How do you think the GE will turn out?

Stevo_666

johnfinch wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Bottom line is, if enough people had bought into socialist policies, Labour would have won. But they didn't so Labour lost.

And if enough people had bought into neo-liberal economics, the Tories would have a permanent majority, but they didn't, so they squeaked into government with 36% of the votes on a turnout of 66%. That's not a democratic mandate. That's not even 25% of the eligible electorate voting for them. Same for Thatcher, Major, Blair and all the others, Conservative or Labour.

Enough people bought into whatever you want to call it for the Conservatives to win the election. That's all that matters right now.

And who cares about turnout - if you don't vote, you have no say. Same under PR.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

My own view is labour will never get in unless they adopt a more socialist agenda.

Please spread the word, this is exactly the sort of leftie delusion that keeps Labour out of power and was the main reason for Miliband's Labour losing this election. Like I said before, the last truly left wing government to be elected was in 1945.

Blair, for all his faults, got Labour elected by moving them into the centre ground.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

My own view is labour will never get in unless they adopt a more socialist agenda.

Please spread the word, this is exactly the sort of leftie delusion that keeps Labour out of power and was the main reason for Miliband's Labour losing this election. Like I said before, the last truly left wing government to be elected was in 1945.

Blair, for all his faults, got Labour elected by moving them into the centre ground.

This is the standard chat from Westminster, and it has some credence. I don't think it's as simple as that anymore however, and we can see that in the big rise of UKIP, especially in typically labour/working class constituencies.

A lot of blue collar workers no longer feel Labour represents them, and there are a lot of blue collar workers around. This was core core labour, and that's ebbing away.

That's why we're seeing UKIP as the third biggest party, and why labour haemorrhaged votes. It was't just Scotland. Their vote was also split by UKIP.

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Bottom line is, if enough people had bought into socialist policies, Labour would have won. But they didn't so Labour lost.

And if enough people had bought into neo-liberal economics, the Tories would have a permanent majority, but they didn't, so they squeaked into government with 36% of the votes on a turnout of 66%. That's not a democratic mandate. That's not even 25% of the eligible electorate voting for them. Same for Thatcher, Major, Blair and all the others, Conservative or Labour.

Enough people bought into whatever you want to call it for the Conservatives to win the election. That's all that matters right now.

And who cares about turnout - if you don't vote, you have no say. Same under PR.

I care about turnout. It demonstrates just how little many people feel that their voice is worth in politics, something which is not healthy in a country that calls itself democratic. Saying "if you don't vote you have no say" just doesn't cut it when even if you do vote, you have either no say or virtually no say. That is the situation for millions of people in this country.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

My own view is labour will never get in unless they adopt a more socialist agenda.

Please spread the word, this is exactly the sort of leftie delusion that keeps Labour out of power and was the main reason for Miliband's Labour losing this election. Like I said before, the last truly left wing government to be elected was in 1945.

Blair, for all his faults, got Labour elected by moving them into the centre ground.

the so called centre ground is where Miliband positioned labour, a close look at his policies show that what he promised will happen under a tory government.
Sturgeon swept Scotland because she challenged austerity and the voters went for it and of course, for some reason supported by the Murdock press, exactly the opposite in Engalnd and that will always be labours biggest problem, blair won because the press were behind him.

As for 1945? look what happened, the NHS, social welfare and education for all, so called left wing ideas that put labour in power, against the incumbent Winston no less! ideas that no one now would say are bad, well you might

DesB3rd

Sturgeon swept Scotland because she challenged austerity and the voters went for it

I'm not really sure what they went for. I've got to credit any given voter with the awareness that SNP pronouncements on national level policy are noise coming out the front of Sturgeon's head, much like a sneeze or cough. Westminster cuts the cheque and the scots parliament divvy it up, they don't get to choose to austerity or otherwise...

Maybe the Scots will get full fiscal autonomy this parliament, though if I were Sturgeon I'd see that as being handed enough to hang myself.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

My own view is labour will never get in unless they adopt a more socialist agenda.

Please spread the word, this is exactly the sort of leftie delusion that keeps Labour out of power and was the main reason for Miliband's Labour losing this election. Like I said before, the last truly left wing government to be elected was in 1945.

Blair, for all his faults, got Labour elected by moving them into the centre ground.

the so called centre ground is where Miliband positioned labour, a close look at his policies show that what he promised will happen under a tory government.
Sturgeon swept Scotland because she challenged austerity and the voters went for it and of course, for some reason supported by the Murdock press, exactly the opposite in Engalnd and that will always be labours biggest problem, blair won because the press were behind him.

As for 1945? look what happened, the NHS, social welfare and education for all, so called left wing ideas that put labour in power, against the incumbent Winston no less! ideas that no one now would say are bad, well you might

Are you seriously claiming the Miliband positioned himself in the centre ground in this election?

And re 1945, not sure if you are deliberately missing the point? Which was that it has been a very long time since the UK elected a real left wing government. We just elected a right wing government in case you hadn't noticed...go figure.

diy

Its pretty simple - People in England and wales feared a Labour/SNP coalition with Wales being forgotten and England being sucked dry to appease the new queen of Scotland. Hence a vote for UKIP or Libdems was too risky for most. I think in general people got behind either Conservative or Labour based on which one you disliked the least. Labour's gains were hidden by their losses.

ai_1

diy wrote:

Its pretty simple - People in England and wales feared a Labour/SNP coalition with Wales being forgotten and England being sucked dry to appease the new queen of Scotland. Hence a vote for UKIP or Libdems was too risky for most. I think in general people got behind either Conservative or Labour based on which one you disliked the least. Labour's gains were hidden by their losses.

And this is why opinion poles in my opinion, undermine democratic elections. The poles showed a close vote with the SNP potentially holding the deciding numbers. So everyone voted for or against this possibility. The poles don't just forecast outcomes, they create them.
People often don't vote for those who reflect their own beliefs and priorities. They vote against potential undesirable outcomes, not for desired ones. So the big parties stay big, the small parties rarely make ground (there are obviously exceptions) and most people are perpetually unhappy with the politicians they end up with. That's inevitable when you vote for people you don't like or agree with.

diy

The smaller parties will pick up seats next time when people are looking for change. The change in seat sizes will also re-balance the value of a vote. I personally find the polls useful, even though I live in a strong conservative seat and therefore my vote is worth the Sqr of FA.

wallace_and_gromit

johnfinch wrote:

...so they squeaked into government with 36% of the votes on a turnout of 66%. That's not a democratic mandate.

So what counts as a democratic mandate to you?

And more importantly, if you were in charge, what would you do if the "winning" side in a general election didn't satisfy your requirements for a mandate? Do a Belgium and have no government? Keep the incumbent government? Do an Ireland and keep voting until someone gets a mandate? Change the voting system? Something else?

ai_1

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

...so they squeaked into government with 36% of the votes on a turnout of 66%. That's not a democratic mandate.

So what counts as a democratic mandate to you?

And more importantly, if you were in charge, what would you do if the "winning" side in a general election didn't satisfy your requirements for a mandate? Do a Belgium and have no government? Keep the incumbent government? Do an Ireland and keep voting until someone gets a mandate? Change the voting system? Something else?

Pardon?

I think you're confused about the Irish electoral system!

It's PR. If a candidate doesn't reach the quota for election on the first count, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated. Ballots which awarded that candidate 1st preference are then re-distributed according to their 2nd choice. If the quota is still not met this is repeated until it is. You vote once. You keep counting while eliminating candidates until you elect a TD to each seat.

Is this what you're talking about?

verylonglegs

Ai_1 wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

...so they squeaked into government with 36% of the votes on a turnout of 66%. That's not a democratic mandate.

So what counts as a democratic mandate to you?

And more importantly, if you were in charge, what would you do if the "winning" side in a general election didn't satisfy your requirements for a mandate? Do a Belgium and have no government? Keep the incumbent government? Do an Ireland and keep voting until someone gets a mandate? Change the voting system? Something else?

Pardon?

I think you're confused about the Irish electoral system!

It's PR. If a candidate doesn't reach the quota for election on the first count, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated. Ballots which awarded that candidate 1st preference are then re-distributed according to their 2nd choice. If the quota is still not met this is repeated until it is. You vote once. You keep counting while eliminating candidates until you elect a TD to each seat.

Is this what you're talking about?

I think he's referring to an EU vote over there a few years ago.

morstar

diy wrote:

The smaller parties will pick up seats next time when people are looking for change.

I have come to the complete opposite conclusion. I think next time round we'll be back to two party politics. I believe that this time out, everybody fully anticipated a parliament with no clear majority being formed by either side and this made people feel liberated to vote more freely than the traditional negative voting to keep out the party you don't like.
I'm cautious with the next comment as I don't want it to just sound bitter as I'm not Tory but... I genuinely feel democracy has been the loser in this election.
The Tories are the biggest party by any measure and have every entitlement to be the key player in the current administration but their majority is what our system dictates but it in no way reflects the will of Britain. Britain spoke and made it quite clear that simple Blue / Red politics are not what people wish to see anymore.
Next time round, either a more aspirational Labour party will walk it or the Tories will comfortably beat a Labour party that fails to convince. Die hard blue and red voters will continue as normal but everybody else will revert to negative voting out of fear of a 2015 repeat where voting with your heart delivers an outcome few wanted and even fewer expected.

wallace_and_gromit

verylonglegs wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

...so they squeaked into government with 36% of the votes on a turnout of 66%. That's not a democratic mandate.

So what counts as a democratic mandate to you?

And more importantly, if you were in charge, what would you do if the "winning" side in a general election didn't satisfy your requirements for a mandate? Do a Belgium and have no government? Keep the incumbent government? Do an Ireland and keep voting until someone gets a mandate? Change the voting system? Something else?

Pardon?

I think you're confused about the Irish electoral system!

It's PR. If a candidate doesn't reach the quota for election on the first count, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated. Ballots which awarded that candidate 1st preference are then re-distributed according to their 2nd choice. If the quota is still not met this is repeated until it is. You vote once. You keep counting while eliminating candidates until you elect a TD to each seat.

Is this what you're talking about?

I think he's referring to an EU vote over there a few years ago.

It was indeed EU referendums to which I was referring: Nice 2001 and Lisbon 2008.

It was a slightly tongue in cheek comment, but it's a serious point. If folk don't accept that circa 40% of the popular vote on a 2/3 turnout represents a mandate, what do we do? Even the Thatcher and Blair "landslides" of '83 and '97 were only based on circa 43% of the votes on circa 70% turnout. It's not like a referendum or strike ballot where rules for minimum turnout can be set. In these situations, failure to reach these thresholds simply results in the status quo being maintained. You can't have this in a general election, as to maintain the status quo simply means re-electing the incumbent government by default.

It's generally lefties who complain about this sort of thing. When Blair was re-elected in 2005 on a smaller share of the popular votes there was no such grumbling - those who lost the election simply rolled their sleeves up and set about trying to win the next one.

ai_1

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

...so they squeaked into government with 36% of the votes on a turnout of 66%. That's not a democratic mandate.

So what counts as a democratic mandate to you?

And more importantly, if you were in charge, what would you do if the "winning" side in a general election didn't satisfy your requirements for a mandate? Do a Belgium and have no government? Keep the incumbent government? Do an Ireland and keep voting until someone gets a mandate? Change the voting system? Something else?

Pardon?

I think you're confused about the Irish electoral system!

It's PR. If a candidate doesn't reach the quota for election on the first count, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated. Ballots which awarded that candidate 1st preference are then re-distributed according to their 2nd choice. If the quota is still not met this is repeated until it is. You vote once. You keep counting while eliminating candidates until you elect a TD to each seat.

Is this what you're talking about?

I think he's referring to an EU vote over there a few years ago.

It was indeed EU referendums to which I was referring: Nice 2001 and Lisbon 2008.

It was a slightly tongue in cheek comment, but it's a serious point. If folk don't accept that circa 40% of the popular vote on a 2/3 turnout represents a mandate, what do we do? Even the Thatcher and Blair "landslides" of '83 and '97 were only based on circa 43% of the votes on circa 70% turnout. It's not like a referendum or strike ballot where rules for minimum turnout can be set. In these situations, failure to reach these thresholds simply results in the status quo being maintained. You can't have this in a general election, as to maintain the status quo simply means re-electing the incumbent government by default.

It's generally lefties who complain about this sort of thing. When Blair was re-elected in 2005 on a smaller share of the popular votes there was no such grumbling - those who lost the election simply rolled their sleeves up and set about trying to win the next one.

Ah right. Yes, I was very angry about Nice and Lisbon. The population voted no, the government decided this was the wrong answer and re-ran the referendums several months later (if I remember right). They would not have repeated it if we'd voted yes the first time. This was dodgy!

wallace_and_gromit

Ai_1 wrote:

Ah right. Yes, I was very angry about Nice and Lisbon. The population voted no, the government decided this was the wrong answer and re-ran the referendums several months later (if I remember right). They would not have repeated it if we'd voted yes the first time. This was dodgy!

A case of "One man, one vote" being upgraded to "One man, two votes".

At least you got a vote. We were promised one on the EU constitution, but when this was re-marketed as the Lisbon Treaty, the government decided that we weren't trustworthy and ratified it via a vote in Parliament. Gordon Brown then formally signed the Treaty, but not in the public signing session with everyone else. Instead, he signed it shortly afterwards in what looked like a broom cupboard, hoping that no-one would know he'd signed it.

ballysmate

Chuka Umunna revealed to be a Cognac Socialist rather than the common or garden Champagne type.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ender.html

ballysmate

Just seen a radical proposal.
Just like FIFA selected the World Cup venues for 2018 and 2020 at the same meeting, Labour should select the opposition leaders now for 2015 and 2020.

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

Chuka Umunna revealed to be a Cognac Socialist rather than the common or garden Champagne type.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ender.html

Politics used to be about ideas and policies.

You get the politicians you deserve.

laurentian

Ballysmate wrote:

Chuka Umunna revealed to be a Cognac Socialist rather than the common or garden Champagne type.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ender.html

I thought this guy would be nailed on for next Labour leader - I then saw him on Question Time refusing to answer when questioned about his luxury villa in Marbella. This told me all I needed to know about his brand of socialism.

It doesn't concern me that he has a villa in the sun, but someone who won't talk about it clearly has a conflict in his idealism and conviction.

DesB3rd

Politics used to be about ideas and policies.

You get the politicians you deserve.

I wouldn't lionise the past too much; the press used to bang on about how MacDonald took drinks "with society" and Lloyd George was fully at ease using any tool to hand when it came to politically assassinating his rivals. Take a look at publications in the late-18th/early-19th century - they were happy to attack politician by way of their appearance, mannerisms and the moral iniquity of their private lives - their record in the division lobbies be damned.

There was no vein of ad hominem that British politics hadn't tapped (to great electoral effect!) many decades before we were all born.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Just seen a radical proposal.
Just like FIFA selected the World Cup venues for 2018 and 2020 at the same meeting, Labour should select the opposition leaders now for 2015 and 2020.

If they keep going in the same vein as Milipede, that's what's going to happen. Left wing Labour is unelectable - so keep the red flag flying

rick_chasey

DesB3rd wrote:

Politics used to be about ideas and policies.

You get the politicians you deserve.

I wouldn't lionise the past too much; the press used to bang on about how MacDonald took drinks "with society" and Lloyd George was fully at ease using any tool to hand when it came to politically assassinating his rivals. Take a look at publications in the late-18th/early-19th century - they were happy to attack politician by way of their appearance, mannerisms and the moral iniquity of their private lives - their record in the division lobbies be damned.

There was no vein of ad hominem that British politics hadn't tapped (to great electoral effect!) many decades before we were all born.

I did study it.

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Chuka Umunna revealed to be a Cognac Socialist rather than the common or garden Champagne type.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ender.html

Politics used to be about ideas and policies.

You get the politicians you deserve.

perhaps Labour will get the leader it deserves.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 73311.html

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

perhaps Labour will get the leader it deserves.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 73311.html

Harriet Harperson would fall into that category. Although for complete unelectability, where's Michael Foot now we need him?

There was an interesting article in the papers yesferday about whether Labour have outlived their usefulness. There were some very good arguments that this is the case and that they should just pack up and go home. Maybe they can ponder that in their long, long time in opposition. After all, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em

ballysmate

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

perhaps Labour will get the leader it deserves.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 73311.html

Harriet Harperson would fall into that category. Although for complete unelectability, where's Michael Foot now we need him?

There was an interesting article in the papers yesferday about whether Labour have outlived their usefulness. There were some very good arguments that this is the case and that they should just pack up and go home. Maybe they can ponder that in their long, long time in opposition. After all, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em

This dear lady?

Harriet Harman QC, daughter of a Harley Street physician and niece to the Countess of Longford. The acting leader of the Labour Party is also owner of a home in London and a country pad in suffolk, she proposed a bill in 2009 which would exempt MP's expenses from the Freedom of Information act.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

This dear lady?

Harriet Harman QC, daughter of a Harley Street physician and niece to the Countess of Longford. The acting leader of the Labour Party is also owner of a home in London and a country pad in suffolk, she proposed a bill in 2009 which would exempt MP's expenses from the Freedom of Information act.

Classic leftie hypocrite, of the 'Do as I say, don't do as I do' variety. From our point of view she would make a very good labour leader. Maybe Labour should show how 'progressive' they are by appointing a woman as party leader?

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Classic leftie hypocrite, of the 'Do as I say, don't do as I do' variety.

Never found that argument remotely convincing.

It's about the laws and policies they lay down right? Their provenance, their bank balance or property tastes is irrelevant.

Better not discuss the casual sexism...

Frank the tank

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

This dear lady?

Harriet Harman QC, daughter of a Harley Street physician and niece to the Countess of Longford. The acting leader of the Labour Party is also owner of a home in London and a country pad in suffolk, she proposed a bill in 2009 which would exempt MP's expenses from the Freedom of Information act.

Classic leftie hypocrite, of the 'Do as I say, don't do as I do' variety. From our point of view she would make a very good labour leader. Maybe Labour should show how 'progressive' they are by appointing a woman as party leader?

You're half right, she is a hypocrite she is not a leftie though, she is a tory with a red rosette.