The UK General Election 2015

Strangely nobody seems to have picked up on the Radio 1 affair I mentioned earlier.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11556469/Listen-to-David-Camerons-hostile-Radio-1-interview.html

I was not in fact surprised that Cameron got the heat there, nor that he wasn't able to nail every detail. What struck me was how apparently nobody - not the audience, not the presenter, not the people asking - was the tiniest little bit interested in Cameron's answers. One would think if he takes the trouble to open himself for all kinds of questions the least the audience could do was make the most out of it. By now he's unlikely to win over voters - and yet, wouldn't it be at least interesting to learn what and why he answers as he does? Baffling, to say the least.

b

Sure, pet. Whatever sails your boat.

Back to topic, I'm impressed by Cameron's plans for the England-only income tax, strikes me as sensible move.


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/24/cameron-manifesto-england-only-income-tax-2016-ukip?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

Cameron will say: “We do not support English nationalists. We do not want an English parliament. We are the Conservative and Unionist party through and through. This manifesto simply recognises that the democratic picture has got more complicated in the UK so, beyond our main manifesto, English voters deserve one document, clarifying in black and white what they can expect.”

Jim Murphy calling for social solidarity seems outdated, he clearly hasn't heard the shot. I suppose this Tory plan could help them along in some crucial areas. Will it be the turn-round for their campaign? I for one don't believe they are as weak as some make them out to be.

b

Salmond was right last year that a No vote in the referendum was simply a delayed Yes vote. It is increasingly clear that the Scottish form a distinct demos, to such an extent that every seat in the entire country is set to go to a seperatist party that doesn't want to be in the union. Was it really worth all those idiotic promises from sentimental unionists to keep Scotland from flying the nest from our "family of nations"?

This next parliament is going to be complete chaos but a Lab/SNP deal will put UKIP in prime position to snatch a good bundle of increasingly vulnerable seats in Labour's former northern heartlands - so, looking to the long-term health of our country, this arrangement certainly has its advantages.

n

I think UKIP will hold Clacton for sure. Other than that the polling suggests they'll win Thurrock and South Thanet, and before 2010 vote reallocation etc. is applied to the polls they put them ahead in Castle Point and Boston & Skegness. I also think Mark Reckless will hold Rochester & Strood once his name is on the ballot paper, but that's speculation on my part. I certainly think they'll win somewhere in the region of 5-8 rather than 2, and I'll probably put some money on them taking over 3.5 before polling day.

Nonetheless, lots of second places in the north is what they're going to need in this election if they want to develop into a significant force in Westminster. This kind of thing takes multiple election cycles, as the experience of the Reform Party of Canada attests.

I also suspect, as far as the SNP goes, that they might want to pull out of any confidence and supply arrangement before the 2016 Scottish Parliament election for messaging purposes.

M

Erica Ambler wrote:

HJackson wrote:

a Lab/SNP deal will put UKIP in prime position to snatch a good bundle of increasingly vulnerable seats in Labour's former northern heartlands - so, looking to the long-term health of our country, this arrangement certainly has its advantages.

All independent polling suggests that UKIP will come second in many seats, but fail to win more than one or two, which will put Britain's first-past-the-post system back in the firing line.

It's certainly going to be an interesting next five years with the United Kingdom set to be ruled by a  party working for its dismemberment. I'm trying to think of a historical precedent for that.

Separatists in power? We are having that experiment right now in Belgium. It's been... interesting.

x

Erica Ambler wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Separatists in power? We are having that experiment right now in Belgium. It's been... interesting.

Oh really? So much for unprecedented then...

What's been happening in Belgium? I am aware that you were without a government for a while yet the country seemed to function perfectly well.

We actually had a faster growing economy in the 500+ days without a government.

Right now we have a coalition of the Flemish separatists (NVA), Christian Democrats and Liberal Democrats.
However, as the biggest party, the NVA has been determining the course, and it's been a painful process. Lots of bickering even within the majority.
I honestly cannot see this lasting four more years. It's a bit of a problem if the party at the helm of the country does no longer believe in said country's continued existence.

Interestingly enough, Nate Silver has predicted that the Tories will likely win, but will always need the SNP to form a coalition. Considering his great track record with making these predictions, it's certainly worth discussing that scenario.

x

b

Erica Ambler wrote:

The SNP won't do a deal with the Tories so I doubt Silver said that. Although the Conservatives may gain  the largest vote, it'll still be unable to form a majority government even with the help of the LibDems and Northern Ireland parties. (I'm assuming UKIP don't win more than a couple of seats here.) Unless that's what Silver/you meant?

Right now, I'm assuming that the Tories beat Labour in the vote, but that Labour forms a government propped up by the SNP despite Ed Miliband saying that is not an option. So the whole UK will be controlled by a tiny group of MPs from Scotland dedicated to the destruction of the kingdom. It's clear that Britain's electoral system is broken and cannot accommodate scenarios involving more than three large parties.

(Thanks for the info on Belgium, BTW. Was reading about the NVA last night. Interesting situation you have there ... )

http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/uk-general-election-predictions/

It's based on this fivethirtyeight piece.

In the scenario you describe, Labour would need more than just SNPs help.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Right now, I'm assuming that the Tories beat Labour in the vote, but that Labour forms a government propped up by the SNP despite Ed Miliband saying that is not an option. So the whole UK will be controlled by a tiny group of MPs from Scotland dedicated to the destruction of the kingdom. It's clear that Britain's electoral system is broken and cannot accommodate scenarios involving more than three large parties.

This is the way I see it panning out, I think last minute support for UKIP will collapse to a large extent although persist most strongly where they impact directly on Tory seats. Ironically Lib/Dems biggest achievement in their stint in office was the referendum on voting reform...something clearly much needed in terms of genuine representation in government, however it can only come with a significant change in party politics and public attitude - I agree the SNP won't work with the Tories but in many ways legislation should probably demand that is exactly the scenario that should play out - government working in the best interests of country ahead of party colour.

x

x

To be fair, this is true for a lot of the behavior that is deemed acceptable - for whatever reason - in politics:

Quote :

"Why on earth should we trust a chancellor who says letter like that was a joke? If he worked in the corporate world he’d have been fired and he would not be allowed back to do that job, and you're telling me he can.”

Ed Miliband - his face is made of plasticine and he wants a female Bond next.

And the only leader who couldn't master the Question Time Q-shaped platform.

x

b

Ha! That's about right!