UK General Election 2015

[FiF]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Oh, and you don't think "Waste of space" is an insult? The type of behaviour you long decried on these threads, but have no descended to?

odd.

Depends what waste of space refers to doesn't it? Hint it doesn't refer to a person, or group of persons, so isn't an insult.

Why don't we go back to ignoring each other? Which is another way of saying, AGAIN, go away.

[Wombat3]

HonestIago said:

Wombat3 said:

Possibly not but it addresses the accusation that is so often made about parties "abandoning their core vote". They havn't they've followed them. Those that feel abandoned are simply not the core (contrary to what they would have us believe).

That'll be why Conservative party membership has collapsed under Cameron then.

Party membership is an irrelevant/outdated concept. Party membership has been in decline for years for pretty much all parties across developed countries the world over. What has happened in this country is no different to what has happened elsewhere in that respect.

Naturally new or growing parties go through a phase of membership growth but the absolute number of people who actually take out any kind of party membership is now very, very small in comparison to the size of the electorate.

It suits some to try and prove something from this change but it doesn't indicate or prove a thing.

[gregf40]

HonestIago said:

gregf40 said:

There is no way on Earth UKIP will get anywhere near 20% let alone 25%!

Voting UKIP is just going to result in Labour getting into power. Hopefully UKIP voters aren't that stupid and will use their vote wisely. If they don't then God help us.

Region: London

Place of Birth: Mansfield

[FiF]

On the other hand

[anonymous-user]

ralphrj said:

Ladbrokes latest odds for number of UKIP seats (taken from the Telegraph)

No. of seats	Odds
0	10/1
1	9/2
2	6/1
3	6/1
4	6/1
5	7/1
6	10/1
7	14/1
8	16/1
9	20/1
10	25/1

So on those odds, the most probable outcome is that two of Reckless, Carswell and Farage will fail to get a seat.

I wonder - if Farage is left standing when the music stops - hwo long he will be able to remain leader.

Anyhow... If the Greens and UKIP between them muster a max of three seats, they are likely to be insignificant in the balance of power. The SNP, the LDs, PC, the DUP and probably one or two others will each outnumber them.

If I had to put money today on the outcome, I'd go for:

- Cons will the popular vote, and have the most seats, but not a majority.
- LDs lose some seats but still return more than expected. But can't muster a majority with the Cons.
- Lab come second in the popular vote, and on a seat count.
- SNP third - ahead of the LDs - in seats.
- SNP and Lab together are just short of a majority of seats.
- Cons and LDs can't form a minority Govt because outnumbered by a bigger minority (Lab and SNP).
- Lab and SNP can form a minority Govt, and will try to do so with ad hoc support from smaller minorities to prop it up.

If so, it would leave the SNP in the unattractive position of preferring to support the party that came second in the popular vote, and second in the seat count, simply because they hate the Cons.

The X factor would be Clegg - or rather Clegg's removal. If the LDs feel that they've taken too much of a beating in the polls, I could see him being ousted, and then being replaced with someone who is more sympathetic to Lab and prepared to support it to provide a majority. Which would be bad too. The three of them (Lab, LD, SNP) would compete with each other to come up with the most heinous taxation ideas.

[jogon]

Greg66 said:

ralphrj said:

Ladbrokes latest odds for number of UKIP seats (taken from the Telegraph)

No. of seats	Odds
0	10/1
1	9/2
2	6/1
3	6/1
4	6/1
5	7/1
6	10/1
7	14/1
8	16/1
9	20/1
10	25/1

So on those odds, the most probable outcome is that two of Reckless, Carswell and Farage will fail to get a seat.

I wonder - if Farage is left standing when the music stops - hwo long he will be able to remain leader.

Anyhow... If the Greens and UKIP between them muster a max of three seats, they are likely to be insignificant in the balance of power. The SNP, the LDs, PC, the DUP and probably one or two others will each outnumber them.

If I had to put money today on the outcome, I'd go for:

- Cons will the popular vote, and have the most seats, but not a majority.
- LDs lose some seats but still return more than expected. But can't muster a majority with the Cons.
- Lab come second in the popular vote, and on a seat count.
- SNP third - ahead of the LDs - in seats.
- SNP and Lab together are just short of a majority of seats.
- Cons and LDs can't form a minority Govt because outnumbered by a bigger minority (Lab and SNP).
- Lab and SNP can form a minority Govt, and will try to do so with ad hoc support from smaller minorities to prop it up.

If so, it would leave the SNP in the unattractive position of preferring to support the party that came second in the popular vote, and second in the seat count, simply because they hate the Cons.

The X factor would be Clegg - or rather Clegg's removal. If the LDs feel that they've taken too much of a beating in the polls, I could see him being ousted, and then being replaced with someone who is more sympathetic to Lab and prepared to support it to provide a majority. Which would be bad too. The three of them (Lab, LD, SNP) would compete with each other to come up with the most heinous taxation ideas.

The odds are not exactly accurate on how many seats they will win as to win those odds you need to choose the exact number of MPs they achieve. For example Paddy Power is currently offering UKIP to win most votes at 25/1. Which if they achieved would land them far more than the 10 MPs Ladbrokes are currently offering.

[Zod]

Esseesse said:

gregf40 said:

Obviously not as a (relatively) radical right wing party will never get into power in the UK. It's just throwing away a vote.

It's one thing supporting them...it's another voting for them.

It can, but when it does it will not seem relatively radical.

The current setup looks radically left wing from the perspective of anything further away than 2 decades ago.

History did not begin in 1979, you know! Do you actually know anything about the politics of the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s? The NHS and Welfare State would have been introduced after the War by either party. The Conservatives when they returned to power under Churchill continued to develop the new institutions. Do you think the Macmillan/Eden and Heath governments were more right wing than the Tories now are?

[Mojocvh]

Wombat3 said:

HonestIago said:

Wombat3 said:

Possibly not but it addresses the accusation that is so often made about parties "abandoning their core vote". They havn't they've followed them. Those that feel abandoned are simply not the core (contrary to what they would have us believe).

That'll be why Conservative party membership has collapsed under Cameron then.

Party membership is an irrelevant/outdated concept. Party membership has been in decline for years for pretty much all parties across developed countries the world over. What has happened in this country is no different to what has happened elsewhere in that respect.

Naturally new or growing parties go through a phase of membership growth but the absolute number of people who actually take out any kind of party membership is now very, very small in comparison to the size of the electorate.

It suits some to try and prove something from this change but it doesn't indicate or prove a thing.

Cough...SNP

[Wombat3]

Mojocvh said:

Wombat3 said:

HonestIago said:

Wombat3 said:

Possibly not but it addresses the accusation that is so often made about parties "abandoning their core vote". They havn't they've followed them. Those that feel abandoned are simply not the core (contrary to what they would have us believe).

That'll be why Conservative party membership has collapsed under Cameron then.

Party membership is an irrelevant/outdated concept. Party membership has been in decline for years for pretty much all parties across developed countries the world over. What has happened in this country is no different to what has happened elsewhere in that respect.

Naturally new or growing parties go through a phase of membership growth but the absolute number of people who actually take out any kind of party membership is now very, very small in comparison to the size of the electorate.

It suits some to try and prove something from this change but it doesn't indicate or prove a thing.

Cough...SNP

QED

90,000 out of an electorate of over 4M

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2014/nov/snp-...

Less than 3%.

[wc98]

Wombat3 said:

QED

90,000 out of an electorate of over 4M

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2014/nov/snp-...

Less than 3%.

i think the point that your claim of all in decline everywhere does not apply to the snp.

[vournikas]

HonestIago said:

As far as I know, Yougov do not even prompt for UKIP in their polling.

I can assure you they do, based on the YouGov survey I completed yesterday.

[Esseesse]

Zod said:

History did not begin in 1979, you know! Do you actually know anything about the politics of the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s? The NHS and Welfare State would have been introduced after the War by either party. The Conservatives when they returned to power under Churchill continued to develop the new institutions. Do you think the Macmillan/Eden and Heath governments were more right wing than the Tories now are?

Yes I do know, and yes of course there were left leaning politicians and policies. Was the welfare state and the % spent on the NHS back then (for example) a match for the amount spent on it now? I do not know the numbers (and happy to be shown to be wrong on these things, every day is a learning day) but I suspect not.

[Wombat3]

wc98 said:

Wombat3 said:

QED

90,000 out of an electorate of over 4M

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2014/nov/snp-...

Less than 3%.

i think the point that your claim of all in decline everywhere does not apply to the snp.

Maybe not - but as I said "flavour of the week" parties will see a climb in membership. Right now that's the SNP, the Greens, UKIP etc. The relevant point is that its an irrelevant thing because the absolute numbers are so small.

[rovermorris999]

Esseesse said:

Yes I do know, and yes of course there were left leaning politicians and policies. Was the welfare state and the % spent on the NHS back then (for example) a match for the amount spent on it now? I do not know the numbers (and happy to be shown to be wrong on these things, every day is a learning day) but I suspect not.

Regarding the NHS the ironic thing is that spending was expected to go down over time as the population got healthier thanks to the NHS. How wrong can you be?

[wc98]

Wombat3 said:

Maybe not - but as I said "flavour of the week" parties will see a climb in membership. Right now that's the SNP, the Greens, UKIP etc. The relevant point is that its an irrelevant thing because the absolute numbers are so small.

agreed.

[GoneAnon]

Wombat3 said:

wc98 said:

Wombat3 said:

QED

90,000 out of an electorate of over 4M

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2014/nov/snp-...

Less than 3%.

i think the point that your claim of all in decline everywhere does not apply to the snp.

Maybe not - but as I said "flavour of the week" parties will see a climb in membership. Right now that's the SNP, the Greens, UKIP etc. The relevant point is that its an irrelevant thing because the absolute numbers are so small.

How much would the "big" parties pay to have a paying membership approaching 4% of their electorate? The "absolute numbers" aren't that small according to the link I've provided below.

What are the SNP offering that attracts over 90,000 members, mainly from Scotland I'd assume, and comfortably overtake the LDs across the whole UK?

Is it just possible that they are delivering policies that people approve of? Certainly, approval ratings for the party and both current and previous leaders safely outstrip those for any of the "big" parties.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/res...

[Wombat3]

GoneAnon said:

Wombat3 said:

wc98 said:

Wombat3 said:

QED

90,000 out of an electorate of over 4M

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2014/nov/snp-...

Less than 3%.

i think the point that your claim of all in decline everywhere does not apply to the snp.

Maybe not - but as I said "flavour of the week" parties will see a climb in membership. Right now that's the SNP, the Greens, UKIP etc. The relevant point is that its an irrelevant thing because the absolute numbers are so small.

How much would the "big" parties pay to have a paying membership approaching 4% of their electorate? The "absolute numbers" aren't that small according to the link I've provided below.

What are the SNP offering that attracts over 90,000 members, mainly from Scotland I'd assume, and comfortably overtake the LDs across the whole UK?

Is it just possible that they are delivering policies that people approve of? Certainly, approval ratings for the party and both current and previous leaders safely outstrip those for any of the "big" parties.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/res...

In relation to the size of the electorate the absolute numbers are tiny and have generally been in decline for years. Ergo party membership is an outdated concept as far as most of the electorate is concerned. That's either because most people simply don't feel that strongly about politics or , even if they do, in the digital age they simply don't feel the need to be a "card carrying member".

[Yazar]

The Lib Dems (Ed Davey) are on the attack in my constituency, had a multi-page booklet a few weeks ago attacking the Tories and had another one today with "tories have done this" and "tories did that"- this one was disguised in the formatting of a local community paper type layout with made up title to match.

Thought the lib dems were supposed to be nice and peace loving

[HonestIago]

www.msn.com/en-gb/news/generalelection2015

Paints a slightly different picture to what Yougov would have us believe. Over 24000 respondents and I can't see why Kippers should be especially likely to be on MSN News. I'm not saying UKIP will get 40%+ but merely that those expecting them to poll low teens are in for a shock!

[Sir Humphrey]

rovermorris999 said:

Regarding the NHS the ironic thing is that spending was expected to go down over time as the population got healthier thanks to the NHS. How wrong can you be?

Costs are only going to go up since there is no incentive to stay healthy when the taxpayers can foot the bill and there is no incentive to wait for a non-emergency appointment rather than go straight to A&E.