Who do you want to form the next Government?

greg66_tri_v2.0

OK - complementary thread to DDD's.

You can only vote for one of the parties as ane fule kno'. This poll assumes that having voted you recognise that there will be no single party with a Parliamentary majority. So it is deal time. It also refers to coalitions where support only has been indicated and formal coalition ruled out (eg Labour/SNP).

Who would you like to see form the Government?

Only the principal prospects are specifically listed, so if you want a Green/UKIP/SDLP alliance, too bad. Vote "other".

elbowloh

Looking at some analysis in the Guardian at the moment, bearing in mind you need 326 seats to form a majority, they were predicting (based on a range of current polls) that a coalition of two parties alone would not be enough to form an overall majority.

e.g. Labour and SNP or Conservatives and Lib Dems would only just get over the 300 mark.
A coalition of Labour, SNP and Lib dems might (350ish), a coalition of Tory, Lib Dem and UKIP, would still not be enough...apparently.

secretsam

How about a Conservative - Green - SNP coalition? That would last all of, ooh, 5 minutes??!?!?!?

greg66_tri_v2.0

elbowloh wrote:

Looking at some analysis in the Guardian at the moment, bearing in mind you need 326 seats to form a majority, they were predicting (based on a range of current polls) that a coalition of two parties alone would not be enough to form an overall majority.

e.g. Labour and SNP or Conservatives and Lib Dems would only just get over the 300 mark.
A coalition of Labour, SNP and Lib dems might (350ish), a coalition of Tory, Lib Dem and UKIP, would still not be enough...apparently.

You probably need 323 in reality as Sinn Fein will hold their six seats and their MPs don't take them up.

electoralcalculus.co.uk has Lab on 280 and the SNP on 48, which is enough to get them over the line. The Cons are on 282 and the LDs on 17, which isn't. It's been pretty static on there for a week - the main changes are UKIP bouncing between 1 and 2 (1 means Farage loses - ha!) and some swapsies of 1-2 seats between Con and Lab.

tgotb

Conservative / Labour - at least they'd have the majority to push through anything they did manage to agree on :-)

rubertoe

TGOTB wrote:

Conservative / Labour - at least they'd have the majority to push through anything they did manage to agree on :-)

Labourtive.....

elbowloh

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

elbowloh wrote:

Looking at some analysis in the Guardian at the moment, bearing in mind you need 326 seats to form a majority, they were predicting (based on a range of current polls) that a coalition of two parties alone would not be enough to form an overall majority.

e.g. Labour and SNP or Conservatives and Lib Dems would only just get over the 300 mark.
A coalition of Labour, SNP and Lib dems might (350ish), a coalition of Tory, Lib Dem and UKIP, would still not be enough...apparently.

You probably need 323 in reality as Sinn Fein will hold their six seats and their MPs don't take them up.

electoralcalculus.co.uk has Lab on 280 and the SNP on 48, which is enough to get them over the line. The Cons are on 282 and the LDs on 17, which isn't. It's been pretty static on there for a week - the main changes are UKIP bouncing between 1 and 2 (1 means Farage loses - ha!) and some swapsies of 1-2 seats between Con and Lab.

I think the Guardian only had Labour down for 262 or around there.

drlodge

A bit surprised at the popularity of another Tory/LibDem coaltion but its only 4 votes one of which is mine! We could do a lot worse I think...its more a question of which is the least worst option. Think the LibDems have done a decent job in reigning in the worst of the Tory right wing and I'm a slightly right of centre kind of bloke.

Its going to be really interesting (and a bit frightening) to find out who the next parliament is made up of.

elbowloh

My overriding concern is over the NHS. You might not like, but I think its something we should be proud of. Yes it does need reform and improvement, but it really is an incredible institution.

I'm convinced that the Tories are determined to privatise it and they are doing so for ideological reasons.

They blatantly lied to us over the "no top down reorganisation of the NHS" debacle and Lansley's Health "reforms" were so bad that even the conservatives admit they were disastrous.

So for me, anything but Tory (or UKIP because they're clearly utter barstewards and bonking barstewards at that).

greg66_tri_v2.0

NHS reform is the third rail of British politics. Labour says reform and it means more money for the NHS. Conservatives say reform and Labour say it means the end of the NHS.

I've had it very best benefits, and I've also had to go private when it would have been glacially slow for the matter in hand. Undoubtedly it needs reform, but where does one start? It's a political football; to have any chance of sensible reform surely it has to come out of the political arena altogether.

jamesco

drlodge wrote:

A bit surprised at the popularity of another Tory/LibDem coaltion but its only 4 votes one of which is mine!

It's an internet-poll. If Greg had added "One Direction for the cabinet" it would've had 1,000 votes already

Well, as Gideon and his Tory chums have kept the UK in a slump worse than the Great Depression by following austerity policies against all macro-economic advice, I'd have to vote against him and his enablers.

If the UK had PR, then I could vote for a party I wanted, but it has to be tactical (in Ealing), so Labour it is.

CYCLESPORT1

Why no UKIP ?

dhope

CYCLESPORT1 wrote:

Why no UKIP ?

they're there - see "plus other minor parties"

CYCLESPORT1

UndercoverElephant

Oh dear. Who invited the Kipper?

elbowloh

CYCLESPORT1 wrote:

Local transport for local people.

No to the no-tails!

debeli

I should be perfectly happy (at least minimally unhappy) with a Tory-LibDem coalition or a Labour-LibDem coalition.

I'm quite reassured that the notion of coalition has entered the mindset of the UK electorate, if rather late. Not as an ideal, but as one of several possible outcomes.

Should such a coalition come about, I do hope a LibDem could be muscled into No 11. I find GO a slightly wet tory-boy fop and EB an unpleasant bully with too much of Brown about him to be given the keys to the exchequer.

I cannot take the SNP seriously as a party of national (UK) government, in coalition or otherwise.

elbowloh

Debeli wrote:

I should be perfectly happy (at least minimally unhappy) with a Tory-LibDem coalition or a Labour-LibDem coalition.

I'm quite reassured that the notion of coalition has entered the mindset of the UK electorate, if rather late. Not as an ideal, but as one of several possible outcomes.

Should such a coalition come about, I do hope a LibDem could be muscled into No 11. I find GO a slightly wet tory-boy fop and EB an unpleasant bully with too much of Brown about him to be given the keys to the exchequer.

I cannot take the SNP seriously as a party of national (UK) government, in coalition or otherwise.

I think neither a Tory/LD nor a Labour/LD coalition would have enough seats on their own to form a majority though.

drlodge

Debeli wrote:

I should be perfectly happy (at least minimally unhappy) with a Tory-LibDem coalition or a Labour-LibDem coalition.

I'm quite reassured that the notion of coalition has entered the mindset of the UK electorate, if rather late. Not as an ideal, but as one of several possible outcomes.

Should such a coalition come about, I do hope a LibDem could be muscled into No 11. I find GO a slightly wet tory-boy fop and EB an unpleasant bully with too much of Brown about him to be given the keys to the exchequer.

I cannot take the SNP seriously as a party of national (UK) government, in coalition or otherwise.

I agree...I can't take any parties outside of the main 3 seriously as a party of national governance. They're all fundamentally parties based on a single issue/nationalistic agenda which does not represent a fair and well balanced agenda sutiable for forming a UK government. I could live with a Tory majority or a LibDem coalition with either Tories or Labour. My fear is that the Tory party won't let DC get into bed again with Cleggy, and if that happens I can't see how any coalition could be formed with the Torys.

smiley_boy2501

Christ who wants cons/ld again! For me any combination with labour. Preferably green but I know that's a pipe dream.
Let's help out the poor, tax the rich and not privatise the NHS.
I appreciate labour will probably do none of the above but I'd like to think they're more likely to try.

iPete

Conservative/LD, I like some of the 'beliefs' that the greens offer but they are little more and despise the self interested career politicians lining them and their mates pockets but better the devil you know.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Interesting to see the contrast between this poll and DDD's voter poll. It sort of confirms what I had thought (even without my inherent confirmation bias in play).

Voting between the major two is split fairly evenly. But there is a relatively strong and clear preference for maintaining the status quo.

The trouble is, you can't vote for the status quo.

And both the Cons and the LDs seem to have lost core support over the last 5 years, presumably because they have not not been enough Con-like or LD-like. Yet they aren't acquiring any voters to replace that lost support, despite the overall preference for maintaining the status quo.

Net result: Labour sneak in, supported by the SNP and funded by forests of Magic Money Trees.

(Anecdotally: 66 Major and Minor are both at London fee paying schools. As one might expect, some of their friends have very very loaded parents. Such friends are already passing around what I assume are dinner table conversations from home about leaving school and moving abroad in Labour win. Capital flight in real time).

rick_chasey

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

(Anecdotally: 66 Major and Minor are both at London fee paying schools. As one might expect, some of their friends have very very loaded parents. Such friends are already passing around what I assume are dinner table conversations from home about leaving school and moving abroad in Labour win. Capital flight in real time).

My friends all said the same about a Tory party getting in.

Guess what? They didn't. They'll go ' well we'll see how it goes' and see that it's not all changing very much.

I spend my professional time dealing with people with high 6 and 7 figure total comps across EMEA. I did during the 50% tax hike and I've seen it afterwards.

Of the (just looked on the database) 1,500 people I've had proper conversations with over the past 5 years or so about location, comp etc, I can only find 2 people who specifically moved for tax reasons, and none have mentioned politics.

There are a handful of firms who have moved to Switzerland over the past 5 years, (big firms, £100bn+ turnover), but that was much more to do with lack of prying government eyes (since they're businesses who do less savoury business *ahem*). Though even that's changing, since Euro pressure on transparency is reducing that advantage, and after cost of living, it's not all that different to the UK cost wise, and they struggle to get hold of younger talent because they don't want to live in what is, clearly, one of the most boring parts of the world when you're under the age of 30.

Broono83

drlodge wrote:

Debeli wrote:

I cannot take the SNP seriously as a party of national (UK) government, in coalition or otherwise.

I agree...I can't take any parties outside of the main 3 seriously as a party of national governance. They're all fundamentally parties based on a single issue/nationalistic agenda which does not represent a fair and well balanced agenda sutiable for forming a UK government.

You could say the same about the Tories. There are about 7 people in Scotland who vote Tory but we get lumbered with them in the UK government regularly. While the Tories may be alright if you live in South East England the majority of the UK actually don't live there. In terms of membership the SNP are the UKs 3rd largest party so maybe they are one of the main 3?

We live in a democracy and people should vote for who they want. Every MP is as worthy as every other no matter their party as they represent the view of people who wanted them there. Our voting system isn't ideal but we have to play by the rules that are in place.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

My friends all said the same about a Tory party getting in.

Guess what? They didn't. They'll go ' well we'll see how it goes' and see that it's not all changing very much.

I spend my professional time dealing with people with high 6 and 7 figure total comps across EMEA. I did during the 50% tax hike and I've seen it afterwards.

Of the (just looked on the database) 1,500 people I've had proper conversations with over the past 5 years or so about location, comp etc, I can only find 2 people who specifically moved for tax reasons, and none have mentioned politics.

Why would people want to leave the country if a Tory Government gets in? They like paying lots of tax? They work in the public sector? They're on benefits?

Anyway, without wishing to get into a pissing contest these are people in high 7 / low 8 figure houses who, I suspect, are spooked at the mansion tax.

One also has to have in mind how portable the business/income stream is. An SME with 100 employees isn't going anywhere fast. A banker, a partner in a large law firm or accountancy, or a hedge fund manager could skip a lot more easily.

Still, when the mansion tax becomes an asset tax catching all aggregated assets over (say) £150k, perhaps the short sighted voters who are so keen on it now will realise that you need an income to pay tax. Assets don't drip disposable money to find tax bills.

rick_chasey

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

One also has to have in mind how portable the business/income stream is. An SME with 100 employees isn't going anywhere fast. A banker, a partner in a large law firm or accountancy, or a hedge fund manager could skip a lot more easily.

If I was a banker my main concern would be London staying inside the EU, which you cannot guarantee with the rabid anti-EU brigade within the Tories. http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... ncertainty. Leaving the EU will be more costly to business than any tax the labour party will put in - which I doubt will be particularly big, despite your protestations - just like it was 15 years ago.

Lose the EU that and you can kiss goodbye to half of the city, in a way any 'banker tax' won't (which, as someone who spends a fair bit of time negotiating said comp - is a fairly meaningless rule in reality). And they're not all that easy to relocate, as I find time and time again in my job.

I just don't buy this 'if labour will come in all rich people will leave'. It wasn't true 15 years ago, and it wasn't even true during the 50% income tax hike. I literally look at that stuff all day and I just don't see it.

I saw some French move over after the 75% tax hike but that's not an option over here in the UK - far too extreme.

So what evidence do you have - other than the highbrow chat you have over dinner with your friends?

elbowloh

Broono83 wrote:

drlodge wrote:

Debeli wrote:

I cannot take the SNP seriously as a party of national (UK) government, in coalition or otherwise.

I agree...I can't take any parties outside of the main 3 seriously as a party of national governance. They're all fundamentally parties based on a single issue/nationalistic agenda which does not represent a fair and well balanced agenda sutiable for forming a UK government.

You could say the same about the Tories. There are about 7 people in Scotland who vote Tory but we get lumbered with them in the UK government regularly. While the Tories may be alright if you live in South East England the majority of the UK actually don't live there. In terms of membership the SNP are the UKs 3rd largest party so maybe they are one of the main 3?

We live in a democracy and people should vote for who they want. Every MP is as worthy as every other no matter their party as they represent the view of people who wanted them there. Our voting system isn't ideal but we have to play by the rules that are in place.

Clearly, its not just people in the South East who vote Tory or otherwise, they would never get in to government.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

So what evidence do you have - other than the highbrow chat you have over dinner with your friends?

So besides the evidence I have of what people say they might do in specific circumstances in the future, do I have any evidence of what people might do in specific circumstances in the future? No, besides that evidence, I don't have any evidence.

Moreover, I certainly don't have evidence of what people did in different circumstances, like you have. You've got me there.

CYCLESPORT1

timothyw

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So what evidence do you have - other than the highbrow chat you have over dinner with your friends?

So besides the evidence I have of what people say they might do in specific circumstances in the future, do I have any evidence of what people might do in specific circumstances in the future? No, besides that evidence, I don't have any evidence.

Moreover, I certainly don't have evidence of what people did in different circumstances, like you have. You've got me there.

Personally I'm in favour of the emigration of wealth-hoarders.

They can't take their mansions with them after all - hence cheaper mansions for the rest of us.

tgotb

CYCLESPORT1 wrote:

Some UKIP poster

So what was the rationale behind wanting to abolish postal voting? I genuinely don't understand the rationale for this. Do UKIP also want to abolish internet shopping, paying bills by direct debit, and other modern innovations that allow people to make more efficient use of their time?