UK General Election 2015

[JustAnotherLogin]

dandarez said:

You've said something that tells me you'll lose.

'Old man'.

There are a hell, and I mean 'a hell', of a lot of us out there compared to younger/middle age groups - you've surely heard the 'agenda' - from those in authority - keep harping on about it?
OUR 'aging population'?

The same agenda makers that constantly bombards you with 'We're ALL living longer'. No we're bloody not!
The only ones living longer are the ones born before the war.
The morbidly obese in their 20s 30s will be lucky to get beyond 55. But don't let that get in the way of facts!

Get out there and talk to a few more of our aging population than just your 'old man' and ask them for their views on politicians - remember, like me, they've lived through the virtual two party system all their lives. I do talk to lots of them, and I live in Witney (yes, CMD's 'safe' seat. I guarantee you his majority will drop even here).

Even if you talk to some 'older' people and they don't wish to tell you they'll be voting Ukip this time, they'll give you a clue with words like 'don't trust any of the bds any more, politicians, nobody in authority, they're all the bloody same, we're sick of 'em!'

You'll lose that bet. Wait and see.

Ignoring the hyperbole and the confusing bits we can boil that down to "A lot of the older generation will vote UKIP"

Well according to Ashchroft's poll from Dec 2012 43% of their support was from over 65s. Now I suspect that as UKIPs vote has increased that proportion has decreased. But nevertheless, that is a significant part of UKIPs core vote. They were polling approx 10% back then, so approx 5% of the electorate, hence still about 1/3 of the UKIP vote even assuming that all of the additional support since then has come from younger generations.

Now one could assert that as people get older they will see the wisdom of UKIP and so will become more likely to vote UKIP. But I think that is less likely than the alternative explanation that a generation whose formative years were in the 50s and 60s might be more open to the UKIP line of thinking.

Does anyone know how the likelihood of voting is distributed with age? It would be interesting to know when that hypothesis would suggest that 1/3 to 1/2 of the core UKIP vote will start to fade away. 5? 10? 20 years?

Even at this election, do UKIP have the organisation and resources to ferry the older voters to the vote as the major parties have done in the past? Could be significant.

[JustAnotherLogin]

FiF said:

It just got even more confusing.

Latest Ashcroft poll, parachutes unprompted Greens into 4th place with 11%

Lots of interesting facets in the report behind the numbers> For example:

When asked whether they had seen/heard anything about the GE.

someone said:

There’s no excitement building. It feels more like a local election. There’s something coming but not anything big like who’s going to run the country.”

They have a point. A higher proportion (compared to expected votes) of the attention has been on UKIP & Greens, who plainly won't be running the country. So the big 2 have all the play for still.

Or:

LAP said:

If each leader were an animal, what would they be? Cameron would be a fox, being smart and sleek – or, less charitably, “a giraffe, looking down on everybody”. Farage? A peacock, or a weasel. Clegg? “A Chihuahua in David Cameron’s handbag”. Miliband? Puzzlement. “Certainly not a predator… one of those animals that, when you go to the zoo, you’re not bothered whether you see it or not.”

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/01/ashcroft-national-poll-con-29-lab-28-lib-dem-9-ukip-15-green-11/#more-7368

[JustAnotherLogin]

Interesting that some of the Kippers, having raged about being portrayed as "loonies and fruitcakes" or whatever the description was, are using just as strong language to denounce the Greens, without any more justification than the insults about them.

I don't think the Green policies make sense, but then I believe it has been shown that some of the UKIP ones can be picked apart just as much.

It's particularly ironic given that the evidence we have does support the view that Kippers as a whole are below average intelligence, but that Green voters are as a whole, above average intelligence. I don't believe that is a justification to label Kippers as "fruitcakes and loonies" either, but perhaps it should restrain Kippers from calling Greens "cretins", "thick" or "clueless" for example

I look forward to the responses that common sense is more important than intelligence, their own views being those of "common sense" of course.

[JustAnotherLogin]

turbobloke said:

The way you put it makes the whole denouncing Greens affair seem arbitrary and without justification, when in fact there is plenty of justification for rejecting large swathes of Greenism. It's all over PH if not concentrated in this thread. As to kippers cakes and fruit, it's not applicable here so no comment is needed, while noting the reply from Scuffers.

I could find forums with large swathes of justification that Kipper policies are a a load of crap. Does that make the comments levelled at Kippers justifiable?

I forgot though, it is one of those irregular verbs

I pass fair political comment
You insult
He scurrilously slanders

[JustAnotherLogin]

don4l said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

It's particularly ironic given that the evidence we have does support the view that Kippers as a whole are below average intelligence,

And you are above average intelligence?

I am as it happens. But you do realise that it is not a judgement I am making, but independent, objective evidence. For example, in context I was comparing Kippers and Greens

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/27/ukip-greens-a...

Greens are 3x more likely to have a degree

[JustAnotherLogin]

fblm said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

I am as it happens. But you do realise that it is not a judgement I am making, but independent, objective evidence. For example, in context I was comparing Kippers and Greens

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/27/ukip-greens-a...

Greens are 3x more likely to have a degree

With your superior intelligence I would have thought you would have realised that is probably a reflection of the ages of the voters. Tenner says the average kipper grew up prior to polytechnics handing out worthless 'degrees' to every idiot that can spell their name. Another tenner says the average Green is one of those idiots.

That was just one. How about childhood IQ scores then

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2008/nov/...

Green - 108.3

Liberal Democrat - 108.2

Conservative - 103.7

Labour – 103

Plaid Cymru - 102.5

Scottish National - 102.2

UK Independence - 101.1

British National - 98.4

Did not vote/None of the above - 99.7

And Slipstream: as for making silly decisions, yes intelligent people do. Read what I said, I never suggested that Green policies are more sensible. Just that with the above kind of evidence, I suggested that Kippers casting aspersions on the intelligence of Green voters was probably unjustifiable and a poor line of attack

[JustAnotherLogin]

fblm said:

Is there a set protocol for forming a government in the UK in the event of no clear majority? If the Torys win the most seats but Lab plus SNP have more together can that unholy alliance actually legally govern?

Short answer no and yes.

The Queen can ask anyone to form a govt. It is likely that she would ask the party who has won most seats first. But if they cannot command a majority that she would ask the next. So if Lab has an agreement with SNP that gets a majority then they will be asked.

In practice she would never actually ask until she knows the answer. SO they will all go through their machinations until someone has a majority. Unless no-one can, then the party with the most single seats (or votes?) will be asked. New territory as the constitutional precedents are weak or non-existent

Increasingly however it looks like 2 parties will not be enough. Which more than doubles the complexity

ETA I had missed the short answer to the first question

Edited by JustAnotherLogin on Wednesday 21st January 22:03

[JustAnotherLogin]

750 years today the advent of representative democracy in the UK. Arguably the forerunner of the Commons.

Was full of self-interest then too

[JustAnotherLogin]

Greg66 said:

True. But I think there may be some informal recognition that the third place party ought to try to align itself with the party that has the most seats; it would seem to subvert wilfully the will of the people to do otherwise.

Which is yet another reason to loathe the scum-ridden pox that is the SNP...

I think that might be true in some circumstances. And for that I think Clegg deserves a lot of respect. he doesn't get much nowadays, but he went with the party that had the most votes even though he know it would antagonise a lot in his party or even destroy it (as it virtually has).

But I can see in other circumstances that might not be credible. THe SNP could not really offer to form a coalition with the Tories - they are too far apart on almost every significant issue. Similarly if it comes to arranging a 3 party coalition it would not be credible for UKIP and Greens to be involved together. They do not have enough to form a common consensus whatever the votes maybe.

[JustAnotherLogin]

Esseesse said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

Increasingly however it looks like 2 parties will not be enough. Which more than doubles the complexity

Con/Lab coalition (in the national interest)?

Seems almost unthinkable doesn't it? A few years ago it would have been.

But however you try, it is difficult to think up a coalition that is likely to have enough seats and would not immediately break apart under its own internal disagreements. Closest I can get is Labour + SNP+ LibDems + Plaid, with maybe some NI parties thrown in for good measure.

Stable? Doesn't look it.

Which suggests either a Tory-Lab coalition or another election this year.


I just can't see Tories and Labour agreeing enough - in particular on benefits, taxation and the economy. Nor can I see Cameron and Balls in the same cabinet

As someone said when I posted the odds of another election this year (6/1) at the time IIRC)- "they look good odds". I see they have already dropped to 9/2.

[JustAnotherLogin]

steveT350C said:

The fact stands that Farage's voice, as leader of the majority Party that represents the UK in the EU, will be diluted to a near pointless level.

As are the Libdems who have far more MPs in Westminster (which is what this debate is about) and are in govt
And the Greens who are party who seem to be doing best (in terms of movement) in the polls at present

Each of the minors can pick their own criteria and judge they have a better case. The others are no more biased than you

[JustAnotherLogin]

0a said:

Ofcom's guidance is what should be used here. We can debate forever about it, but they have had to decided independently based on lots of factors to ensure fair TV coverage.

But what you keep conveniently forgetting is that their current list of major parties does not include UKIP either. All that has happened is that they have issued a consultation paper that suggests UKIP have demonstrated sufficient evidence to be included. That may change or the greens may be included. But for decisions now the broadasters should follow the existing list.

The actual official list will not change until after the consultation period which ends on 5th Feb

[JustAnotherLogin]

0a said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

But what you keep conveniently forgetting is that their current list of major parties does not include UKIP either. All that has happened is that they have issued a consultation paper that suggests UKIP have demonstrated sufficient evidence to be included. That may change or the greens may be included. But for decisions now the broadasters should follow the existing list.

The actual official list will not change until after the consultation period which ends on 5th Feb

Which is the only thing they can or should go on.

So you think they should wait and decide after the final list is decided? That is a justifiable view. Trouble is it may be too late, I'm not sure.

[JustAnotherLogin]

Especially after the SNP have said they would now vote on English matters

[JustAnotherLogin]

Esseesse said:

Seeing as many seem to think the SNP is a likely candidate for coalition government. The next question is, what would happen to the popularity of the Labour or Conservative party come 2020 after they've been dealing with the SNP for 5 years?

Question should only arise for Labour. Apart from anything else, the SNP have said that they would not go into coalition with the Tories.

I think SNP would be a disastrous partner for anyone though. And Scotland would be given independence as the English would be sick of them

[JustAnotherLogin]

FiF said:

Agreed, same for Plaid in Wales, hell they can even have the debate in Welsh, and same for DUP etc etc in Nor'n Ireland.

Also agreed that the broadcasters are being provocative and, at this stage, simply calling Cameron's obvious bluff.

I think Cameron will be happy with this format. So I don't think it is/was a bluff in that sense

Though I see the DUP are now complaining

[JustAnotherLogin]

Of course another justification for the broadcasters' plan, and one that I think is actually quite good is that the cameron-miliband debate will the case for who should be PM, the other about which parties joint them in a coalition. And Plaid and SNP are just as likely there on the labour side at least,

Works out quite well in my view

[JustAnotherLogin]

McWigglebum4th said:

SNP plan B is working

Indeed I suspect it is. If SNP vote on English matters, and especially if they prop up an unpopular coalition, I could see "England" taking the decision to kick them out of the union. Or, before the Scots get all high and mighty about us being arrogant to think we had that right, we would leave the union (with Wales and NI if they wish) and leave the union to Scotland. We could leave the debts too. As they wanted to do to us.

[JustAnotherLogin]

You do realise fracking licenses have been issued in other parts of the country?

And that the reason there are more RuK representatives is because there are more of the population? Its called democracy. Quite popular in some parts (though not the scottish independence brigade I realise)

And that govt expenditure is disproportionately spent on Scotland considering its average income?

[JustAnotherLogin]

GoneAnon said:

Is it democratic to do whatever you like in an area - even when the locals have resoundingly rejected you and your policies?

Yes it is. The alternative is nimbyism. All regions have something imposed on them that they don't like. But if it is in the best interests of the country as a whole, and the democratically elected govt impose it across all areas, without prejudice for or against any area, then yes, it is fair and democratic

GoneAnon said:

I'm not at all sure where you get the numbers to support your final assertion.

You haven't seen any of the criticism of the Barnett Formula at all?
Not that it was based on incorrect population figures which have not been corrected?
That Joel Barnett (who created it) has called it a "Terrible mistake"
That even the SNP criticise it because it does not "protect the favourable spending position of Scotland". So they admit that spending is biased in favour of Scotland - they just whinge that the advantage is very slowly degrading