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

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

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.

No, I think the Tories are planning for a second election in October. Nothing to do with Grand Coalitions. If they think the SNP/UKIP are PITA to work with.. can you imagine what they think about 240-280 angry Labour MP's ?

michaels

Generali wrote: »

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.

You have a perspective we don't have but we have more first hand experience, in a few days we will see who is right.....

I think much more likely we will have BAU with a minority/coalition which is either Labour or the Tories in all but name. The big parties still get many more seats than their vote shares, why should they want PR? Labour will imagine they can get Scotland back, the Tories will think they will never govern again with PR.

As above and the polls support this, Labour and the SNP will lock out any possible Tory coalition and thus Labour will be able to build their own coalition with the SNP abstaining rather than forcing another election. Simples

Most Tory supporters can not believe that the majority of the electorate would be stupid (as they see it) enough to put Labour back in especially as Labour are now considerably to the left of the financial disaster of the last Labour govt but I suspect if Labour had been even more left wing in their campaigning they would be even more popular now. Just look at which policies are most popular; generally the more economically illiterate the policy, the more popular it is which tells us all we need to know about the electorate.

mark55man

Generali wrote: »

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'

Based on the venom the media have spread on Labour / SNP - I think we have to ask 2 questions


1. Have the 5 years benefitted the few or the many
2. Why would you vote to support Murdoch / City / Farage / Cameron


I strongly disliked Miliband when he was first presented to us - but my feeling now was that the powers that be feared a strong radical voice (even if he cant eat a bacon sandwich !!!!!!) and were down on him to start with. I now think he is way stronger and more committed to do good for all the country


Consequently not only am I strongly supporting Team Red, I am more actively working to support them locally than ever before.


It has sometimes been very hard, almost shameful to support Labour, but now - well now you only have to look at the top table at cabinet meetings to realise the shame is not doing anything to change them

mark55man

michaels wrote: »

Most Tory supporters can not believe that the majority of the electorate would be stupid (as they see it) enough to put Labour back in especially as Labour are now considerably to the left of the financial disaster of the last Labour govt but I suspect if Labour had been even more left wing in their campaigning they would be even more popular now. Just look at which policies are most popular; generally the more economically illiterate the policy, the more popular it is which tells us all we need to know about the electorate.

So that would make you Tory then. Your patronising tone is unmistakeable

Financial illiteracy is about giving the Universities the power (with no checks and balances) to charge £9000 a year and then pretend to be surprised when they all went for it

Financial illiteracy is saying that two incomes of £45K get to keep all child benefit whereas one income of £70K and one of £20K don't get a sausage

Financial illiteracy is about understanding that immigration has been a force for growth but playing, rather unpleasantly, to the crowds

Financial illiteracy is about allowing the NHS to become so run down and so low on morale that unnecessary billions are spent on agency staff instead of full time workers. (I do accept some of whom will always be needed but political needs must be paramount over common sense)

3 letter acronym for Tory Financial illiteracy - PFI

kinger101

mark88man wrote: »

3 letter acronym for Tory Financial illiteracy - PFI

PFI - Isn't that the method Tony Blair used to allow his mates in the city to charge the tax payer exorbitant prices for NHS hospitals. Leaving several health trusts in administration.

mark55man

Wikipedia wrote:

In 1992 PFI was implemented for the first time in the UK by the Conservative government of John Major. It immediately proved controversial, and was attacked by the Labour Party while in opposition, although they did use it when in power

Not quite guilty as charged - I always worry when politicians try to do good business - they are universally carp at it

globalds

I think we are set for a short period of animosity and blame before we see a fresh general election with some new faces.

No Cameron
No Clegg
No Natalie Bennent
Maybe Milliband
Maybe Farage

mark55man

globalds wrote: »

I think we are set for a short period of animosity and blame before we see a fresh general election with some new faces.

No Cameron
No Clegg
No Natalie Bennett
Maybe Miliband
Maybe Farage

I hate the thought of Farage of lingering on but I suspect you may be right. I would add


Definitely Sturgeon (oh wait she's not even standing as a UK MP) so that would be Salmond

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No, I think the Tories are planning for a second election in October. Nothing to do with Grand Coalitions. If they think the SNP/UKIP are PITA to work with.. can you imagine what they think about 240-280 angry Labour MP's ?

No, not a Grand Coalition. That's the voices in your head again.

Labour and Tories, despite their apparent loathing, work together on a daily basis on select committees, on keeping the functions of the houses running, on all sorts of matters. They are well used (as are the Lib Dems) to the pragmatic day-to-day that is needed to keep the Houses running.

If needs be it would be perfectly possible for the two or three parties to stitch together a deal for a year or two to keep things ticking along. It's what they do on a smaller scale every single day.

BobQ

The undecided

Clearly any undecided voter might make a decision but not sure you can be that confident that this will see a late swing. The only real example of this happening is in 1992 which was a time when Labour were all over the place after years of Thatcher policies. The economy may well be important but people may regard the continuing austerity or the rising inequality as a factor just as much as the Cameron argument of hang on to Nanny for fear of something worse.

Falling UKIP.
Yes this may be a factor. Apparently there is statistical evidence that the online polls suggest a higher UKIP but lower Tory vote than the telephone polls. Nobody knows why this is but it is a factor in whether the polls conclude a small Tory lead or neck and neck outcome. But there is always the risk that some will return to the fold but what matters is whether this happens in seats where this has an effect.

SNP and tactical voting. Yes there could be some but so can there be tactical voting in the rest of UK. It could benefit Labour of course. Ashcroft has suggested that Conservative and Lib Dem Unionists may be voting Labour to stop the SNP from having as much influence.

Parliament - I agree Cameron will have first shot but I think Labour, SNP and those to the left would lose al credibility if they did not vote against a Queens Speech that contained the policies in their manifesto. You may be right that Labour would not force a vote of no confidence but what would they do if the SNP did? It is not clear that the Lib Dems would support Cameron. Clegg is desperate, he has even unilaterally changed LibDem policy on an EU Referendum in an effort to get some UKIP/ Con voters to support him in Sheffield (Cable is apparently livid).

I believe the Conservatives may well do better as the phone polls suggest and some UKIP supporters return home. But the real uncertainty will be tactical voting across the UK. I have heard more people speculate on doing that than ever before.