Who will win the UK election ?

Spidernick

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

We need the election system to include:

"None of the Above" on the ballot paper

Plus... compulsory voting

If the majority vote "none of the above" .... then we have a re election.

I might be in favour of compulsory voting if it was coupled with compulsory attendance at the Houses of Parliament for the MPs elected under this system, rather than as and when they feel like it much of the time!

ging84

Vladimir Putin

Jason74

Generali wrote: »

I simply don't understand this belief that Lab and Cons can't form a coalition. They have before so why not again? Surely there is more in common between two parties that believe in Capitalism and unionism than a centre left and hard left party one of which is Nationalist and the other Unionist.

The problem imho is the "adversarial" nature of our politics between the two main parties. The only times that they have formed a coalition has been in the face of a dire national emergency. In the absence of such an emergency, it simply wont happen imho.


To a large extent, the whole reason for being for each of those parties is to oppose the other, and by entering into coalition with each other, they are in many ways negating their own existence. The leader of either party that countenanced such a move would forever be seen as having betrayed their party (just look at how Ramsay Macdonald is seen in Labour circles even today for an example), and would probably lead to that party splitting.


Of course, all of that speaks volumes about the kind of politics we have in this country, and none of it is good. But imho quite literally any of the other possible permutations or outcomes from the election are more likely than a Labour / Tory coalition.

matt1234

chucknorris wrote: »

Recently I have been tracking the betfair price for 'most sets won' in the election and I have been comforted by the fact that the tories have shortened significantly, it is currently about:

4/9 Tories
9/4 Labour

But I now think that my comfort was misplaced, because we are very likely to have a hung parliament, and with the SNP expected to win up to 55 seats, I fear the worst. It looks extremely close to me.

http://may2015.com/category/seat-calculator/

Mike Smithson has commented a few times on the betfair price being out of kilter with the polls.

He essentially says not to be distracted by this as in 2010 punters were betting on a safe Tory majority right to the very end even though the polls were pointing to a hung parliament in the weeks leading up to the election.

Certainly the shortening in price is not based on anything tangible as the polls are exactly where they were last year.

matt1234

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

The majority of people don't want any of main parties or numpty candidates.

That is the sad thing about this election. People want an anti Westminster party, and anti bank party, anti big business.... The anti party!

Anti party but pro people.... A party for the majority of poeple not the top 5% which includes MP's.

Yet all the polls out this weekend point to about 70% of the electorate being ready to vote for the main 2 parties - a share which has steadily risen since last May and is likely to continue rising until 7th May this year.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

A not implausible the Tories to 295, Clegg and Co hold 25 seats as local Lib Dem support is stronger than the universal swing suggests, and the DUP throw in their 8 seats.

The Conservatives only managed 306 seats in 2010 despite being out of the government for 13 years, the deepest recession in 100 years and a deeply unpopular Prime Minister.

It is fantasy to think they will only lose 9 seats after presiding over austerity cuts and a recovery which has only started to be felt by Joe public in the last 6 months.

Generali

Jason74 wrote: »

The problem imho is the "adversarial" nature of our politics between the two main parties. The only times that they have formed a coalition has been in the face of a dire national emergency. In the absence of such an emergency, it simply wont happen imho.

The 1930s wasn't a time of dire national emergency.

Marine_life

Irrespective of who wins the election two things are clear:


1. No party will get over 50% of the vote and therefore the majority of the population will be unrepresented.
2. A significant proportion of people will not vote and will be unrepresented.
3. A majortiy of people have no clue in detail about the polices of either party and tend to vote on gut feel or how their mum/dad/best friend votes and will be default be unrepresented.


Either way the majority of British people will be unhappy.


We need to get rid of the first past the post system and introduce proportional representation.


Thats my grade C politics A level speaking

Jason74

Generali wrote: »

The 1930s wasn't a time of dire national emergency.

Depends on your view of what constitutes a "dire emergency" to be fair. The National Government was formed in response to the great depression, which saw unemployment double and the Government struggling to avoid a run on the pound. Macdonald could no longer hold together a Labout Government given the measures required to deal with the crisis, and the National Government came out of that. Baldwin's Tories actually won enough seats for a majority in 1935, and the National Government was in fact Tory dominated, and was arguably on a "war footing" from the formation of the fourth National ministry in 1937.

Certainly, I don't see anything in the current climate that mirrors the circumstances that created and sustained the National Government, So I can't see such a joint working arrangement happening this time around. Far more likely that we end up with an unstable Government that collapses after 6 -12 Months, followed by another election that may or may not produce a more decisive result. That assumes of course, that the Tory support doesn't firm up over the next few weeks to an extent that at least makes another coalition with the Lib Dems a viable option. Personally, I think that kind of firming of Tory support is more likely than the polls currently suggest.

CLAPTON

Spidernick wrote: »

I might be in favour of compulsory voting if it was coupled with compulsory attendance at the Houses of Parliament for the MPs elected under this system, rather than as and when they feel like it much of the time!

what ever is the connection between compulsory voting and MP attending parliament?

antrobus

Marine_life wrote: »

Irrespective of who wins the election two things are clear:

1. No party will get over 50% of the vote and therefore the majority of the population will be unrepresented.
2. A significant proportion of people will not vote and will be unrepresented.
3. A majortiy of people have no clue in detail about the polices of either party and tend to vote on gut feel or how their mum/dad/best friend votes and will be default be unrepresented.

Either way the majority of British people will be unhappy.

We need to get rid of the first past the post system and introduce proportional representation.

Thats my grade C politics A level speaking

I'd say that there were also two things that were clear. They are;

1. You can't count
2. You didn't listen to your teachers

It is a fundamental principle of politics that an MP represents their constituents. They represent their constituents in Parliament irrespective of whether or not said constituents voted for them or indeed voted at all.