The Election Section: Get Your Crystal Balls Out...

kinger101

antrobus wrote: »

Not so much 'passionate' as 'students'.

Thanks to this interweb thing, we can go back in time and see what things were like back in 2010.

Lib Dems target student vote with tuition fees warning
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7641956/Lib-Dems-target-student-vote-with-tuition-fees-warning.html

Mr Clegg said: "Labour and the Conservatives have been trying to keep tuition fees out of this election campaign."...."Students can make the difference in countless seats in this election." ...."Use your vote to block those unfair tuition fees and get them scrapped once and for all."

And so forth.

If you big up a certain policy, and claim that it's one of the things that make your party 'different', you can expect a certain negative reaction when you later abandon that policy.:)



I don't expect anybody who voted Lib Dem in 2010 because of their tution fee policy did so in the expectation that there would be a Lib Dem majority government. They did so on the basis that they expected there to be a coalition, and that the Lib Dems would indeed insist on blocking those 'unfair tution fees' and getting them 'scrapped' as a price for that deal. Hence their disappointment when all of Mr Clegg's fine words turned to dust.

The student fees is overplayed IMO. The Lib Dems did not do well in 2010, failing to increase their share of the popular vote. The student vote only mattered in a few of their seats. The only reason they'll do less well this time is because they are now part of the establishment. I think they'll still get 30+ seats, but they're no longer kingmakers. For the UK, I think that means there is not a workable two party coalition (other than Lab/Con, which isn't an impossibility).

antrobus

kinger101 wrote: »

The student fees is overplayed IMO. The Lib Dems did not do well in 2010, failing to increase their share of the popular vote. ....

On the contrary, the Lib Dems increased their share of the popular vote from 22% to 23% in 2010. They still lost a net 5 seats, mind you, but that's FPTP for you.

kinger101 wrote: »

...The student vote only mattered in a few of their seats. ...

Yes, but they only have a few seats anyway.

I am simply making the point that the Lib Dems made a big issue about student tution fees during the 2010 campaign, the "Liberal Democrats are different, Not only will we oppose any raising of the cap, we will scrap tuition fees for good" and all that.

And you can look back and see, that it was their rapid about face on this issue that triggered the collapse in their poll ratings to 10% by the end of 2010. It's not so much about student fees per se. It's about the Lib Dems. It shows that they are not different. It shows that they are just another political party.

kinger101

antrobus wrote: »

On the contrary, the Lib Dems increased their share of the popular vote from 22% to 23% in 2010. They still lost a net 5 seats, mind you, but that's FPTP for you.



Yes, but they only have a few seats anyway.

I am simply making the point that the Lib Dems made a big issue about student tution fees during the 2010 campaign, the "Liberal Democrats are different, Not only will we oppose any raising of the cap, we will scrap tuition fees for good" and all that.

And you can look back and see, that it was their rapid about face on this issue that triggered the collapse in their poll ratings to 10% by the end of 2010. It's not so much about student fees per se. It's about the Lib Dems. It shows that they are not different. It shows that they are just another political party.

I've just checked, and actually their share of the vote went from 22.0 % to 22.1 %. That is certainly not a success given the political situation in 2010. Clegg failed his party by not taking more votes off a discredited New Labour.

I don't think >60 seats counts as a few.

I know LD made a big issue out of student fees, but other than students (who obviously want a free education), it didn't have much impact on the rest of the electorate. I personally think higher education should be paid for out of general taxation, but we're never going to be able to afford it if we insist on sending 50% + of the population to University so they can gain qualifications with no relevance to the job they'll end up doing. Most graduates these days end up in non-graduate jobs.

padington

kabayiri wrote: »

Lemme see...

Cameron - to call the shots.

Clegg - to present the moderate view.

Farage - to act as 'attack dog' when it comes to fronting up with the Eurozone crowd.

What's not to like?

We don't need attack dogs, we need masterful diplomats. Look at the twit in Greece, getting nowhere. Not even allowed in the room.

enthusiasticsaver

I very much fear we will end up either with a Conservative minority government with maybe the Lib Dems alongside or a Labour government propped up by SNP whatever Miliband says. Unless some swing voters come out and support Conservative at the last moment on the grounds that he is the lesser of two evils.


I learnt the other day that my sister in law and niece in the Midlands have never voted and I am sure they are not unique in that. I really cannot understand that though. If you do not make your voice heard in the only chance we get to elect our government how can you complain about the way the country is led?

Carl31

Im thinking team blue, but im really not 100%

I really want someone to come in and really attempt something new in this country, but thats not going to happen. Im slightly inclined towards Labour, but only due to them addressing housing, which Cons seem to be incapable of doing, and a slight leaning to UKIP, but thats just in an attempt to get someone else in to try something new too

Ill probably just go safe in the end, dissapointingly, im not really behind any party though

Moby

Every current poll of poll and resultant projection gives Cameron only a minority rule option: if the rest decide not to vote him down. I don’t think ‘the rest’ will let him hang on- particularly if Labour plus SNP have enough. If things improve enough for him to have a small majority with or without LD support (and they would have to improve quite drastically on current polling- with 5 days to go…) then he will merely become John Major part two.
Why would he want to do that?? Why would he want to limp along held hostage by his paleo-right?? After 5 years as leader and 5 years as PM with- at least on his own terms if not others- a moderately successful record.
He’s already said he does not want to serve another term. Surely he’d rather depart the stage just as the manure tips all over it- and somebody else’s head?

.string.

Moby wrote: »

Every current poll of poll and resultant projection gives Cameron only a minority rule option: if the rest decide not to vote him down. I don’t think ‘the rest’ will let him hang on- particularly if Labour plus SNP have enough. If things improve enough for him to have a small majority with or without LD support (and they would have to improve quite drastically on current polling- with 5 days to go…) then he will merely become John Major part two.
Why would he want to do that?? Why would he want to limp along held hostage by his paleo-right?? After 5 years as leader and 5 years as PM with- at least on his own terms if not others- a moderately successful record.
He’s already said he does not want to serve another term. Surely he’d rather depart the stage just as the manure tips all over it- and somebody else’s head?

Well the answer to that is that he hopes to avoid any manure tipping, the primary source of which is the bu****it from the SNP who have only 2 aims; first to get the English Money tree to spend as much as possible in Scotland, and second to stir up as much angst as possible to help them con the Scottish Electorate towards Natland, regardless of the resulting fall in their standard of living.

They have no policy for the UK, other than a cynical pretence to fluffyness.

Shakethedisease

If Cameron gets the most seats he'll declare victory anyway. They've already delayed the Queens Speech until 27th of May I think. Cameron will resign, and they'll quickly install Boris or someone else as leader..

They've already got the money for another election campaign. Labour haven't.

@ShippersUnbound: Senior Tories tell Sunday Times Cameron will declare victory on Friday if he has most votes and seats.

As I suspected, the media is setting up Labour being propped up by the SNP as an illegitimate UK government. They've been hammering that message through very hard for the last month or so. Even if the Tories don't have enough seats to actually govern. Scotland is probably going to be cut loose/made an 'offer' in the process over the next few months. Only Labour gaining more seats will halt things.

My prediction after seeing that Tim Shipman tweet tonight... :cool:

Generali

There are two things at play here really:

1. Politics. Who gets to be PM, Home Secretary etc.
2. Operations. How do we 'keep the lights on'

The first part is the more interesting but the second one is more important, at least in day-to-day terms.

The Tories, Labour and Lib Dems (in their various guises) have been working together for decades to keep the country running and in just about any election outcome would be perfectly capable of stitching together a deal of some sort.

The most likely thing is that they agree to abstain on stuff like the Queen's Speech and then negotiate much of the other big bills that need to get through.

I suspect that the SNP and UKIP will be marginalised if possible simply because they'll be such a colossal PITA to deal with (although my suspicion is that UKIP will struggle to get a single seat).

I further suspect that the biggest consequence of this election will be PR. It's going to happen, probably alongside a constituency system.