General Election 2015 - Thoughts/Predictions/Results

[Kite159]

The election will be won or lost on the minority of marginal seats. Safe seats are likely to be pushed to the background in the battle field.

 

[TheKnightWho]

The election will be won or lost on the minority of marginal seats. Safe seats are likely to be pushed to the background in the battle field.

Just like every election ever surely

 

[Greenback]

Indeed, and the fact that a relatively small portion of the electorate has the chance to influence the outcome must have contributed to falling turn out levels as well.

 

[yorksrob]

The current electoral system makes rotten boroughs of most of the country unfortunately.

 

[Manchester77]

Surely the supine the of electoral reform will come up post 2015 when the greens get 8% of the vote and only get 1 (two if they're lucky in Bristol) MP, or when UKIP get 16% of the vote but only get 5/6 MPs.

 

[ainsworth74]

They'll just point to the AV referendum (anyone remember that) from a few years ago as proving that there's no appetite amongst the electorate for reform.

 

[TheKnightWho]

They'll just point to the AV referendum (anyone remember that) from a few years ago as proving that there's no appetite amongst the electorate for reform.

I imagine support will rise in the wake of numerous parties gaining headway in votes but not seats. UKIP (as much as I dislike them) will also likely have far fewer seats than they deserve. That being said, I can't imagine AV doing them much good as a majority of people from the other parites would place them dead last - that's only speculation though

AV failed because of the massive biased interests of the two largest parties, who presumably called in a favour or two at the Daily Mail. I can't imagine that trick will work too well again.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Think I'm with Morrisey on this one


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0TZZZcC9l4


no real change from a bunch of self serving politicians one and all

I used to have something to vote for, then there was a time there was something to vote against - then Blair came along and it's all over now. The marginally frightening thing is the only 'change' factor appears to be in the guise of Farage.

 

[St Rollox]

They'll just point to the AV referendum (anyone remember that) from a few years ago as proving that there's no appetite amongst the electorate for reform.

Held the same day as the Scottish Elections which in turn led to a referendum.

 

[Butts]

Held the same day as the Scottish Elections which in turn led to a referendum.

Which ironically were decided by a form of Proportional Representation

 

[AM9]

Think I'm with Morrisey on this one


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0TZZZcC9l4


no real change from a bunch of self serving politicians one and all

I used to have something to vote for, then there was a time there was something to vote against - then Blair came along and it's all over now. The marginally frightening thing is the only 'change' factor appears to be in the guise of Farage.

I do get tired of those who say things like: "I didn't vote - they're all the same". So they avoided the walk to the polling station and then feel that they can whinge at whatever happens for the next term.
If the electorate at large feels that they don't want to vote for any on offer, they should just register their right to vote by spoiling their ballot papers. It's legal, is recorded and if the numbers reflected the supposed dissatifaction of voters, the elected government would eventually have to address the issue.

If the turnout is less than 70%, whatever farce follows will be partly down to those who just couldn't be bothered, whatever excuse they themselves use.

 

[Busaholic]

I do get tired of those who say things like: "I didn't vote - they're all the same". So they avoided the walk to the polling station and then feel that they can whinge at whatever happens for the next term.
If the electorate at large feels that they don't want to vote for any on offer, they should just register their right to vote by spoiling their ballot papers. It's legal, is recorded and if the numbers reflected the supposed dissatifaction of voters, the elected government would eventually have to address the issue.

If the turnout is less than 70%, whatever farce follows will be partly down to those who just couldn't be bothered, whatever excuse they themselves use.

The principled vote for no-one is very important and one I've adopted a few times at local elections. IMO a box should be created at the bottom of the ballot paper marked 'none of the above' and these should all be counted and included in the official result - 'spoilt' ballot papers include people who vote for more than one candidate etc and with a proper system these can be eliminated. Who knows, one day the none of them party might win.:

 

[Greenback]

The principled vote for no-one is very important and one I've adopted a few times at local elections. IMO a box should be created at the bottom of the ballot paper marked 'none of the above' and these should all be counted and included in the official result - 'spoilt' ballot papers include people who vote for more than one candidate etc and with a proper system these can be eliminated. Who knows, one day the none of them party might win.:

I agree. It must be difficult to differentiate between an accidental spoiling of a ballot paper and a deliberate one.

 

[Oswyntail]

I do get tired of those who say things like: "I didn't vote - they're all the same". ....

I totally agree. Because they are not the same, and that is, for me, a major problem. Party A is sensible on policy area 1, but lunatic on policy area 2; Party B is the opposite. Do I vote for a party knowing that 50% of the time it will be disastrous? Or do I duck the issue, leave the decision up to others?
I would also like to know when, exactly, something contained in a manifesto became a "commitment", rather than an aspiration. No party, especially one that has been in opposition, can predict what conditions will be in place the day after an election, let alone four years down the line. Yet it is a routine jeer from the opposition benches that a government has failed to deliver its "promises" and cannot be trusted. I don't recall that approach from Heath and Wilson.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If the electorate at large feels that they don't want to vote for any on offer, they should just register their right to vote by spoiling their ballot papers. It's legal, is recorded and if the numbers reflected the supposed dissatifaction of voters, the elected government would eventually have to address the issue.

Spoiling your ballot paper doesn't demonstrate anything to anyone.

We have a Government who decided they have a "mandate" based on 20% of voters voting for them (and then lecture the rest of us about democracy when we vote for strike action). We have low turnout in places like Sunderland dismissed as "apathy", as though the electorate are too stupid to engage. Spoiling ballot papers would be (and is) recorded as the electorate being too thick to vote properly, nothing else.

I work for a democractic organisation and we have "re-open nominations" on every single one of our ballots. It should be there on Governmental ballots too.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would also like to know when, exactly, something contained in a manifesto became a "commitment", rather than an aspiration. No party, especially one that has been in opposition, can predict what conditions will be in place the day after an election, let alone four years down the line. Yet it is a routine jeer from the opposition benches that a government has failed to deliver its "promises" and cannot be trusted.

It depends on what you perceive a manifesto to be. Is it a bit of PR fluffery or is it more like a job application form?

When people go for a job they explain why they're good and what their aspirations are. If they get the job they are appraised based on what they said. If they fail to meet their aspirations they will, unless they give a good explanation for their failure, eventually be sacked. Why should politics be anything different?

That said, I have more issue with parties omitting major things (like, ooh, the privatisation of the NHS) from their manifesto yet claiming a "mandate" for their actions.

 

[TheKnightWho]

The principled vote for no-one is very important and one I've adopted a few times at local elections. IMO a box should be created at the bottom of the ballot paper marked 'none of the above' and these should all be counted and included in the official result - 'spoilt' ballot papers include people who vote for more than one candidate etc and with a proper system these can be eliminated. Who knows, one day the none of them party might win.:

It's called RON (Re-Open Nominations), and is used a lot in student elections afaik.

It basically postpones the election til a later date, pending new candidates. I've never seen it win, though, so I'm not sure it would make as much difference as people might think: it still doesn't change the psychological factor of tactical voting. It is always amusing when someone gets beaten by RON, though.

 

[AM9]

Spoiling your ballot paper doesn't demonstrate anything to anyone.

We have a Government who decided they have a "mandate" based on 20% of voters voting for them (and then lecture the rest of us about democracy when we vote for strike action). We have low turnout in places like Sunderland dismissed as "apathy", as though the electorate are too stupid to engage. Spoiling ballot papers would be (and is) recorded as the electorate being too thick to vote properly, nothing else.

I work for a democractic organisation and we have "re-open nominations" on every single one of our ballots. It should be there on Governmental ballots too.

I think your assertion that a low turnout is dismissed as apathy is wrong and nor is it regarded as so in government circles, (except by those who want it to be seen that way). Officially, the spoilt votes are counted and analysed, and the results of analysis do get published.
You may remember the Police and Crime Commissioner elections in 2012. Many people protested that they were unnecessary and protested 1) by just not turning up, and 2) by spoiling their ballot papers.
Both the low turnout and the much higher than normal number of ballot papers was noticed and included in the official review here:

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP12-73.pdf

In this report it was noted in section 8 that the number of spoilt papers was much higher than the norm for general elections (less than 0.4%) since recording started in 1964. As the PCC election was on the Supplementary Vote system as opposed to First Past the Post, an assessment was made regarding voters being confused, (classed as 'technical spoiling') and 'intentional spoiling' as a protest. The total rate of spoiling was some seven times the norm and 30% higher than the previous maximum at the 2000 London Mayor vote (2.2%). In Bristol and South Avon, where there were concurrent PCC and mayoral votes, the PCC intentional spoilt papers were over eight times the mayoral ones despite the potentially more error-prone mayoral vote having 15 candidates from which to choose two.

The report made it clear that a much increased number of intentionally spoilt papers was as a result of public disquiet about the validity of voting for PCCs.
Now wind the clock forward to June 2015. If there was a vast increase in the number of deliberately spoilt papers in the general election, lets say 20% of those who 'said' that they couldn't vote for any candidate, there would be an uproar about the 10% or more of the total electorate who managed to get off their backside and made it to the polling station or even to the postbox. The 80% who didn't bother would just be validating the old apathy brush-off, and in reality, they havent contributed anything to our hard-won citizens' right to vote.

 

[Oswyntail]

...
It depends on what you perceive a manifesto to be. Is it a bit of PR fluffery or is it more like a job application form?

When people go for a job they explain why they're good and what their aspirations are. If they get the job they are appraised based on what they said. If they fail to meet their aspirations they will, unless they give a good explanation for their failure, eventually be sacked. Why should politics be anything different?

Because, usually, reality gets in the way. For instance, in 1997 ministers at Health were forever saying "I can do that because I am the Minister" only to be told it was actually beyond their legal authority - because there was virtually no one on Government who had been there before they genuinely did not know what the could or couldn't do. Likewise, in 2010, in breach of the usual election conventions (and possibly the law relating to officials and party matters), the Treasury had been instructed not to reveal the full picture of public finances to opposition parties. Hence the need for immediate re-jigging of election aspirations. And then there are events - if the Queen were to be assassinated the day after the election (which heaven forfend!), it is almost impossible that the new PM, Natalie Bennett, would get much of her first year programme up and running.

...That said, I have more issue with parties omitting major things (like, ooh, the privatisation of the NHS) from their manifesto yet claiming a "mandate" for their actions.

I'm glad you are using entirely hypothetical examples here.

 

[Senex]

Likewise, in 2010, in breach of the usual election conventions (and possibly the law relating to officials and party matters), the Treasury had been instructed not to reveal the full picture of public finances to opposition parties.

I hadn't seen that reported before. It sounds like an even more blatant attempt that usual by the government in power to rig the election.

 

[Butts]

I can't wait for May 7th , my brother always has an "Election Party" and I have booked my Flybe ticket to Southampton for £59 return.

As the outcome is so unpredictable it makes it even more exciting than normal.

Forget Train Spotters - Political Anoraks are far more boring

 

[Mutant Lemming]

I do get tired of those who say things like: "I didn't vote - they're all the same". .

I have a choice of three parties I can't stand - what do you want me to do ? force me to vote for the least odious of them ? Can't say I can distinguish as they are all equally garbage. ...and you really think anyone cares about spoilt ballot papers ? Anyone who challenges the political norm is ridiculed by the main party supporting media - anyone wanting REAL change is facing a gigantic struggle to even get to the position of being ridiculed by the press. Wake up it's been a two/three party system morphed in to a one politic outlook. Even Putin would be proud of it.


...... oh hold on... maybe I can move house to the neighbouring constituency so I can vote for UKIP

 

[90sWereBetter]

I have a choice of three parties I can't stand - what do you want me to do ? force me to vote for the least odious of them ?

Well, I do believe a famous figure once said "Democracy is choosing the least worst option", or words to that matter.

As for me, I'll probably vote for Labour, even though I'm much more of a Lib Dem than I am a Labour supporter. Given that all 5 major parties are terrible though (Greens have majorly messed up Brighton, from what I've read, and the less said about Mr Farage's mob, the better), it's not a brilliant choice for the election.

I do wish Labour or the Lib Dems would become more like the SNP sometimes, just without the separatist rhetoric.

 

[DownSouth]

The principled vote for no-one is very important and one I've adopted a few times at local elections. IMO a box should be created at the bottom of the ballot paper marked 'none of the above' and these should all be counted and included in the official result - 'spoilt' ballot papers include people who vote for more than one candidate etc and with a proper system these can be eliminated. Who knows, one day the none of them party might win.:

There has been talk about a 'reject these candidates' option here in Australia from time to time, since one of the main issues with our electoral system is the major parties selecting uninspiring candidates.

To be of any use in the big world of real government (as opposed to the playground of student unions) there would have to be a ban on all of the rejected candidates standing in the by-election.

The only concern I would have with such a system would be the uncertainty caused by a tight election going unresolved if a few seats are still vacant pending by-elections with fresh candidates. Do you have the government stay in caretaker mode, or declare a winner despite the possibility that they'll get punted into opposition as a result of the by-elections? This sort of unexpected uncertainty about things could be very bad for the economy.

Personally, I think a procedure for citizens to initiate a mid-term recall of the sitting member would be a more useful reform to have than the option of voting to reject the candidates. Sometimes the uninspiring candidates actually turn out to be great members, but equally there are also good candidates who turn out to be useless members or a part of a useless party with poor policies on a national level.

I imagine support will rise in the wake of numerous parties gaining headway in votes but not seats. UKIP (as much as I dislike them) will also likely have far fewer seats than they deserve. That being said, I can't imagine AV doing them much good as a majority of people from the other parites would place them dead last - that's only speculation though

AV would not actually be of much help to the Greens, UKIP or other minor parties with converting a low national vote into winning seats. For that you would need a proportional representation system, not just an improved method of electing a single member for each constituency.

The minor parties can have an effect without winning - by way of presenting an opportunity for the two major parties to compete for the second preferences of the minor party's voters. An 8% primary vote might not be enough for a minor candidate to win a seat, but if the second preferences of that 8% almost all go to the same one of the two major parties it could be enough for a primary vote deficit to turn into an overall majority.


We use the Full Preferential Ballot (AV is similar, but with the addition of lower preferences optional) for electing local members to out Federal and State parliaments here. The candidates are allowed to distribute 'how-to-vote' cards recommending the distribution of preferences to their supporters. Generally a major party will recommend the preferences flow in order from their own candidate (1) to those minor parties they could count on to be generally supportive (e.g. a Labour how-to-vote could would put the Greens at 2), to independents, then to minor parties more aligned to the other major party, and then the other major party last (i.e. a Tory how-to-vote card would have Labour last).

An exception to the 'other major party last' rule with how-to-vote cards is when there's a distasteful racist group running, in which case both major parties will agree to put them below the other party even though they would probably not be a realistic threat. I don't think that UKIP is anywhere near bad enough to warrant that - but the BNP certainly would be.

Based on my experience counting votes at Federal and State elections (at the same polling place each time) almost all Liberal voters will follow their party's recommended preference allocation and put the Labor candidate in last place while about a third of the Labor voters will have the Liberal candidate somewhere other than last. That's in a fairly 'classical' two-party contest in the leafy suburbs though, it would be far more interesting if I worked in a rural area (Independents are more likely to come into play there) or certain inner city seats which can be more volatile.

 

[12CSVT]

For about the first time in my life I have agreed with something a Tory prime minister has said, following the disgrageful decision by OFCOM not to treat the Green Party as a major political party in terms of news coverage in the run up to the election, yet treating that nasty shower run by Farage and his apologists as a major party.

 

[AM9]

For about the first time in my life I have agreed with something a Tory prime minister has said, following the disgrageful decision by OFCOM not to treat the Green Party as a major political party in terms of news coverage in the run up to the election, yet treating that nasty shower run by Farage and his apologists as a major party.

I think that what he says is more opportunist than that:

1) the opinion of experts is that the Green Party represents more of a threat to Labour by splitting its traditional vote, than anybody else, therefore he would like the Greens to get whatever electoral boost they can.
2) if the above fails then he will not take part, which suits him even better as incumbents are much more at risk than challengers in an open debate.

So it's not really an altruistic offer on his part then.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

My prediction is what always happens.

All the newspapers will be distorting the truth to help their pals into power and some people will believe it all.

 

[Oswyntail]

..........
1) the opinion of experts is that the Green Party represents more of a threat to Labour by splitting its traditional vote, than anybody else, therefore he would like the Greens to get whatever electoral boost they can.

I wouldn't listen to your "experts" if they are telling you that. Ther Greens have not significantly altered teh labour vote yet, and they probably never will - the LibDems are more vulnerable. It is UKIP that is far more attractive to the traditional Labour voter, with its emphasis on British jobs for British workers.

..........2) if the above fails then he will not take part, which suits him even better as incumbents are much more at risk than challengers in an open debate.....

Only if they have nothing to defend, like Gordon Brown. There have been some solid achievements in the last five years, and with Labour still in complete denial over the economy a debate might prove quite interesting.

 

[Bevan Price]

What I would prefer to happen, and what actually happens are likely to be very different.

I suspect that Tories will be the largest single party, but with no overall majority. Lib Dems could well be down to less than 10 seats. Labour may lose a few seats, but nowhere near as many as the SNP would like to win. UKIP may win between 10 & 20 seats. Tories will probably form minority government with some kind of tacit support from UKIP, Ulster Unionists, but no formal coalition. "Only every 5 years election rule" may need to be changed to allow another election by mid-2016.

 

[ainsworth74]

"Only every 5 years election rule" may need to be changed to allow another election by mid-2016.

Not necessarily. If there is a successful motion of no confidence or two thirds of the House support a motion to call an early general election then we could have one before 2020 without having to alter the current legislation.

 

[radamfi]

The Greens may not even have candidates in all seats so many people won't even have the choice of voting for them, simply because of the voting system.