General Election 2015

morstar

Anybody care to call it?

Hopefully the thread won't just go completely partisan but that's a risk I have to face.

Here's my take.
Conservatives: No chance of an overall majority. Incumbent party generally loses popularity in power and they couldn't even win outright last time vs a Labour party on the ropes with an unpopular leader.
Labour: People deserted them 5 years ago and they don't seem to be generating any momentum. Far too soon for a popular vote to give them an overall majority. Loss of votes in Scotland.
Lib Dem: Some sort of resurgence come May or genuinely dead and buried? Definitely a lot less seats.
UKIP: Seriously scary momentum. Is it a protest vote or not? Why does the working man vote for a party that aside from one anti immigration policy has no common interests with them?
SNP. Proper player in Westminster.

It's a fascinating and scary prospect. I can't see a two party majority government being achieved unless UKIP carve up a huge amount of votes from traditional Labour voters. Suspect it will be a totally hung parliament with 4 significant representations, Lib Dems not one of them.

Or will it all just revert to type because people fear their traditional enemy enough to not take a risk.

Maybe this is the genuine shake up that will really drive a change from the comfortable two party system with lots of safe seats.

pblakeney

I have stated before that it will be a hung parliament and I stand by that.

The protest votes will waver so it will be Conservative + whoever, or Labour + whoever.

Too close to call.

thegreatdivide

I reckon the death knell for Scottish Labour has now been rung. Although a while away, the latest polls are predicting the SNP will take at least 54 of 59 Scottish seats in 2015. This would potentially make them the third biggest party in Westminster. Queue frantic moves to take away Scottish votes for English issues next year.

random man

What about the Greens? They could take some Lib Dem seats. Worst possible scenario - Con/UKIP coalition :roll:

Dippydog3

Conservative majority. You heard it here first

morstar

Dippydog3 wrote:

Conservative majority. You heard it here first

Really? What do you see leading to that outcome?

DeVlaeminck

Lab/SNP coalition would be my guess - if the Lib Dems were stronger I'd say possibly with them involved.

If we end up with a situation where UKIP / Cons together outnumber the rest but wont join in govt. we could end up with a real mess and an early rerun of the election under the provisions of the Parliament Act.

finchy

Labour: Completely useless, the electorate will be unsure what they even stand for.
Tories: I don't think they really have people's trust on a wide range of issues.
Lib Dems: I feel (a bit) sorry for them. Back in the early 2000's they were the only one of the big 3 parties to predict that our debt-driven economy would crash and burn and the only party to pledge in their manifestos to regulate to prevent this. If they had been in coalition with Labour from 2001-5, we might not be in the mess we find ourselves today. They're still going to get a good kicking next year, though.
Greens: Could well win a few seats.
UKIP: Depends how much scrutiny they come under. If they keep getting Tory defectors, surely at some point Labour voters will turn their backs on them. Whether or not they come to an electoral agreement with the Tories could decide the outcome of the election.
SNP: Will take out Labour in Scotland.
PC: Same old, same old. A few seats.

So I'll say that a Labour/Lib Dem/SNP/PC/Green coalition will just about scrape in.

VTech

I would guess Conservative will be in total control but the past 4 years has really drove home the fact that it really doesn't matter. The problems we have here ATM can't really be fixed in a 4 year terms and the more that people complain about the rich getting richer, the more I realise that if you don't look after yourself, no one else will.

Of course this is a negative because it breeds ill feeling and doesn't really get us all to the place we would like to all be but what other choice is their ?
The problem is that I have the answers (as does anyone with common sense) but these don't sit well with many voters which is why the very simple things needed to start the ball rolling will never get done.

Lets see what we could quickly do.

1) Alcohol abuse - costs the NHS £3,000,000,000.00 per year
a) Make people pay for their own treatment, wether thats drunks paying for A&E or people with liver issues paying for treatment and care.

2) Drug abuse - cost in crime alone £16,000,000,000.00
a) pay for their treatment, make more treatment orders and increase the proceeds of crime act to remove wealth from banking and funds.

3) Increase MP's wages
a) I would like to think that if they were paid a salary equal to those in business of their level they would feel more comfortable in doing the job they were empowered to do and look at less "fruity" options.

pblakeney

thegreatdivide wrote:

I reckon the death knell for Scottish Labour has now been rung. Although a while away, the latest polls are predicting the SNP will take at least 54 of 59 Scottish seats in 2015. This would potentially make them the third biggest party in Westminster. Queue frantic moves to take away Scottish votes for English issues next year.

SNP MPs do not vote on English matters already out of principle.

Dippydog3

morstar wrote:

Dippydog3 wrote:

Conservative majority. You heard it here first

Really? What do you see leading to that outcome?

General elections are nothing like any other election. People may talk Labour, think LD but vote Conservative. In my view its all about who the population will rate and trust as a potential person to run the country.

Milliband. Not unless he is allowed to put his brother's name on the ballot paper.
Farage. Would be a serious contender for power sharing if the Scots had voted yes, but they didn't.
Clegg. Reached his peak during the last election's debates and will never be as highly rated ever again.
Cameron. With the lot above to compete with, how can he lose? And, most importantly, he has been in the job a while and we are all still breathing. For every example one person can quote telling you how badly he has done there are just as many who will remember the joys of Tony B who is now one of the world's leading capitalists.

RDW

Serious people with graphs, pie charts and colour-coded maps all seem to be predicting a hung parliament as the most likely outcome, though they're divided on who will win the most seats:

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
http://electionforecast.co.uk/
http://electionsetc.com/
http://www.ukelect.co.uk/HTML/forecasts.html

The bookies are saying the same:

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/bri ... l-majority

(with the shortest odds still on Ed Milliband as the next PM).

verylonglegs

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Lab/SNP coalition would be my guess - if the Lib Dems were stronger I'd say possibly with them involved.

If we end up with a situation where UKIP / Cons together outnumber the rest but wont join in govt. we could end up with a real mess and an early rerun of the election under the provisions of the Parliament Act.

I really can't see Labour being a threat at the next election, they really are in the middle of perfect storm of bad circumstances. The only reason they got in to begin with was with the right-leaning Blair. He then p1ssed a load of Labour backers off with his war on terror and then the most traditional of Labour voters by not caring they were the hardest hit by immigration. They then went on to elect the wrong Milliband as their leader who barely seems capable of holding onto what's left let alone winning any of the aformentioned back. Coupled along with most likely losing lots of seats in Scotland they may very well be looking for a paddle next May whilst up in sh1t creek.

Stevo_666

My gut feel says hung parliament, with the big question mark being whether Conservatives or Labour can/would form a government with one of the others. I doubt the Tories would form a government with UKIP and would rather do a re-run of the election; Labour may do a deal with the Lib Dems but I can't see them getting into bed with the SNP.

It's going to be interesting, although not necessarily very good for us as a country.

thegreatdivide

PBlakeney wrote:

thegreatdivide wrote:

I reckon the death knell for Scottish Labour has now been rung. Although a while away, the latest polls are predicting the SNP will take at least 54 of 59 Scottish seats in 2015. This would potentially make them the third biggest party in Westminster. Queue frantic moves to take away Scottish votes for English issues next year.

SNP MPs do not vote on English matters already out of principle.

Indeed. But the SNP are set to become a major force hence the rumblings post referendum.

The SNP have no need to build any coalition and have recently said so.

morstar

Labour look set to lose seats in Scotland and the conservative vote could potentially split quite drastically.
This leaves the two traditional powerhouses with far fewer seats than they may be familiar with, even in opposition years.
The question is where the conservative vote splits, does Labour gain seats with low percentage votes or does the Labour vote continue to swing towards UKIP also leaving some very tight 3 horse races.

I think Labour can only hope to lead a coalition of a lot of parties as suggested by Johnfinch or the Conservatives + UKIP could scrape a majority but it's going to be seriously messy politics. Either a very indecisive coalition or a ridiculous squabble over Europe.

If it does get really messy, does proportional representation become more or less likely as a future possibility when fptp no longer suits the biggest parties so well.

Stevo_666

morstar wrote:

Labour look set to lose seats in Scotland and the conservative vote could potentially split quite drastically.
This leaves the two traditional powerhouses with far fewer seats than they may be familiar with, even in opposition years.
The question is where the conservative vote splits, does Labour gain seats with low percentage votes or does the Labour vote continue to swing towards UKIP also leaving some very tight 3 horse races.

I think Labour can only hope to lead a coalition of a lot of parties as suggested by Johnfinch or the Conservatives + UKIP could scrape a majority but it's going to be seriously messy politics. Either a very indecisive coalition or a ridiculous squabble over Europe.

If it does get really messy, does proportional representation become more or less likely as a future possibility when fptp no longer suits the biggest parties so well.

If you think the scenarios described above are bad, then PR will just make it worse I reckon.

morstar

Stevo 666 wrote:

morstar wrote:

Labour look set to lose seats in Scotland and the conservative vote could potentially split quite drastically.
This leaves the two traditional powerhouses with far fewer seats than they may be familiar with, even in opposition years.
The question is where the conservative vote splits, does Labour gain seats with low percentage votes or does the Labour vote continue to swing towards UKIP also leaving some very tight 3 horse races.

I think Labour can only hope to lead a coalition of a lot of parties as suggested by Johnfinch or the Conservatives + UKIP could scrape a majority but it's going to be seriously messy politics. Either a very indecisive coalition or a ridiculous squabble over Europe.

If it does get really messy, does proportional representation become more or less likely as a future possibility when fptp no longer suits the biggest parties so well.

If you think the scenarios described above are bad, then PR will just make it worse I reckon.

Mixed feelings. Agree it will in the short term but...

arguably a more collaborative form of government with less drastic swings of power theoretically promotes more long term thinking than 5 year cycles.

I think the PR thing is unlikely but, supposing we really have reached the end of two party politics; all of a sudden having seats that reflect your vote share becomes more appealing than all or nothing scenarios when there are no longer lots of safe seats in the bank.

pinno

VTech wrote:

I would guess Conservative will be in total control but the past 4 years has really drove home the fact that it really doesn't matter. The problems we have here ATM can't really be fixed in a 4 year terms and the more that people complain about the rich getting richer, the more I realise that if you don't look after yourself, no one else will.

Of course this is a negative because it breeds ill feeling and doesn't really get us all to the place we would like to all be but what other choice is their ?
The problem is that I have the answers (as does anyone with common sense) but these don't sit well with many voters which is why the very simple things needed to start the ball rolling will never get done.

Lets see what we could quickly do.

1) Alcohol abuse - costs the NHS £3,000,000,000.00 per year
a) Make people pay for their own treatment, wether thats drunks paying for A&E or people with liver issues paying for treatment and care.

2) Drug abuse - cost in crime alone £16,000,000,000.00
a) pay for their treatment, make more treatment orders and increase the proceeds of crime act to remove wealth from banking and funds.

No, you missed a trick there' Legalise it and get the tax revenue off it. It costs the state £47k per year to put someone on methodone which doesn't work. I have known guys who have been on md scripts for years where the French use morphine and get them off in a matter of weeks. Pharmacies are paid in the region of £110k a year to dispense the stuff. Imagine the profit shortfall of the Pharmaceutical companies if we switched to medicinal morphine? If you see what I mean.
Pay the Taliban for x kg's of Heroin and $35 for their Kalashnikov's whilst your at it thereby ending the Afghanistan problem - they can't grow anything else. If some 'infidel' pointed a gun in my face telling me I can't grow my cash crop, I must burn it and then somehow feed my family, on account of some silly low life miles away in the West who get hooked on smack, i'd pick up a gun.

Charging them a fee won't make the slightest bit of difference and you'll end up with 'druggies' dead on the pavement and in the parks and houses they occupy. Maybe crime will rocket when 'druggies' go into A & E unconscious and then get landed a bill on the way out that they cannot pay .

Fat people abuse their bodies - are you going to charge them for treatment as well? Where do you draw the line?

There is far too little on preventative medicine. I would like to see more emphasis on diet and lifestyle instead of constantly fire fighting:
Compulsory school meals and more sport, home economics back into the syllabus etc, after all, the NHS was formed to deal with poor public health from the ground up, Rickets and the like as well as treating the sick.
Personally, the NHS and Education should be run by independent bodies so that what are two critical elements of our society, are no longer used as political footballs.

DeVlaeminck

verylonglegs wrote:

I really can't see Labour being a threat at the next election, they really are in the middle of perfect storm of bad circumstances.

It's a difficult one to call that's for sure but last poll I saw they had a 4 point lead and generally it takes fewer votes to elect a Labour MP than a Tory MP.

I just wonder who will form a coalition with the Tories next time because they wont have won an outright majority for 23 years and unless they are going to pal up with UKIP I can't see any of the others joining them in government.

pblakeney

thegreatdivide wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

thegreatdivide wrote:

I reckon the death knell for Scottish Labour has now been rung. Although a while away, the latest polls are predicting the SNP will take at least 54 of 59 Scottish seats in 2015. This would potentially make them the third biggest party in Westminster. Queue frantic moves to take away Scottish votes for English issues next year.

SNP MPs do not vote on English matters already out of principle.

Indeed. But the SNP are set to become a major force hence the rumblings post referendum.

The SNP have no need to build any coalition and have recently said so.

Which is reaffirming my point.
Taking away SNP MP's vote on English matters will make zero difference as they won't vote anyway.
I predict a comfortable SNP win in Scotland and a lot of uncomfortable bed partners in Westminster come June.
The SNP will then start asking the question, better together? And build up to another referendum.
With the mess that could result in Westminster, I wouldn't blame them.
MPs better learn how to work in a centralist coalition quickly or there could be a sh!tstorm. I cannot think of two parties who would comfortably work together and form a majority as things are just now.
PS:- And probably due another thread, but I predict a recession in 2015.

DeVlaeminck

VTech wrote:

Lets see what we could quickly do.

1) Alcohol abuse - costs the NHS £3,000,000,000.00 per year
a) Make people pay for their own treatment, wether thats drunks paying for A&E or people with liver issues paying for treatment and care.

2) Drug abuse - cost in crime alone £16,000,000,000.00
a) pay for their treatment, make more treatment orders and increase the proceeds of crime act to remove wealth from banking and funds.

3) Increase MP's wages
a) I would like to think that if they were paid a salary equal to those in business of their level they would feel more comfortable in doing the job they were empowered to do and look at less "fruity" options.

As the poster above said the idea of making people pay for drink and drug related costs is unworkable - what do you do when people can't pay - let them die ? put them in jail ?

As for MPs wages - as we've seen in the banking sector paying people lots of money is not a guarantee of competency, honesty or attracting more able people in general. It's a complete red herring and I'd much rather people were attracted to being MPs by the opportunity to serve others than serve their own bank balance.

mamba80

DeVlaeminck wrote:

VTech wrote:

1) Alcohol abuse - costs the NHS £3,000,000,000.00 per year
a) Make people pay for their own treatment, wether thats drunks paying for A&E or people with liver issues paying for treatment and care.
2) Drug abuse - cost in crime alone £16,000,000,000.00
a) pay for their treatment, make more treatment orders and increase the proceeds of crime act to remove wealth from banking and funds.
3) Increase MP's wages
a) I would like to think that if they were paid a salary equal to those in business of their level they would feel more comfortable in doing the job they were empowered to do and look at less "fruity" options.

As the poster above said the idea of making people pay for drink and drug related costs is unworkable - what do you do when people can't pay - let them die ? put them in jail ?

As for MPs wages - as we've seen in the banking sector paying people lots of money is not a guarantee of competency, honesty or attracting more able people in general. It's a complete red herring and I'd much rather people were attracted to being MPs by the opportunity to serve others than serve their own bank balance.

I think vtech has a point, I listened to an AE nurse say about how demoralising it was to work a w/e shift and see the same people week in/out turning up bladdered, there r issues with how this would be enforced but we cannot keep up this model of the nhs, its just unsustainable and the services it offers are way over and above what it was originally set up for, ukip got slated for suggesting an insurance aspect to health care but other countries with equally good or better health care systems do this, the French system is rated the best in the world, albeit at a much higher gdp cost but its better and that's the point.
as for MPs pay, these guys have to work in London, and 65k is nothing, so the mps have several 2nd jobs and fix their expenses to make up what they think they should be on, also, the people it attracts are possibly only those who can afford to work for a relatively small wage.

As for the election, lib/dems no MPs, the result will be a labour/snp/green coalition or minority Government with SNP in tacit support, with the first casualty Myleen Klass fleeing to Barbados.

norvernrob

I can see that going down a storm with voters.

'£65k is nothing, though it's a vast amount more than most of you earn, so we have to fiddle expenses to make a nice living'.

In what world is £65k 'nothing' or 'a relatively small wage'?

pblakeney

NorvernRob wrote:

I can see that going down a storm with voters.

'£65k is nothing, though it's a vast amount more than most of you earn, so we have to fiddle expenses to make a nice living'.

In what world is £65k 'nothing' or 'a relatively small wage'?

Mine.

VTech

NorvernRob wrote:

I can see that going down a storm with voters.

'£65k is nothing, though it's a vast amount more than most of you earn, so we have to fiddle expenses to make a nice living'.

In what world is £65k 'nothing' or 'a relatively small wage'?

Its a pittance.
You won't find any successful businessman/woman with that salary.

The way to view it is think about what your earning and then think about what the owner of the company your working for is on.
You won't find anyone in control of a company with tens of thousands of staff on a salary less than a few hundred K ! but you expect an MP to do his/her best for you in your town or city.

I realise many would love this salary and understand that to many it is a lot of money but it isn't given the circumstances.

DeVlaeminck

An MP isn't in charge of a company though. Yes there is a case for paying them more - it's a decent salary - well above average but especially in London not massively so. I don't think you'd end up with better MPs if you doubled their pay though - or cut down on them taking backhanders or second jobs.

There is also an issue that if MPs pay is increased massively it becomes a more attractive path for "career politicians" -something that is generally seen as a problem - and means they are less representative of the population where the average salary is already only about half of what they are on now.

mm1

Wow, there's some skewed ideas of what is or isn't a good wage and do any of you honestly think there are many (any) M.P. stuggling to get by on "only" £65k. The rot set in when politics became a career, rather than public service that you went into after doing something useful first. I don't mean lawyering btw, my (Tory) MP is a commercial lawyer, who evidently missed the day at Oxford Poly when he would have been told about the difference between his own and other people's money. Another 5 years of shabby coalition deals (among whatever parties) and we will have sunk as low as Italy.

Stevo_666

Whether £65k is reasonably of not depends on what you do to earn it and the level of responsibility. Given that MP's are charged with reperenting us and running the country then a salary equivalent to a professional vocation seems about the right sort of level to me.

Agree with the point above about coalition deals making us like Italy eventually. We can only hope the Miliband survives and ruins any reamining credibility/electability for Labour, the Lib Dems get wiped out as many predict and people think long and hard before voting UKIP in a general election. Then the resulting Tory majority can avoid doing any shabby coalition deals and get things done

mr_goo

I have always wondered why the Tories wanted to get into power in 2010. The country was screwed financially due to mismanagement of the treasury since 1997. So why didn't the Conservatives just bide their time, run a benign campaign and sit in opposition for another 4-5 years?
With Labours inability to management money greater than the intake of a church bazaar the treasury would have dried up. Money for social security and NHS would have disappeared, the population on the lower wage spectrum would really have been hit hard (and they think they have it tough now?). Social unrest would have seen people taking to the streets in protest. With their anger directed at the very people that purport to fight their corner. It would have meant that Labour would become a totally un-electable party in 2014/15.

pblakeney

Mr Goo wrote:

I have always wondered why the Tories wanted to get into power in 2010. The country was screwed financially due to mismanagement of the treasury since 1997. So why didn't the Conservatives just bide their time, run a benign campaign and sit in opposition for another 4-5 years?
With Labours inability to management money greater than the intake of a church bazaar the treasury would have dried up. Money for social security and NHS would have disappeared, the population on the lower wage spectrum would really have been hit hard (and they think they have it tough now?). Social unrest would have seen people taking to the streets in protest. With their anger directed at the very people that purport to fight their corner. It would have meant that Labour would become a totally un-electable party in 2014/15.

I think that you have answered your own question.
And the Labour party were evidently unelectable in 2010 so why wait for 5 years to inherit an even worse Country?