Would it be right to say foreign policy(except for the EU part) does not play a major role in this election? Cause obviously it is Hollande and Merkel flying to Putin for negotiations while Dave... what is he doing actually these days?
Putin thinks he can divide and conquer by separating Germany and France from the USA. I assume he has no hope on doing the same with England.
Interesting article, and I think the Conservative chances are being overstated at the bookies. Got 12-1 on a Labour majority - not overly confident, but have given it £20 as the odds are too good to pass up on given the way Miliband is talking at the moment. http://www2.politicalbetting.com/in...-of-36-completely-in-defiance-of-the-polling/
Given how bad Labour was while governing and the weakness of your leader is why you guys aren't doing better
Well, I've read it several times and still can't understand why you quoted my previous post to write this.
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ll-fundraiser-rich-arrogance?CMP=share_btn_tw hard to argue with any of that tbh
Footage of Gideon appears from the daily politics show where he advises viewers on how to dodge inheritance tax
Not good news for UKIP http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...d-against-people-of-other-races-10062731.html They need to get off the race row. If they are associated with are seem to be viewed as the "racist party" like Farage says he doesn't want it to be they will be dead come May.
If labour regains power britian will once again experience a increase in taxes, deficits, increase of the debt, and mass immigration.
First telly debate last night. Paxman ripped DC & EM apart. Neither came out looking great but EM was starting from such a low position that he probably came out best from that. He seemed slightly less odd basically, which was the best he could hope for.
Well... Ive seen parts of yesterdays debate and it seemed to me Dave would have prefered to be anywhere but this debate. British politics would be so much more fun with some sort PR.
Polls of who did best in the 7 way tv debate ICM Miliband wins Miliband 25% (labour) Cameron 24% (conservative) Farage 19% (UKIP) Sturgeon 17% (SNP) Clegg 9% (lib dems) Bennett 3% (greens) Wood 2% (plaid cymru) ComRes tie between Cameron/Miliband/Farage Cameron 21% (conservative) Miliband 21% (labour) Farage 21% (ukip) Sturgeon 20% (snp) Clegg 9% (lib dems) Bennett 5% (greens) Wood 2% (plaid cymru) YouGov Sturgeon wins Sturgeon 28% (snp) Farage 20% (ukip) Cameron 18% (conservative) Miliband 15% (labour) Clegg 10% (lib dems) Bennett 5% (greens) Wood: 4% (plaid cymru) Survation tie between Cameron/Miliband Cameron - 25% (conservative) Miliband - 25% (labour) Farage - 24% (ukip) Sturgeon - 15% (snp) Clegg - 6% (lib dems) Bennett - 3% (greens) Wood - 2% (plaid cymru) No clear winner. Will have to wait in 2 weeks time for the next debate.
It's time to come home and defeat labour http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gen...-tells-Ukip-voters-its-time-to-come-home.html
Gove on QT last week refused to answer to question of whether the Tories would consider a coalition with UKIP. that terrifies me.
It shouldn't. The conservatives want to hold onto power, and if UKIP gives them 5-6 seats with which to obtain that power, they'll do it. UKIP is closer to them than the Lib Dems so they would much prefer it. If it scares you so much, consider who Bibi Netanyahu will have to join in coalition with. Or who the centrist parties have to align with in the Polish Sejm ::shudder::
That's not how coalition politics work. A coalition with UKip will get them maybe another term but a, that would be a very unstable government due to Ukip being unreliable and b, it will be the end to any Tory led government in the 10-20 years after that. That's why Dave will not go into a coalition just for the sake of staying in power.
If you want to argue that the UK 2015 election is a specific case with unique unobservables that make it much less likely for a Tory-UKIP coalition to form, fine. But in the broader sense, the logic for a Conservative-UKIP coalition is there. Let's say this is the outcome of the election (purely hypothetical): Con: 285 Lab: 242 SNP - 41 Lib Dems - 41 UKIP - 41 In this scenario, the Tories can form a coalition with any single other party and win. If aligned on the ideological spectrum, the five parties are arranged thusly: |------SNP----Lab------LibDem---------Con-----UKIP---| Just by counting the dashes between the parties, it's obvious that the Conservatives go with UKIP. Less ideological space means that the Tories give up less ground on some of their agenda items, and can hand out "worse" portfolios to the junior party in Cabinet. Now let's assume this (again, purely hypothetical) outcome: Con: 321 Lab: 286 SNP - 11 Lib Dems - 25 UKIP - 7 |------SNP----Lab------LibDem---------Con-----UKIP---| UKIP is much smaller than LibDem, but again the Conseratives will go with UKIP. Research has found that coalitions with just threadbare majorities are more cohesive and stable than larger coalitions. This is in large part because each defection is more costly in smaller majorities, so the agenda-setters don't allow anything to come to the floor that would threaten the majority. It's also because in larger coalitions there is more ideological heterogeneity. So the Tories would be better off forming a coalition with UKIP in just about any circumstance where it would give them a majority. If UKIP doesn't get enough seats to matter, then Dave is better off looking back to the Lib Dems or even a grand coalition. That's the caveat.
Well this is all nice on a theoretical basis. Coalition politics dont follow just where there might be theoreatical majorities. That's maybe how your congress is working where majorities have to be found on a whim and from bill to bill. Here majority means the government banks on it meaning the majority has to be mantained all the time or the goverment has lost the majority and -unless there is a possibility for a different coalition- tat means new elections. That would rather result in a left 3-party coalition then a Tory-Ukip coalition. That looks like new elections to me. Or a minority government - all more likely than a Tory-Ukip coalition. As much as I would like Ukip see getting part of an UK government for all the political reasons - I dont see it happening. It's either labour or some hung parliament with no side being able to form a coalition. Look at Germany, if the SPD had wanted, they could have prevented Merkel's 3 terms so far ever happening. Cause since she took office there had been a left majority in the Bundestag. As for the size of coalitions: yes, we call that Fraktionsdiszpilin. But that doesnt matter in the case of the UK anyway since Westminster systems in general already have strong party discplines through the fact that voting by the legislature against the government is seen to cause the government to collapse.
You believe whatever you want, I'll stick to what we actually know. This is a theorem that's been formally derived and empirically tested. Feel free to peruse the literally thousands of articles on this topic. Or on minimal winning coalitions. There is some criticism that the theorem doesn't hold, especially in some Western European democracies. I'd love to debate you on the merits of the issue. But don't dismiss it because you don't understand it. By the way, when Republican posters say nonsense like (paraphrasing) "that's all real and good in theory but in real life things are obviously different," it's no big deal because they're morons, but I expect better from someone who hails from 'enlightened' Europe. Hey, tell me if gravity stopped working where you are. No? Then don't interchange theory with conjecture.