Who will win the UK election ?

antrobus

matt1234 wrote: »

...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.

It's a fantasy shared by Peter Kellner.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/01/19/how-cameron-could-win-and-lose/

OK, he was thinking that they would lose only 13 seats or whatever. But he's in the same ballpark.

Jason74 wrote: »

The problem imho is the "adversarial" nature of our politics between the two main parties.

I don't think that "our politics" is any more "adverserial" than most nation's politics. If we lived in a world where everybody already agreed on everything we probably wouldn't need to bother with either politics or elections.:)

TickersPlaysPop

I do love how you can rely on people here taking what you say the wrong way so they can feel like they have shot you down lol

I support "none of the above" on the ballot paper and compulsory voting because the majority of people in this country do not like the current political system. Consistent turn out of less than 50% supports this.

Somebody here said that polls show 70% of the electorate are predicted to vote for the 2 main parties.... that is completely wrong! If less than 50% vote, then those that do vote are the minority!

Compulsory voting produces and undeniable election result that forces the political system to change.... If the majority of the total population vote "None of the Above" then it will force a re election.... and open the possibility of new parties.

At the moment we can all spoil our ballot paper as a protest, but that produces an ambiguous statistic... a majority win for "None of the Above" is undeniable.

"None of the Above" also allows people to protest vote safely.... rather than voting for smaller parties.... Which can lead to the danger of extreme parties gaining MP's.

Compulsory voting could be linked to the tax system... and large penalties if you don't vote.... Such as adjusted tax codes, loss of benefits etc...

This is not a bid to increase voter engagement.... it is to force the political system to change for the better, via an undeniable statistic of "None of the Above" winning the election.

TickersPlaysPop

I'm not a lefty by the way.... or a righty!

Left right centre, it's all rubbish and very out dated.

UKIP have some cross spectrum strap lines, which is why they have gained votes in elections before today from both previous Tory and Labour electorate.

We need a new party that is policy based and not left or right based. We need things to happen that are for the good of the country, it is simple.

We need a party that is not sustained and funded by big business and the bankers....

CLAPTON

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

I do love how you can rely on people here taking what you say the wrong way so they can feel like they have shot you down lol

I support "none of the above" on the ballot paper and compulsory voting because the majority of people in this country do not like the current political system. Consistent turn out of less than 50% supports this.

Somebody here said that polls show 70% of the electorate are predicted to vote for the 2 main parties.... that is completely wrong! If less than 50% vote, then those that do vote are the minority!

Compulsory voting produces and undeniable election result that forces the political system to change.... If the majority of the total population vote "None of the Above" then it will force a re election.... and open the possibility of new parties.

At the moment we can all spoil our ballot paper as a protest, but that produces an ambiguous statistic... a majority win for "None of the Above" is undeniable.

"None of the Above" also allows people to protest vote safely.... rather than voting for smaller parties.... Which can lead to the danger of extreme parties gaining MP's.

Compulsory voting could be linked to the tax system... and large penalties if you don't vote.... Such as adjusted tax codes, loss of benefits etc...

This is not a bid to increase voter engagement.... it is to force the political system to change for the better, via an undeniable statistic of "None of the Above" winning the election.

there is nothing to stop a new party starting up at any time.

low turnout can easily mean that people are content with the existing situation and don't want radical change

if people knew that selecting 'none of the above' and resented compulsory voting, they logically would vote for some-one (anyone) to avoid having to vote again.

the certainty that radical change is appropriate, rather than small incremental steps, has led to huge disasters and hell on earth

TickersPlaysPop

CLAPTON wrote: »

there is nothing to stop a new party starting up at any time.

low turnout can easily mean that people are content with the existing situation and don't want radical change

if people knew that selecting 'none of the above' and resented compulsory voting, they logically would vote for some-one (anyone) to avoid having to vote again.

the certainty that radical change is appropriate, rather than small incremental steps, has led to huge disasters and hell on earth

If the political system feared "None of the Above" winning there would be motivation to do everything possible to appeal to the electorate. they would really need to do things for us and not them, .I. e. those that fund the parties.

Thing like corporation tax avoidance, bankers, housing mess, EU etc....

CLAPTON

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

If the political system feared "None of the Above" winning there would be motivation to do everything possible to appeal to the electorate. they would really need to do things for us and not them, .I. e. those that fund the parties.

Thing like corporation tax avoidance, bankers, housing mess, EU etc....

Why don't you think there is a party that appeals to the 'people'?

antrobus

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

....We need a new party that is policy based and not left or right based. ..

Here is a list of political parties in the UK;
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/bpp.htm

I think you will find that a number of these parties are indeed 'policy based' rather than 'left or right based'.

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

..We need things to happen that are for the good of the country, it is simple....

The issue is that people do not agree on what these things are. Hence the reason why we have political parties.

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

there is nothing to stop a new party starting up at any time.....

It's not like there was a shortage of political parties in the UK.:)

CLAPTON wrote: »

...if people knew that selecting 'none of the above' and resented compulsory voting, they logically would vote for some-one (anyone) to avoid having to vote again.

Even if you could 'force' people to vote (and you can't), I hardly think that the people that are forced to do are going to select the option that obliges them to do it again.

antrobus

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

...I support "none of the above" on the ballot paper and compulsory voting because the majority of people in this country do not like the current political system. Consistent turn out of less than 50% supports this....

There has never been a general election in the UK where the turnout was less than 50%. The lowest recorded was 57.2% in 1918.

Loughton_Monkey

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

A not implausible scenario is as follows....

Some UKIP support goes home to Tory at the last minute as the prospect of Red Ed gaining power sinks in, this gets 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.

A 3 way coalition with a super slim majority at 328 seats held....

And neither UKIP nor the ScotNats are involved.

More likely, in my view, is that Red Ed's showing will be so poor that 5 minutes after the election, there will be calls for his blood. A viscious in-fight will occur, the bottom line will be that someone like Mandelson will spearhead a quick defection of 50 or so 'right thinking' labourites into a new party to join a Conservative coalition. With or without the Liberals, and without the ex-Crankie from up north.

Mandelson is clearly on a mission to make Red Ed lose.