If you're EVER going to buy a house, you'd better do it before April - here's why.

padington

wotsthat wrote: »

I wouldn't rule out a 'grand coalition' between the Tories and Labour to maintain stability and keep the SNP away from government. Germany seems to function and the two largest parties are in coalition together.

It's not as if we're talking about about chalk and cheese - it's hardly Foot and Thatcher.

Another election might be the best option eventually. If UKIP manage a couple of seats and the SNP get the most seats in history they'll be gutted to have to put those at risk.

Apparently the Tories are already making a contingency for a re-run.

The SNP are are the toxic partners. Anyone seen to cave into Scottish demands, South of the border, is drinking the poisoned challace if you ask me. It makes sense that all possibilities are being considered.

Devolution issued by free men is acceptable, devolution issued by desperate men selling their country short for Ministerial cars and resulting in the break up of the UK ... that's treason.

Intreagingly, that's an outcome which English tories might hugely benefit from watching Labour play out, leaving labour in quite a weak space. Labour can't give the SNP even a sniff at independence whilst more devolution could be a slippery slope in that direction and lots more money to the scots will be political suicide in the very places Labour hope to hold on to.

Far better to change the constitutional conventions temporarily, possibly calling for 'a govenrment of conscience to allow most laws to be whip free and led by rotation by willing partners to reflect fairly the will of the people' or something similar.

A full on grand coalition would make much more sense ... But they say pride comes before a fall.

So Labour needs a real charmer at the helm with great diplomacy skills and with a very bright mind that works well in the here and now, that can think on his or her feat and build bridges where there are none. Has it got the person it needs ?

makeyourdaddyproud

solentsusie wrote: »

Definitely scaremongering. I think many pensioners will have far better things to spend their nest eggs on. Not everyone is obsessed with the housing market.

It is a tad Susie, since there are very few BBers with a pension pot large enough to buy a house outright, that's after succumbing to the desperate pleas from their kippers.

Though the Mirror article is an amusing read, I feel there will be a change in the landscape of house prices and an inevitable rise in inflation with all this new money.

ukcarper

How far short would a Con LibDem DUP coalition be?

N1AK

ukcarper wrote: »

How far short would a Con LibDem DUP coalition be?

Impossible to know, but around 9 short based on current polls.

The Libs are expected to get around ~25 MPs, the Conservatives ~281, and DUP currently has 8 MP and will probably have 8 post-election. Put the three together and you get ~314 MPs with 323 the de facto line for a majority government.

ukcarper

N1AK wrote: »

Impossible to know, but around 9 short based on current polls.

The Libs are expected to get around ~25 MPs, the Conservatives ~281, and DUP currently has 8 MP and will probably have 8 post-election. Put the three together and you get ~314 MPs with 323 the de facto line for a majority government.

Some poles are giving Tories 288 bringing that total to 321 not far off.

Jason74

ukcarper wrote: »

Some poles are giving Tories 288 bringing that total to 321 not far off.

And with a very small margin for error in polling, we could easily find ourselves in a place where those three between them command a small majority. But the problem with that is that a single figure majority is considered close to unworkable at the best of times, and would generally result in another election within a year or two. We've had four occasions since the war where we've ended up with a Government with a single figure majority or less (I'm excluding 2010 as the coalition partners had a workable majority between them), and three of them ended up with a new election within 2 years (and the one that didn't was largely because that was already the second election that year).


Given the established difficulty in holding together a single party Government with a single figure majority, I don't see how a 3 way coalition holding a 5 or 6 seat majority between the three parties could last, especially with one of them being the Ulster Unionists.

ukcarper

Jason74 wrote: »

And with a very small margin for error in polling, we could easily find ourselves in a place where those three between them command a small majority. But the problem with that is that a single figure majority is considered close to unworkable at the best of times, and would generally result in another election within a year or two. We've had four occasions since the war where we've ended up with a Government with a single figure majority or less (I'm excluding 2010 as the coalition partners had a workable majority between them), and three of them ended up with a new election within 2 years (and the one that didn't was largely because that was already the second election that year).


Given the established difficulty in holding together a single party Government with a single figure majority, I don't see how a 3 way coalition holding a 5 or 6 seat majority between the three parties could last, especially with one of them being the Ulster Unionists.

True but unless we have a big swing to one party or the SNP fails to get projected seats this is what we are faced with and I'm not sure another election a few months later would provide a different result.

N1AK

ukcarper wrote: »

Some poles are giving Tories 288 bringing that total to 321 not far off.

I doubt Poles are giving the Tories anything

One poll on the 8th March gave the Tories 274 MPs leaving them well off; which just goes to show why looking at individual polls is a massive mistake.

282 seats is the current 50/50 point on PaddyPower. Ladbrokes reckons it's 281.5. I don't bet, but I tend to trust the opinion of people who have money to lose for getting it wrong.

ukcarper

I'm not sure I'd give bookmakers any more credit than the polls and swings can vary by constituency.

Generali

ukcarper wrote: »

True but unless we have a big swing to one party or the SNP fails to get projected seats this is what we are faced with and I'm not sure another election a few months later would provide a different result.

If the SNP fails to get projected seats the seats will likely go to Labour. As the SNP has basically said they will support Labour in return for some nice juicy pork to take back to Scotland whether the seats in Scotland go to the SNP or Labour is immaterial. What matters really is the English vote. As England is 80%+ of the UK that's kinda understandable. Even if the SNP manage half the vote in Scotland they will not get 3% of the UK-wide vote.