'1200 jobs to go at steel makers TATA in Scunthorpe. Governments getting blamed by Labour the TUC and the workers coming out of the gates. '
According to Sky interview UK energy prices 5x higher than competition plus Chinese dumping at below cost.
Can't do anthing about the dumping except demand China stop. Good luck with that.
Could they subsidise the energy cost thus avoiding "directly" propping up the plant. It probably still wouldn't be allowed nor would it achieve much until we insist UK uses its own steel first. That of course is also not allowed. Jeez what a mess.
We shouldn't try to prop it up. We should thank the Chinese for so generously subsidising our steel use, improving British consumer welfare at the expense of Chinese living standards, and retrain the steel workers here to do something more sustainable.
What's your suggestion?
I understand there are shortages in some of the skilled and semi-skilled construction jobs, such as plasterers, pipe fitters etc. Some of the more talented workers could even be pushed into design fields which are exploding in the UK.
I am sure HMG have a plan. After all the collapse of the UK steel industry which seems to be under way is a direct result of policies being pursued by Cameron and Co and they would have thought out the likely consequences and planned for them. Wouldn't they?
Thirty years ago the Conservatives were in charge when the coalmining industry packed up and then they had no plan as to how to deal with the human tragedy that was bound to ensue. Surely the Conservative Party would not make the same mistake twice.
The collapse of steelmaking? That's directly attributable to the crackpot green energy policies engineered by the previous Labour government and Ed Milliband, which made the cost of production sky rocket, relative to cheap Chinese energy.
The same policies have caused the closure of so many power plants, such that the UK faces the likely and serious prospect of blackouts this Winter.
As for coal mines, more closed under Labour. What did they do about it?
Yup, the policies started under Labour, as I acknowledged in an earlier post, but they have been continued by Cameron for more than five years. During that time there have been all sorts of warnings about the likely effect. He has not changed his policy, but surely he must have thought it through, thought about the consequences.
Or maybe he is just the shallow PR spiv that I always thought him to be.
In any case, why not just put it in a Bill? It would then be a money bill and the Lords wouldn't be able to touch it.
Could it be a tactic to justify appointing a few more Con Peers?
Remember what may well be the biggest vote of this entire Parliament - the Lords vote on the Statutory Instrument to implement the boundary changes - vote will be in Autumn 2018.
Cameron is going to want the Lords arithmetic in his favour by that point.
'1200 jobs to go at steel makers TATA in Scunthorpe. Governments getting blamed by Labour the TUC and the workers coming out of the gates. '
According to Sky interview UK energy prices 5x higher than competition plus Chinese dumping at below cost.
Can't do anthing about the dumping except demand China stop. Good luck with that.
Could they subsidise the energy cost thus avoiding "directly" propping up the plant. It probably still wouldn't be allowed nor would it achieve much until we insist UK uses its own steel first. That of course is also not allowed. Jeez what a mess.
We shouldn't try to prop it up. We should thank the Chinese for so generously subsidising our steel use, improving British consumer welfare at the expense of Chinese living standards, and retrain the steel workers here to do something more sustainable.
What's your suggestion?
I understand there are shortages in some of the skilled and semi-skilled construction jobs, such as plasterers, pipe fitters etc. Some of the more talented workers could even be pushed into design fields which are exploding in the UK.
I am sure HMG have a plan. After all the collapse of the UK steel industry which seems to be under way is a direct result of policies being pursued by Cameron and Co and they would have thought out the likely consequences and planned for them. Wouldn't they?
Thirty years ago the Conservatives were in charge when the coalmining industry packed up and then they had no plan as to how to deal with the human tragedy that was bound to ensue. Surely the Conservative Party would not make the same mistake twice.
The plan is as follows: * If the people affected are voters for your party, then apply subsidies, tax benefits, grants, etc. * If the people affected are voters for the other party, then blame them and lecture them.
This is true regardless of which party is in power, as the miners and foxhunters can attest.
Such cynicism, Mr. Code, though sadly you are probably correct. What happens though when both parties conspire together to pursue a policy of such monumental idiocy that it affects (well impoverishes, to be blunt) voters on both sides?
Those are not spectacular numbers for her. She'll get the nomination but I think that'll be it for her.
She beats Trump by 5 points and Trump still has a comfortable lead for the GOP nomination
Trump beats every candidate in a match to match contest with the exception of Carson according to the opinion polls.
Car.
Cruz is even more fanatical and these three seem to be making all the running on the GOP side at the moment
centre
If Hillary wins in 2016 she will lose in 2020. Men already hate her and an economic recession will be due.
No, she is the Democrats Nixon, if she wins in 2016 the GOP will pick Cruz, their McGovern, in 2020 and
If Hilla
Hillary, if she wins in 2016, will be the american Julia Gillard.
There was no
why I have low confidence in her.
There was no recession of any real significance in 2000. There are more women than men in America and Hillary is far more competent and ruthless than Gillard. She is not brilliant, but then again against Trump and Cruz she does not have to be. She is not a natural politician, neither was Nixon, but she is ruthless enough to get it on the second attempt as he did
Unemployment rose 2.5%, the stock market crashed spectacularly and the first bout of deflation appeared. One of the reasons Bush W. invaded Iraq was because his advisers (Rove) were afraid that it would cost him his re-election like his dad, so a nice short war would boost his popularity. Plus, Gillard not ruthless and Hillary competent?
I'll give you 2 examples, one Gillard being ruthless:
In any case, why not just put it in a Bill? It would then be a money bill and the Lords wouldn't be able to touch it.
Could it be a tactic to justify appointing a few more Con Peers?
Remember what may well be the biggest vote of this entire Parliament - the Lords vote on the Statutory Instrument to implement the boundary changes - vote will be in Autumn 2018.
Cameron is going to want the Lords arithmetic in his favour by that point.
Do the Lords get a vote on the constituency boundaries? I didn't think they did and I am not sure they should - it after all a technical matter that affects only the election of the Commons rather than a piece of legislation.
Those are not spectacular numbers for her. She'll get the nomination but I think that'll be it for her.
She beats Trump by 5 points and Trump still has a comfortable lead for the GOP nomination
Trump beats every candidate in a match to match contest with the exception of Carson according to the opinion polls.
Car.
Cruz is even more fanatical and these three seem to be making all the running on the GOP side at the moment
centre
If Hillary wins in 2016 she will lose in 2020. Men already hate her and an economic recession will be due.
No, she is the Democrats Nixon, if she wins in 2016 the GOP will pick Cruz, their McGovern, in 2020 and
If Hilla
Hillary, if she wins in 2016, will be the american Julia Gillard.
There was no
why I have low confidence in her.
There was no recession of any real significance in 2000. There are more women than men in America and Hillary is far more competent and ruthless than Gillard. She is not brilliant, but then again against Trump and Cruz she does not have to be. She is not a natural politician, neither was Nixon, but she is ruthless enough to get it on the second attempt as he did
Unemployment rose 2.5%, the stock market crashed spectacularly and the first bout of deflation appeared. One of the reasons Bush W. invaded Iraq was because his advisers (Rove) were afraid that it would cost him his re-election like his dad, so a nice short war would boost his popularity. Plus, Gillard not ruthless and Hillary competent?
I'll give you 2 examples, one Gillard being ruthless:
'1200 jobs to go at steel makers TATA in Scunthorpe. Governments getting blamed by Labour the TUC and the workers coming out of the gates. '
According to Sky interview UK energy prices 5x higher than competition plus Chinese dumping at below cost.
Can't do anthing about the dumping except demand China stop. Good luck with that.
Could they subsidise the energy cost thus avoiding "directly" propping up the plant. It probably still wouldn't be allowed nor would it achieve much until we insist UK uses its own steel first. That of course is also not allowed. Jeez what a mess.
We shouldn't try to prop it up. We should thank the Chinese for so generously subsidising our steel use, improving British consumer welfare at the expense of Chinese living standards, and retrain the steel workers here to do something more sustainable.
What's your suggestion?
I understand there are shortages in some of the skilled and semi-skilled construction jobs, such as plasterers, pipe fitters etc. Some of the more talented workers could even be pushed into design fields which are exploding in the UK.
I am sure HMG have a plan. After all the collapse of the UK steel industry which seems to be under way is a direct result of policies being pursued by Cameron and Co and they would have thought out the likely consequences and planned for them. Wouldn't they?
Thirty years ago the Conservatives were in charge when the coalmining industry packed up and then they had no plan as to how to deal with the human tragedy that was bound to ensue. Surely the Conservative Party would not make the same mistake twice.
The plan is as follows: * If the people affected are voters for your party, then apply subsidies, tax benefits, grants, etc. * If the people affected are voters for the other party, then blame them and lecture them.
This is true regardless of which party is in power, as the miners and foxhunters can attest.
Such cynicism, Mr. Code, though sadly you are probably correct. What happens though when both parties conspire together to pursue a policy of such monumental idiocy that it affects (well impoverishes, to be blunt) voters on both sides?
Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to that question...:-(
Awesome. For a nightbird like me things like this are good background noise whilst I work.
Interesting point is that they don't have official declarations of constituencies like we do in the UK. Votes are counted at the local level which means the TV networks say a particular party is "leading" in a constituency until all the polling districts have finished reporting.
In any case, why not just put it in a Bill? It would then be a money bill and the Lords wouldn't be able to touch it.
Could it be a tactic to justify appointing a few more Con Peers?
Remember what may well be the biggest vote of this entire Parliament - the Lords vote on the Statutory Instrument to implement the boundary changes - vote will be in Autumn 2018.
Cameron is going to want the Lords arithmetic in his favour by that point.
Do the Lords get a vote on the constituency boundaries? I didn't think they did and I am not sure they should - it after all a technical matter that affects only the election of the Commons rather than a piece of legislation.
Yes - Statutory Instrument is laid before Parliament to implement Boundary Commission reports.
It must be approved by Commons and Lords.
Con tried to change this in last Parliament - on the same day LD + Lab passed amendment cancelling 2013 Boundary review. Con amendment said in future PM lays reports directly before the Queen without needing Parliamentary vote - amendment was obviously defeated.
I thought Con might try putting that forward again now but no sign yet.
In Newfoundland the Liberals would be expected to easily win Avalon and Labrador from the Conservatives and St. John's South—Mount Pearl from the NDP. The NDP should hold St. John's East where they have a huge majority. That would leave the Conservatives with no seats in the province.
Until there is a real poll that opinion pollsters can be judged against, given the disaster of GE 2015, treat all with a HUGE pinch of salt.
They got the labour leader polling pretty spot on
They did indeed, Mr. Sam. However, the toxic effect from their work on the run up to the last GE is that one can never be sure what agenda the polling companies are trying to push.
Mr. Smithson can moan as much as he likes but the facts are quite stark. On the run up to the election the polling companies detected two trends - one group saw a swing to Labour and the other group saw a swing to the Conservatives, until finally they all settled at about the same place. We are asked to believe that there were two mutually exclusive trends happening nationally at the same time. How could that be? Well a clue can be found from the fact that one company conducted a poll that came up with a remarkably accurate prediction of the result but didn't publish it because, "It didn't feel right".
I would suggest that the polling companies take great pains to try and get as representative sample as they can, scientifically weight that sample for various factors to make it even more representative, and then publish whatever figures they feel like. No other explanation seems to fit the facts. However, we must wait for the polling industry's report of their, honest, investigation into how they got it so wrong - due May 2016, I am told.
It would be warmer - the argument is that the cold weather is due to a colder than average Atlantic, caused by cold water from Greenland's melting icecap.
Cold fresh water is less dense than salt water - so would keep on the surface.
Liberals hold Court of Bays seat in Newfoundland with a big majority in first seat to be forecast
That's based on a few hundred votes so it's a bit early.
Indeed, early days and Liberals should do well in Newfoundland, so far though Liberals ahead in all 5 seats where results coming in, anyway off for a quick shower
I think the way the Canadians count the votes is more exciting than ours. And the Huffington Post election website is far superior to anything put out by BBC.
I would suggest that the polling companies take great pains to try and get as representative sample as they can, scientifically weight that sample for various factors to make it even more representative, and then publish whatever figures they feel like. No other explanation seems to fit the facts. However, we must wait for the polling industry's report of their, honest, investigation into how they got it so wrong - due May 2016, I am told.
just after the chilcott report comes out, probably
I think the way the Canadians count the votes is more exciting than ours. And the Huffington Post election website is far superior to anything put out by BBC.
The way we count votes is based on the paternalistic idea that if we know exactly how each polling district has voted we may start a revolution because village X might have made the difference between parties A and B winning a particular constituency. For example a big town votes Labour by 50 votes and a village in the same constituency votes Conservative by 100 votes thus overriding political sentiment in the main settlement. By keeping the individual polling district results secret everyone can pretend this type of scenario never happens, even though everyone knows it must do.
Con 5 points ahead yet he only ties with Corbyn for best PM.
Everyone saying Corbyn is unelectable - on these numbers Osborne would be a disastrous choice for Con.
A bit surprising as in another poll last week Osborne was only 6 points behind Boris for best Con leader.
Osborne led with Tory voters, Boris had a comfortable lead with voters as a whole. Though I don't think Corbyn will still be Labour leader by late 2019 when Cameron steps down
You think that Corbyn's demise may have parallels with Rasputin's?
'1200 jobs to go at steel makers TATA in Scunthorpe. Governments getting blamed by Labour the TUC and the workers coming out of the gates. '
According to Sky interview UK energy prices 5x higher than competition plus Chinese dumping at below cost.
Can't do anthing about the dumping except demand China stop. Good luck with that.
Could they subsidise the energy cost thus avoiding "directly" propping up the plant. It probably still wouldn't be allowed nor would it achieve much until we insist UK uses its own steel first. That of course is also not allowed. Jeez what a mess.
We shouldn't try to prop it up. We should thank the Chinese for so generously subsidising our steel use, improving British consumer welfare at the expense of Chinese living standards, and retrain the steel workers here to do something more sustainable.
What's your suggestion?
I understand there are shortages in some of the skilled and semi-skilled construction jobs, such as plasterers, pipe fitters etc. Some of the more talented workers could even be pushed into design fields which are exploding in the UK.
I am sure HMG have a plan. After all the collapse of the UK steel industry which seems to be under way is a direct result of policies being pursued by Cameron and Co and they would have thought out the likely consequences and planned for them. Wouldn't they?
Thirty years ago the Conservatives were in charge when the coalmining industry packed up and then they had no plan as to how to deal with the human tragedy that was bound to ensue. Surely the Conservative Party would not make the same mistake twice.
The collapse of steelmaking? That's directly attributable to the crackpot green energy policies engineered by the previous Labour government and Ed Milliband, which made the cost of production sky rocket, relative to cheap Chinese energy.
The same policies have caused the closure of so many power plants, such that the UK faces the likely and serious prospect of blackouts this Winter.
As for coal mines, more closed under Labour. What did they do about it?
This should do more damage to the Greens than Labour but it won't 'cos they're even more unworldly and brainless
The service is awful, personnel keeps changing all the time, but evidently it's cheaper, a lot cheaper.
The retail banking model is utterly broken in the UK.
Banks are expected to maintain high cost service infrastructure (CHAPS, FP, ATM, etc) and are shouted at (Ulster Bank) when it breaks down.
But customers refuse to pay for this infrastructure (free current accounts). And the banks get sued for cross-selling (PPI) and regulated on charges they can make for infringment of account T&Cs (CC rules letter fees). Even when they make a profit, they pay an 8% surcharge on profits, and are now required to hold excess capital to take account of deposit flight risk even though the Bank of England overnight rates mean it is virtually impossible to earn money on deposits.
So they try to reduce costs. And people complain when they close branches and complain when staff are offshored.
Just f**king pay for th product, alright? Then the sector might f**king work.
(For the avoidance of doubt, I am not a retail banker)
Banks can make decent money off of guaranteeing letters of credit and so forth, Barclays have done better than us out of our main contract this year for sure !
With personal banking though, they're throwing money at us all. I've signed up for 2 new current accounts this year and am happy to take the FSCS protected largesse of TSB as the most recent example.
As someone who spent many years in the City, there are banks and there are banks. TSB doesn't fall into either category despite its name.
Until there is a real poll that opinion pollsters can be judged against, given the disaster of GE 2015, treat all with a HUGE pinch of salt.
They got the labour leader polling pretty spot on
They did indeed, Mr. Sam. However, the toxic effect from their work on the run up to the last GE is that one can never be sure what agenda the polling companies are trying to push.
Mr. Smithson can moan as much as he likes but the facts are quite stark. On the run up to the election the polling companies detected two trends - one group saw a swing to Labour and the other group saw a swing to the Conservatives, until finally they all settled at about the same place. We are asked to believe that there were two mutually exclusive trends happening nationally at the same time. How could that be? Well a clue can be found from the fact that one company conducted a poll that came up with a remarkably accurate prediction of the result but didn't publish it because, "It didn't feel right".
I would suggest that the polling companies take great pains to try and get as representative sample as they can, scientifically weight that sample for various factors to make it even more representative, and then publish whatever figures they feel like. No other explanation seems to fit the facts. However, we must wait for the polling industry's report of their, honest, investigation into how they got it so wrong - due May 2016, I am told.
It's a bit like city soothsayers. It's okay to be wrong when everyone else is but it's instant death to be wrong when everyone else is right.
I would suggest that the polling companies take great pains to try and get as representative sample as they can, scientifically weight that sample for various factors to make it even more representative, and then publish whatever figures they feel like. No other explanation seems to fit the facts. However, we must wait for the polling industry's report of their, honest, investigation into how they got it so wrong - due May 2016, I am told.
just after the chilcott report comes out, probably
Crosby really managed to unite the opposition against the canadian Tories. The early projection is the biggest landslide victory for any party since 1993 or 1984.
Crosby really managed to unite the opposition against the canadian Tories. The early projection is the biggest landslide victory for any party since 1993 or 1984.
You can't predict a Canadian election based on the eastern seaboard provinces.
Crosby really managed to unite the opposition against the canadian Tories. The early projection is the biggest landslide victory for any party since 1993 or 1984.
You can't predict a Canadian election based on the eastern seaboard provinces.
You can perhaps predict the swing though and it is big, clearly as we move into Ontario and certainly their Western heartlands the Tories will do better but looking good for Trudeau so far
But will it be the same phenomenon for the Liberals as Ed this year, piling up votes in their safest areas?
The CBC polling guy compared Atlantic polling/subsamples vs actual results and the liberal vote was quite a bit higher. IIRC the liberal vote indicated in the opinion polls was ~55% vs 65% in the results.
Crosby really managed to unite the opposition against the canadian Tories. The early projection is the biggest landslide victory for any party since 1993 or 1984.
Indeed Liberals up 35% in Atlantic Canada to 64%, Tories down 21.5% to 16%, NDP 14% to 15% since 2011. Liberals leading in EVERY single seat in Atlantic Canada http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics
Looks like the Tories are doing slightly better in New Brunswick compared to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Might be irrelevant, although on the other hand it could mean the further west you go the better they do relatively speaking.
An enemy of marauding scots was one thing, a personalised assault on a lady in a niqab is quite another.
What a nasty, nasty man.
Abbott out, Harper now looking out, he is left with Zac Goldsmith and Malcolm Turnbull, both climate change concerned, gay marriage embracing liberals, hardly ideal Crosby territory
An enemy of marauding scots was one thing, a personalised assault on a lady in a niqab is quite another.
What a nasty, nasty man.
Abbott out, Harper now looking out, he is left with Zac Goldsmith and Malcolm Turnbull, both climate change concerned, gay marriage embracing liberals, hardly ideal Crosby territory
And also the small matter of having won the UK general election against all expectations.
An enemy of marauding scots was one thing, a personalised assault on a lady in a niqab is quite another.
What a nasty, nasty man.
Abbott out, Harper now looking out, he is left with Zac Goldsmith and Malcolm Turnbull, both climate change concerned, gay marriage embracing liberals, hardly ideal Crosby territory
And also the small matter of having won the UK general election against all expectations.
True but Cameron would likely have won without him, though he did help with the SNP scare
The Bloc Québécois must be getting a bit nervous about being wiped out by the Liberals. Hopefully that's precisely what happens IMO. I can't stand the BQ.
Libs leading in first Quebec riding to start counting. I wonder if this is starting to look like a wave election and the lion's share of the Stop Harper vote has gone to the Liberals.
The Bloc Québécois must be getting a bit nervous about being wiped out by the Liberals. Hopefully that's precisely what happens IMO. I can't stand the BQ.
Yep, though the Liberals have not won most seats in Quebec at a general election since 1980 (coincidentally the year in which the first independence referendum in the province took place, on which basis Scottish Labour would have to wait until 2050 to see their fortunes fully restored north of the border)
Libs leading in first Quebec riding to start counting. I wonder if this is starting to look like a wave election and the lion's share of the Stop Harper vote has gone to the Liberals.
That's the explanation I think. The NDP collapsed from 32% to 20% in the last four weeks.
Looking like a Liberal win now, will tune back in again briefly at 2.30 when Ontario and Quebec really start to come in then to bed and will confirm in the morning
CBC now projecting a Liberal government, Justin Trudeau to be PM. Unclear if minority or majority but they are making the call http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics
An enemy of marauding scots was one thing, a personalised assault on a lady in a niqab is quite another.
What a nasty, nasty man.
Abbott out, Harper now looking out, he is left with Zac Goldsmith and Malcolm Turnbull, both climate change concerned, gay marriage embracing liberals, hardly ideal Crosby territory
And also the small matter of having won the UK general election against all expectations.
An enemy of marauding scots was one thing, a personalised assault on a lady in a niqab is quite another.
What a nasty, nasty man.
Abbott out, Harper now looking out, he is left with Zac Goldsmith and Malcolm Turnbull, both climate change concerned, gay marriage embracing liberals, hardly ideal Crosby territory
And also the small matter of having won the UK general election against all expectations.
It was Messina wot won it.
Don't be silly. It was the Master Strategist wot won it.
Comments
Or maybe he is just the shallow PR spiv that I always thought him to be.
Remember what may well be the biggest vote of this entire Parliament - the Lords vote on the Statutory Instrument to implement the boundary changes - vote will be in Autumn 2018.
Cameron is going to want the Lords arithmetic in his favour by that point.
Live stream:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics
One of the reasons Bush W. invaded Iraq was because his advisers (Rove) were afraid that it would cost him his re-election like his dad, so a nice short war would boost his popularity.
Plus, Gillard not ruthless and Hillary competent?
I'll give you 2 examples, one Gillard being ruthless:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihd7ofrwQX0
Two, Hillary being incompetent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO5ba5c3yVQ
@JournoStephen: Protesting a hospital. Protesting. A hospital.
A hospital. Protesting it.
https://t.co/LUzks8RO4m
http://www.multpl.com/unemployment/table
Gillard making a remark in parliament is not an example of ruthlessness, Benghazi has been done to death. Anyway, even Gillard won one election
It must be approved by Commons and Lords.
Con tried to change this in last Parliament - on the same day LD + Lab passed amendment cancelling 2013 Boundary review. Con amendment said in future PM lays reports directly before the Queen without needing Parliamentary vote - amendment was obviously defeated.
I thought Con might try putting that forward again now but no sign yet.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Nqs8lrKYeN06aXEV3YAguk9fCaMSLDnrvMh7pcn4KV4/edit#gid=0
Mr. Smithson can moan as much as he likes but the facts are quite stark. On the run up to the election the polling companies detected two trends - one group saw a swing to Labour and the other group saw a swing to the Conservatives, until finally they all settled at about the same place. We are asked to believe that there were two mutually exclusive trends happening nationally at the same time. How could that be? Well a clue can be found from the fact that one company conducted a poll that came up with a remarkably accurate prediction of the result but didn't publish it because, "It didn't feel right".
I would suggest that the polling companies take great pains to try and get as representative sample as they can, scientifically weight that sample for various factors to make it even more representative, and then publish whatever figures they feel like. No other explanation seems to fit the facts. However, we must wait for the polling industry's report of their, honest, investigation into how they got it so wrong - due May 2016, I am told.
Cold fresh water is less dense than salt water - so would keep on the surface.
At least on the east coast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2011
Last time the result was NDP 71%, Con 20%, Lib 8%.
Latest numbers: NDP 47%, Lib 44%, Con 7%.
Liberals need a 32% swing, currently getting 30%.
The early projection is the biggest landslide victory for any party since 1993 or 1984.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics
Very early days.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics
An enemy of marauding scots was one thing, a personalised assault on a lady in a niqab is quite another.
What a nasty, nasty man.
Massive vote rise for them in the Atlantic provinces - what will happen in the seat-rich Quebec and Ontario when they close at 2.30 BST?
Already they are projected to win just 3 seats fewer from just 4 provinces than they did from the whole country in 2011.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics