The Food Preferences That Differentiate Apple From Android Users | ||
| | ||
UK market research and polling company YouGov has released a fascinating tool where you can search for any brand, famous personality, sports team, political leader, or music artist and find out what differentiates their customers and fans from the rest of the pack. We plugged in two of the the most polarizing brands in tech: Apple and the Google-owned Android to see how their customers differ. The received wisdom is that Apple owners tend to have more spare cash and tend to be from a higher social grade than people with Android phones. The YouGov tool proves this hypothesis to be correct, but it also throws up some other fascinating differentiators: Who knew that Apple owners were big Beyonce fans while Android users prefer cheeky chappy Olly Murs, for example? Or that Apple fans are split right down the middle when it comes to their politics, while Android users lean far to the left? We’ve picked out some of the more interesting characteristics that set Apple and Android users apart. The average Apple user is a 25 to 39-year-old female in social grade ABC1, a job in media and publishing or marketing with more than £1,000 disposable cash. She's likely to live in the most expensive regions of the UL: London, central Scotland or along the south coast. And she's split right down the middle when it comes to political leaning.
Meanwhile, customers of Android are more likely to be younger males who live in the poorest parts of the UK. His political preferences lean far to the left and he's likely to have a job in IT, media and publishing or energy and utilities. But he's probably at the lowest rung of his career ladder — with less than £125 to spend each month.
Tied in first place for an Apple owner's favorite dish are grilled halloumi and nachos.
| ||
| |
Meanwhile, Android owners apparently prefer (bizarrely, considering everything we know about their income) roast pigeon.
The Food Preferences That Differentiate Apple From Android Users | ||
| | ||
UK market research and polling company YouGov has released a fascinating tool where you can search for any brand, famous personality, sports team, political leader, or music artist and find out what differentiates their customers and fans from the rest of the pack. We plugged in two of the the most polarizing brands in tech: Apple and the Google-owned Android to see how their customers differ. The received wisdom is that Apple owners tend to have more spare cash and tend to be from a higher social grade than people with Android phones. The YouGov tool proves this hypothesis to be correct, but it also throws up some other fascinating differentiators: Who knew that Apple owners were big Beyonce fans while Android users prefer cheeky chappy Olly Murs, for example? Or that Apple fans are split right down the middle when it comes to their politics, while Android users lean far to the left? We’ve picked out some of the more interesting characteristics that set Apple and Android users apart. The average Apple user is a 25 to 39-year-old female in social grade ABC1, a job in media and publishing or marketing with more than £1,000 disposable cash. She's likely to live in the most expensive regions of the UL: London, central Scotland or along the south coast. And she's split right down the middle when it comes to political leaning.
Meanwhile, customers of Android are more likely to be younger males who live in the poorest parts of the UK. His political preferences lean far to the left and he's likely to have a job in IT, media and publishing or energy and utilities. But he's probably at the lowest rung of his career ladder — with less than £125 to spend each month.
Tied in first place for an Apple owner's favorite dish are grilled halloumi and nachos.
| ||
| |
Halliburton Is Buying Baker Hughes For $34.6 Billion | ||
| | ||
The deal is at $78.62/share and the equity value of deal is $34.6 billion. On Friday, Halliburton moved to overthrow the board of Baker Hughers after negotiations hit a snag. Bloomberg reported that the two sides anticipated they would need to sell up to $10 billion in assets for the deal to receieve regulatory approval. Like many oil companies, Halliburton has seen it shares fall with dropping oil prices. Here's where Halliburton, one of the world's largest oil field services companies, ended on Friday at close:
More to come ... Here's the full release: Baker Hughes Stockholders to Receive 1.12 Halliburton Shares Plus $19.00 in Cash for Each Share They OwnTransaction Values Baker Hughes at $78.62 per Share as of November 12, 2014Highly Complementary Product Lines, Global Presence and Cutting-Edge Technologies Will enable Combined Company to Create Added Value for CustomersAccretive to Halliburton Cash Flow by the End of Year One, with Nearly $2 Billion in Synergies and Significant Cash Flow to Support Future Returns of Capital to StockholdersHalliburton Company (HAL) and Baker Hughes Incorporated (BHI) today announced a definitive agreement under which Halliburton will acquire all the outstanding shares of Baker Hughes in a stock and cash transaction. The transaction is valued at $78.62 per Baker Hughes share, representing an equity value of $34.6 billion and enterprise value of $38.0 billion, based on Halliburton’s closing price on November 12, 2014, the day prior to public confirmation by Baker Hughes that it was in talks with Halliburton regarding a transaction. Upon the completion of the transaction, Baker Hughes stockholders will own approximately 36 percent of the combined company. The agreement has been unanimously approved by both companies’ Boards of Directors. The transaction combines two highly complementary suites of products and services into a comprehensive offering to oil and natural gas customers. On a pro-forma basis the combined company had 2013 revenues of $51.8 billion, more than 136,000 employees and operations in more than 80 countries around the world. “We are pleased to announce this combination with Baker Hughes, which will create a bellwether global oilfield services company and offer compelling benefits for the stockholders, customers and other stakeholders of Baker Hughes and Halliburton,” said Dave Lesar, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Halliburton. “The transaction will combine the companies’ product and service capabilities to deliver an unsurpassed depth and breadth of solutions to our customers, creating a Houston-based global oilfield services champion, manufacturing and exporting technologies, and creating jobs and serving customers around the globe.” Lesar continued, “The stockholders of Baker Hughes will immediately receive a substantial premium and have the opportunity to participate in the significant upside potential of the combined company. Our stockholders know our management team and know we live up to our commitments. We know how to create value, how to execute, and how to integrate in order to make this combination successful. We expect the combination to yield annual cost synergies of nearly $2 billion. As such, we expect that the acquisition will be accretive to Halliburton’s cash flow by the end of the first year after closing and to earnings per share by the end of the second year. We anticipate that the combined company will also generate significant free cash flow, allowing for the return of substantial capital to stockholders.” Martin Craighead, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Baker Hughes said, “This brings our stockholders a significant premium and the opportunity to own a meaningful share in a larger, more competitive global company. By combining two great companies that have delivered cutting-edge solutions to customers in the worldwide oil and gas industry for more than a century, we will create a new world of opportunities to advance the development of technologies for our customers. We envision a combined company capable of achieving opportunities that neither company would have realized as well – or as quickly – on its own, all while creating exciting new opportunities for employees.” Lesar concluded, “We believe that the expertise of both companies’ employees and leaders will be a competitive advantage for the combined company. Together with the people of Baker Hughes, we will establish a team to develop a detailed and thoughtful integration plan to make the post-closing transition as seamless, efficient and productive as possible. We look forward to welcoming the talented employees of Baker Hughes and are pleased they will be joining the Halliburton team.” Transaction Terms and Approvals Under the terms of the agreement, stockholders of Baker Hughes will receive, for each Baker Hughes share, a fixed exchange ratio of 1.12 Halliburton shares plus $19.00 in cash. The value of the merger consideration as of November 12, 2014 represents 8.1 times current consensus 2014 EBITDA estimates and 7.2 times current consensus 2015 EBITDA estimates. The transaction value represents a premium of 40.8 percent to the stock price of Baker Hughes on October 10, 2014, the day prior to Halliburton's initial offer to Baker Hughes. And over longer time periods, based on the consideration, this represents a one year, three year and five year premium of 36.3 percent, 34.5 percent, and 25.9 percent, respectively. Halliburton intends to finance the cash portion of the acquisition through a combination of cash on hand and fully committed debt financing. The transaction is subject to approvals from each company’s stockholders, regulatory approvals and customary closing conditions. Halliburton’s and Baker Hughes’ internationally recognized advisors have evaluated the likely actions needed to obtain regulatory approval, and Halliburton and Baker Hughes are committed to completing this combination. Halliburton has agreed to divest businesses that generate up to $7.5 billion in revenues, if required by regulators, although Halliburton believes that the divestitures required will be significantly less. Halliburton has agreed to pay a fee of $3.5 billion if the transaction terminates due to a failure to obtain required antitrust approvals. Halliburton is confident that a combination is achievable from a regulatory standpoint. The transaction is expected to close in the second half of 2015. Related Quotes
Compelling Strategic and Financial Benefits
Headquarters, Management and Board of Directors The combined company will maintain the Halliburton name and continue to be traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol “HAL.” The company will be headquartered in Houston, Texas. Dave Lesar will continue as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the combined company. Following the completion of the transaction, the combined company’s Board of Directors is expected to expand to 15 members, three of whom will come from the Board of Baker Hughes. Concurrently with the execution of the merger agreement, Halliburton withdrew its slate of directors nominated for the Board of Directors of Baker Hughes. Advisors Credit Suisse is serving as lead financial advisor and BofA Merrill Lynch is also serving as financial advisor to Halliburton. Baker Botts L.L.P. and Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz are serving as Halliburton’s legal counsel. BofA Merrill Lynch, as lead arranger, and Credit Suisse are providing fully committed debt financing in support of the cash portion of the consideration. Goldman, Sachs & Co. is serving as financial advisor to Baker Hughes. Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP are serving as Baker Hughes’ legal counsel on this transaction. Conference Call Halliburton (HAL) and Baker Hughes (BHI) will host a conference call on Monday, November 17, 2014, to discuss the proposed business transaction. The call will begin at 7:00 AM Central Time (8:00 AM Eastern Time). An accompanying slide deck will be posted to both the Halliburton and Baker Hughes websites at www.halliburton.com and www.bakerhughes.com/investor. Please visit either website to listen to the call live via webcast. In addition, you may participate in the call by dialing (866) 225-4091 within North America or (703) 639-1128 outside North America. A passcode is not required. Attendees should log in to the webcast or dial in approximately 15 minutes prior to the call’s start time. A replay of the conference call will be available on both companies’ websites for seven days following the call. Also, a replay may be accessed by telephone at (888) 266-2081 within North America or (703) 925-2533 outside of North America, using the passcode 1648003. About Halliburton Founded in 1919, Halliburton is one of the world's largest providers of products and services to the energy industry. With more than 80,000 employees, representing 140 nationalities in over 80 countries, the company serves the upstream oil and gas industry throughout the lifecycle of the reservoir - from locating hydrocarbons and managing geological data, to drilling and formation evaluation, well construction and completion, and optimizing production through the life of the field. Visit the company’s website at www.halliburton.com. Connect with Halliburton onFacebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Oilpro and YouTube. About Baker Hughes Baker Hughes is a leading supplier of oilfield services, products, technology and systems to the worldwide oil and natural gas industry. The company's 61,000 employees today work in more than 80 countries helping customers find, evaluate, drill, produce, transport and process hydrocarbon resources. For more information on Baker Hughes, visit: www.bakerhughes.com. Forward-Looking Statements The statements in this press release that are not historical statements, including statements regarding the expected timetable for completing the proposed transaction, benefits and synergies of the proposed transaction, future opportunities for the combined company and products, future financial performance and any other statements regarding Halliburton’s and Baker Hughes’ future expectations, beliefs, plans, objectives, financial conditions, assumptions or future events or performance that are not historical facts, are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. These statements are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the company’s control, which could cause actual results to differ materially from the results expressed or implied by the statements. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to: failure to obtain the required votes of Halliburton’s or Baker Hughes’ stockholders; the timing to consummate the proposed transaction; satisfaction of the conditions to closing of the proposed transaction may not be satisfied or that the closing of the proposed transaction otherwise does not occur; the risk that a regulatory approval that may be required for the proposed transaction is not obtained or is obtained subject to conditions that are not anticipated; the diversion of management time on transaction-related issues; the ultimate timing, outcome and results of integrating the operations of Halliburton and Baker Hughes and the ultimate outcome of Halliburton’s operating efficiencies applied to Baker Hughes’ products and services; the effects of the business combination of Halliburton and Baker Hughes, including the combined company’s future financial condition, results of operations, strategy and plans; expected synergies and other benefits from the proposed transaction and the ability of Halliburton to realize such synergies and other benefits; expectations regarding regulatory approval of the transaction; results of litigation, settlements, and investigations; final court approval of, and the satisfaction of the conditions in, Halliburton’s September 2014 settlement relating to the Macondo well incident in the Gulf of Mexico; appeals of the multi-district litigation District Court's September 2014 ruling regarding Phase 1 of the trial, and future rulings of the District Court; results of litigation, settlements, and investigations not covered by the settlement or the District Court's rulings; actions by third parties, including governmental agencies, relating to the Macondo well incident; BP's April 2012 settlement relating to the Macondo well incident, indemnification, and insurance matters; with respect to repurchases of Halliburton common stock, the continuation or suspension of the repurchase program, the amount, the timing and the trading prices of Halliburton common stock, and the availability and alternative uses of cash; actions by third parties, including governmental agencies; changes in the demand for or price of oil and/or natural gas can be significantly impacted by weakness in the worldwide economy; consequences of audits and investigations by domestic and foreign government agencies and legislative bodies and related publicity and potential adverse proceedings by such agencies; protection of intellectual property rights and against cyber attacks; compliance with environmental laws; changes in government regulations and regulatory requirements, particularly those related to offshore oil and natural gas exploration, radioactive sources, explosives, chemicals, hydraulic fracturing services and climate-related initiatives; compliance with laws related to income taxes and assumptions regarding the generation of future taxable income; risks of international operations, including risks relating to unsettled political conditions, war, the effects of terrorism, and foreign exchange rates and controls, international trade and regulatory controls, and doing business with national oil companies; weather-related issues, including the effects of hurricanes and tropical storms; changes in capital spending by customers; delays or failures by customers to make payments owed to us; execution of long-term, fixed-price contracts; impairment of oil and natural gas properties; structural changes in the oil and natural gas industry; maintaining a highly skilled workforce; availability and cost of raw materials; and integration of acquired businesses and operations of joint ventures. Halliburton's and Baker Hughes’ respective reports on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2014, recent Current Reports on Form 8-K, and other U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) filings discuss some of the important risk factors identified that may affect these factors and Halliburton's and Baker Hughes’ respective business, results of operations and financial condition. Halliburton and Baker Hughes undertake no obligation to revise or update publicly any forward-looking statements for any reason. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements that speak only as of the date hereof. Additional Information This communication does not constitute an offer to buy or sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy or sell any securities or a solicitation of any vote or approval. This communication relates to a proposed business combination between Halliburton and Baker Hughes. In connection with this proposed business combination, Halliburton and/or Baker Hughes may file one or more proxy statements, registration statements, proxy statement/prospectus or other documents with the SEC. This communication is not a substitute for any proxy statement, registration statement, proxy statement/prospectus or other document Halliburton and/or Baker Hughes may file with the SEC in connection with the proposed transaction. INVESTORS AND SECURITY HOLDERS OF HALLIBURTON AND BAKER HUGHES ARE URGED TO READ THE PROXY STATEMENT(S), REGISTRATION STATEMENT(S), PROXY STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT MAY BE FILED WITH THE SEC CAREFULLY AND IN THEIR ENTIRETY IF AND WHEN THEY BECOME AVAILABLE BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION. Any definitive proxy statement(s) (if and when available) will be mailed to stockholders of Halliburton and/or Baker Hughes, as applicable. Investors and security holders will be able to obtain free copies of these documents (if and when available) and other documents filed with the SEC by Halliburton and/or Baker Hughes through the website maintained by the SEC at http://www.sec.gov. Copies of the documents filed with the SEC by Halliburton will be available free of charge on Halliburton’s internet website athttp://www.halliburton.com or by contacting Halliburton’s Investor Relations Department by email at investors@Halliburton.com or by phone at +1-281-871-2688. Copies of the documents filed with the SEC by Baker Hughes will be available free of charge on Baker Hughes’ internet website at http://www.bakerhughes.com or by contacting Baker Hughes’ Investor Relations Department by email at trey.clark@bakerhughes.com or alondra.oteyza@bakerhughes.com or by phone at +1-713-439-8039 or +1-713-439-8822. Participants in Solicitation Halliburton, Baker Hughes, their respective directors and certain of their respective executive officers may be considered participants in the solicitation of proxies in connection with the proposed transaction. Information about the directors and executive officers of Halliburton is set forth in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013, which was filed with the SEC on February 7, 2014, its proxy statement for its 2014 annual meeting of stockholders, which was filed with the SEC on April 8, 2014, its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2014 which was filed with the SEC on October 24, 2014 and its Current Report on Form 8-K, which was filed with the SEC on October 20, 2014. Information about the directors and executive officers of Baker Hughes is set forth in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013, which was filed with the SEC on February 12, 2014, its proxy statement for its 2014 annual meeting of stockholders, which was filed with the SEC on March 5, 2014, its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2014 which was filed with the SEC on October 21, 2014 and its Current Reports on Form 8-K, which were filed with the SEC on June 10, 2014 and September 10, 2014. These documents can be obtained free of charge from the sources indicated above. Additional information regarding the participants in the proxy solicitations and a description of their direct and indirect interests, by security holdings or otherwise, will be contained in the proxy statement/prospectus and other relevant materials to be filed with the SEC when they become available. Join the conversation about this story »  | ||
| |
Halliburton is buying Baker Hughes for $34.6 billion, the company has announced.
This Simple Mathematical Formula Proves That We Lie About Sex | ||
| | ||
A new study on kissing in the microbiology journal Microbiome contains an interesting statistical discrepancy that demonstrates the way men and women lie about sex. The heart of the study is solid — It suggests that people who kiss frequently end up sharing their oral bacteria. But a section of the study briefly addresses a statistic that proves some of the people in the study must have been misreporting their numbers. The study was of couples, and there was an equal number of men and women. Yet the average number of intimate kisses per day reported by the men was twice the number of those reported by the women. This is a statistical impossibility. Men and women ought to report the same average number of kisses, and you can prove that with math. The fact that the numbers mismatch demonstrates that someone in the study was either exaggerating or downplaying the number of kisses they received, as the authors of the study helpfully point out: We calculated all the average kiss frequencies and average periods past after the latest kiss. Strikingly, 74% of the men reported higher intimate kiss frequencies than the women of the same couple, resulting in a male average of 10 and a female average of five intimate kisses per day (Additional file 3). This probably results from male over reporting, as previously noted in an analysis of self-reports on sexual behaviour, including number of partners and frequency of intercourse, in particular among unmarried couples [8]. This difference comes up most often when we talk about the average number of sex partners people have. The media frequently reports that heterosexual men have more sexual partners than straight women. This, as a matter of mathematical logic, must be wrong because every time a man has sex with a woman, a woman must be having sex with a man. The total amount of sex must be equal, and the total number of partners on either side must be equal. So the averages must be equal, too. But people get confused when talking about the entire population. Some people have more sex partners than others, so it feels reasonable to say that on average men may have more sex partners than women. Across the entire population, however, this cannot be true. Sex researchers have been aware for a long time that the data they often publish is "wrong" because of this problem. They assume that a double-standard is in effect: men exaggerate and women under-report, because it burnishes men's reputations to be thought of as a Casanova, and because women face criticism for doing the same thing. Here's a simple mathematical example to demonstrate that men and women actually have the same average number of sex partners. Imagine a tango dancing event with 10 men and 10 women. It's a pretty terrible tango session, however: One woman dances with each of the 10 men, and the other nine women dance with nobody. The whole thing is being filmed so that researchers don't need to ask the dancers how many people they danced with. The math here is easy: Both genders have an average of one dance partner. On the side of the men, the 10 men had one dance each, so 10 x 1 = 10, and 10 divided by 10 = 1. On the side of the women, one woman had 10 dances and nine women had zero dances. So 1 x 10 = 10, and 9 x 0 = 0. 10+0 = 10, and 10 divided by 10 = 1. Everyone has an average of one dance each. This logic tells you all you need to know about sex: The average must be the sum of all the encounters divided by the number of people having them, and that because it always takes two to tango the average number on both sides must be equal. Of course, it would actually be more useful to know the median (or middle) number of partners, or the mode (most recorded) number of partners. In our dance example, the median and the mode for men are the same: 1. For women, the median and mode are both zero. The two numbers describe a slight difference in the dance history of the two genders. But despite our statistical outlier — the woman who had nine dance partners — we can still say that men and women have either zero or one dances each. Similar, but with a slight difference, and quite close to the average anyway despite the very popular outlying female dancer. What is interesting about the data in the kissing survey is the excessive difference in the reported average (men reported double the number of kisses). And, sure enough, the researchers had to discard some of their data when they realised that the numbers showed one of the men was lying: One report of an average of 50 intimate kisses per day over the last year (Additional file 3) was according to the opinion of the authors unrealistically high ... and showed a large discrepancy with the self-reported kiss frequency of his partner of eight intimate kisses per day. Therefore, we excluded the kiss frequency of this couple from the correlation analysis with the kiss frequencies and MH indices in this study. Join the conversation about this story »  | ||
| |
The Germans Just Don't Seem To Care That We're On The Brink Of A Continent-Wide Recession | ||
| | ||
Bundesbank boss Jens Weidmann, the man most closely associated with Germany's opposition to easier monetary policy, is slamming the brakes on expectations that the European Central Bank will finally go for quantitative easing (QE). The European economy is slowing down, and there is a danger of both a new recession and deflation across the continent. The ECB has already made money as cheap as possible for investors to borrow by holding interest rates down close to zero. QE would be the next step — a programme in which the ECB buys various assets from banks largely to inject new cash into the system. Germany, once the economic powerhouse of the continent, is itself teetering on the brink of contraction — and yet the Germans don't seem to want to do anything about it. Weidmann, speaking to Handelsblatt, a German business newspaper, said the Germans would prefer to be debt-free:
He added that Germany shouldn't offer Europe a stimulatory boost with fiscal policy — i.e. government spending — either. Germany could easily boost its government spending and stay within the reasonable debt cap of 3% of GDP. But that ain't happening:
ECB president Mario Draghi has hinted that the ECB will go for QE. BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank, and Bank of America expect that the purchases of government debt will start in 2015. Draghi's continued insistence that the ECB will add about €1 trillion ($1.25 trillion) to its balance sheet would probably need full QE. The bank is already buying some bonds and securities, but the markets in those assets are probably too small to reach such a big goal. The ECB could push for QE without Weidmann, but it's previously been keen to get unanimous decisions, so as not to alienate big European economies like Germany. These sort of comments might make some analysts rethink the likelihood of QE for Europe. Join the conversation about this story »  | ||
| |
The Lib Dems Are About To Showcase Everything That's Wrong With The UK's Voting System | ||
| | ||
Yet the party that has pushed most vociferously for a change in Britain's "first-past-the-post" voting system than any other also looks set to be its biggest beneficiary. Even with a much diminished share of the vote, they could still hold the balance of power. Over the past two years a clear picture has begun to emerge over more than 1,000 political polls. While Labour have maintained a lead over the Conservatives it has been gradually eroding. Those losses may previously have lead to gains for the UK's longstanding third party — the Lib Dems — but not any more it seems.
Based on share of the national vote the third party at next year's election looks set to be Nigel Farage's UK Independence Party (UKIP), which surged to levels of popularity not enjoyed by the Lib Dems since 2010. Meanwhile the latter's support has fallen into single digits, a calamitous fall from the 23% the party won at the last General Election. However, under the first-past-the-post system a party's share of the national vote doesn't necessarily translate into a similar share of seats in parliament. Here's what the polls current suggest about the projected number of seats in parliament (a government needs over 325 seats for a majority):
So based on this metric UKIP's surge in the polls may translate to as little as 4 parliamentary seats while the UK's third biggest party by seats could be the Scottish National Party (SNP), the same party that lead the charge to pull Scotland out of the country in September's independence referendum. To compound the irony, it could achieve this feat by winning only 3.2% of the national vote. The Lib Dems, meanwhile, would become the fourth-largest party despite a projected loss of as many as 36 of the seats it won four years ago, and a sharp drop in its share of the national vote (although it's still expected to be around three times larger than the SNP's share). If the current forecasts prove relatively accurate, what is abundantly clear is that for even a minority government to be formed a deal will have to be done with either the Lib Dems and/or the SNP. This will give both significant bargaining power — perhaps even more so than after the 2010 elections where the Conservatives won almost 50 seats more than Labour. This time both will be in a strong position to woo smaller parties. At the very least this is likely to mean a return to coalition government with the Lib Dems holding a number of powerful cabinet rolls. It seems, at least in the UK, losing almost half of your voters these days is not such a disaster after all. Join the conversation about this story »  | ||
| |
Barring a sudden reversal of fortune over the next six months, the Liberal Democrats are going to lose big in the General Election next May.
