UK General Election 2015
Discussion
McWigglebum4th said:
But keep going and the majority of england will hate you
This is clearly SNP plan b. IMO They have played an absolute blinder. Sturgeon knows that this pretend cosying up to Labour is toxic in England, nothing more she would love than a Tory majority with no MP's in an almost universally SNP Scotland; the Union would simply be untenable. Even Labour supporters are not so thick as to realise that in any negotiation, Sturgeon will pull Little Ed's pants down at English tax payers expense. A minority Labour government with SNP holding the balance of power would arguably be even better in terms of free money, with independence postponed a while longer. Assuming the SNP get the results they are currently polling they are on to a winner. I have absolutely no idea why the Tories want to keep Scotland fblm said:
This is clearly SNP plan b. IMO They have played an absolute blinder. Sturgeon knows that this pretend cosying up to Labour is toxic in England, nothing more she would love than a Tory majority with no MP's in an almost universally SNP Scotland; the Union would simply be untenable. Even Labour supporters are not so thick as to realise that in any negotiation, Sturgeon will pull Little Ed's pants down at English tax payers expense. A minority Labour government with SNP holding the balance of power would arguably be even better in terms of free money, with independence postponed a while longer. Assuming the SNP get the results they are currently polling they are on to a winner. I have absolutely no idea why the Tories want to keep Scotland
I really wish the scots had left now.Labour would be screwed in the UK, we could continue on the path to recovery while Scotland finally found out what its like to not be propped up by us at a time when their best exports tumbled in price.
UK probably could of bought Edinburgh off them for 50p in 10 years....
l354uge said:
I really wish the scots had left now.
Labour would be screwed in the UK, we could continue on the path to recovery while Scotland finally found out what its like to not be propped up by us at a time when their best exports tumbled in price.
UK probably could of bought Edinburgh off them for 50p in 10 years....
IMO Scotlands secession is now a given, the only real question is how much money you throw at them in the mean time.Labour would be screwed in the UK, we could continue on the path to recovery while Scotland finally found out what its like to not be propped up by us at a time when their best exports tumbled in price.
UK probably could of bought Edinburgh off them for 50p in 10 years....
Symbolica said:
This sums up my current views pretty well:
"Politics is now a shouting match of absurd personalities"
"Politics is now a shouting match of absurd personalities"
Barclaygraph said:
...as our system shifts away from two-and-a-half-party politics, the opportunity is amplified for small, characterful parties to tear our executive off course.
The problem is significantly one of the two-and-a-half parties not having a clear course between them; if the electorate were presented with 2+1/2 clear courses as once was normal, perhaps the small parties might have found it difficult if not impossible to gain traction. Instead we have 2.5 bald men fighting over the comb of the centre ground, with the winners not quite sure what to do with it once wrested from the opposition.
MiniMan64 said:
All this talk of polls with the Tories and Labour equal on 34/35 points, does it actually mean anything?
I presume the points refer to the percentage of popular vote? But how is that even relevant when it's winning seats not percentage of the vote that counts?
Portillo has said a few times on This Week that having an equal share of the vote is bad news for the Tories as they'll get fewer seats out of it than Labour will. I'm not sure how the permutations stack up with all of the marginals though.I presume the points refer to the percentage of popular vote? But how is that even relevant when it's winning seats not percentage of the vote that counts?
Symbolica said:
MiniMan64 said:
All this talk of polls with the Tories and Labour equal on 34/35 points, does it actually mean anything?
I presume the points refer to the percentage of popular vote? But how is that even relevant when it's winning seats not percentage of the vote that counts?
Portillo has said a few times on This Week that having an equal share of the vote is bad news for the Tories as they'll get fewer seats out of it than Labour will. I'm not sure how the permutations stack up with all of the marginals though.I presume the points refer to the percentage of popular vote? But how is that even relevant when it's winning seats not percentage of the vote that counts?
The LDs block of boundary commission changes to constituencies means the Cons have to poll quite a few more percentage points than Lab to get an equal number of seats. That is precisely not how it is supposed to work, but it how it will work.
Greg66 said:
They are predictingCon 281
Lab 281
LD 17
SNP 48
It looks like Con would win as they are current government, but would be unable to form new government. Lab would form vote-by-vote alliance with SNP and have a majority of 3. SNP will have Lab and the UK by the cahones.
If Con got one more seat than Lab, there is the possibility that the PM could come from a party that is not the majority party. I don't think that has ever happened. Is this allowed within our unwritten constitution? This, I guess, is one of the reasons why is is unwritten
.I couldn't find the answer last night, so I did some calculations in Excel and here are the results from the 2010 election in reverse order of majority (tightest seat first)...
http://www.porterbility.co.uk/Files/XLS/GE2010-res...
http://www.porterbility.co.uk/Files/XLS/GE2010-res...
Symbolica said:
This sums up my current views pretty well:
"Politics is now a shouting match of absurd personalities"
"Politics is now a shouting match of absurd personalities"
Politics should be banned from social media for the duration of the campaign, manifesto's only and then if they deviate from their promises people might, just might, remember who lied to them next time round.......
pingu393 said:
Greg66 said:
They are predictingCon 281
Lab 281
LD 17
SNP 48
It looks like Con would win as they are current government, but would be unable to form new government. Lab would form vote-by-vote alliance with SNP and have a majority of 3. SNP will have Lab and the UK by the cahones.
If Con got one more seat than Lab, there is the possibility that the PM could come from a party that is not the majority party. I don't think that has ever happened. Is this allowed within our unwritten constitution? This, I guess, is one of the reasons why is is unwritten
.4th most voted for party = 17 seats
Mental.
MiniMan64 said:
pingu393 said:
Greg66 said:
They are predictingCon 281
Lab 281
LD 17
SNP 48
It looks like Con would win as they are current government, but would be unable to form new government. Lab would form vote-by-vote alliance with SNP and have a majority of 3. SNP will have Lab and the UK by the cahones.
If Con got one more seat than Lab, there is the possibility that the PM could come from a party that is not the majority party. I don't think that has ever happened. Is this allowed within our unwritten constitution? This, I guess, is one of the reasons why is is unwritten
.4th most voted for party = 17 seats
Mental.
5th most voted for party = 1 seat
6th most voted for party that wants to break up the nation = 48 seats.
Personally happy to see the Scots clear off and stew in their own misfortune. No doubt the EU would be happy to let them join and then heap money in their direction just to p
s off the English. FiF said:
MiniMan64 said:
pingu393 said:
Greg66 said:
They are predictingCon 281
Lab 281
LD 17
SNP 48
It looks like Con would win as they are current government, but would be unable to form new government. Lab would form vote-by-vote alliance with SNP and have a majority of 3. SNP will have Lab and the UK by the cahones.
If Con got one more seat than Lab, there is the possibility that the PM could come from a party that is not the majority party. I don't think that has ever happened. Is this allowed within our unwritten constitution? This, I guess, is one of the reasons why is is unwritten
.4th most voted for party = 17 seats
Mental.
5th most voted for party = 1 seat
6th most voted for party that wants to break up the nation = 48 seats.
Personally happy to see the Scots clear off and stew in their own misfortune. No doubt the EU would be happy to let them join and then heap money in their direction just to p
s off the English. FiF said:
6th most voted for party that wants to break up the nation = 48 seats.
Yes. I did some quick and dirty calcs, and the conclusion was that the SNP could not be getting more bang per vote. They are in roughly 50 of 650 seats - or 1/13. Seats are supposed (haha, thanks, LDs) equal numbers of voters. If you assume that because of other parties fracturing the vote, you can win a seat with about 45% of the vote, 45% of 1/13 of 100% is pretty damn close to their predicted share of the vote.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff