UK General Election 2015

[AJS-]

The next general election is going to be a case of who loses least rather than who wins. I suspect Labour will lose least and the lib dems most. However I suspect that the lib dem loss will favour the tories more. We're probably going to have a very shakey coalition government after the 2015 election.

[ralphrj]

AJS- said:

I suspect Labour will lose least and the lib dems most.

I would be amazed if the Libdems lose more seats than the Tories.

A lot has been written about the potential for a Libdem meltdown but constituency polling suggests that they will retain 30-35 seats (a loss of about 25).

Based on current polls I think the Tories will lose 70-75.

Labour will gain about as many as the Tories lose which will see them home with a small majority.

[AJS-]

Yeah I really meant "winning" in a wider sense than just number of seats. Labour may just scrape enough to form a majority but it won't be because of any great desire for a Labour government so much ad a lack of any viable alternative, except for a Tory party who are virtually identical but slightly more obnoxious to a slightly larger slice of the population.

[JustAnotherLogin]

AJS- said:

Yeah I really meant "winning" in a wider sense than just number of seats. Labour may just scrape enough to form a majority but it won't be because of any great desire for a Labour government so much ad a lack of any viable alternative, except for a Tory party who are virtually identical but slightly more obnoxious to a slightly larger slice of the population.

The Tories are not virtually identical or even remotely close to Labour unless you fixate on 2 policies (EU and immigration). On the economy, benefits, defence, NHS and many others they are well apart. The most important item in my view is the economy where they are massively apart. On that subject we don't unfortunately know where UKIP sit. Their official policies do not give sufficient information, and their previous statements on the subject are mutually contradictory. Woolfe and Farage in particular seem to have very different views.

[Derek Smith]

According to today's Sunday Times - although under the heading of 'New faces lash out at Milliband' as a bit of a payback of the goernment's attack on the BBC - labour is at 34%, cons 32%, ukip 15%, greens 8%, libdems 6%. Other polls suggest a bigger lead by labour.

It would appear that the recent ukip public embarrassments have taken their toll.

[Scuffers]

depends who's polling you believe?

TNS BMRB poll LAB 35% CON 28% UKIP 19% GRNS 7% LDEM 5%

[FiF]

Derek Smith said:

According to today's Sunday Times - although under the heading of 'New faces lash out at Milliband' as a bit of a payback of the goernment's attack on the BBC - labour is at 34%, cons 32%, ukip 15%, greens 8%, libdems 6%. Other polls suggest a bigger lead by labour.

It would appear that the recent ukip public embarrassments have taken their toll.

It's the trend that matters. One poll is merely a snapshot and not a prediction.

National % means nothing much really. The LD will win far more seats than that poll would suggest. UKIP will win far fewer seats than the LD but receiving, as things stand, a much higher % of the national vote.

[JustAnotherLogin]

FiF said:

It's the trend that matters. One poll is merely a snapshot and not a prediction.

National % means nothing much really. The LD will win far more seats than that poll would suggest. UKIP will win far fewer seats than the LD but receiving, as things stand, a much higher % of the national vote.

I agree its the trend. On which you can pick your period and take your choice: Pick the last 3 months and the trend slightly downwards. Last 12 months and it is slightly upwards. Shall we call it flat?

I disagree with you however that it is seats not national % that matters. Normally that is true, but in the case of UKIP at this election, the bigger impact will not how many seats they take, but how many votes they take off the Tories and to a less extend labour, and thus the impact they have on the seats taken by others

[Derek Smith]

FiF said:

It's the trend that matters. One poll is merely a snapshot and not a prediction.

National % means nothing much really. The LD will win far more seats than that poll would suggest. UKIP will win far fewer seats than the LD but receiving, as things stand, a much higher % of the national vote.

The Sunday Times has an interesting visual on the spread of voting. It is probable, as you say, that the libdems will secure considerably more seats than their % share suggests.

I'm not sure one can trust polls when there is a variation shown by other posters. You can also twist them to show what you want, or to give any side reassurance. It doesn't matter I suppose as the big day is the important one.

What is true though is that the ukip has put up a number of black marks over recent times.

[FiF]

JustAnotherLogin said:

I agree its the trend. On which you can pick your period and take your choice: Pick the last 3 months and the trend slightly downwards. Last 12 months and it is slightly upwards. Shall we call it flat?

I disagree with you however that it is seats not national % that matters. Normally that is true, but in the case of UKIP at this election, the bigger impact will not how many seats they take, but how many votes they take off the Tories and to a less extend labour, and thus the impact they have on the seats taken by others

Generally that's all fair comment but needs an additional rider that it's not just UKIP taking votes, but Labour and Greens taking votes off LibDems, or Lab losing votes to SNP as just another couple of examples.

The shift in voting pattern and voters changing allegiances is making the next election increasingly difficult to call.

But again agree as far as UKIP is concerned it's generally flattish.

The combined Con+Lab share continues to slide looked at in the longer term, which must be worrying for the main two and is part of the reason for the uncertainty.

[XJ Flyer]

JustAnotherLogin said:

The Tories are not virtually identical or even remotely close to Labour unless you fixate on 2 policies (EU and immigration). On the economy, benefits, defence, NHS and many others they are well apart. The most important item in my view is the economy where they are massively apart. On that subject we don't unfortunately know where UKIP sit. Their official policies do not give sufficient information, and their previous statements on the subject are mutually contradictory. Woolfe and Farage in particular seem to have very different views.

The fact is the Cons are all about running an economy based on minimising labour costs by over supplying the domestic labour market and/or offshoring jobs.In that environment the social security system and NHS are essential unless you want a load of starving,homeless,people dying in the strrets for lack of medical attention with crime rates going through the roof.While, contrary to the ideas of those who think that the social security system can be slashed in that environment,the truth is the Cons know it.

The fact is a decent civilised private social costs and health care provision system costs money in the form of wages to pay for it and that type of money isn't going to be found within the Cons idea of the global free market race to the bottom Communist/Capitalist hybrid which their ideology has lumbered the country with.

Which is why if the next election is not going to be all about some new thinking in the form of UKIP and hopefully a change to the Fordist model of Capitalism then get ready for years of the natural answer to that in the form of a socialist Libdem/SNP/Green alliance holding the balance of power in an alliance with Labour.

[AJS-]

JustAnotherLogin said:

The Tories are not virtually identical or even remotely close to Labour unless you fixate on 2 policies (EU and immigration). On the economy, benefits, defence, NHS and many others they are well apart. The most important item in my view is the economy where they are massively apart. On that subject we don't unfortunately know where UKIP sit. Their official policies do not give sufficient information, and their previous statements on the subject are mutually contradictory. Woolfe and Farage in particular seem to have very different views.

What are these differences you see? The Tories might be a little less free with money but it's matters of degree rather than fundamental difference in outlook.

Neither party seems interested in tackling the massive debt burden, fundamentally reducing welfare dependency or reducing the overall size and scope of the state. And the matter of EU membership which you mention is important enough to put me off either party anyway.

There are unknowns with UKIP but the knowns with the main 2 are pretty unappealing.

[XJ Flyer]

AJS- said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

The Tories are not virtually identical or even remotely close to Labour unless you fixate on 2 policies (EU and immigration). On the economy, benefits, defence, NHS and many others they are well apart. The most important item in my view is the economy where they are massively apart. On that subject we don't unfortunately know where UKIP sit. Their official policies do not give sufficient information, and their previous statements on the subject are mutually contradictory. Woolfe and Farage in particular seem to have very different views.

What are these differences you see? The Tories might be a little less free with money but it's matters of degree rather than fundamental difference in outlook.

Neither party seems interested in tackling the massive debt burden, fundamentally reducing welfare dependency or reducing the overall size and scope of the state. And the matter of EU membership which you mention is important enough to put me off either party anyway.

There are unknowns with UKIP but the knowns with the main 2 are pretty unappealing.

The only way that you'll reduce dependency on benefits is to increase demand and reduce supply of labour in a protected economy.That maintains income levels at a level which allows private provision of income protection,retirement funds and health cover.Neither Party wants to fix that because the Cons are all about running an economy based on minimising wage costs and Labour,in its present and historic form,loses the reason for its existence in an environment where there is no longer any need for socialist solutions to deal with the symptoms of low incomes.As for UKIP the jury is still out but the type of economy needed doesn't seem to be on UKIP's radar either.Assuming that you're referring to more of the same Con ideology of low incomes in an environment of private provision then be prepared for the answer to that in the form of a Labour win.

[Derek Smith]

XJ Flyer said:

AJS- said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

The Tories are not virtually identical or even remotely close to Labour unless you fixate on 2 policies (EU and immigration). On the economy, benefits, defence, NHS and many others they are well apart. The most important item in my view is the economy where they are massively apart. On that subject we don't unfortunately know where UKIP sit. Their official policies do not give sufficient information, and their previous statements on the subject are mutually contradictory. Woolfe and Farage in particular seem to have very different views.

What are these differences you see? The Tories might be a little less free with money but it's matters of degree rather than fundamental difference in outlook.

Neither party seems interested in tackling the massive debt burden, fundamentally reducing welfare dependency or reducing the overall size and scope of the state. And the matter of EU membership which you mention is important enough to put me off either party anyway.

There are unknowns with UKIP but the knowns with the main 2 are pretty unappealing.

The only way that you'll reduce dependency on benefits is to increase demand and reduce supply of labour in a protected economy.That maintains income levels at a level which allows private provision of income protection,retirement funds and health cover.Neither Party wants to fix that because the Cons are all about running an economy based on minimising wage costs and Labour,in its present and historic form,loses the reason for its existence in an environment where there is no longer any need for socialist solutions to deal with the symptoms of low incomes.As for UKIP the jury is still out but the type of economy needed doesn't seem to be on UKIP's radar either.Assuming that you're referring to more of the same Con ideology of low incomes in an environment of private provision then be prepared for the answer to that in the form of a Labour win.

So what can we do to reduce dependency on benefits? Most of those claiming benefits are in work, many in full time employment. One option might be to increase wages, perhaps by raising minimum wage considerably. That would reduce benefits to a great extent. Or reduce rents. Two ways to do that: build lots more accommodation or rent control.

Low income means that many are unable to make provision for pension, so at present we are creating a sort of PFI, putting off the problem.

One has to ask why the parties do not want to address these problems.

The ukip has no policies with these regards other than to increase employment by more forces, more police, more prisons, more, more, more, all paid for by leaving the EU which most commentators seem to think will be neutral financially.

[Scuffers]

Derek Smith said:

The ukip has no policies with these regards other than to increase employment by more forces, more police, more prisons, more, more, more, all paid for by leaving the EU which most commentators seem to think will be neutral financially.

like to understand where you gleaned this from?

apart from Labour, just about everybody is advocating slimming down the public sector? (and to be fair to the Tories, they are actually doing this!)

Ukip's stated policy is to reduce the size of government, yes they have made comments about beefing up borders, and that probably will require more front line staff, but with luck as a balance to reducing the bloated home office that seems incapable of doing anything either right or on time no matter how many people or outsourcers you bring in.

[XJ Flyer]

Derek Smith said:

XJ Flyer said:

AJS- said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

The Tories are not virtually identical or even remotely close to Labour unless you fixate on 2 policies (EU and immigration). On the economy, benefits, defence, NHS and many others they are well apart. The most important item in my view is the economy where they are massively apart. On that subject we don't unfortunately know where UKIP sit. Their official policies do not give sufficient information, and their previous statements on the subject are mutually contradictory. Woolfe and Farage in particular seem to have very different views.

What are these differences you see? The Tories might be a little less free with money but it's matters of degree rather than fundamental difference in outlook.

Neither party seems interested in tackling the massive debt burden, fundamentally reducing welfare dependency or reducing the overall size and scope of the state. And the matter of EU membership which you mention is important enough to put me off either party anyway.

There are unknowns with UKIP but the knowns with the main 2 are pretty unappealing.

The only way that you'll reduce dependency on benefits is to increase demand and reduce supply of labour in a protected economy.That maintains income levels at a level which allows private provision of income protection,retirement funds and health cover.Neither Party wants to fix that because the Cons are all about running an economy based on minimising wage costs and Labour,in its present and historic form,loses the reason for its existence in an environment where there is no longer any need for socialist solutions to deal with the symptoms of low incomes.As for UKIP the jury is still out but the type of economy needed doesn't seem to be on UKIP's radar either.Assuming that you're referring to more of the same Con ideology of low incomes in an environment of private provision then be prepared for the answer to that in the form of a Labour win.

So what can we do to reduce dependency on benefits? Most of those claiming benefits are in work, many in full time employment. One option might be to increase wages, perhaps by raising minimum wage considerably. That would reduce benefits to a great extent. Or reduce rents. Two ways to do that: build lots more accommodation or rent control.

Low income means that many are unable to make provision for pension, so at present we are creating a sort of PFI, putting off the problem.

One has to ask why the parties do not want to address these problems.

The ukip has no policies with these regards other than to increase employment by more forces, more police, more prisons, more, more, more, all paid for by leaving the EU which most commentators seem to think will be neutral financially.

The idea of building more cheap rate urbanisation to subsidise/cater for low incomes is not the answer we've been there done that the result being over developed areas and housing estates where people don't want to live.There is no way of increasing incomes without reducing the supply of labour by reversing the cheap labour immigration policy and changing the situation of an economy based on the minimising of labour costs.It is obvious that Labour or the Cons aren't the answer to that.While UKIP doesn't seem to have what it would take to sort out those issues in the form of taking on the CBI interests that are the cause of the problem..

[Johnnytheboy]

ralphrj said:

I would be amazed if the Libdems lose more seats than the Tories.

I've said more than once that I think that this election will be phenomenally hard to predict, as none of the three main parties is in a good place, the LD's worst of all.

So it'll be very hard to predict the outcome in two-horse races where an element of tactical voting has gone on previously on behalf of the third.

My seat (Somerton & Frome) for example is an archetypal west country seat - Very small lib dem majority over the Tories, labour a distant third.

So if the lib dems vote is greatly reduced by all the tactical voters fleeing, where will they go?

The idiots will go to UKIP (this is not a slur on UKIP, but a slur on voters who can flip from one party to another with diametrically opposed policies on almost everything), will the rest go Green? Labour?

They won't vote Tory and the Tories will lose to UKIP in any case.

So it's anyone's guess IMO, and the same must surely apply to a great many other seats.

[brickwall]

This'll be a fascinating election. Just some quick take-aways from the polls, having spoken to some people close to the action:

- Cameron is a more popular PM choice than Miliband (though neither are rated highly), but Labour are a more popular party than the Tories. Ashcroft's polling of marginals makes for painful reading if you're a Tory.
- On balance, Labour are likely to benefit more than the Tories from the decimation of the Lib Dems, and the rise of UKIP
- We could see a scenario where the Tories are the largest party, but Miliband is PM, if Labour lose lots of Scottish seats to the SNP

Most of all, it looks like it all could change by May.

[JustAnotherLogin]

Scuffers said:

apart from Labour, just about everybody is advocating slimming down the public sector? (and to be fair to the Tories, they are actually doing this!)

Ukip's stated policy is to reduce the size of government, yes they have made comments about beefing up borders, and that probably will require more front line staff, but with luck as a balance to reducing the bloated home office that seems incapable of doing anything either right or on time no matter how many people or outsourcers you bring in.

Where is it stated that is UKIP ppolicy to "reduce the size of government"?

I can see pledges to scrap a couple of departments (with no statement on where their functions will be fulfilled) and several policies that look like increasing the size of govt.

But i can't see a pledge to cut it overall

Are there more "official UKIP"policies than at
http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people
?

[AJS-]

XJ Flyer
As you say no-one is advocating protectionism, and it won't happen. Personally I think that is a very good thing as the UK can't live in isolation.

It's perfectly possible to have a basic safety net and functioning public sector in an open, free market economy. The key word is basic - it should ensure that no-one starves or sleeps rough for simple lack of resources, that we have law and order and the necessary infrastructure for the country to function. It can't, and never should have provided and alternative to productive employment for huge swathes of the population, or attempt to solve every problem faced by the country. It shouldn't be funding pointless military adventures or foreign aid/bribery programmes, and it shouldn't be keeping an army of educated and capable people shuffling bits of paper around.