|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: UK Election 2015
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
All agreed, but constituency size matters too.
Take average constituency sizes: these are
- Wales 56,628
- Scotland 65,475
- England 71,858
Even within England, the average Labour MP represented constituency has 70,252 voters against the Conservative represented constituency of 72,816.
And compounding that is the fact that Labour tends to win in constituencies with lower voter turnout: at the 2010 election the average turnout in a Labour won constituency was 61.1% against 68.3% where a conservative won: in England that means a Conservative has to get a majority from 49,733, a Labour MP from 42,924.
The reason why UKIP is likely to damage the Conservatives far more than the other two main parties is that older people are more likely to vote, and are more likely to vote for a right-wing party: that's why Labour should worry about its traditional heartlands in England going UKIP because its their elderly voters who're more likely to desert them.
(Apparently its not only turning out to vote where the elderly are more conscientious either: they are also more likely to ask for a postal vote if they know they're going to be away and more likely to use it. That's why electoral fraud should be taken more seriously in constituencies with large numbers of younger voters.)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Then again, the entire country is owned and run by Conservatives for Conservatives, so why does this matter?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Also, another difference to the description of the US presented above is that in general by-elections in the UK have a higher turn-out than general elections.
I'm not sure that's actually true:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_by-election_records#Turnout_increased_from_general_election
That'll teach me to post on impressions gained in media reporting of by-elections rather thatn checking facts.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
(Apparently its not only turning out to vote where the elderly are more conscientious either: they are also more likely to ask for a postal vote if they know they're going to be away and more likely to use it. That's why electoral fraud should be taken more seriously in constituencies with large numbers of younger voters.)
Somewhere in that line of reasoning there appears to be a gap. I don't see the link between the elderly being more likely to vote and voter fraud being a more serious issue in constituencies with younger voters.
Does that mean you consider younger voters to be more likely to engage in electoral fraud? Or, that fraud is more likely for people at the polling station than for postal votes (with greater representation by the elderly)?
Indeed, I would quite like to see evidence that there is a significant issue with electoral fraud at all.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
IIRC, the voter fraud that most concerns the authorities is postal vote fraud. It's one of the reasons why they've gone for individual, rather than household, registration.
Of course, they've then disenfranchised a whole bunch of other people, but those people can still register (just).
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Alan Cresswell quote:
Somewhere in that line of reasoning there appears to be a gap. I don't see the link between the elderly being more likely to vote and voter fraud being a more serious issue in constituencies with younger voters.
Does that mean you consider younger voters to be more likely to engage in electoral fraud? Or, that fraud is more likely for people at the polling station than for postal votes (with greater representation by the elderly)?
1. With the exception of care homes and the like, older voters are very unlikely to live in HMOs, which have been highlighted as of major concern in postal vote fraud at the last two elections.
2. No, I do not consider younger voters more likely to engage in electoral fraud, but areas where they live are more likely to suffer from postal voting fraud carried out by ???
There have been cases where older people have been registered for a postal vote without their knowledge and they've then turned up at the polling station: the introduction of signatures for postal voting was meant to put a stop to this.
I say 'meant to' because, as the ongoing trial of Lutfur Rahman is hearing, a signature on a form requesting a postal ballot is no guarantee against later fraud.
The report of the Electotal Commission into Electoral Fraud (published January 2014) makes it clear that although not widespread, there is a problem with electoral fraud in some areas and that those steps which have so far been taken to reduce fraud in postal voting are not adequate.
Electoral fraud is more likely in some areas than others and where it is a problem it may well occur both at polling stations and via the postal voting system.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
For some younger people it does seem to be a bit about that they don't really know who to vote for, so they end up not doing it.
I'm not sure if that makes sense, so an example is the guys I work with. We were talking a few weeks ago about politics and whether they were going to vote. One of them said he doesn't know who to vote for, and he doesn't know what people mean when they say "Left wing", "Right Wing" or whatever, so although he thinks he probably should vote, he might not bother. He's 27, and certainly not stupid in any way, he just doesn't know about stuff like that.
That said, many people vote for what they think a party is or believes in or stands for, without actually knowing about their policies. I reckon that the Vote for Policies site (which updates to the 2015 manifesto stuff on February 19th) and The Political Compass site would be really useful and interesting for both those groups of people. They've certainly helped consolidate and confirm who I'll be voting for (I'm happy to be a watermelon, and anyone who thinks that makes me mentally ill, well, I have mental health issues anyway, and it doesn't make me any less of a person or my views less valid, so that's just dandy with me, thanks ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) )
The first of those shows you policies with no party attached (although some are glaringly obvious which party they're from), and at the end shows you a nice little pie-chart and breakdown of how you voted on each area.
The second shows you where-ish you stand on a Left-Right economic scale along with a vertical Libertarian-Authoritarian scale, and summarises what it means by those things and how they relate to the parties.
Both are interesting and can be a bit of a surprise. Worth a look, and quite illuminating.
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
I reckon that the Vote for Policies site (which updates to the 2015 manifesto stuff on February 19th) and The Political Compass site would be really useful and interesting for both those groups of people.
...
Both are interesting and can be a bit of a surprise. Worth a look, and quite illuminating.
According to the first link I'm 40% Lib Dem, 40% UKIP and 20% Conservative. According to the second I'm economically right wing and socially libertarian.
Aside from the Lib Dems and Tories being the other way round than I'd expected, there aren't many surprises there.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I've had a very quick look at that. It seems that Evangelicals are more likely than the populace as a whole to vote etc. The only problem is that the survey was largely confined to folk who responded via the EA website or email solicitation - i.e. those who were interested enough to do so. It could be that there is a vast "silent majority" of Evangelicals who are far less engaged than the survey might suggest. I'm not saying that the EA has got it wrong, merely that such are the limitations of surveys.
[ 20. February 2015, 17:55: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
I'm 83% green, 17% Labour on Vote for Policies and just off the scale as a leftist libertarian on The Political Compass. I'm usually somewhere thereabouts but I reckon the Political Compass has recalibrated as we have lurched towards to the authoritarian right in recent years.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
This is my Vote for Policies result.
On the Political Compass I'm pretty solidly West & South.
Nothing surprising to me there. I do like the slightly changed format on the Vote for Policies site now, where you make up a shortlist for each policy area, then chose from amongst those. I think it made me think a bit more about what my priorities are.
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
So, now Parliament's been dissolved and the Election Campaign has officially begun, what are you thinking?
Could the ascendancy of smaller parties make this one more interesting?
Is there any chance of the UK moving towards real Left Wing politics in the nearish future? The left wing option is the Green Party (and Left Unity )- but are the Greens doomed to be hamstrung by tactical voting?
And UKIP - bloody hell. The more I hear of them, the more frightening it is that people vote for them.
(also, I did like Pyx_e's description in Hell of "freaky lying puppets" on the news)
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
So, now Parliament's been dissolved and the Election Campaign has officially begun, what are you thinking?
Mostly, I'm thinking that I am glad that I don't live in the UK any more.
It seems clear that Cameron is going to lead a very personalised and abusive campaign against Milliband (aided as always by the massed ranks of the right-wing press). I suspect that - to a certain degree - this will be successful, although at the cost of reducing still further the opinions of "yer av'rage punter" with regards to politicians.
Farage will win his seat. Carswell will retain his for UKIP. Overall, UKIP will benefit in comparison to the mud-slinging activities of the Tories.
Labour and the SNP will just about get enough seats to form an alliance between them. But the cost of meeting the ever-increasing demands of the SNP will quickly destroy the credibility of a Milliband government.
In the meantime, the Tories will ditch Cameron and go for Boris, who will be installed as leader just in time for another election (caused by the SNP demands eventually becoming impossible to meet). General Election 2016 will then see the Tories easily come home to a majority (especially as the "Boris Factor" will quickly dispel the appeal of Farage).
In the meantime, the Lib Dems will disintegrate. What remains of their MPs will be further reduced when a small group jump ship and join Labour.
There! Sorted!
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
<snip>
Labour and the SNP will just about get enough seats to form an alliance between them. But the cost of meeting the ever-increasing demands of the SNP will quickly destroy the credibility of a Milliband government.
</snip>
Ed Milliband has ruled out an alliance with the SNP, saying he would not give them any cabinet places in any government he was leader of.
He hasn't ruled out a "confidence and supply" deal with them though, where the SNP supported Labour on a vote by vote basis.
However, lots of Labour MPs are apparently willing to work with the SNP to force Milliband further left in any government arrangement, and prevent cuts to spending etc etc.
With the SNP on course to batter Labour in Scotland (according to the poles), and all the UKIP stuff, it's certainly going to be the most fascinating election for ages.
And that's my biggest prediction - it'll be interesting ;-)
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Some kind of informal deal between Labour and the SNP (or A N Other) could well be on. Remember the Lib-Lab pact of the late seventies which kept the Callaghan government in power for 18 months despite no overall majority. It only covered motions of "No Confidence", but the existence of the pact kept the government in place.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
A suspect that no single party will get an overall majority. But, who has the seats to carry the balance of power will be interesting.
I hope that UKIP flop. But, realistically 2-3 seats might go that way. More significantly, the impact on Tory seats elsewhere will be interesting. If there are enough defectors to UKIP that may give a space for Labour or the Libdems to sneak in. If that happens in enough places where the LibDems currently hold the seat or where they were close second then UKIP may just save their bacon.
So options.
1. Tories the largest party. They won't do a deal with UKIP, even if UKIP hold enough seats to make it worthwhile. I doubt that the LibDems would be happy about going into coalition again, but they may be in a good position to wring a deal out of Cameron that works a lot better for them than 5 years ago - but, would effectively send all their left wingers packing and end them as a party (what's left might as well join the Tories).
2. Labour the largest party. SNP have said they won't form a coalition. There may be enough LibDems to tip the balance, maybe even a Green or two. It would be a better coalition for them than with the Tories. An "understanding" with the SNP and PC might enable Labour to run a minority government.
3. Tories slightly the largest party, but the combination of Labour and SNP/PC reaches a small majority. SNP have said no to a coalition, but if the alternative was a minority Tory government ...
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Yes, no cabinet ministers isn't equivalent to no alliance at all.
An interesting post-election possibility is the emergence of a progressive 'front'-type party, comprising the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
I saw on the news at lunchtime that in Clegg's own constituency, Lib Dems are behind Labour. So them needing a new leader in the immediate aftermath of the election could be a juicy twist as well. I wonder if they've already plotted who should get it next? Although if their leader could lose his seat, who knows who might be available...
Nigel Farage has said that if he didn't win he'd have to stand down as he couldn't run his parliamentary party from a pub over the road from Westminster. So, he must be expecting to either got no seats at all, or at least his and a few more. (Although watching UKIP get none would be hilarious, whatever else happened).
I presume that the SNP accept that they won't be able to get another referendum out of anyone, so are they just going for "more cash and more powers for Holyrood?" They also seem to have an interesting twist in the leadership stakes if Salmond wins a Westminster seat. Sturgeon has clearly said she remains in charge no matter what, but that could be an interesting dynamic as well.
How about - no clear winner, everyone hates the nationalists, Con/Lab coalition? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
I presume that the SNP accept that they won't be able to get another referendum out of anyone, so are they just going for "more cash and more powers for Holyrood?"
They're a left-of-centre party going for left-of-centre policies. They've been campaigning against e.g.Trident for years (decades?) and they will continue to do so.
In the run up to gaining the devolved Parliament at Holyrood they may have been a one-trick pony party, but the experience of being the opposition party for several years and the main party since 2007 means that they are no longer all about independence.
[ 01. April 2015, 13:47: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
If the Tories win, or form a government, wouldn't the pressure for independence become irresistible? The negative comments about the SNP might also have an effect, as some people seem to be almost saying that they have no right to any influence at Westminster. Eh?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If the Tories win, or form a government, wouldn't the pressure for independence become irresistible? The negative comments about the SNP might also have an effect, as some people seem to be almost saying that they have no right to any influence at Westminster. Eh?
I'm not sure why it would up the pressure for independence. After all, Labour don't support independence either, so why are the Tories "worse" from that perspective?
I think for most people, the question of "English votes for English laws" isn't just about nationalist parties voting. Some people feel that Scottish MPs shouldn't vote on issues in Westminster when the matter is devolved in Scotland, as their constituents won't be affected (directly at least).
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If the Tories win, or form a government, wouldn't the pressure for independence become irresistible? The negative comments about the SNP might also have an effect, as some people seem to be almost saying that they have no right to any influence at Westminster. Eh?
I'm not sure why it would up the pressure for independence. After all, Labour don't support independence either, so why are the Tories "worse" from that perspective?
I think for most people, the question of "English votes for English laws" isn't just about nationalist parties voting. Some people feel that Scottish MPs shouldn't vote on issues in Westminster when the matter is devolved in Scotland, as their constituents won't be affected (directly at least).
I thought that the day after the referendum, Cameron made a rather startling speech, which seemed to go against the emollient stuff about 'stay with us'. Well, it seemed pretty abrasive. But it's probably correct that hostility to Labour has grown, and Brown and Murphy are attracting some opprobrium.
But wouldn't some SNP activists hope for a Tory govt, well covertly at least, on the grounds that the enemy is in plain sight?
[ 01. April 2015, 14:16: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
For what it's worth ("very little" I hear you cry!), here's my tuppence at the moment:
Conservatives to lose some marginals to Labour, but Labour to lose badly in Scotland to the SNP.
I don't think the Lib Dems will do quite as badly as most polls predict, for the reason that most Lib Dem marginals have the Tories in 2nd place. Disaffected Lib Dem voters are unlikely to switch to Labour given the risk of allowing the Tories in (something they wouldn't have had to worry about if the Yes campaign for AV had prevailed). The exception to this might be in Sheffield Hallam, where the latest
Ashcroft Poll has Nick Clegg swapping his seat in the House of Commons for one on a sofa with Andrew Neil and Michael Portillo.
If the SNP do hold the balance of power, I wouldn't be surprised if they asked a Labour team to head to Glasgow or Edinburgh for coalition talks rather than go down to London themselves.
My current bet is that the SNP will demand too much, Labour won't go into coalition, form a minority government, fail a vote of confidence when it comes to the first budget and then have to call another general election.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If the Tories win, or form a government, wouldn't the pressure for independence become irresistible? The negative comments about the SNP might also have an effect, as some people seem to be almost saying that they have no right to any influence at Westminster. Eh?
Yes, before the referendum we had Cameron saying "we want you to say" and now he's saying "we want you to stay, but we don't want you you to exercise your democratic right to vote for the party of your choice, instead we want you to vote for one of the main Westminster parties."
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Cameron also seems to be saying that the SNP are not entitled to support Labour, although he has spent 5 years being supported by the LibDems. Also, the argument that a vote for Labour is a vote for the SNP, can be turned round. In some scenarios, a vote for the Tories gives the SNP the balance of power.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
I think fundamentally, Cameron's premise is that no party that favours the union ought to dependent on a party that opposes it, since the union is something that most Tories hold dearest of all.
If the SNP just want to be left wing, that argument doesn't really hold water. Some of the press I've read since earlier on said that Salmonds tactic will just be to extract so many concessions that the union will fall apart in practice anyway - although quite how that happens, I don't know.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I just remembered that a number of journalists have been commenting recently that Cameron's tactics seem designed to break up the UK. However, it's more likely that he's desperate to win.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I think fundamentally, Cameron's premise is that no party that favours the union ought to dependent on a party that opposes it, since the union is something that most Tories hold dearest of all.
If the SNP just want to be left wing, that argument doesn't really hold water. Some of the press I've read since earlier on said that Salmonds tactic will just be to extract so many concessions that the union will fall apart in practice anyway - although quite how that happens, I don't know.
That's quite a clever argument; but it does suggest that some ideas cannot be represented in parliament, doesn't it? But I should think that Labour will be nervous about it, as if they form a minority govt, which collapses, the Tories will go very hard with 'Labour supports the breakup of the UK' in a second election, God forbid.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
For years, Scottish Labour could have had a roll of loft insulation elected as a Scottish MP. The Tories were unpopular, and the SNP lacked credibility.
Now that the SNP have been in power in Holyrood they have gained credibility, even amongst voters who aren't fussed about independence.
Labour are collapsing in Scotland because they were too complacent for too long.
I know some media are portraying the upsurge in SNP support as rising nationalism, but that is too simplistic. The SNP are picking up votes from people who want a left-of-centre party, and who are disillusioned with Scottish Labour.
Jim Murphy is seen as part of the Labour ethos which is being rejected. For example, his track record on claiming expenses has alienated many Labour voters. Labour would have been better off choosing someone younger / fresher / untainted by previous scandals as their new leader.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
I think a lot of what happens after the election is going to be dependent on how desperate the main parties are to get back in, versus how much bare faced cheek and hypocrisy they are prepared to be charged with.
It could even be that Labour or Conservatives are going to be prepared to sit back and give the others a go at a minority government in the expectation that it would fold within six months and then they'll be able to get a majority next time.
That could then backfire if it didn't collapse, or if people found they liked the biggest party enough to give them a majority at the next election, instead of flipping back to the opposition.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I think a lot of what happens after the election is going to be dependent on how desperate the main parties are to get back in, versus how much bare faced cheek and hypocrisy they are prepared to be charged with.
It could even be that Labour or Conservatives are going to be prepared to sit back and give the others a go at a minority government in the expectation that it would fold within six months and then they'll be able to get a majority next time.
That could then backfire if it didn't collapse, or if people found they liked the biggest party enough to give them a majority at the next election, instead of flipping back to the opposition.
Yes, it's squeaky bum time, and probably also sleazy time, lies, more lies, manipulated statistics, and did I mention lies.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I hope that UKIP flop. But, realistically 2-3 seats might go that way. More significantly, the impact on Tory seats elsewhere will be interesting. If there are enough defectors to UKIP that may give a space for Labour or the Libdems to sneak in. If that happens in enough places where the LibDems currently hold the seat or where they were close second then UKIP may just save their bacon.
Also, UKIP gets a lot of support from disgruntled Labour voters. It will be interesting to see whether this affects results, esp. in the north.
I expect Douglas Carswell will hold his seat but wouldn't be surprised if he's the sole UKIP MP. I think we've reached peak UKIP.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I'm hoping for that fine line between UKIP crashing and UKIP doing well enough to win seats, so that they split the right-wing vote and neither they nor the Tories get elected.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm hoping for that fine line between UKIP crashing and UKIP doing well enough to win seats, so that they split the right-wing vote and neither they nor the Tories get elected.
Keep hoping...
I could be wrong, of course, but it seems to me that while UKIP is successful in the air war (with Farage popping up on television constantly) they fail at the ground war. Their party organisation is a joke and they don't have a well-organised activist base. Who from UKIP will knock up voters on polling day? Who, in fact, will have canvassed would-be UKIP voters in the first place?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Whatever they were formed for it seems that UKIP do not want to debate Europe. Their election poster, of escalators on the cliffs of Dover, means that the debate of membership of the EU is not going to be argued by the party whose name is all about that issue. Instead it is the old, old campaigning of the extremists, not about policies but scaring people into voting.
If they don't wish to debate the reason the party were formed, what are they scared of?
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
I still think the likely outcomes are Con/Lib Dem or Lab / SNP / Plaid.
The former would be another coalition, the latter might be a less formal arrangement.
Most amusing would be if the Lib Dems held the balance of power between either Con /UKIP and Labour and the lefties.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Most amusing would be if the Lib Dems held the balance of power between either Con /UKIP and Labour and the lefties.
Most intriguing would be if the Lib Dems held the balance of power and Nick Clegg loses his seat.
Clearly, he'd have to resign his leadership, but would he do so immediately, leaving Malcolm Bruce in charge of coalition talks or would he try to steer the ship before walking the plank?
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
I'm looking forward to seeing the Leaders' Debate on ITV this evening. I wonder how it'll go (and hope that Natalie Bennett manages to communicate her points effectively). I'm going to be out this evening, but I'm Sky+ing it, and planning to watch it tomorrow morning before I head out to work.
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
I don't think I'm going to watch it. Seven seems too many to allow points to be made well in the time available. I agree that it's very difficlut to discriminate as all those seven parties have a legitimate claim to be represented.
And for better or for worse, Farage is a very good publicist and will come across well. If the others all leave him alone, he'll be able to do his line, and if everyone else gangs up on him he'll sit there shouting about why they all want to do that.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Most amusing would be if the Lib Dems held the balance of power between either Con /UKIP and Labour and the lefties.
Most intriguing would be if the Lib Dems held the balance of power and Nick Clegg loses his seat.
Clearly, he'd have to resign his leadership, but would he do so immediately, leaving Malcolm Bruce in charge of coalition talks or would he try to steer the ship before walking the plank?
Malcolm Bruce isn't standing for re-election. He's 70, and AFAIK retiring. Unless I've missed something?
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Malcolm Bruce isn't standing for re-election. He's 70, and AFAIK retiring. Unless I've missed something?
Hadn't clocked that. I stand corrected.
I just looked up who was deputy leader of the Lib Dems. So they could end up with no leader and no deputy leader.
I'd be willing to bet Tim Farron will be leader in 6 months' time.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
I said this somewhere else the other day, but the LibDems best hope for their long term survival is that whatever happens the day after doesn't involve them and they can sit the next five years out in opposition.
If they go in again with the Tories then people will question what the point of them is, but at least they've been good cop to the bad cop, if you like.
However, if they now go in with Labour, and have to spend the next 5 years as bad cop stopping the nice Labour party from buying all the good things the country wants then they really are in trouble.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amika
Shipmate
# 15785
|
Posted
I can't be dispassionate about this. I am terrified of another Tory government; not only for myself, but for all the disabled and unemployed people (and carers) I read on forums talking of suicide if the Tories get back in, and for what will happen to the NHS, and to my country in general.
Britain is already far more spiteful and less tolerant, and five more years of Tory austerity and scapegoating of anyone who suffers misfortune will make this country a hell to live in unless you have plenty of money (and even then, poor policing, poor NHS, and loss of safety nets will affect even the well off).
I think anyone who plans to ruin their ballot paper or vote for a party which has no hope of altering the present situation is making a mistake they will come to regret. I have no love of neoliberal Labour, but I will be voting Labour because they are the 'least worst' of any party that can do something, and I do believe they will save and protect the NHS, reverse the 'bedroom tax' and not subject the country to 12bn of benefits cuts. Hopefully they will do better than that, but no one else who can get in will do more. If Left Unity or the Greens could get in I would vote for one of them.
A 'rainbow coalition' that I hear some people talk about as a great opportunity seems highly unlikely to me. The most likely coalition I see forming is Tory/UKIP/LibDem, and then heaven help us.
If I believed in God I would be praying!
Posts: 147 | From: Ingerland | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
According to the Political Compass website's reckoning , Labour & LibDem aren't that much different in terms of their left-right positioning, and LibDem are noticeably more libertarian than authoritarian so LibDem in a Lab/Lib coalition might not end up being too much of the 'bad cop'.
Actually, I'm surprised, I would have thought of LibDem as mostly more left than Labour are now after the great Tony bLiar New Labour. Sure, there are probably some leftists left there, but the Party and its whip doesn't strike me as a voice for socialism.
I guess LibDem might have been analysed as more right than they were last election after this term of coalition.
I'm hoping the Greens might add to their one MP - and certainly hoping Caroline Lucas will retain her Brighton seat. Whatever else happens, it looks like this election might be an even clearer than in the past illustration of how First Past the Post is not a workable system in the UK now.
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I can't see anyone forming a coalition with UKIP. They'll get about five seats at the most, and it must be easier to govern with five short of a majority than negotiate an agreement with UKIP.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
If Left Unity or the Greens could get in I would vote for one of them.
If everyone who said that did, there might be hope for change, and some sort of arrest in the right-wing slide of this country. This Guardian article has some good reasons to vote as you feel convicted, rather than to just go with cynical tactical 'least-worst' voting.
I'd agree with you, Greens (and Left Unity, although I know less about them) appear to me to be the only moral options. I'll be voting Green. Another article , sums some of the reasons why (and I need to get offline and go and do the things I should be doing on my day off now, so I'll use a quote from there!)
quote:
It isn’t just an emotive argument against tactical voting though. There are a number of pragmatic concerns especially relevant to the coming general election where a hung parliament looks the most likely result. Chief among these is the fact that national share of the vote is likely to be a significant consideration in deducing who has the legitimacy to form the next government, and indeed which policies should be adopted in the event of a coalition. More than this though, national share has a profound consequence for the long term future and rhetoric of all the national parties. For example, if the Green Party were to lose its Brighton seat it is quite conceivable that they could claim an upward trajectory based on an increased national vote share.
Now there will no doubt be those who cry foul of the electoral system we are stuck with in any consideration of tactical voting. On this it is important to note that a context of widespread tactical voting provides a shaky platform for reform of any kind.
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Heavenly Anarchist
Shipmate
# 13313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Actually, I'm surprised, I would have thought of LibDem as mostly more left than Labour are now after the great Tony bLiar New Labour. Sure, there are probably some leftists left there, but the Party and its whip doesn't strike me as a voice for socialism.
I guess LibDem might have been analysed as more right than they were last election after this term of coalition.
It was always an alliance of liberals and lefties in the Lib Dems but that didn't seem to matter whilst they weren't in government. Polling after the coalition formed seemed to indicate a split as the left wing activists jumped ship, to Labour and Greens presumably. So they are probably more right wing now than they were previously.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Clegg lost his seat and Farron got the leadership. It would be interesting to know how that would then affect membership though.
--------------------
'I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.' Douglas Adams
Dog Activity Monitor
My shop
Posts: 2831 | From: Trumpington | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Malcolm Bruce isn't standing for re-election. He's 70, and AFAIK retiring. Unless I've missed something?
Hadn't clocked that. I stand corrected.
I just looked up who was deputy leader of the Lib Dems. So they could end up with no leader and no deputy leader.
I'd be willing to bet Tim Farron will be leader in 6 months' time.
I expect Vince Cable to be a temporary leader then depending on whether they go into partnership he or Danny Alexander will be the de facto leader. If the party doesn't go into power to some extent then Tim Farron is likely to get the job (so long as he keeps his seat!).
On the subject of UKIP the best that could happen would be for some utter novices to get elected, then it would be obvious how useless they really are. That was often the situation with surprise by-election winners in the past.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Actually, I'm surprised, I would have thought of LibDem as mostly more left than Labour are now after the great Tony bLiar New Labour. Sure, there are probably some leftists left there, but the Party and its whip doesn't strike me as a voice for socialism.
I guess LibDem might have been analysed as more right than they were last election after this term of coalition.
It was always an alliance of liberals and lefties in the Lib Dems but that didn't seem to matter whilst they weren't in government. Polling after the coalition formed seemed to indicate a split as the left wing activists jumped ship, to Labour and Greens presumably. So they are probably more right wing now than they were previously.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Clegg lost his seat and Farron got the leadership. It would be interesting to know how that would then affect membership though.
I agree with this - they're left where they're the candidate for "Labour can't win here - keep the Tories out" candidate (usually in rural areas), and in the cities they're right where they stand as "the Tories can't win here - keep Labour out"
Basically, since 1987 they've ducked any attempt to form a coherent view of the world and when it comes down to it still function as "the Liberal Party and the SDP who've narrowly passed a vote to co-operate for the time being."
Going into coalition with the Tories caused a mass desertion of the members who'd voted for them as a protest at Labour becoming too right wing, and now (scrabbling madly for the poll from the other week and will add if I find it) they're in the position that the majority of LibDem MPs see another coalition with the Tories as their preferred outcome for the next Parliament over one with Labour...
What the membership think may well be another matter entirely - and given the way the federal party is structured it's very important - but the LibDems appeared to have drifted back to being what the post WW2 Labour party accused the Liberals of being; "Tories without their kicking boots"
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
