Govt Defeated-Cons Losing Election More Likely

shortchanged_2

Fella wrote: »

That's if Clegg is in charge by then. Could be Cable.

I don't think it will make much difference. I think many of the floating voters who gave the LibDems a chance at the last election will feel betrayed by the way their votes actually ended up.

BertieUK

shortchanged wrote: »

I don't think it will make much difference. I think many of the floating voters who gave the LibDems a chance at the last election will feel betrayed by the way their votes actually ended up.

Especially his betrayel of the promises he made to the students about the University Fees would not rise so as to try and get their votes.:(

Generali

BertieUK wrote: »

I wonder how the Bookies will come up with the betting odds for the next Election in just over two years time because in reality when you look at the figures that show the results of the last election there are an awful lot of people that did not vote...


Cons with 10.7m
Labs with 8.6m
Libs with 6.8m
Total of votes 26.1

Considering that at the time there were something like 46m people eligible to vote how can anyone judge who will win?

Many people think that the Liberals are almost history after the Coalition so there could be suprises on the horizon.

Betfair has Labour at 1.68 and the Tories at 2.44 so very approximately 3-2 on and 3-2 against respectively.

To put it another way, the betting market is saying that if we could run from now until the next General Election 5 times, Lab would win 3 times and Cons twice. That makes Labour favourites but hardly overwhelmingly so.

There is no favouritism in that, it's just what the market is saying. I CBA to go back and see what the odds were last time I posted them but IIRC they have come in a little for the Tories with Labour drifting out a bit.

BertieUK

I reflect many of the past years when they ran the various polls and made predictions from them wherby in many cases the result was the opposite.

I wonder just how much these polls influence the voters here in the UK.

Generali

BertieUK wrote: »

I reflect many of the past years when they ran the various polls and made predictions from them wherby in many cases the result was the opposite.

I wonder just how much these polls influence the voters here in the UK.

My feeling is that mid-term polls are just a bit of fun really. Yes they're a snapshot and a nice stick to beat politicians with but in all seriousness does anyone really think that UKIP will get 10%+ of the votes at the next General Election? There is no chance of that happening. They'll do well at the Euros most likely but British voters view them as a bit of a joke.

It's like all that fantasy stuff when Thatcher was in power: they had Michael Foot ahead of the Tories 50%:32% in the polls in December 1980 (link)! Michael Foot is a very interesting man and a great writer but was never going to win a General Election. His Labour Party, thanks in large part to his appeasement of Militant Tendency, went down 28%:44% in the 1983 election, the only poll that truly matters.

Tancred

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

Camerons defeat on changing constituency boundaries yesterday was more comprehensive than even his rivals could have predicted- it looked as if not just lib/lab but every member of every party voted against him, even 4 of his own MPs voted to keep their (marginal?) constituency maps the same.

Basically, this means he can't now win because the maths is all wrong ('changing' the goal posts on the constituency boundaries would have given him 20ish more seats, seats he desperately needs in order to win a majority.) The bookies have shortened the odds even tighter for a Labour win. Top Cons are saying it has cost him the coming election.

The idea was hare brained to start with. Why would MPs vote to put themselves out of a job? And why gerrymander the constituencies while giving the impression that it is 'fairer'. Fairer for whom? For the Conservative leadership maybe, but noone else. The fairest system would be PR under the STV, but no chance of that!

Tancred

epz wrote: »

Yay, it a victory for the self interest of MPs over democracy.

Regardless of political persuasion the principle of one man one vote is generally accepted as a good one. It becomes pretty meaningless when one persons vote is worth less than someone living in a different area whos MP is elected on a much smaller constituency.

The whole idea of constituencies is undemocratic. Only PR is truly democratic and gives all votes equal weighting.

GeorgeHowell

Tancred wrote: »

The whole idea of constituencies is undemocratic. Only PR is truly democratic and gives all votes equal weighting.

The trouble is you would the have w*****s like Clegg and Cable calling the shots regardless of who won the most seats.

Tancred

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

The trouble is you would the have w*****s like Clegg and Cable calling the shots regardless of who won the most seats.

They wouldn't be calling the shots, but the biggest party would have to negotiate with them. This is the norm in most countries. The trouble is that the British political system is too adversarial - it's too much of an 'us and them' mentality. There is common ground between all the major parties.

michaels

BertieUK wrote: »

...when you look at the figures that show the results of the last election there are an awful lot of people that did not vote...


Cons with 10.7m
Labs with 8.6m
Libs with 6.8m
Total of votes 26.1

Considering that at the time there were something like 46m people eligible to vote how can anyone judge who will win?

1) Interesting point - some say the real reason the Democrats won in the US was not because of the campaign but because of the organisation on the ground on the day to get out their core vote.

2) Constituency democracy is 'inherently undemocratic' therefore there is no reason to adjust the system to make it as democratic as possible - surely that sort of defeatist attitude is an invitation to return to the 1 voter 'rotten boroughs' of yore? The voters by referendum indicated their will to keep the current system but I can't think that that suggests not trying to optimise the system within the current rules?

3) Labour think they earn political capital from defeating the Tories especially where this highlights differences between the coalition parties. However recently this has meant opposing a referendum on Europe and voting for more MPs and thus more expensive govt (not sure the general public is that interested in the detail of the argument over fairness and electoral registration) both of which the Tories will be able to use against Labour come the General election.

4) Those who voted LibDem and are 'horrified' by their forming a coalition with the Tories - what did they expect to happen in a country where 2 parties dominate and the third party can only hope to govern as part of a coalition? Making a pact with Labour to support a leader and Govt which had been comprehensively rejected by the electorate and being part of an unstable minority govt hardly looked like a winning strategy for advancing their agenda which despite having to make some high-profile compromises has at least had a big impact on coalition policy under the current govt.

5) The Tories who vetoed democratic reform of the unelected second chamber as part of an argument within the Tory party between modernisers and social conservatives to 'flex their muscles' with respect to disagreements over social issues and Europe really did 'cut of their noses to spite their faces' by severely damaging the Tories electoral prospects at the next election over a reform issue that they probably were not that worried about. Then to disingenuously suggest that the LibDems should stick to a coalition agreement that they had ignored reeks of hypocrisy.