If someone gets a First in Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford; and then an MPA, studying Economics at Harvard, you would expect him or her to be extremely well qualified to be Chancellor of the Exchequer.
So why are on Earth are Tories so vehemently opposed to Ed Balls?
So why are on Earth are the British public so vehemently opposed to Ed Balls?
Fixed it for you.
Amongst other things:
1) He was an adviser in the Treasury during the Labour years during which he would have been involved in various cock-ups that occurred such as the sell-off of gold, the pension raid and the 10p tax abolishment.
2) He's a proponent of the intellectually bankrupt Fabian ideology
3) He has a history of making rash decisions that later turn out terribly, such as the rushed sacking of Sharon Shoesmith which has cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds because he failed to follow procedure.
4) Nearly every prediction he has made about the economy or reaction to economic policy under the Coalition government has been wrong.
So really, his CV for this job isn't particularly up to scratch.
I still can't believe that Churchill led us through our toughest hours and then promptly got voted out for a Labour majority government.
I often hear people state this surprise at his rejection but if you look at the history of the Labour/Trade Union movements throughout Europe for the previous 50 or so years it is obvious he would be rejected. Fairer societies, better working conditions, access to basic health and education, better living conditions, basic civil rights were all things that were being fought for and slowly won by the Labour/Trade Union movement. These rights and freedoms didn't just happen, willingly ceded by the ruling elite that still controlled most of Europe. Churchill was a staunch enemy of the working class movement. You can look at his involvement in the 1926 General Strike and read some of the comments attributed to him to see evidence of this. This was only 24 years before the 1950 election. A significant part of the population in the UK at the time could never forget or forgive his actions during this strike just as a significant part of the current population in the UK will never be able to forgive or forget Thatcher for her actions 30 odd years ago.
The other myth that should not be allowed to go unchallenged on this point is, despite attempts by media outlets such as the Daily Mail and The Sun to portray it otherwise, millions of working class men willingly went to war against Hitler and the Nazis as much to defend the freedoms and rights won by the Labour/Trade Union movements throughout Europe over the previous 50 years as anything else.
Good analysis.
There had been a feeling that the establishment had not honoured our War heroes in 1918 ,therefore the Conservatives were not trusted by ordinary people . I was told by my Grandfather that the soldiers came home and shook Churchill's hand for winning the War and then went home and voted Labour.
Another factor was that the Trade Union movement was then a well respected part of British society and part of the social consensus .
After the war many British Trade Unionists went to Germany to help their counterparts rebuild their organisations. I have always felt it was a shame that they didn't remodel our own TUC as well and build the sort of social dialogue which exists over there. Partnership relationships are encouraged rather than the adversarial model which tends to apply here .
For example Merkel's centre right wing CDU Party is pro Trade Union in a way that Cameron's Tory Party isn't .
If someone gets a First in Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford; and then an MPA, studying Economics at Harvard, you would expect him or her to be extremely well qualified to be Chancellor of the Exchequer.
So why are on Earth are Tories so vehemently opposed to Ed Balls?
Is the MPA same as MBA ?
A degree here is worth more than a degree in the states and a masters in the states is worth more than a masters here. He really knows his stuff and got the best value qualifications in the most prestigious universities for those subjects in those countries. Clever man!
If someone gets a First in Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford; and then an MPA, studying Economics at Harvard, you would expect him or her to be extremely well qualified to be Chancellor of the Exchequer.
So why are on Earth are Tories so vehemently opposed to Ed Balls?
Is the MPA same as MBA ?
A degree here is worth more than a degree in the states and a masters in the states is worth more than a masters here. He really knows his stuff and got the best value qualifications in the most prestigious universities for those subjects in those countries. Clever man!
If someone gets a First in Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford; and then an MPA, studying Economics at Harvard, you would expect him or her to be extremely well qualified to be Chancellor of the Exchequer.
So why are on Earth are Tories so vehemently opposed to Ed Balls?
Is the MPA same as MBA ?
A degree here is worth more than a degree in the states and a masters in the states is worth more than a masters here. He really knows his stuff and got the best value qualifications in the most prestigious universities for those subjects in those countries. Clever man!
no doubt of that Sadie, but they are still keeping him hidden because he is a vote loser
If someone gets a First in Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford; and then an MPA, studying Economics at Harvard, you would expect him or her to be extremely well qualified to be Chancellor of the Exchequer.
So why are on Earth are Tories so vehemently opposed to Ed Balls?
Is the MPA same as MBA ?
A degree here is worth more than a degree in the states and a masters in the states is worth more than a masters here. He really knows his stuff and got the best value qualifications in the most prestigious universities for those subjects in those countries. Clever man!
no doubt of that Sadie, but they are still keeping him hidden because he is a vote loser
Balls can come across as a bit of a smart arse. Osbourne does not fare that much better though with that cold arrogant contempt that he carries.
In the absence of a decent performance to talk about this afternoon. The Polls are interesting as the Tories are supposed to be 1% up in them - this is taken from the figures of all the polling organisations. The problem for the Tories is that there are a couple of unreliable ones that distort for this. If you look at the most reliable polling companies - you have IPSOS/MORI, YouGOV, TNS -BMRB & Populous (all putting Labour with 2 point leads at the moment) There are a couple of less reliable polling companiesthat, Survation and Opinium, that push the Tories to 1% point ahead. But effectively Labour are a couple of percentage points ahead at the moment and with the way the boundaries are, they do better with the same vote.
In many Tory / Labour marginals and metropolitan areas Labour are ahead (Ashcroft). To balance this, Labour will get hammered in Scotland. Tories will pick up a few Liberal Democrat seats to counter some of the losses to Labour, but no where near enough. Liberal Democrats will lose 60% + of their seats. Danny Alexander and Clegg both vulnerable. Greens will stick at one. UKIP will get minimal seats.
The BBC adds up all the polling companies - I think the most reliable ones are You Gov and IPSOS/MORI and they have Labour in the lead. You can see this when you go into the poll tracker on the BBC. But the Tories need to really push on in a way that no party has done before this close to an election as a 1% lead for them (if it was accurate) will lose them seats and cost them power.
Yesterday, we had one party discussing Britain's role in the world and how, where and whether we should partner with allies to ensure the world is a better, safer place. And we had one party concentrating on how and whether we should dig our heels in and prevent MPs from some parts of the UK voting on issues effecting other parts.
In a snapshot, this is why Miliband is winning the campaign against Cameron.
Bbc poll of polls has the Tories one percent up on Labour. Add in their standard polling day pick up and it is a bit premature to say he is winning.
due to how skewed the boundaries are, the Tories needs a much bigger lead than 1pt to win more seats than Labour, let alone a majority (which, let's face it, won't happen).
I don't know why people keep clinging to this silly myth! Maybe it's Tory-supporters' means of getting their excuses in early. The Tories could easily achieve more seats than Labour with only a 1pt lead in the polls. For example:
Con 37% Lan 36% LibDem 8% Ukip 6% Other 13%
...translates to...
Con 288 seats Labour 277 SNP 53 LibDem 9 DUP 8 Sinn Fein 5 SDLP 3 Other 2 Plaid Cymru 2 Ukip 2 Alliance 1
So, in this case a 1pt poll lead for the Tories gives them an 11-seat advantage over Labour.
And the latest (23 April) BBC poll of polls gives the following Con 34% Lan 33% LibDem 13% Ukip 9% Other 11%
... can lead to... Con 281 Lab 274 SNP 53 LibDem 18 DUP 8 Sinn Fein 5 Plaid Cymru 3 SDLP 3 Other 2 Ukip 2 Alliance 1
So, based on this example, a 1pt lead for the Tories gives them a 7-seat advantage over Labour, potentially allowing a Tory minority Government; a Tory-SNP majority coalition (unlikely); or a Con-Lab grand coalition (probably even less likely).
I think we can lay to rest any rubbish about a 1pt lead not being enough for the Tories gaining more seats than Labour.
If someone gets a First in Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford; and then an MPA, studying Economics at Harvard, you would expect him or her to be extremely well qualified to be Chancellor of the Exchequer.
So why are on Earth are Tories so vehemently opposed to Ed Balls?
Is the MPA same as MBA ?
Very similar. The difference is that an MPA is a sort-of public sector post-graduate professional qualification; whereas an MBA is a "private sector" qualification. (P = public; B = business).
Being serious here - would anyone consider leaving the country based on the result of the upcoming election?
There are some pretty passionate views all round and I was wondering how far some may take their dissatisfaction.
Think I mentioned before that I have a possible transfer opportunity to Irvine CA in the US. We have been unsure for months in terms of taking kids out of school, versus great weather, versus quality of life, versus being away from family and friends.
Missus wouldnt be influenced as much as me, but a Labour government would get me considering selling up, and getting my property equity out the country and in to the U.S. Get the savings out of my UK bank and pay my taxes to the US from a permanent role there. Hopefully escaping any potential tax increases that I have read being mooted. NHS is a big advantage of the UK lifestyle but I would get healthcare for the family through work. Transport costs are lower with dirt cheap gas prices.......
Anyone else up sticks if it went a way they were not happy with?
I don't know why people keep clinging to this silly myth! Maybe it's Tory-supporters' means of getting their excuses in early. The Tories could easily achieve more seats than Labour with only a 1pt lead in the polls. For example:
Con 37% Lan 36% LibDem 8% Ukip 6% Other 13%
...translates to...
Con 288 seats Labour 277 SNP 53 LibDem 9 DUP 8 Sinn Fein 5 SDLP 3 Other 2 Plaid Cymru 2 Ukip 2 Alliance 1
So, in this case a 1pt poll lead for the Tories gives them an 11-seat advantage over Labour.
And the latest (23 April) BBC poll of polls gives the following Con 34% Lan 33% LibDem 13% Ukip 9% Other 11%
... can lead to... Con 281 Lab 274 SNP 53 LibDem 18 DUP 8 Sinn Fein 5 Plaid Cymru 3 SDLP 3 Other 2 Ukip 2 Alliance 1
So, based on this example, a 1pt lead for the Tories gives them a 7-seat advantage over Labour, potentially allowing a Tory minority Government; a Tory-SNP majority coalition (unlikely); or a Con-Lab grand coalition (probably even less likely).
I think we can lay to rest any rubbish about a 1pt lead not being enough for the Tories gaining more seats than Labour.
(These seat extrapolations come from Sky News)
The UK Polling Report swing calculator shows a much different scenario to whatever you have cooked up in your post using your figures (also you got the LibDem/UKIP vote share mixed up but I will assume in good faith this was a typo):
Con Conservative 286 seats (-20) Lab Labour 315 seats (+57) LD Liberal Democrats 21 seats (-36) Other Others 24% 10 seats (-1) NI Northern Ireland 18 seats (nc)
So less a 'silly myth', more an inconvenient truth for people whose agendas benefit from the skewed electoral boundaries.
Analysts came up with a figure of 3% at the last election once the dust had settled - that being the lead the Tories would have need on polling day 2010 over Labour in the national polls to win the same number of seats as Labour - if the Tories had gone into the 2010 election with a lead of less than 3%, Labour would have won the most seats. The Tories actually had a 7pt lead and still didn't win a majority...meanwhile the analysts worked out that if Labour had a 3pt lead or higher they would have won a majority. Until the outdated boundary system is corrected, the current system will always be skewed in Labour's favour. I have no doubt that if the parties were in reverse situations, Labour and their supporters would be screaming this from the rooftops.
I don't know why people keep clinging to this silly myth! Maybe it's Tory-supporters' means of getting their excuses in early. The Tories could easily achieve more seats than Labour with only a 1pt lead in the polls. For example:
Con 37% Lan 36% LibDem 8% Ukip 6% Other 13%
...translates to...
Con 288 seats Labour 277 SNP 53 LibDem 9 DUP 8 Sinn Fein 5 SDLP 3 Other 2 Plaid Cymru 2 Ukip 2 Alliance 1
So, in this case a 1pt poll lead for the Tories gives them an 11-seat advantage over Labour.
And the latest (23 April) BBC poll of polls gives the following Con 34% Lan 33% LibDem 13% Ukip 9% Other 11%
... can lead to... Con 281 Lab 274 SNP 53 LibDem 18 DUP 8 Sinn Fein 5 Plaid Cymru 3 SDLP 3 Other 2 Ukip 2 Alliance 1
So, based on this example, a 1pt lead for the Tories gives them a 7-seat advantage over Labour, potentially allowing a Tory minority Government; a Tory-SNP majority coalition (unlikely); or a Con-Lab grand coalition (probably even less likely).
I think we can lay to rest any rubbish about a 1pt lead not being enough for the Tories gaining more seats than Labour.
(These seat extrapolations come from Sky News)
The UK Polling Report swing calculator shows a much different scenario to whatever you have cooked up in your post using your figures (also you got the LibDem/UKIP vote share mixed up but I will assume in good faith this was a typo):
Con Conservative 286 seats (-20) Lab Labour 315 seats (+57) LD Liberal Democrats 21 seats (-36) Other Others 24% 10 seats (-1) NI Northern Ireland 18 seats (nc)
So less a 'silly myth', more an inconvenient truth for people whose agendas benefit from the skewed electoral boundaries.
Analysts came up with a figure of 3% at the last election once the dust had settled - that being the lead the Tories would have need on polling day 2010 over Labour in the national polls to win the same number of seats as Labour - if the Tories had gone into the 2010 election with a lead of less than 3%, Labour would have won the most seats. The Tories actually had a 7pt lead and still didn't win a majority...meanwhile the analysts worked out that if Labour had a 3pt lead or higher they would have won a majority. Until the outdated boundary system is corrected, the current system will always be skewed in Labour's favour. I have no doubt that if the parties were in reverse situations, Labour and their supporters would be screaming this from the rooftops.
The second poll example was not "cooked up" - it uses the current BBC poll of polls. The seat extrapolation is taken from the Sky News site. Maybe both of those broadcasters are in collusion?
Also, it is not a "truth" - inconvenience or otherwise - that, as you stated, "the Tories needs a much bigger lead than 1pt to win more seats than Labour". As can be seen from the two scenarios I have posted, the Tories *can* win more seats than Labour, with only a 1pt lead.
To be absolutely clear, what this shows is that with a 1pt lead, the Tories *can* win more seats than Labour.
I don't know why people keep clinging to this silly myth! Maybe it's Tory-supporters' means of getting their excuses in early. The Tories could easily achieve more seats than Labour with only a 1pt lead in the polls. For example:
Con 37% Lan 36% LibDem 8% Ukip 6% Other 13%
...translates to...
Con 288 seats Labour 277 SNP 53 LibDem 9 DUP 8 Sinn Fein 5 SDLP 3 Other 2 Plaid Cymru 2 Ukip 2 Alliance 1
So, in this case a 1pt poll lead for the Tories gives them an 11-seat advantage over Labour.
And the latest (23 April) BBC poll of polls gives the following Con 34% Lan 33% LibDem 13% Ukip 9% Other 11%
... can lead to... Con 281 Lab 274 SNP 53 LibDem 18 DUP 8 Sinn Fein 5 Plaid Cymru 3 SDLP 3 Other 2 Ukip 2 Alliance 1
So, based on this example, a 1pt lead for the Tories gives them a 7-seat advantage over Labour, potentially allowing a Tory minority Government; a Tory-SNP majority coalition (unlikely); or a Con-Lab grand coalition (probably even less likely).
I think we can lay to rest any rubbish about a 1pt lead not being enough for the Tories gaining more seats than Labour.
(These seat extrapolations come from Sky News)
The UK Polling Report swing calculator shows a much different scenario to whatever you have cooked up in your post using your figures (also you got the LibDem/UKIP vote share mixed up but I will assume in good faith this was a typo):
Con Conservative 286 seats (-20) Lab Labour 315 seats (+57) LD Liberal Democrats 21 seats (-36) Other Others 24% 10 seats (-1) NI Northern Ireland 18 seats (nc)
So less a 'silly myth', more an inconvenient truth for people whose agendas benefit from the skewed electoral boundaries.
Analysts came up with a figure of 3% at the last election once the dust had settled - that being the lead the Tories would have need on polling day 2010 over Labour in the national polls to win the same number of seats as Labour - if the Tories had gone into the 2010 election with a lead of less than 3%, Labour would have won the most seats. The Tories actually had a 7pt lead and still didn't win a majority...meanwhile the analysts worked out that if Labour had a 3pt lead or higher they would have won a majority. Until the outdated boundary system is corrected, the current system will always be skewed in Labour's favour. I have no doubt that if the parties were in reverse situations, Labour and their supporters would be screaming this from the rooftops.
The second poll example was not "cooked up" - it uses the current BBC poll of polls. The seat extrapolation is taken from the Sky News site. Maybe both of those broadcasters are in collusion?
Also, it is not a "truth" - inconvenience or otherwise - that, as you stated, "the Tories needs a much bigger lead than 1pt to win more seats than Labour". As can be seen from the two scenarios I have posted, the Tories *can* win more seats than Labour, with only a 1pt lead.
To be absolutely clear, what this shows is that with a 1pt lead, the Tories *can* win more seats than Labour.
Except, barring Labour getting totally wiped out in Scotland, they probably won't. We won't know until election day if the Scots really will kick Labour out, so we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
Being serious here - would anyone consider leaving the country based on the result of the upcoming election?
There are some pretty passionate views all round and I was wondering how far some may take their dissatisfaction.
Think I mentioned before that I have a possible transfer opportunity to Irvine CA in the US. We have been unsure for months in terms of taking kids out of school, versus great weather, versus quality of life, versus being away from family and friends.
Missus wouldnt be influenced as much as me, but a Labour government would get me considering selling up, and getting my property equity out the country and in to the U.S. Get the savings out of my UK bank and pay my taxes to the US from a permanent role there. Hopefully escaping any potential tax increases that I have read being mooted. NHS is a big advantage of the UK lifestyle but I would get healthcare for the family through work. Transport costs are lower with dirt cheap gas prices.......
Anyone else up sticks if it went a way they were not happy with?
1. You should do what is best for you and your family. 2. I wouldn't leave the country if the "wrong" party was elected. That's the easy way out. If the Tories gain a majority, I would fight every day for five years to win the 2020 election. 3. Everyone's circumstances are different. So, what might be important to me, is likely to be less important to you and vice versa. 4. It sounds like you're doing all the right things by weighing up all the important issues. (And you are probably aware of the fact there are things that you probably still haven't thought about). It sounds like the only thing that is going to finalise your decision is how we vote next month. But you should not be persuaded to emigrate on the basis of your fellow countrymen exercising their democratic right. You might as well toss a coin. Make your decision based on the facts that impact you - and nothing else. 5. You sound like the sort of person we should keep in this country, so please stay! 6. The only item on this list that you should concentrate on, is number 1.
I wouldn't trust any calculator that predicts UKIP, SNP, PC and Greens combined will have 10 seats after the election
Well, exactly. You need to take both my numbers and Chizz's numbers with a pinch of salt. Battleground polling predicts small parties are going to get in the region of 50 seats, but in every previous election, support for parties outside of LibLabCon does, in the majority of cases, melt away on polling day. I fully agree this election will be different - the SNP will probably do the best and I reckon they will get at least 30 seats. Green's will hold their 1, UKIP are likely to keep their 2 and Farage is ahead in Thanet so they will get 3. However until the dust has settled we have no idea how voters will vote on the day as we're facing an election like any before. Whilst good seat calculators will take into account known phenomenon that has occurred in previous elections (small parties do worse than expected, Tories do better than expected, Labour need smaller swings to win seats or larger negative swings to lose seats etc.), we have no precedent to be able to accurately reflect the rise of UKIP and the SNP.
I wouldn't trust any calculator that predicts UKIP, SNP, PC and Greens combined will have 10 seats after the election
Well, exactly. You need to take both my numbers and Chizz's numbers with a pinch of salt. Battleground polling predicts small parties are going to get in the region of 50 seats, but in every previous election, support for parties outside of LibLabCon does, in the majority of cases, melt away on polling day. I fully agree this election will be different - the SNP will probably do the best and I reckon they will get at least 30 seats. Green's will hold their 1, UKIP are likely to keep their 2 and Farage is ahead in Thanet so they will get 3. However until the dust has settled we have no idea how voters will vote on the day as we're facing an election like any before. Whilst good seat calculators will take into account known phenomenon that has occurred in previous elections (small parties do worse than expected, Tories do better than expected, Labour need smaller swings to win seats or larger negative swings to lose seats etc.), we have no precedent to be able to accurately reflect the rise of UKIP and the SNP.
Unfortunately I think UKIP may do a lot better than everyone thinks, the rising popularity of them because of the play on immigration issues and the EU scare tactics seem to brainwashing the minds of loads of people, also there are those decent folks that have had enough of Tories, no longer trust lib dems and are too right wing to ever vote labour that will vote UKIP, also BNP are no more and UKIP are the closest party to win their voters too.
the evening Standard had the Lib demo being wiped out by Labour in London. UKIP will struggle to make a dent because of first past the post and we can't predict how the SNP will do... Someone had Edinburgh seats as Labour SNP marginals which is hard to understand given the no vote was so strong there. I'm 100% sure that there will be big shifts on the day... And that one cannot rely on polls to predict which will be the largest party for the margin of error exceeds what it takes to shift 10-20 seats.
One thing that strikes me as unlikely is a formal Labour SNP deal. For labour can't offer anything on independence and how can SNP go into coalition without that commitmen? And they are fighting each other across Scotland for seats.
Who can i vote for ? 1. No Benefits for having more than 2 children. Pay for it yourself or sort out some birth control. 2. Down grade the Royal Family: like the rest of Europe and stop treating them as if their special. (Like a couple of champ football teams fans, there's been to much 1st cousin in breeding) 3.Stop making London the place to launder ill gotten gains from Russia and the rest of the old USSR.( plus about anywhere now) 4.Stop piss heads and crack heads using the hospitals. If you want to screw up your bodies that's your free will. 5 Don't let the people who protect Cyril smith, and stop Jenner being put on trial get away with it. Everyone who protected The pervert Saville must pay. Ask Prince Charles to explain why he went to The cottage in Scotland or Yorkshire where the pervert had parties. (this guy could be the next king FFS) 6. The Law comes before Religion. (if your on trial for a serious crime your not allowed to carry out the rituals of getting down on your knees half a dozen times a day. 7.The money we save from downgrading the Royals we give to Hospitals and Sport centres to get people fitter and tax advantages for folk who join. 8. Abolish Knighthoods, they should have gone out when the crusades ended. 9.Be happy and hug a stranger. (Non sexual: unless it's Kelly MaloneBrooke and she agrees !) 10. CAFC get a bye to the Semi final of the FA cup.
Comments
Amongst other things:
1) He was an adviser in the Treasury during the Labour years during which he would have been involved in various cock-ups that occurred such as the sell-off of gold, the pension raid and the 10p tax abolishment.
2) He's a proponent of the intellectually bankrupt Fabian ideology
3) He has a history of making rash decisions that later turn out terribly, such as the rushed sacking of Sharon Shoesmith which has cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds because he failed to follow procedure.
4) Nearly every prediction he has made about the economy or reaction to economic policy under the Coalition government has been wrong.
So really, his CV for this job isn't particularly up to scratch.
Good analysis.
There had been a feeling that the establishment had not honoured our War heroes in 1918 ,therefore the Conservatives were not trusted by ordinary people . I was told by my Grandfather that the soldiers came home and shook Churchill's hand for winning the War and then went home and voted Labour.
Another factor was that the Trade Union movement was then a well respected part of British society and part of the social consensus .
After the war many British Trade Unionists went to Germany to help their counterparts rebuild their organisations. I have always felt it was a shame that they didn't remodel our own TUC as well and build the sort of social dialogue which exists over there. Partnership relationships are encouraged rather than the adversarial model which tends to apply here .
For example Merkel's centre right wing CDU Party is pro Trade Union in a way that Cameron's Tory Party isn't .
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
Tories and Labour level on 33 on UK Polling report, which is pretty comprehensive.
http://may2015.com/category/poll-of-polls/
Looking level on this one as well.
In many Tory / Labour marginals and metropolitan areas Labour are ahead (Ashcroft). To balance this, Labour will get hammered in Scotland. Tories will pick up a few Liberal Democrat seats to counter some of the losses to Labour, but no where near enough. Liberal Democrats will lose 60% + of their seats. Danny Alexander and Clegg both vulnerable. Greens will stick at one. UKIP will get minimal seats.
Con 37%
Lan 36%
LibDem 8%
Ukip 6%
Other 13%
...translates to...
Con 288 seats
Labour 277
SNP 53
LibDem 9
DUP 8
Sinn Fein 5
SDLP 3
Other 2
Plaid Cymru 2
Ukip 2
Alliance 1
So, in this case a 1pt poll lead for the Tories gives them an 11-seat advantage over Labour.
And the latest (23 April) BBC poll of polls gives the following
Con 34%
Lan 33%
LibDem 13%
Ukip 9%
Other 11%
... can lead to...
Con 281
Lab 274
SNP 53
LibDem 18
DUP 8
Sinn Fein 5
Plaid Cymru 3
SDLP 3
Other 2
Ukip 2
Alliance 1
So, based on this example, a 1pt lead for the Tories gives them a 7-seat advantage over Labour, potentially allowing a Tory minority Government; a Tory-SNP majority coalition (unlikely); or a Con-Lab grand coalition (probably even less likely).
I think we can lay to rest any rubbish about a 1pt lead not being enough for the Tories gaining more seats than Labour.
(These seat extrapolations come from Sky News)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2015/apr/20/election-2015-constituency-map
Its a pretty easy to use and good constituency map, showing battle grounds with 5% marginals.
http://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/67537/birmingham-v-charlton-post-match-views#latest
Apologies Sadie / Brogib changed the comment, same sort of thing.
There are some pretty passionate views all round and I was wondering how far some may take their dissatisfaction.
Think I mentioned before that I have a possible transfer opportunity to Irvine CA in the US. We have been unsure for months in terms of taking kids out of school, versus great weather, versus quality of life, versus being away from family and friends.
Missus wouldnt be influenced as much as me, but a Labour government would get me considering selling up, and getting my property equity out the country and in to the U.S. Get the savings out of my UK bank and pay my taxes to the US from a permanent role there. Hopefully escaping any potential tax increases that I have read being mooted. NHS is a big advantage of the UK lifestyle but I would get healthcare for the family through work. Transport costs are lower with dirt cheap gas prices.......
Anyone else up sticks if it went a way they were not happy with?
Con Conservative 286 seats (-20)
Lab Labour 315 seats (+57)
LD Liberal Democrats 21 seats (-36)
Other Others 24% 10 seats (-1)
NI Northern Ireland 18 seats (nc)
So less a 'silly myth', more an inconvenient truth for people whose agendas benefit from the skewed electoral boundaries.
Analysts came up with a figure of 3% at the last election once the dust had settled - that being the lead the Tories would have need on polling day 2010 over Labour in the national polls to win the same number of seats as Labour - if the Tories had gone into the 2010 election with a lead of less than 3%, Labour would have won the most seats. The Tories actually had a 7pt lead and still didn't win a majority...meanwhile the analysts worked out that if Labour had a 3pt lead or higher they would have won a majority. Until the outdated boundary system is corrected, the current system will always be skewed in Labour's favour. I have no doubt that if the parties were in reverse situations, Labour and their supporters would be screaming this from the rooftops.
Also, it is not a "truth" - inconvenience or otherwise - that, as you stated, "the Tories needs a much bigger lead than 1pt to win more seats than Labour". As can be seen from the two scenarios I have posted, the Tories *can* win more seats than Labour, with only a 1pt lead.
To be absolutely clear, what this shows is that with a 1pt lead, the Tories *can* win more seats than Labour.
2. I wouldn't leave the country if the "wrong" party was elected. That's the easy way out. If the Tories gain a majority, I would fight every day for five years to win the 2020 election.
3. Everyone's circumstances are different. So, what might be important to me, is likely to be less important to you and vice versa.
4. It sounds like you're doing all the right things by weighing up all the important issues. (And you are probably aware of the fact there are things that you probably still haven't thought about). It sounds like the only thing that is going to finalise your decision is how we vote next month. But you should not be persuaded to emigrate on the basis of your fellow countrymen exercising their democratic right. You might as well toss a coin. Make your decision based on the facts that impact you - and nothing else.
5. You sound like the sort of person we should keep in this country, so please stay!
6. The only item on this list that you should concentrate on, is number 1.
I'm 100% sure that there will be big shifts on the day... And that one cannot rely on polls to predict which will be the largest party for the margin of error exceeds what it takes to shift 10-20 seats.
One thing that strikes me as unlikely is a formal Labour SNP deal. For labour can't offer anything on independence and how can SNP go into coalition without that commitmen? And they are fighting each other across Scotland for seats.
1. No Benefits for having more than 2 children. Pay for it yourself or sort out some birth control.
2. Down grade the Royal Family: like the rest of Europe and stop treating them as if their special. (Like a couple of champ football teams fans, there's been to much 1st cousin in breeding)
3.Stop making London the place to launder ill gotten gains from Russia and the rest of the old USSR.( plus about anywhere now)
4.Stop piss heads and crack heads using the hospitals.
If you want to screw up your bodies that's your free will.
5 Don't let the people who protect Cyril smith, and stop Jenner being put on trial get away with it. Everyone who protected The pervert Saville must pay.
Ask Prince Charles to explain why he went to The cottage in Scotland or Yorkshire where the pervert had parties. (this guy could be the next king FFS)
6. The Law comes before Religion. (if your on trial for a serious crime your not allowed to carry out the rituals of getting down on your knees half a dozen times a day.
7.The money we save from downgrading the Royals we give to Hospitals and Sport centres to get people fitter and tax advantages for folk who join.
8. Abolish Knighthoods, they should have gone out when the crusades ended.
9.Be happy and hug a stranger. (Non sexual: unless it's Kelly
MaloneBrooke and she agrees !)10. CAFC get a bye to the Semi final of the FA cup.
Vote For Sam: coming to a soapbox near you.