UK General Election 2015
Discussion
brenflys777 said:
Wombat3 said:
What other outcomes have anything more than say 1% chance of occurring? Again, you don't seem to want to take the opportunity to even suggest what else is possible....?
The promise about the referendum is unequivocal IMO. Cameron + majority = referendum. Of course he can't guarantee it without a majority. Ergo if you really want it then you better try & make sure he has a majority!
Again its kipperish, tinfoil hat wearing nonsense to suggest otherwise. Not even St Nigel is banging that drum, the only drum he's banging is that we should do it sooner (in the full knowledge that that is utterly unrealistic of course).
One of Cameron or Miliband will be in Downing St on May 8th, its that simple.
Wombat - this is indeed simple stuff. You are saying that Cameron or Milliband will be PM on 8th May. I agree that is the most likely event, but you are factually wrong to say that this is the only possibility. There is no need for the 'kipperish' or 'tinfoil' insults and ridiculous 'StNigel' comments - it is quite childish. The promise about the referendum is unequivocal IMO. Cameron + majority = referendum. Of course he can't guarantee it without a majority. Ergo if you really want it then you better try & make sure he has a majority!
Again its kipperish, tinfoil hat wearing nonsense to suggest otherwise. Not even St Nigel is banging that drum, the only drum he's banging is that we should do it sooner (in the full knowledge that that is utterly unrealistic of course).
One of Cameron or Miliband will be in Downing St on May 8th, its that simple.
The possibilities on election day might vary. Other than Labour postal votes, I don't think the results have been counted yet.
One possibility is that having seen the way things have gone for Nick Clegg with Cameron, the Libs might demand a change of leadership as a coalition.
Another possibility is that having seen the way the Lib Dems have suffered - no one will form a coalition and we end up with a minority government and a Conservative or Labour change of leadership for the next election however soon that is.
UKIP might get enough seats to be influential and Cameron having labelled them swivel eyed loons may step down so that a workable solution is found.
Cameron might be in Downing Street on 8th May having to ask for a new election as Labour/Cons have the same number of seats without a majority.
I'm sure there are lots of other possibilities, some as ridiculous as the PM and the Chancellor meeting in a posh restaurant and deciding when the incapable of winning a GE chancellor steps into his shoes…. sorry that is ridiculous.
I can't say which of these possibilities is over 1% if any - because we don't know the result yet!
I think they will almost certainly cost Miliband a majority. The only question is whether Labour can then hold on to its vote South of the border to form a coalition or whether the spectre of that t
t Salmond at the cabinet table & as deputy PM will be enough to drive voters south of the border to ensure that he can't get near the place - which in turn will mean a Tory majority.The Tories will play this one at an ever increasing volume before May and it has legs IMO. The current proposals for "English devolution" will fail before the election at which point the line will be "See? and if you think this is bad, wait till after May if you allow a Lab/SNP coalition".
A serious case of the tail wagging the dog.
....and they may have a point.
Screw the EU and anything Mili-Balls can do, they are saints in comparison to what the SNP will try & do.
Have to agree with Wombat here. The message that really does have legs south of the border is the spectre that is the SNP having any real influence or say on things nationally, or even worse, influencing matters affecting England and/or Wales but not Scotland, especially if the Scots would be seen or suspected of indirectly ending up in a more favourable position.
FiF said:
Have to agree with Wombat here. The message that really does have legs south of the border is the spectre that is the SNP having any real influence or say on things nationally, or even worse, influencing matters affecting England and/or Wales but not Scotland, especially if the Scots would be seen or suspected of indirectly ending up in a more favourable position.
Yup, agree with you there..That single pole before the vote and the events that triggered are going to haunt us now for years.
Thanks to brown/Cameron/clegg/millipead/etc. Pannicing
Scuffers said:
Look, I am not against the idea of foreign aid, the problem is that we have now is nothing of the sort.
Take the Ebola outbreak, we did NOTHING for over 12 months, when if we had, probably could have broken the back of it with a few million (if that).
look at what comic relief get done with a few million a year, or medicine sans frontier, or the red cross.
now look at what we puch what? £13Bn into and tell me it's money well spent?
I have no problem with the idea of ~£1-2Bn being spent on real aid/relief work, and I suspect if it was managed right, it would make a massive difference.
I have often thought for a few billion a year you could run a couple of absolutely cutting edge hospital and aid ships ships built in the UK, maintained in the UK and manned with UK nationals that could make a massive difference in poor countries and keep the cash in the UK.Take the Ebola outbreak, we did NOTHING for over 12 months, when if we had, probably could have broken the back of it with a few million (if that).
look at what comic relief get done with a few million a year, or medicine sans frontier, or the red cross.
now look at what we puch what? £13Bn into and tell me it's money well spent?
I have no problem with the idea of ~£1-2Bn being spent on real aid/relief work, and I suspect if it was managed right, it would make a massive difference.
What the british army is currently doing in sierra leone is exactly how we should be spending our money.
We as a country have far more then cash, we have brains, knowledge, experience, know how and expertise. Why can't we use that instead of throwing cash at a problem?
This is what the best of the charity sector does.
Can you imagine a state run left leaning RNLI would do. They would fly out to a drowning man and throw him a bag of pound coins.
Whilst the real 4th emergency service have all turned up, got into their kit, launched and are leaping off wavetops en route to the casualty, a state run left leaning RNLI would be searching for paper to print out some blank risk assessment forms.
It's off topic but it's only one of the reasons that they are the main charity I support, their determined independence from government funding and all the downsides that go with it.
It's off topic but it's only one of the reasons that they are the main charity I support, their determined independence from government funding and all the downsides that go with it.
Wombat3 said:
We will see. Personally I think the joker in the pack is going to be the SNP.
I think they will almost certainly cost Miliband a majority. The only question is whether Labour can then hold on to its vote South of the border to form a coalition or whether the spectre of that tt Salmond at the cabinet table & as deputy PM will be enough to drive voters south of the border to ensure that he can't get near the place - which in turn will mean a Tory majority.
The Tories will play this one at an ever increasing volume before May and it has legs IMO. The current proposals for "English devolution" will fail before the election at which point the line will be "See? and if you think this is bad, wait till after May if you allow a Lab/SNP coalition".
A serious case of the tail wagging the dog.
....and they may have a point.
Screw the EU and anything Mili-Balls can do, they are saints in comparison to what the SNP will try & do.
I'd agree with you that the SNP might well be influential. It also seems predictable that the conservatives will continue to rely on trying to frighten people into voting conservative to avoid someone even worse. It's not inspiring but it might work. Cameron's lack of nerve and honesty with the Scottish referendum has handed the SNP more power even though they lost. I think they will almost certainly cost Miliband a majority. The only question is whether Labour can then hold on to its vote South of the border to form a coalition or whether the spectre of that t
t Salmond at the cabinet table & as deputy PM will be enough to drive voters south of the border to ensure that he can't get near the place - which in turn will mean a Tory majority.The Tories will play this one at an ever increasing volume before May and it has legs IMO. The current proposals for "English devolution" will fail before the election at which point the line will be "See? and if you think this is bad, wait till after May if you allow a Lab/SNP coalition".
A serious case of the tail wagging the dog.
....and they may have a point.
Screw the EU and anything Mili-Balls can do, they are saints in comparison to what the SNP will try & do.
The original point I made was that the tactic of insulting and trying to label UKIP might backfire. In the North of England and Midlands there are quite a number of seats where the conservatives have low support but UKIP are challenging Labour. If UKIP take seats off Labour in these areas and the SNP take some Scottish ones it might reduce the number of conservative votes but ensure they have the largest number of seats.
I personally don't think insulting UKIP voters concerns or intelligence has been a good move for the conservatives and in an election whose result can be affected by so many factors, the conservatives may regret this attitude, if their smears or insults actually work and scare people off UKIP then Labours heartlands in England might survive past May.
brenflys777 said:
Wombat3 said:
We will see. Personally I think the joker in the pack is going to be the SNP.
I think they will almost certainly cost Miliband a majority. The only question is whether Labour can then hold on to its vote South of the border to form a coalition or whether the spectre of that tt Salmond at the cabinet table & as deputy PM will be enough to drive voters south of the border to ensure that he can't get near the place - which in turn will mean a Tory majority.
The Tories will play this one at an ever increasing volume before May and it has legs IMO. The current proposals for "English devolution" will fail before the election at which point the line will be "See? and if you think this is bad, wait till after May if you allow a Lab/SNP coalition".
A serious case of the tail wagging the dog.
....and they may have a point.
Screw the EU and anything Mili-Balls can do, they are saints in comparison to what the SNP will try & do.
I'd agree with you that the SNP might well be influential. It also seems predictable that the conservatives will continue to rely on trying to frighten people into voting conservative to avoid someone even worse. It's not inspiring but it might work. Cameron's lack of nerve and honesty with the Scottish referendum has handed the SNP more power even though they lost. I think they will almost certainly cost Miliband a majority. The only question is whether Labour can then hold on to its vote South of the border to form a coalition or whether the spectre of that t
t Salmond at the cabinet table & as deputy PM will be enough to drive voters south of the border to ensure that he can't get near the place - which in turn will mean a Tory majority.The Tories will play this one at an ever increasing volume before May and it has legs IMO. The current proposals for "English devolution" will fail before the election at which point the line will be "See? and if you think this is bad, wait till after May if you allow a Lab/SNP coalition".
A serious case of the tail wagging the dog.
....and they may have a point.
Screw the EU and anything Mili-Balls can do, they are saints in comparison to what the SNP will try & do.
The original point I made was that the tactic of insulting and trying to label UKIP might backfire. In the North of England and Midlands there are quite a number of seats where the conservatives have low support but UKIP are challenging Labour. If UKIP take seats off Labour in these areas and the SNP take some Scottish ones it might reduce the number of conservative votes but ensure they have the largest number of seats.
I personally don't think insulting UKIP voters concerns or intelligence has been a good move for the conservatives and in an election whose result can be affected by so many factors, the conservatives may regret this attitude, if their smears or insults actually work and scare people off UKIP then Labours heartlands in England might survive past May.
Cameron called them Swivel-eyed loons about 8 or 9 years ago and frankly, at the time, that probably wasn't far from the truth.
The reason people call kippers "stupid" is because of the apparent myopic intransigence many display. Its quite obvious that a Labour led government will be a backward step, not only for the country but also in the context of bringing about UKIP's own aims but, apparently, (for some) that would be a "price worth paying". Utter horses
t IMO.UKIP may well be polling 15% - but that means 85% ARN'T on side with what its saying.
Meanwhile UKIP claims that it represents the real conservative party yet the actual conservative party is polling at double those numbers i.e. there are at least twice as many people who would align themselves to the Tories as they are now instead of UKIP. On that basis its fair to say that UKIP does NOT represent any kind of majority view within the conservative "spectrum" despite what many kippers would like to have us believe. Its fair to say not all kippers may be ex-Tories, but equally it'd be ludicrous to claim that the vast majority were not.
The single biggest failing of the whole UKIP approach for me is that they appear to think they can just erase the word "compromise" from the dictionary. Kippers don't do "compromise" its black or white, our way or the highway. Its doomed to failure & causes far more problems than it solves IMO.
Wombat3 said:
I don't think there is any more insulting of UKIP (from the Tories) than is being thrown over the wall in the other direction. The are certainly plenty of lies and manipulated truths told about the Tories (by kippers) hereabouts - opinion presented as facts etc.
Cameron called them Swivel-eyed loons about 8 or 9 years ago and frankly, at the time, that probably wasn't far from the truth.
The reason people call kippers "stupid" is because of the apparent myopic intransigence many display. Its quite obvious that a Labour led government will be a backward step, not only for the country but also in the context of bringing about UKIP's own aims but, apparently, (for some) that would be a "price worth paying". Utter horsest IMO.
UKIP may well be polling 15% - but that means 85% ARN'T on side with what its saying.
Meanwhile UKIP claims that it represents the real conservative party yet the actual conservative party is polling at double those numbers i.e. there are at least twice as many people who would align themselves to the Tories as they are now instead of UKIP. On that basis its fair to say that UKIP does NOT represent any kind of majority view within the conservative "spectrum" despite what many kippers would like to have us believe. Its fair to say not all kippers may be ex-Tories, but equally it'd be ludicrous to claim that the vast majority were not.
The single biggest failing of the whole UKIP approach for me is that they appear to think they can just erase the word "compromise" from the dictionary. Kippers don't do "compromise" its black or white, our way or the highway. Its doomed to failure & causes far more problems than it solves IMO.
Wombat, there is a lot of stuff in your post but I'd have to take issue with you saying that 'kippers' are presenting opinions as facts, then later saying that UKIP claim to represent the real Conservative party. UKIP have made no such claim at least to my knowledge - can you back that opinion up with a reference or link? Cameron called them Swivel-eyed loons about 8 or 9 years ago and frankly, at the time, that probably wasn't far from the truth.
The reason people call kippers "stupid" is because of the apparent myopic intransigence many display. Its quite obvious that a Labour led government will be a backward step, not only for the country but also in the context of bringing about UKIP's own aims but, apparently, (for some) that would be a "price worth paying". Utter horses
t IMO.UKIP may well be polling 15% - but that means 85% ARN'T on side with what its saying.
Meanwhile UKIP claims that it represents the real conservative party yet the actual conservative party is polling at double those numbers i.e. there are at least twice as many people who would align themselves to the Tories as they are now instead of UKIP. On that basis its fair to say that UKIP does NOT represent any kind of majority view within the conservative "spectrum" despite what many kippers would like to have us believe. Its fair to say not all kippers may be ex-Tories, but equally it'd be ludicrous to claim that the vast majority were not.
The single biggest failing of the whole UKIP approach for me is that they appear to think they can just erase the word "compromise" from the dictionary. Kippers don't do "compromise" its black or white, our way or the highway. Its doomed to failure & causes far more problems than it solves IMO.
On the insults, I see things differently, you yourself in the last few pages have referred to UKIP supporters as 'diehard kippers', 'idiots', 'stupid', 'myopic' and Farage as 'StNigel' ! I don't think it helps make any point you have.
I wouldn't agree that UKIP are trying to erase 'compromise' but they do have a less compromising approach to the EU, border control and social integration than the other parties. In comparison it seems fair to say that conservative principles are always being compromised by Cameron.
brenflys777 said:
Wombat3 said:
I don't think there is any more insulting of UKIP (from the Tories) than is being thrown over the wall in the other direction. The are certainly plenty of lies and manipulated truths told about the Tories (by kippers) hereabouts - opinion presented as facts etc.
Cameron called them Swivel-eyed loons about 8 or 9 years ago and frankly, at the time, that probably wasn't far from the truth.
The reason people call kippers "stupid" is because of the apparent myopic intransigence many display. Its quite obvious that a Labour led government will be a backward step, not only for the country but also in the context of bringing about UKIP's own aims but, apparently, (for some) that would be a "price worth paying". Utter horsest IMO.
UKIP may well be polling 15% - but that means 85% ARN'T on side with what its saying.
Meanwhile UKIP claims that it represents the real conservative party yet the actual conservative party is polling at double those numbers i.e. there are at least twice as many people who would align themselves to the Tories as they are now instead of UKIP. On that basis its fair to say that UKIP does NOT represent any kind of majority view within the conservative "spectrum" despite what many kippers would like to have us believe. Its fair to say not all kippers may be ex-Tories, but equally it'd be ludicrous to claim that the vast majority were not.
The single biggest failing of the whole UKIP approach for me is that they appear to think they can just erase the word "compromise" from the dictionary. Kippers don't do "compromise" its black or white, our way or the highway. Its doomed to failure & causes far more problems than it solves IMO.
Wombat, there is a lot of stuff in your post but I'd have to take issue with you saying that 'kippers' are presenting opinions as facts, then later saying that UKIP claim to represent the real Conservative party. UKIP have made no such claim at least to my knowledge - can you back that opinion up with a reference or link? Cameron called them Swivel-eyed loons about 8 or 9 years ago and frankly, at the time, that probably wasn't far from the truth.
The reason people call kippers "stupid" is because of the apparent myopic intransigence many display. Its quite obvious that a Labour led government will be a backward step, not only for the country but also in the context of bringing about UKIP's own aims but, apparently, (for some) that would be a "price worth paying". Utter horses
t IMO.UKIP may well be polling 15% - but that means 85% ARN'T on side with what its saying.
Meanwhile UKIP claims that it represents the real conservative party yet the actual conservative party is polling at double those numbers i.e. there are at least twice as many people who would align themselves to the Tories as they are now instead of UKIP. On that basis its fair to say that UKIP does NOT represent any kind of majority view within the conservative "spectrum" despite what many kippers would like to have us believe. Its fair to say not all kippers may be ex-Tories, but equally it'd be ludicrous to claim that the vast majority were not.
The single biggest failing of the whole UKIP approach for me is that they appear to think they can just erase the word "compromise" from the dictionary. Kippers don't do "compromise" its black or white, our way or the highway. Its doomed to failure & causes far more problems than it solves IMO.
On the insults, I see things differently, you yourself in the last few pages have referred to UKIP supporters as 'diehard kippers', 'idiots', 'stupid', 'myopic' and Farage as 'StNigel' ! I don't think it helps make any point you have.
I wouldn't agree that UKIP are trying to erase 'compromise' but they do have a less compromising approach to the EU, border control and social integration than the other parties. In comparison it seems fair to say that conservative principles are always being compromised by Cameron.
Wombat3 said:
Regardless of the rest of it, compromise is what makes the world work, and it applies to everything. If it makes you feel any better I think anyone that works for a living who votes labour must be borderline certifiable these days
I think Churchill would have taken. issues with you on this.Pragmatism has its place, but there are times when you have to take a stand.
Scuffers said:
Wombat3 said:
Regardless of the rest of it, compromise is what makes the world work, and it applies to everything. If it makes you feel any better I think anyone that works for a living who votes labour must be borderline certifiable these days
I think Churchill would have taken. issues with you on this.Pragmatism has its place, but there are times when you have to take a stand.
Interesting piece by Isabel Hardman.
guardia said:
One Tory MP merrily shouted: “Bye, bye!” at the sullen Labour benches as prime minister’s questions drew to a close last week. The session had gone very badly for Ed Miliband and his troops had gradually hunched up into sad, defensive positions as he struggled to land any punches on David Cameron. The Tories were thrilled they had managed to emerge from a session where their leader had faced a grilling on hedge funds, tax and donors with a clear victory. “What a disaster!” another one of them shouted at their opponents as they scuttled out. But even though the Conservatives were thrilled with Labour’s seemingly endless clumsiness, they are also acutely aware that the polls just aren’t shifting at all.
The two parties are locked together in the low 30s, sometimes a few points ahead before sinking behind a day later and then polling neck and neck the day after that. Indeed, one of the saving graces for Labour last week was that the party was mostly a few points ahead in the polls. But what all MPs are obsessively scouring every single poll for is the sign that they’re properly pulling out in front.
Many cabinet ministers don’t think the polls will change at all until the last few weeks of the campaign. One says: “We could end up in the same situation as 1992, where Labour were ahead right up to polling day.” Those working on the Labour campaign agree, with one telling me he doesn’t expect to believe the exit polls, let alone the numbers on the day. But I understand that Lynton Crosby has been holding briefings with MPs in which he predicts that the Tories will start to move ahead of Labour either this month or in March. Some say they have seen a graph by the Tory strategist that he claims backs up this prediction.
Crosby has also been running private polls in marginal seats since the start of the year that apparently suggest the Conservatives will do better than previous surveys have suggested. Indeed, many MPs in those seats are finding a better reception on the doorstep than they’d expected and some who were looking for jobs outside parliament now think they have a chance of holding on after all.
This, and Labour’s habit of repeatedly tripping over its own shoelaces, means that the Tories are in a surprisingly good mood. They have already reconciled themselves to the most likely result being a hung parliament, rather than a Tory majority. The confident way in which Crosby conducts his briefings gives them confidence too.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/08/labour-needs-good-slogan-needs-it-nowThe two parties are locked together in the low 30s, sometimes a few points ahead before sinking behind a day later and then polling neck and neck the day after that. Indeed, one of the saving graces for Labour last week was that the party was mostly a few points ahead in the polls. But what all MPs are obsessively scouring every single poll for is the sign that they’re properly pulling out in front.
Many cabinet ministers don’t think the polls will change at all until the last few weeks of the campaign. One says: “We could end up in the same situation as 1992, where Labour were ahead right up to polling day.” Those working on the Labour campaign agree, with one telling me he doesn’t expect to believe the exit polls, let alone the numbers on the day. But I understand that Lynton Crosby has been holding briefings with MPs in which he predicts that the Tories will start to move ahead of Labour either this month or in March. Some say they have seen a graph by the Tory strategist that he claims backs up this prediction.
Crosby has also been running private polls in marginal seats since the start of the year that apparently suggest the Conservatives will do better than previous surveys have suggested. Indeed, many MPs in those seats are finding a better reception on the doorstep than they’d expected and some who were looking for jobs outside parliament now think they have a chance of holding on after all.
This, and Labour’s habit of repeatedly tripping over its own shoelaces, means that the Tories are in a surprisingly good mood. They have already reconciled themselves to the most likely result being a hung parliament, rather than a Tory majority. The confident way in which Crosby conducts his briefings gives them confidence too.
I'm assuming these are the stats being used by Crosby which suggest the Tories should start to poll a bit better as the election gets nearer.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2014...
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2014...
BlackLabel said:
I'm assuming these are the stats being used by Crosby which suggest the Tories should start to poll a bit better as the election gets nearer.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2014...
Yes they may well be coupled in with work by Ashcroft. http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2014...
Problem with relying on a bounce is that is what has happened historically. Now it may well be a good guide and it happens again. This time the election map is different. Very different.
The two main parties are vulnerable, polling around 60% aggregate, occasionally lower. What's saving their skins at the moment is that of the 'other'parties no one party has garnered support sufficient to gain seats in Westminster other than in local areas favourable to their position and policies.
When one gets the support and starts to poll over 20% then Labour and Cons can look out. The party which does this may not be one currently in the contest.
Wombat3 said:
Guam said:
Who would bet on there not being a rerun within 9 months of May I wonder?
In which case only the Tories will turn up because nobody else has the money to do it twice in a year.Sure the Tories always have more money than the other parties but it doesn't seem to make a big difference. Even when Blair was at his peak the Tories spent more than Labour (at the 1997 and 2001 election for example).
Edited by BlackLabel on Monday 9th February 14:01
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff