trousers

Labour hold Wrexham but with 3% swing to Tories.

Battersea, another Labour target, has 2% swing to the Tories. Again, backs up the exit poll.

@robindbrant Millionaire @UKIP donor and campaigner arron banks tells BBC he thinks @conservatives have won Thanet south #ge2015

Tories comfortably hold Labour target seat Swindon North. Crucially, the result is in line with the exit poll prediction. Swindon North result: CONS: 50.3% (+5.7) LAB: 27.8% (-2.7) UKIP: 15.4% (+11.7) LD: 3.3% (-14.0) GRN: 3.3% (+2.3) Opinion polls leading up to the election predicted a 3% - 4% swing to Labour in this seat, but instead its a 5% swing to the Tories....

Lord Ashcroft exit poll better for Labour: Con 34%, Lab 31%, Ukip 14%, Lib Dems 9%, Greens 7%. (12,000 sample size)

Would be very surprised if this exit poll is accurate. Agree with Alastair Campbell (amongst others) that it doesn't feel right.

Or....Trousers will keep an open mind on whether its an issue with policy or implementation/interpretation of policy because the "facts" aren't conclusive

The guidelines do appear somewhat woolly and/or poorly worded: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/416930/dwpf15-0315.pdf I can't find a definitive list of what is considered to be a "good reason". Surely there needs to be fixed and clear criteria rather than it being left open to interpretation. Being too ill to attend a meeting surely counts as a "good reason"? Sounds like another case of a common sense policy poorly implemented to me.

It's government policy to sanction someone for missing an appointment due to being too ill to attend?

I'm going to rely on this thread for balanced commentary on events throughout the night.

Koeman: "Tadic might not play again this season"

Koeman (when pushed by the journo with a leading question): "8 out of 10 chance that JRod will sign a new contract"

Koeman: "Morgan might now be available for the last 2 games. Its more positive than we first thought"

Not really, you give me far too much credit. I'm making this up as I go along, as per usual Doesn't this bit: "In 2013 and 2014 Starbucks will not claim the tax deductions for royalties or payments related to our intercompany charges" offset the inter-company profit jiggery-pokery stuff?

I've no idea whether to believe it or not. I'm rubbish at forming opinions on stuff I read....

http://www.starbucks.co.uk/our-commitment I've no idea how much of that is corporate bowlocks but I'm sure you'll fill me in (so to speak)

http://www.starbucks.co.uk/our-commitment So, about the same as Pompey then....

I do indeed grasp how toxic the Tories are in Scotland. However, it's a shame that the anti-Tory brigade then decided that Labour instantly inherited said toxicity just because they happen to share the same pro-UK stance as the Tories. Sounds like cutting-off-nose-to-spite face territory to me.

I hear this cited a lot as to why Labour's support has collapsed in Scotland, but can someone explain to me how two pro-UK parties were supposed to campaign during the separation referendum if it wasn't in some form of collaboration? Just because two parties share the same goal on one thing doesn't mean they share they same goal on everything else. It was a single issue referendum and both main UK parties wanted the same outcome.

The SNP relied on Tory support when they were a minority government in Holyrood pre-2011.

For the same reason the SNP could get c.50 seats from c.5% of the UK vote.

Are you at liberty to reveal what type of player? Cheers

I suspect JRod would have been given a run out in the U21s tonight if there was a chance of him figuring at the weekend.