very well out of the present system with %seats / %vote of 1.37 and 1.30 respectively, compared to the SNP (0.53), LDs (0.38) and Greens (0.22)
As a quick comparison:
1992 Lab (1.21), Con (1.23), LD (0.17)
1987 Lab (1.14), Con (1.37), LD (0.15)
Showing that the Conservatives used to have a massive advantage over Labour, but now it's an advantage to Labout everyone gets more upset.
Is it easier to whinge about a minor inequality that changes every election, or a major one that disadvantages the same parties consistently?
While the bias which exists favours both parties - the bias in favour of Labour is considerably more - which is why Cameron got 1% more of the vote than Blair but the former ends up with a minority of seats and the latter a large majority.
It is ironic that in siding with Labour the liberals did themselves no favours. All because they did not like the result of what they were promised.
Now how does that saying go 'Be careful what you wish for - you might get it'
And not much good it has done Labour either, how many Labour goverments after 1945 has there been, compared to Tory ones.
And not much good it has done Labour either, how many Labour goverments after 1945 has there been, compared to Tory ones.
The boundary commission (which is independent of any political party) makes regular changes to remove any bias. The practical upshot of the shenanigans by the Liberals is that the bias that existed in 2010 remains in 2015 since when the change to fixed sized constituencies was thrown out there was no time to consider using the current boundaries.
In the 1980's there was a bias in favour of the Conservatives for some years. That was removed by 1992 - when Major was elected - he ended up with a poor majority despite the highest vote of any post war PM.
First time Tories have led 4 different polls in a row since December 2010
I'm sticking by my prediction that the Tory's will hold anywhere between a 3-5% lead on election day , winning approximately 285-295 seats with Lab on around 275.
I'm becoming more certain as each day passes of a Tory minority government, whether or not it will be stable I'm not so sure.
I'm sticking by my prediction that the Tory's will hold anywhere between a 3-5% lead on election day , winning approximately 285-295 seats with Lab on around 275.
I'm becoming more certain as each day passes of a Tory minority government, whether or not it will be stable I'm not so sure.
In response to an earlier question - I think it's highly unlikely that the Tories will even increase their number of seats, let alone win a majority. Of course it's not impossible but it would take more than just a good campaign; there would have to be an event (or series of events) that fundamentally shift voter intentions. Of the top of my head the only thing I could think of would be a UKIP implosion or serious scandal in the Labour party.
I personally think a Conservative minority or coalition government is also unlikely as Clegg is almost certainly going to be forced out after the election and I am certain that Farron (or whoever replaces him) will make a point of not supporting them.
At this point in time I would say the following scenarios are most likely (in order):
1. Lib - Lab Coalition with SNP support
2. Lib - Lab - SNP Coalition
3. NOC: Tory caretaker government until new election in autumn
4. Tory minority government
In response to an earlier question - I think it's highly unlikely that the Tories will even increase their number of seats, let alone win a majority. Of course it's not impossible but it would take more than just a good campaign; there would have to be an event (or series of events) that fundamentally shift voter intentions. Of the top of my head the only thing I could think of would be a UKIP implosion or serious scandal in the Labour party.
I personally think a Conservative minority or coalition government is also unlikely as Clegg is almost certainly going to be forced out after the election and I am certain that Farron (or whoever replaces him) will make a point of not supporting them.
At this point in time I would say the following scenarios are most likely (in order):
1. Lib - Lab Coalition with SNP support
2. Lib - Lab - SNP Coalition
3. NOC: Tory caretaker government until new election in autumn
4. Tory minority government
In response to an earlier question - I think it's highly unlikely that the Tories will even increase their number of seats, let alone win a majority. Of course it's not impossible but it would take more than just a good campaign; there would have to be an event (or series of events) that fundamentally shift voter intentions. Of the top of my head the only thing I could think of would be a UKIP implosion or serious scandal in the Labour party.
I personally think a Conservative minority or coalition government is also unlikely as Clegg is almost certainly going to be forced out after the election and I am certain that Farron (or whoever replaces him) will make a point of not supporting them.
At this point in time I would say the following scenarios are most likely (in order):
1. Lib - Lab Coalition with SNP support
2. Lib - Lab - SNP Coalition
3. NOC: Tory caretaker government until new election in autumn
4. Tory minority government
It's impossible to call.
Will UKIP voters go back to the tories?
Will EX LibDem voters vote tactically again and vote LibDem?
Will green voters vote Labour?
Will the SNP vote decrease and Labours increase in scotland.
UKIP supporters are now a pretty varied bunch. You have Thatcherite/Anti European Tories, 'working class Tories' and working class ex-Labour. I think there's a good chance that the first group will go back in marginal constituencies. The other two probably not.
Will EX LibDem voters vote tactically again and vote LibDem?
In Tory marginals, I expect that majority of them will. But maybe enough won't to let the Tories take a few seats. They will get wiped out in Labour marginals.
Will green voters vote Labour?
I think it depends on the polling. If a Tory victory is looking likely I expect that a large number will go back to Labour.
Will the SNP vote decrease and Labours increase in scotland.
Almost certainly from current levels, maybe not enough for Labour though. The thing for Scottish voters is that there's very few areas where they need to worry about voting tactically. Voting SNP isn't going to risk let anyone they don't like in.
At this point in time I would say the following scenarios are most likely (in order):
1. Lib - Lab Coalition with SNP support
2. Lib - Lab - SNP Coalition
3. NOC: Tory caretaker government until new election in autumn
4. Tory minority government
According to the Mirror, Ed Balls has ruled out a coalition with the SNP.
(4) is my preferred option as it will expose the Tory backbenchers for what they are.
UKIP supporters are now a pretty varied bunch. You have Thatcherite/Anti European Tories, 'working class Tories' and working class ex-Labour. I think there's a good chance that the first group will go back in marginal constituencies. The other two probably not.
Unfortunately, UKIP are still 66% ex tories. Not exactly varied. Certainly more from other parties than before.
In Tory marginals, I expect that majority of them will. But maybe enough won't to let the Tories take a few seats. They will get wiped out in Labour marginals.
The Tory-Lib marginals (eastleigh being a good example), show that for the Libs to Win, The labour voters need to vote LibDem.
Almost certainly from current levels, maybe not enough for Labour though. The thing for Scottish voters is that there's very few areas where they need to worry about voting tactically. Voting SNP isn't going to risk let anyone they don't like in.
Yes, current levels seem far to high but if scottish voters think voting SNP will give them a Labour SNP coalition, then why should they vote labour? It's not like a tory will win there.
Labour and the Conservatives would have the same number of seats in the House of Commons and would need to form an alliance with the SNP plus the Lib Dems to form a stable government, according to an analysis by the Guardian of the current crop of opinion polls.
If Britain votes along the lines of the average of the polls, the two main parties are projected to win a total of 273 seats each, compared with the 326 required for an outright majority, while the Scottish National party’s current support would translate into 49 seats at Westminster if a general election was held today.
Comments
Aye the Tories love to trot out this line about the Lib Dems about them breaking their promise on tuition fees while they quietly ignore Camerons promise to cut immigration to the tens of thousands and to have got rid of the deficit by the end of this parliament.
What matters is that the Lib Dems thought they had an agreement, and when they didn't get what they wanted, they didn't keep their side of the empty bargain.
Still, there's one thing most of us can agree with: we wouldn't trust the Lib Dems with anything, even if they made it a personal pledge.
More fool the Lib-Dems then. They nailed the Tories down tight on the AV referendum ("We will whip both Parliamentary parties in both Houses to support a simple majority referendum on the Alternative Vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum.)" but did no such thing on the HofL reform.
Yes we certainly don't want more government and more wasted money.....The Tories did tried to reduce the numbers of MPs down to 500 but that was opposed by the Lib Dems and Labour.....
What were they guilty of? Certainly not of "going back on the agreement for Lords reform". There never was any agreement - despite your best attempts to claim otherwise.
Ho hum, if there was never any agreement, even tacit, why did the Lib Dems pull out of HoC reform?
Because when they lost the House of Lords reform, that represented their last chance of constitutional reform - something they'd been campaigning for for decades. Clegg didn't say it was tacit, he claimed it was "in the Coalition Contract" and that the Conservatives couldn't pick and choose what they liked in the Coalition agreement.
I defy you to find it.
And the Greens will no doubt be looking to become Labour's main challenger when they go after the seats in Bristol, Norwich and Brighton in time for 2020...if the voting system ever gets changed.
Those proposals were published - did not get any further and this is what the Liberals complained of and they then decided to torpedo the move to fixed sized constituencies. Thus continuing the current bias in favour of Labour. The Conservatives did what the agreement said - the Liberals did not like the result.
Your point?
While the bias which exists favours both parties - the bias in favour of Labour is considerably more - which is why Cameron got 1% more of the vote than Blair but the former ends up with a minority of seats and the latter a large majority.
It is ironic that in siding with Labour the liberals did themselves no favours. All because they did not like the result of what they were promised.
Now how does that saying go 'Be careful what you wish for - you might get it'
As a quick comparison:
1992 Lab (1.21), Con (1.23), LD (0.17)
1987 Lab (1.14), Con (1.37), LD (0.15)
Showing that the Conservatives used to have a massive advantage over Labour, but now it's an advantage to Labout everyone gets more upset.
Is it easier to whinge about a minor inequality that changes every election, or a major one that disadvantages the same parties consistently?
The boundary commission (which is independent of any political party) makes regular changes to remove any bias. The practical upshot of the shenanigans by the Liberals is that the bias that existed in 2010 remains in 2015 since when the change to fixed sized constituencies was thrown out there was no time to consider using the current boundaries.
In the 1980's there was a bias in favour of the Conservatives for some years. That was removed by 1992 - when Major was elected - he ended up with a poor majority despite the highest vote of any post war PM.
CON - 34% (-)
LAB - 33% (-)
UKIP - 14% (-1)
GRN - 7% (-)
LDEM - 7% (+1)
First time Tories have led 4 different polls in a row since December 2010
I'm sticking by my prediction that the Tory's will hold anywhere between a 3-5% lead on election day , winning approximately 285-295 seats with Lab on around 275.
I'm becoming more certain as each day passes of a Tory minority government, whether or not it will be stable I'm not so sure.
In response to an earlier question - I think it's highly unlikely that the Tories will even increase their number of seats, let alone win a majority. Of course it's not impossible but it would take more than just a good campaign; there would have to be an event (or series of events) that fundamentally shift voter intentions. Of the top of my head the only thing I could think of would be a UKIP implosion or serious scandal in the Labour party.
I personally think a Conservative minority or coalition government is also unlikely as Clegg is almost certainly going to be forced out after the election and I am certain that Farron (or whoever replaces him) will make a point of not supporting them.
At this point in time I would say the following scenarios are most likely (in order):
1. Lib - Lab Coalition with SNP support
2. Lib - Lab - SNP Coalition
3. NOC: Tory caretaker government until new election in autumn
4. Tory minority government
Have to agree with this.
It's impossible to call.
Will UKIP voters go back to the tories?
Will EX LibDem voters vote tactically again and vote LibDem?
Will green voters vote Labour?
Will the SNP vote decrease and Labours increase in scotland.
UKIP supporters are now a pretty varied bunch. You have Thatcherite/Anti European Tories, 'working class Tories' and working class ex-Labour. I think there's a good chance that the first group will go back in marginal constituencies. The other two probably not.
In Tory marginals, I expect that majority of them will. But maybe enough won't to let the Tories take a few seats. They will get wiped out in Labour marginals.
I think it depends on the polling. If a Tory victory is looking likely I expect that a large number will go back to Labour.
Almost certainly from current levels, maybe not enough for Labour though. The thing for Scottish voters is that there's very few areas where they need to worry about voting tactically. Voting SNP isn't going to risk let anyone they don't like in.
According to the Mirror, Ed Balls has ruled out a coalition with the SNP.
(4) is my preferred option as it will expose the Tory backbenchers for what they are.
The Tory-Lib marginals (eastleigh being a good example), show that for the Libs to Win, The labour voters need to vote LibDem.
Would that be the same for UKIP to Tory, or Labour to LibDem?
Yes, current levels seem far to high but if scottish voters think voting SNP will give them a Labour SNP coalition, then why should they vote labour? It's not like a tory will win there.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/28/election-polls-point-to-tory-labour-tie-and-three-party-alliance
CON - 33% (-1)
LAB - 33% (-)
UKIP - 15% (+1)
GRN - 7% (-)
LDEM - 6% (-1)