UK General Election 2015 | Conservatives win with an overall majority

[ThierryHenry]

Metro said there were a couple of big bets on DC yesterday.

@DiseaseOfTheAge - what are the odds on a Lab/ LD coalition? Gambling sites are blocked where I am...

 

[DOTA]

Metro said there were a couple of big bets on DC yesterday.

@DiseaseOfTheAge - what are the odds on a Lab/ LD coalition? Gambling sites are blocked where I am...

Plenty of places offering 8.

 

[ThierryHenry]

Plenty of places offering 8.

I'm all over that then. £100 sounds about right.

 

[ThierryHenry]

Vince Cable says having an EU referendum in 2017 is 'a seriously bad idea'
Vince Cable, the Lib Dem business secretary, is on Radio 4’s Election Call now.

Q: Will the Lib Dems make sure that, if there is another coalition with the Tories, they won’t allow this EU referendum go ahead.

Cable says the Lib Dems think a referendum in 2017 is “a seriously bad idea”. To spend two years “navel-gazing” on Europe, without knowing what the outcome would be, would be bad for business. It is “potentially very damaging”. The Lib Dems would take “a strong position” on this.

Q: Would it be a red line?

Cable says he is not going to use that phrase.

Q: The Lib Dems would veto it?

Cable says he is not saying that.

But “it is an issue of the very highest importance”.

• Cable says having an EU referendum in 2017 is “a very bad idea”.

Cable’s stance on this is very different from Nick Clegg’s, because Clegg has pointedly refused to rule out backing the Tories’ EU referendum plans, and he has never criticised them in these terms. As Toby Helm has reported in the Observer, the Lib Dems are deeply split on this.

 

[Smores]

I wonder what phrase the Tories will use to try and dumb down their argument against the inevitable Lab minority government.

I'm going for something on the lines of "Milliband cant understand that finishing second means you lost the race.". Maybe even a shit football phrase

 

[SteveJ]

I'm quite happy for them to end up as Moral Champions. Besides, that's about as near as they'll get to genuine morals.

 

[711]

Listen to the interview in context. She's making the opposite point to the way her words have been spun, saying that politicians have to actually be trusted to deliver on promises they make, and gimmicks like this don't magically guarantee anything. That quote is in reply to a question asking why the stone suddenly should make people think a pledge is more truthful than if it was in a manifesto.

Like Cnut ordering back the sea.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

I find these ads/stories quite dispiriting. The level of personal attacks feels more akin to a murky US presidential campaign and something we were supposedly above. If this is the upshot of a world where we don't have the pendulum swings between Con-Lab and are in an age of coalitions it doesn't feel like progress. Both sides sniping, offering last minute unfunded promises. I go back to my earlier point that if you can disengage @Nick 0208 Ldn, someone far more engaged than most, the system is not working.

Thankfully the stricter rules with regard to political broadcasts spare us the media onslaught common to presidential elections, which reduces the cost too. Personal attacks and negativity are nothing new but this obsession with the bacon sandwich verges on the ridiculous, and as such i'd question gain for these papers. There is plenty of scope for casting doubt over the words of the leaders which is where i'd sooner the analysts focus their efforts. You could even take an anti-coalition tack, referencing the inherent deception of such and possible instability.

I am as engaged with the issues as i ever was, however even with five English parties to choose from the right course of action is hard to determine. I asked myself what i might realistically hope to achieve over the duration of the next Parliament, whereupon i concluded that the Greens and UKIP ticked most boxes (albeit with strong differences in one or two areas).

Not convinced that a second election would be in the Tories' interests though - unless they actually convince themselves the 'cult of Boris' (vom) is an election game-changer. Surely he wouldn't be?

It could easily be so after five years of uncertainty under a Labour-led coalition. The same could be said for Labour, although i don't know where their Boris figure is coming from at this point.

 

[LitterBug]

Odds on prime minister post election...

How will they decide that? Cameron may use the incumbent rule to try and form a government before resigning and allowing Ed to form the government. So is that classed as Cameron being PM or Ed after election?

Also the odds are really short on David Cameron. I'd be prepared to lay big odds that he won't be PM. In fact I may just go on Betfair and do it now!

 

[DOTA]

How will they decide that? Cameron may use the incumbent rule to try and form a government before resigning and allowing Ed to form the government. So is that classed as Cameron being PM or Ed after election?

Also the odds are really short on David Cameron. I'd be prepared to lay big odds that he won't be PM. In fact I may just go on Betfair and do it now!

I read in some article that the terms and conditions generally say it's either June 1st or July 1st, depending on the bookie.

EDIT - Queen's speech is the 27th of May, by the way. So if Cameron hung on to deliver that, he'd likely be prime minister on June 1st as I don't think that gives time for it to be voted down and then hold a no confidence vote. Would definitely find one that uses July, personally.

 

[Jippy]

Thankfully the stricter rules with regard to political broadcasts spare us the media onslaught common to presidential elections, which reduces the cost too. Personal attacks and negativity are nothing new but this obsession with the bacon sandwich verges on the ridiculous, and as such i'd question gain for these papers. There is plenty of scope for casting doubt over the words of the leaders which is where i'd sooner the analysts focus their efforts. You could even take an anti-coalition tack, referencing the inherent deception of such and possible instability.

I am as engaged with the issues as i ever was, however even with five English parties to choose from the right course of action is hard to determine. I asked myself what i might realistically hope to achieve over the duration of the next Parliament, whereupon i concluded that the Greens and UKIP ticked most boxes (albeit with strong differences in one or two areas).




It could easily be so after five years of uncertainty under a Labour-led coalition. The same could be said for Labour, although i don't know where their Boris figure is coming from at this point.

Wow, those differences certainly are very strong. Interesting to hear about what you choose to do tomorrow.

 

[bishblaize]

Not convinced that a second election would be in the Tories' interests though - unless they actually convince themselves the 'cult of Boris' (vom) is an election game-changer. Surely he wouldn't be?

Milliband/Clegg/Cameron are all, in essence, echoes of Blair. Same look same talk. The thing with Boris is that he's from a completely different mould to those lot. There's a risk since perhaps people won't take him seriously, but in all honesty, there's a chance it could pay off in the elections for the Tories. People are sick of the current formulaic political style and no-one can deny that Boris is a unique character.

 

[Alock1]

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/letter-potential-tory-voters.html

 

[Pink Moon]

Aye...

Mental how desperate and how low some of these rags stoop. DM are running a story about what he wore to school once... the other day's story about him being worse than Savile was the ultimate low.

It's funny seeing the media right now. I remember people laughing and scoffing at the very notion that the media and establishment were in any way biased during the Scottish referendum. Who's laughing now?

 

[Ubik]

Gus O'Donnell is doing the rounds currently pointing out that Cameron himself signed off on the Cabinet Manual that suggests that the largest party doesn't automatically form the government. Might be hard for Cameron to spin the illegitimacy of a second placed Labour party forming the government when he approved the rules that allow it. In such a scenario it's likely that Cameron would have to step down as party leader anyway I'd imagine.

Very glad he's doing that given he's an independent figure respected on both sides. Evan Davis actually managed to formulate a good question to the obfuscating Tory and Labour MPs that were on Newsnight yesterday, essentially over whether they think the Cabinet Manual is a legitimate guide for what happens post election. Obviously the Tory was going to sidestep the question, but I was slightly flummoxed as to why the Labour one did the same thing. They've been so stage managed into giving the same nothing answer to every question, they won't even give an answer that benefits them!

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Call me paranoid, but are Tory HQ hitting the BBC articles on the election and slagging Labour off, whilst at the same time thumbing up any other comments that slag Labour off? I only ask because all of the top rated comments, by a very high margin at that, are very anti Labour and it doesn't quite sit with either the polls or the usual comment section on Beeb articles.

 

[evra]

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/letter-potential-tory-voters.html

Okay I have read that, I think there's a number of issues he glosses over though. There seems to be an effort to bastardise Keynes a little, just because you've just understood the multiplier effect doesn't mean you have found the solution to all economic downturns. As the great man said: "When the facts change, I change my mind". It's not as simple as just spending your way out of every recession; what if by opening the taps on spending your credit rating gets downgraded and the higher levels of interest you have to pay on the swelling debt negate the benefits of a fiscal loosening? That was a distinct possibility 5 years ago and there is a time lag on the rewards of fiscal loosening.

I think most reasonable people favour some kind of an expansionary fiscal policy in the next 5 years, confidence in the UK economy is significantly higher than it was 5 years ago. Personally I would much rather that fiscal loosening was in the form of tax cuts for working people and spending on infrastructure (rather than increasing public sector wages and raising the various forms of welfare). However, I don't buy this idea that it was the obvious route to take 5 years ago.

People have to admit that there was a balancing act to make, on the one hand you don't want a fiscal tightening when inflation and GDP growth are low, on the other hand we had to make a case to our global creditors and the major credit rating agencies that we were a low risk bet. Without a credible plan to service the enormous debt, we would have suffered a more significant downgrade and had to pay higher interest on the debt, to the point that it might negate the benefit of a fiscal loosening.

During that period of huge global uncertainty and general panic it was important to appear solid and creditworthy. Right now we are the fastest growing economy in the G8 with low inflation, low interest rates and low unemployment - I agree that we should use that position of strength and build on it by opening the taps a little more.

I will concede one point made in that open letter; I think there has been an element of using the recession as an excuse to make ideological cuts to welfare and public sector pay, when savings could have been made elsewhere. Obviously I'm fine with that, I think it's the right thing to do, but I will admit some of the population have been hoodwinked in that regard.

 

[Marching]

Listen to the interview in context. She's making the opposite point to the way her words have been spun, saying that politicians have to actually be trusted to deliver on promises they make, and gimmicks like this don't magically guarantee anything. That quote is in reply to a question asking why the stone suddenly should make people think a pledge is more truthful than if it was in a manifesto.

No spinning. She said what she did and will have been bollocked. Although what she said was true.

 

[Silva]

Newsbeat wins creepiest thing to come out of the election

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/32607216/election-2015-pledges-made-to-you-on-one-page


On a side note - it doesn't feel like the eve to an election.

 

[Berbaclass]

Labour for me. Gonna pop round the polling station before work in the morning and watch it unfold when I get home.

 

[bishblaize]

Okay I have read that, I think there's a number of issues he glosses over though. There seems to be an effort to bastardise Keynes a little, just because you've just understood the multiplier effect doesn't mean you have found the solution to all economic downturns. As the great man said: "When the facts change, I change my mind". It's not as simple as just spending your way out of every recession; what if by opening the taps on spending your credit rating gets downgraded and the higher levels of interest you have to pay on the swelling debt negate the benefits of a fiscal loosening? That was a distinct possibility 5 years ago and there is a time lag on the rewards of fiscal loosening.

I think most reasonable people favour some kind of an expansionary fiscal policy in the next 5 years, confidence in the UK economy is significantly higher than it was 5 years ago. Personally I would much rather that fiscal loosening was in the form of tax cuts for working people and spending on infrastructure (rather than increasing public sector wages and raising the various forms of welfare). However, I don't buy this idea that it was the obvious route to take 5 years ago.

People have to admit that there was a balancing act to make, on the one hand you don't want a fiscal tightening when inflation and GDP growth are low, on the other hand we had to make a case to our global creditors and the major credit rating agencies that we were a low risk bet. Without a credible plan to service the enormous debt, we would have suffered a more significant downgrade and had to pay higher interest on the debt, to the point that it might negate the benefit of a fiscal loosening.

During that period of huge global uncertainty and general panic it was important to appear solid and creditworthy. Right now we are the fastest growing economy in the G8 with low inflation, low interest rates and low unemployment - I agree that we should use that position of strength and build on it by opening the taps a little more.

I will concede one point made in that open letter; I think there has been an element of using the recession as an excuse to make ideological cuts to welfare and public sector pay, when savings could have been made elsewhere. Obviously I'm fine with that, I think it's the right thing to do, but I will admit some of the population have been hoodwinked in that regard.

Its true that hindsight is 20:20 so we have to be careful not to review decisions made then with the information we have now. However austerity never had broad support outside of ideological supporters, neither did it have historical precedents to support it as a tool for sorting out the economy. Indeed since the economy had started growing again in the last 12 months of Labour's time (which a lot of people forget now) there was a strong argument for not rocking the boat with a drastic change in economic policy.

 

[Shamwow]

This has got to be the most apathetic election in my (shortish) life.

 

[Ady87]

Charlie Brooker's Election Wipe on a BBC 2 now has been a good watch so far. The clips of Paxman destroying all those in front of him is brilliant, and cringey.

 

[ThierryHenry]

No spinning. She said what she did and will have been bollocked. Although what she said was true.

I don't know what you're saying, or if you're just ignoring my post. What she was saying was true, yes. (Fwiw, that stone is pathetic)

Good post by @evra - obviously most on here still disagree with austerity, especially as it was an ideological choice rather than the necessity we were told it was/ is. Pathetic that Labour haven't been able to penetrate that narrative.

 

[Cheesy]

Charlie Brooker's Election Wipe on a BBC 2 now has been a good watch so far. The clips of Paxman destroying all those in front of him is brilliant, and cringey.

"David Cameron said he would be the next Prime Minister to walk through number 10, and then answered that question, by walking back into number 10."

 

[Ubik]

I don't know what you're saying, or if you're just ignoring my post. What she was saying was true, yes. (Fwiw, that stone is pathetic)

Good post by @evra - obviously most on here still disagree with austerity, especially as it was an ideological choice rather than the necessity we were told it was/ is. Pathetic that Labour haven't been able to penetrate that narrative.

Pathetic is a bit strong, they tried early on in opposition with both Johnson and Balls but it's not an easy message to sell after a huge recession that spending more may be beneficial rather than harmful. The "household budget" and "credit card" argument the Tories always used were far easier for voters to relate to, even if as analogies they were massively erroneous. On welfare cuts though I do think they were far too cowardly in their opposition, voting against in parliament but not speaking up much in public and making their own policies to show they'd be "tough" with it, rather than emphasising above all else that the vast majority of welfare spending is for people in genuine need.

Bleh, just hope that in a couple of days we'll be able to say that the dreaded narrative has been overcome for a while at least and they'll be planning out how to put investment back into public services over the next five years. Beyond nervous now! Hearing so many horror stories about 1992.

 

[sun_tzu]

If the Tories get ~285 it's going to be an absolute bloodbath all round. As the numbers creep in either direction of that it gets a bit calmer with a more clear-cut result, but still pretty dicey in public opinion and stability terms. Likely that the main Tory plan B right now is to get the most seats, claim Labour are the losers and try to get another election soon which the Lib Dems and Labour wouldn't be able to afford.

I hope so... I stuck a chunk of spare cash on two elections in the year and got 6/1 at the time (before parliament dissolved)... So as much as I think it would be bad for the country and specifically the economy it would be great for my holiday this year or yet another overpriced guitar

 

[Ubik]

I hope so... I stuck a chunk of spare cash on two elections in the year and got 6/1 at the time (before parliament dissolved)... So as much as I think it would be bad for the country and specifically the economy it would be great for my holiday this year or yet another overpriced guitar

What are you aiming for?

Final Newsnight Index - CON 281, LAB 266, SNP 51, LIB 27, UKIP 1, GREEN 1, OTH 23
Peter Kellner's prediction (YouGov man) - CON 284, LAB 263, SNP 48, LIB 31, UKIP 2, GREEN 1, OTH 21

Interesting thing about Kellner's is that he's given the Lib Dems a handful more than most other predictors, which as it happens gives the Tories just enough seats to be able to realistically put a queen's speech through parliament. Came alongside the last YouGov poll with a sample of 10,000 putting the Tories and Labour tied on 34%.

 

[ThierryHenry]

Where did the Newsnight index come from?

 

[peterstorey]

Milliband/Clegg/Cameron are all, in essence, echoes of Blair. Same look same talk. The thing with Boris is that he's from a completely different mould to those lot. There's a risk since perhaps people won't take him seriously, but in all honesty, there's a chance it could pay off in the elections for the Tories. People are sick of the current formulaic political style and no-one can deny that Boris is a unique character.

Ed's not a Blair-clone, that was his bro. Boris is just a shit TV celeb star (Who Wants To Be PM), Blair-lite-noisy-and-dim.

 

[ThierryHenry]

@Damien - Can we have a new thread/ poll asking who everyone has actually voted for at some point? Ta, you da man.

 

[Ubik]

Where did the Newsnight index come from?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-2015-32594591 - Posted at 17:59

 

[Damien]

@Damien - Can we have a new thread/ poll asking who everyone has actually voted for at some point? Ta, you da man.

I'll probably reset the poll around 10am tomorrow.

 

[sun_tzu]

What are you aiming for?

Final Newsnight Index - CON 281, LAB 266, SNP 51, LIB 27, UKIP 1, GREEN 1, OTH 23
Peter Kellner's prediction (YouGov man) - CON 284, LAB 263, SNP 48, LIB 31, UKIP 2, GREEN 1, OTH 21

Interesting thing about Kellner's is that he's given the Lib Dems a handful more than most other predictors, which as it happens gives the Tories just enough seats to be able to realistically put a queen's speech through parliament. Came alongside the last YouGov poll with a sample of 10,000 putting the Tories and Labour tied on 34%.

Perhaps a custom blueberry electric to go with the acoustic... Or another Paul reed Smith... The wifey won't be happy either way

Would the conservatives be able to stitch together enough votes on those figures
Cons Lib UKIP 317 say some of the Northern Irish as well and I can see how the maths work but realistically I can't see enough policies they could agree on to make it viable

 

[Simbo]

"Cancel all student debt" Gotta love minor party politics, is that serious?

Gunna be tories for me, they deserve another 5 years to finish what they started imo, then we'll see.

I tend to think the apathy towards this election shows some signs that people on the whole are pretty ok with the way the country is is being ran right now.

 

[ThierryHenry]

Come on electorate, make it rain;

 

[evra]

Hopefully the weather is nice tomorrow and all the blue-rinse grannies can get out to their local village hall and vote.

 

[JakeC]

A few friends of mine are running in Northern Ireland, they won't get in, but from my experience canvassing throughout belfast over the past couple of weeks there has been a huge increase in class consciousness, hopefully this will reflect atleast a small bit tomorrow.

 

[Marching]

I don't know what you're saying, or if you're just ignoring my post. What she was saying was true, yes. (Fwiw, that stone is pathetic)

I'm saying there was no need to spin her words. She said: "I don't think anyone is suggesting that the fact that he's carved them into stone means that he is absolutely not going to break them or anything like that." Laughable that Miliband's right hand woman destroys his pledges so soon after their launch.

 

[Andy_Cole]

Could someone explain the rules to me?

Firstly how does a party have a majority? Then if it's not a majority what happens?

It's a hung parliament right with third place choosing the coalition? I'm not sure. I remember 4 years ago thinking it was really daft.