Could we see another General Election this year?
Poll: Could we see another General Election this year?
Total Members Polled: 238
Discussion
Just been reading an interesting article in The Guardian that speculates (not that wildly IMO) that we could see a GE again this year and it suggests the Conservatives could make a clean break from the LibDems and get themselves a nice majority in the process.
Personally I'm not so sure the odds would be that good for the Tories as I think many of Labour's supporters would be feeling the pain of the cuts and many LibDem supporters would lean to Labour but it is an interesting idea
Article is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/2...
Personally I'm not so sure the odds would be that good for the Tories as I think many of Labour's supporters would be feeling the pain of the cuts and many LibDem supporters would lean to Labour but it is an interesting idea
Article is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/2...
Stranger things have happened but I'm not sure they'll risk it. Clearly the AV referendum has shaken the pot but a certain amount of it will just be pantomine with Cameron and Clegg both throwing red meat to their respective parties to put some clear blue (or yellow) water between the parties before the local elections.
An election would be fought on the current (loaded towards Labour) boundaries and as such it's a risky proposition for both partners. The Libs would on current polling be virtually wiped out and yet the Tories might not still make it over the finish line with a majority or even worse we end up with a Labour/Lib coalition with a wafer thin majority which would plunge us back into the abyss as the markets would crap themselves with Balls as chancellor. I think the best hope for both parties is keep the train on the track until 2015, deliver a solid economy, equalise the boundaries and go for a majority then.
An election would be fought on the current (loaded towards Labour) boundaries and as such it's a risky proposition for both partners. The Libs would on current polling be virtually wiped out and yet the Tories might not still make it over the finish line with a majority or even worse we end up with a Labour/Lib coalition with a wafer thin majority which would plunge us back into the abyss as the markets would crap themselves with Balls as chancellor. I think the best hope for both parties is keep the train on the track until 2015, deliver a solid economy, equalise the boundaries and go for a majority then.
If the voting reform referendum causes the coalition to disintegrate a general election is more or less inevitable.
Labour would win, because most voters are apparently stupid enough to think Labour can pay for lots of shiny things whereas the Tories just put taxes up and take the shiny things away.
As the economy appears to be recovering already, there's the horrible possibility that a victorious Labour adminstration would take credit for the benefits resulting from the coalition's economic policy.
Labour would win, because most voters are apparently stupid enough to think Labour can pay for lots of shiny things whereas the Tories just put taxes up and take the shiny things away.
As the economy appears to be recovering already, there's the horrible possibility that a victorious Labour adminstration would take credit for the benefits resulting from the coalition's economic policy.
Parrot of Doom said:
The Libdems would be nuts to even consider risking a general election. Right now they have much more influence on policy than they ever did, they'd be risking losing that power, and becoming smaller as a political party.
CMD knows this and can take the piss as much as he likes; there's no chance the Lib Dems will give up power now because if they did it would be the end of them as a party. Johnnytheboy said:
If the voting reform referendum causes the coalition to disintegrate a general election is more or less inevitable.
Labour would win, because most voters are apparently stupid enough to think Labour can pay for lots of shiny things whereas the Tories just put taxes up and take the shiny things away.
As the economy appears to be recovering already, there's the horrible possibility that a victorious Labour adminstration would take credit for the benefits resulting from the coalition's economic policy.
+1. Labour would win, because most voters are apparently stupid enough to think Labour can pay for lots of shiny things whereas the Tories just put taxes up and take the shiny things away.
As the economy appears to be recovering already, there's the horrible possibility that a victorious Labour adminstration would take credit for the benefits resulting from the coalition's economic policy.
Only problem is, even if there is a recovery, which won;t be anytime soon, to any extent, it wouldn't be strong enough to survive the onslaught of another rabid Labour f
k-up.I think they would take us down the tubes so fast, even Greece would look like an economic miracle.
Parrot of Doom said:
The Libdems would be nuts to even consider risking a general election. Right now they have much more influence on policy than they ever did, they'd be risking losing that power, and becoming smaller as a political party.
+1 - previous experience at Holyrood indicates they'll do anything to get & cling on to power. There's no way they'll break off the coalition unless there's a coup & Clegg gets replaced by an arch-SDPite. Even then, I think that's unlikely.If Nick Clegg gets a resounding beating in the AV poll, he may well have to consider resigning from leading his party, as its clear that the last year has done them huge damage in future elections. It must be dawning on them by now that the electorate are going to be blaming the Lib Dems for giving the conservatives carte blanche to do what they like. Their rating in the opinion poles are disasterous and most of their MP's will struggle to retain they're seats in a future election.
So they must change their direction, and the best way of doing that is to reject the leader.
If he does resign, a new leader could well desolve the current agreement to power share forcing a general election.
So they must change their direction, and the best way of doing that is to reject the leader.
If he does resign, a new leader could well desolve the current agreement to power share forcing a general election.
Corsair7 said:
Dead duck government unable to pass any vtes usually does the trick.
But would a general election change that? The polls don't show a Conservative government if CMD went to the country.http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
Fittster said:
But would a general election change that? The polls don't show a Conservative government if CMD went to the country.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
It might not change that, but no government can do business without some kind of majority, so they would at least try. We could end up having a run of 3 or 4 elections over several years.http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
Turmoil.
bus pass said:
That's pretty much what I was going to write.
Whether a GE is this year or in 2015, Labour will win by such a huge majority that it will make 1997 look like chicken feed.
I see more Labour support now than I ever have done in the past, and hear more anti-Conservative mutterings than I recall hearing back in 96/97. If it was Labour policy to rape your first born, folk would still vote for them in the millions, (regardless of whom they have as leader of the party). The stupidity of the electorate never fails to amaze me.
The Lib-Con pact will cling on to power for as long as they can, but TBH they are just pissing in the wind. They might as well just hand the reins over to Labour now and let them get on with turning us into 1960's Russia or China.
I agree with your sentiment, but don't necessarily agree with your findings. As a Tory living in a staunchly red part of the world, I agree with you that the bile directed at the party is tangible but I'd temper that by saying that the left always shout louder. You'd never see 'Labour scum' sprayed anywhere but daubing 'Tory scum' is almost a rite of passage for the crusty left. Marches, demonstrations and outbreaks of public disorder almost never happen under Labour administrations as frankly those of us who would like to demonstrate are too busy doing other things. That's how Labour got away with all that insidious left-wing lawmaking and social engineering for 13 years but God forbid the Tories trying the same thing. The Blair Broadcasting Corporation and Labour's placemen won't let them forget that they are the hated Tories! Whether a GE is this year or in 2015, Labour will win by such a huge majority that it will make 1997 look like chicken feed.
I see more Labour support now than I ever have done in the past, and hear more anti-Conservative mutterings than I recall hearing back in 96/97. If it was Labour policy to rape your first born, folk would still vote for them in the millions, (regardless of whom they have as leader of the party). The stupidity of the electorate never fails to amaze me.
The Lib-Con pact will cling on to power for as long as they can, but TBH they are just pissing in the wind. They might as well just hand the reins over to Labour now and let them get on with turning us into 1960's Russia or China.
I also think you over-rate Millipede's chances. Labour won't win without bringing back Tony's Tories in the kind of numbers it did in 1997 and 2001 and I don't sense any great rush by these people to flock to the Labour altar. The more Labour looks like a tribute band to the vested interests of the unions and those sucking from the state teet (and that will only increase as Balls' influence grows) then the more appealing the Tories will become to Middle England. It's all about 2015. If the economy comes back (and Osborne looks increasingly vindicated as bad news comes from other countries) and the train looks to be heading back in the right direction then no to AV and the boundary changes will be a huge help to Dave. I'd still put a bit of cash on a Tory majority in 2015.
bus pass said:
That's pretty much what I was going to write.
Whether a GE is this year or in 2015, Labour will win by such a huge majority that it will make 1997 look like chicken feed.
I see more Labour support now than I ever have done in the past, and hear more anti-Conservative mutterings than I recall hearing back in 96/97. If it was Labour policy to rape your first born, folk would still vote for them in the millions, (regardless of whom they have as leader of the party). The stupidity of the electorate never fails to amaze me.
The Lib-Con pact will cling on to power for as long as they can, but TBH they are just pissing in the wind. They might as well just hand the reins over to Labour now and let them get on with turning us into 1960's Russia or China.
This is why the clever folk wanted labour to win the last election as who ever won the last election are going to be destroyed in the next election.Whether a GE is this year or in 2015, Labour will win by such a huge majority that it will make 1997 look like chicken feed.
I see more Labour support now than I ever have done in the past, and hear more anti-Conservative mutterings than I recall hearing back in 96/97. If it was Labour policy to rape your first born, folk would still vote for them in the millions, (regardless of whom they have as leader of the party). The stupidity of the electorate never fails to amaze me.
The Lib-Con pact will cling on to power for as long as they can, but TBH they are just pissing in the wind. They might as well just hand the reins over to Labour now and let them get on with turning us into 1960's Russia or China.
Labour operated a scorched earth policy and cameron and co will reap the rewards
Corsair7 said:
It might not change that, but no government can do business without some kind of majority, so they would at least try. We could end up having a run of 3 or 4 elections over several years.
Turmoil.
An enlightened Government could do exactly that, i.e. operate without a majority, and promulgate legislation through consensus. There is no requirement for Parliament to continually legislate; in fact, it would arguably be better if they stopped for a few years and allowed the dust to settle. So much of the meaningful stuff involves powers already delegated to Ministers, or the passage of secondary legislation, that a lot could continue without a 'working majority'.Turmoil.
Although the systems are different, if we look back upon Clinton's presidency, it was arguably most successful precisely because, for much of the time, he was a Democratic President facing a Republican Congress, so that only those issues upon which there was broad-based agreement actually got through. In consequence, there was surprisingly little change and, as a result, the country got on amidst an outbreak of stability and the economy thrived because of it.
I would prefer "my" Government to govern, not to treat being 'in power' as a continual process of social and economic experimentation. There is a difference, and it would be nice to see it understood from time-to-time!
skwdenyer said:
Corsair7 said:
It might not change that, but no government can do business without some kind of majority, so they would at least try. We could end up having a run of 3 or 4 elections over several years.
Turmoil.
An enlightened Government could do exactly that, i.e. operate without a majority, and promulgate legislation through consensus. There is no requirement for Parliament to continually legislate; in fact, it would arguably be better if they stopped for a few years and allowed the dust to settle. So much of the meaningful stuff involves powers already delegated to Ministers, or the passage of secondary legislation, that a lot could continue without a 'working majority'.Turmoil.
Although the systems are different, if we look back upon Clinton's presidency, it was arguably most successful precisely because, for much of the time, he was a Democratic President facing a Republican Congress, so that only those issues upon which there was broad-based agreement actually got through. In consequence, there was surprisingly little change and, as a result, the country got on amidst an outbreak of stability and the economy thrived because of it.
I would prefer "my" Government to govern, not to treat being 'in power' as a continual process of social and economic experimentation. There is a difference, and it would be nice to see it understood from time-to-time!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff