Who will win the UK election ?

seven-day-weekend

I do not support compulsory voting. I don't want someone who can't be arxed to get off their backside and cast their vote to be forced to. Also I do not think that it is reasonable in a democracy, you should be able to disenfranchise yourself if you wish.

I think the Tories will win with a small majority and there may well be a three-way coalition between them, the NI Conservatives and UKIP.

Generali

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

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....

I agree with the first half but not the second.

Parties ultimately need to have an ideology, a philosophical thrust. That needn't be Left or Right but if we are to vote for a party it's important to be able to see beyond the rhetoric and the manifesto in order to have some clue how the party would react when 'events' intervene.

That's the appeal and the problem with UKIP: yes they're outside the system so can oppose before breakfast, lunch and dinner. What would they do if faced with a particular situation is impossible to predict. Tories, Lab and to an extent Lib Dem are broadly predictable.

I guess it's like going to Maccas rather than a local place in a strange town: it's not the best but it's at least predictable.

padington

New poll saying that it's a labour wipeout in Scotland. SNP looking victorious.

System

The gradual merging of Britain First and UKIP is an amusing spectator sport.

N1AK

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.

It's not about can't, it's more about won't.

There is a huge sub-section of the Labour vote that hates the conservatives. Labour agreeing to a coalition with the Tories will lose them those votes for decades (they may as well stop running candidates in Scotland).

There is a large sub-section of the Conservative vote that think Labour will destroy the country. Arguably it is less damaging for the Cons, partly because that sub-section doesn't really have an obvious place to go currently.

The odds of a Labour/Conservative coalition are around 18/1. Someone could make a lot of money if they honestly thought the two parties would seriously consider it over the SNP etc. PaddyPower still thinks a Labour/SNP coalition is about 4x more likely, even though Labour have categorically stated they wouldn't enter a formal coalition with them.

The two parties spend a disproportionate amount of effort trying to look different, because they know that's important to get votes, going into coalition will completely undermine that.

Cyberman60

Generali wrote: »

I agree with the first half but not the second.

Parties ultimately need to have an ideology, a philosophical thrust. That needn't be Left or Right but if we are to vote for a party it's important to be able to see beyond the rhetoric and the manifesto in order to have some clue how the party would react when 'events' intervene.

That's the appeal and the problem with UKIP: yes they're outside the system so can oppose before breakfast, lunch and dinner. What would they do if faced with a particular situation is impossible to predict. Tories, Lab and to an extent Lib Dem are broadly predictable.

I guess it's like going to Maccas rather than a local place in a strange town: it's not the best but it's at least predictable.

Do any of us really know what any of the parties would do in a given situation ? I'd rather put my trust in UKIP who seem to have a track record of listening to the electorate who are fed up with being ridiculed when having legitimate fears (being called bigots for instance) and ignored by the major parties on immigration and Europe.

Who agreed to a mega-mosque being built in Birmingham for instance ? We are being taken over by an alien islamic culture and have been ignored for decades. UKIP listen but others pander to these powerful minorities in swing constituencies by allowing/blind-eyeing Sharia Law, faith schools which hinder integration, polygamous marriage, underage sex/marriage/grooming, halal meat, call to prayer, banning solar eclipse watching in schools etc......

Vote UKIP !! :T

System

Speaking of Britain First...

Out,_Vile_Jelly

I'm always surprised by how many people vote for the same party year in, year out, because that's what they've always done (and usually what their parents did). It simply wouldn't occur to them to read another party's manifesto, or look up their MP's Commons voting record. I wonder how far this mentality will be tested at the election. The rise of the SNP shows change can happen, but I think their supporters are more predictable than UKIPpers. How many of the latter are going to get cold feet in the polling booth?

antrobus

padington wrote: »

New poll saying that it's a labour wipeout in Scotland. SNP looking victorious.

Being this one
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/23/labour-faces-electoral-rout-scotland-snp

Prof John Curtice, of Strathclyde University, Scotland’s pre-eminent psephologist, calculated the post-2010 swing in each class of constituency, and concluded that Scottish Labour could be wiped out in all but two seats.

On Curtice’s alternative projection, which takes into account the SNP’s disproportionate surge in Labour’s heartlands, the SNP would snatch 53 of Scotland’s 59 seats.

The three other parties would split the remaining six equally – with two seats apiece. The extraordinary implication is that Scottish Labour would be left with no more representation than the Scottish Tories, who have been semi-extinct at Westminster since 1997.

Marine_life

antrobus wrote: »

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.

I think you should read my first point again.


The majority of MPs do not get 50% of the vote - therefore how can they be said to "represent" the constituents?