General Election 2015 - Thoughts/Predictions/Results

[LateThanNever]

Adam Boulton of Sky News occasionally gets interviewed by Andrew Neil on his BBC TV political show (they're obviously old buddies) and he said last night that ITV, who are apparently the 'lead' organisation on this, have been advised that it would be perfectly in order to run the debates without Cameron, as long as he'd been given every opportunity to take part. Now, legality and political expediency are not perfect bedfellows, and I could see the BBC agonising about it forever if that was the decision, and I suspect the High Court and ,possibly, then the Supreme Court could be brought into play.

The media love all this stuff as it is akin to examining their own navels. They conveniently forget that in the UK we don't elect presidents. If that's a system they like so much, why don't they go off to America - or God forbid, France?

 

[WelshBluebird]

Of course, but at least they practically admit it - the rest of the parties just tell you what they think you want to hear and then do something else. At least with UKIP they tell you they are odious and therefore you know not to vote for them (or do so if you wish).

I don't think that is the case with UKIP at all. Maybe with the EU / immigration thing yeah. But all of their other policies are pretty much made up just to get as many people as possible to vote for them. They have no other principles in that regard and will happily tell you what you want to hear just to get some power. Please don't fall for the "Farage is different" line. He really is not.

 

[Greenback]

But the perception is that he is different, and that's what has to be overcome!

 

[ExRes]

But all of their other policies are pretty much made up just to get as many people as possible to vote for them. They have no other principles in that regard and will happily tell you what you want to hear just to get some power.

Just to make it fair and equal, could you please carry on by adding a list of political parties and politicians that wouldn't be included in your quote

 

[Butts]

But the perception is that he is different, and that's what has to be overcome!

Perhaps Milliband and Cameron and Clegg should be pictured with a Pint and a Fag on

Clegg is a smoker, Cameron an ex-smoker and Milliband would probably look a bigger wally than he did with a bacon sandwich

 

[WelshBluebird]

Just to make it fair and equal, could you please carry on by adding a list of political parties and politicians that wouldn't be included in your quote

Oh I'm not saying any are any better. I am just saying that, despite his PR image, Farage isn't any different to the rest of them.

 

[Tetchytyke]

You may be right, but could you explain why you think that.

This is what I said:

That said, I think Cameron has more to fear from Farage than Miliband does from either Farage or Bennett, and that's why he's trying to get out of the big debate. Farage will make him look stupid in his core right-wing constituencies. Although I still genuinely do not see Tory supporters defecting to UKIP except in the most extreme cases, because the Tories are right: a vote for Farage puts Miliband in number ten.

The people in Labour areas voting UKIP seem to be the ones who voted BNP last time around- the voting percentages roughly match. In an EU or local election you'll get the BNP vote but in a proper General Election you won't. They'll go Labour just like they always have. The people in Tory areas voting UKIP weren't the ones voting BNP before, they are people who have left the Tories (the "working classes", for want of a better description, that Thatcher so successfully wooed, in fact).

If Cameron goes up against Farage he knows that Farage will wipe the floor with him. Electorally that probably won't matter- enough Tory supporters will be too afraid of a Miliband victory that they won't defect to UKIP- but internally to his party it will matter. Cameron's power base inside the party is not that strong- the right-wingers in the 1922 committee seemingly cannot stand him- and Farage making him look like an idiot will not strengthen his position.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Please don't fall for the "Farage is different" line. He really is not.

It constantly amazes me that a stockbroker from Surrey is seen as "anti-establishment".

The closest Farage gets to "anti-establishment" is that the UKIP chairman in his constituency used to be in the National Front.

 

[Greenback]

Perhaps Milliband and Cameron and Clegg should be pictured with a Pint and a Fag on

Clegg is a smoker, Cameron an ex-smoker and Milliband would probably look a bigger wally than he did with a bacon sandwich

I admit to finding it a bit strange that Farage, who has hardly got a wildly different background to the other leaders, is seen as being so much more in touch with the people.

It can only be down to him not looking so out of place as the others down the pub!

 

[Morden Via CHX]

The bookies appear to be as clueless as anyone with regards to who will end up in charge at the end of this election. One thing that they have agreed on though is that an overall majority appears to be unlikely and it is heavy odds-on that there will be a hung parliament. My personal opinion is that as long as none of the party leaders do anything really stupid from now until the election then they will be proven correct.

No one can decide who will get the most seats either between Labour and Conservative with most bookmakers offering the same odds on both (10/11). It also looks touch and go between Lib Dem and SNP. UKIP are predicted to get around 6 seats.

I must admit to being totally fascinated by the swings and changes in the polls in the couple of months leading up to the election and last general election I think I had the same BBC tab on refresh for about 9 days.

 

[danielpj]

The share of the vote that Labour and Tories receive has fallen from around 85% during the 50s, 60s and 70s to around 65% and now they are struggling to get 60% in opinion polls. The most significant question this raises is about reform of the electoral system. There are no easy answers to that, but it cannot be right that votes do not translate into seats.

As for the LibDems, as much as I have always wanted to see them wiped out electorally, I suspect they won't do as badly as the polls suggest. While there national share of the vote will be around 10-15%, they will hold at least 30 seats due to the power of incumbency. Plus, it is important to remember that their success in 2010 bucked the trend for a Liberal party. Getting about 15% of the vote would still be high for a Liberal Party post-WW2.

 

[Manchester77]

Interesting poll out today for the Scottish Westminster seats putting the SNP on 52% with labour polling just 24% and the tories getting higher than the lib dems getting 12%

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/557900570863099906

 

[Jonny]

I think a lot will come down to how UKIP splits the vote. A lot has been made of how they are likely to split the tory vote, but there are many "up north" in the former coalfield areas for whom UKIP are attractive, as they are similar to the tories but without the poison legacy.

Oh, and as an aside, will much be made of Ed Balls' recent conviction?

 

[LateThanNever]

I think a lot will come down to how UKIP splits the vote. A lot has been made of how they are likely to split the tory vote, but there are many "up north" in the former coalfield areas for whom UKIP are attractive, as they are similar to the tories but without the poison legacy.

Oh, and as an aside, will much be made of Ed Balls' recent conviction?

Not a lot, I'd suggest. He must presumably, have admitted it or left some details, otherwise he'd not have been traceable? Presumably the 'parked' car full of its owners? He's done the decent thing in owning up, although I do agree he would have been better to try to exchange details when it would not be a police matter. Wonder if it is to do with the person hit threatening to 'expose' him and take it further?

 

[Busaholic]

I think a lot will come down to how UKIP splits the vote. A lot has been made of how they are likely to split the tory vote, but there are many "up north" in the former coalfield areas for whom UKIP are attractive, as they are similar to the tories but without the poison legacy.

Oh, and as an aside, will much be made of Ed Balls' recent conviction?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if UKIP gained a seat in either Greater Manchester or South Yorkshire, possibly both, though I still think it's improbable they'd pick up more than 5 or 6 overall. South Yorkshire in particular has been abysmally 'served' by Labour for years. Wonder if Galloway will hold on to his seat: if he does, bet it'll be by a vastly reduced majority.

 

[Oswyntail]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if UKIP gained a seat in either Greater Manchester or South Yorkshire, possibly both, though I still think it's improbable they'd pick up more than 5 or 6 overall. South Yorkshire in particular has been abysmally 'served' by Labour for years. Wonder if Galloway will hold on to his seat: if he does, bet it'll be by a vastly reduced majority.

I do not think UKIP will pick up enough votes to win seats. I do not think UKIP will take enough Tory votes to lose the Tories seats, or enough Labour votes to lose Labour seats. I suspect their real effect might be to take enough Labour votes to prevent Labour gaining seats, particularly in the North of England.

 

[Jonny]

I do not think UKIP will pick up enough votes to win seats. I do not think UKIP will take enough Tory votes to lose the Tories seats, or enough Labour votes to lose Labour seats. I suspect their real effect might be to take enough Labour votes to prevent Labour gaining seats, particularly in the North of England.

I thought that as well, but there are a couple of locations in North-East England with Labour incumbent MPs where UKIP beat Labour in the 2014 euro elections. We'll see.

Another variable is the "Green" party - although their policies make them more like the watermelon party (green on the outside and red in the middle), who may be attractive to many traditional labour voters.

 

[St Rollox]

Interesting poll out today for the Scottish Westminster seats putting the SNP on 52% with labour polling just 24% and the tories getting higher than the lib dems getting 12%

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/557900570863099906

Spoke to my local Labour MP in Glasgow.
He mentioned other Labour MPs getting reports back of support for the SNP.
The MPs are in English constituencies!!!

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Spoke to my local Labour MP in Glasgow.
He mentioned other Labour MPs getting reports back of support for the SNP.
The MPs are in English constituencies!!!

I would vote for a SNP copycat if there was one. The Yorkshire and Humber region needs devolution on a par with London or Scotland. If Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and London all have devolved assemblies it's only fair all the other regions get one too.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

I thought that as well, but there are a couple of locations in North-East England with Labour incumbent MPs where UKIP beat Labour in the 2014 euro elections. We'll see.

Another variable is the "Green" party - although their policies make them more like the watermelon party (green on the outside and red in the middle), who may be attractive to many traditional labour voters.

As a Labour voter who had some sympathy with the Greens on policies like renationalising the railways I was thinking of voting for them in the general election. However having listened to Natallie Bennet on the Sunday Politices show this morning I have been put right off by some of their more outlandish policies like removing border controls and reducing the size of the armed forces.

 

[radamfi]

more outlandish policies like removing border controls and reducing the size of the armed forces.

Those policies only appear 'outlandish' to British people. Obviously most of Europe don't have border controls except to non-Schengen countries and the UK has a particularly large military for its population.

 

[ainsworth74]

Those policies only appear 'outlandish' to British people. Obviously most of Europe don't have border controls except to non-Schengen countries and the UK has a particularly large military for its population.

Or more accurately most other European nations have particularly small militaries for their population size.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

As a Labour voter who had some sympathy with the Greens on policies like renationalising the railways I was thinking of voting for them in the general election. However having listened to Natallie Bennet on the Sunday Politices show this morning I have been put right off by some of their more outlandish policies like removing border controls and reducing the size of the armed forces.

The BBC didn't like the Green's policy much. So much for non bias.
I think the Greens policies are the best and I would like them in control.
But they have no chance in my area.
The choice I have is to vote for:

An ex-Tory candidate MP who never got the job and joined UKIP.
She doesn't even live or work in my constituency and only visits at election time.
A new Labour candidate replacing our MP of 40 years who was picked on gender grounds, she's local though but unknown.
A new Tory candidate who lives in Lincoln and works as a councilor in Lincolnshire. Tory councillors are extinct in Grimsby sofair enough.
A Green party unknown candidate.

I don't want a Tory or Ukip government so Labour is my only choice. I'm voting for anyone else in locals after the council shut my library.

 

[richw]

We have some celebrity friend of Anne Robinson as our labour candidate, not a local.
The lib dem and Tory candidates are both local to the area, there was 66 votes between them at the last election, the closest in the country. The ukip chap is local although not seen or heard of him yet.
One of the three local candidates will get my vote.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

The BBC didn't like the Green's policy much. So much for non bias.

Not at all, Mr. Neil distributes that kind of interview to everyone. I am far from enamoured with the BBC but I will give them full credit for the kind of job people like Andrew Neil execute. It's not an anti-Green conspiracy (I would have though a party like the Greens would adore a state broadcaster ), it's just what happens when you go face-to-face with one of the best political interviewers in the country. He's even left Owen Jones speechless before, how many people can do that?!

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Not at all, Mr. Neil distributes that kind of interview to everyone. I am far from enamoured with the BBC but I will give them full credit for the kind of job people like Andrew Neil execute. It's not an anti-Green conspiracy (I would have though a party like the Greens would adore a state broadcaster ), it's just what happens when you go face-to-face with one of the best political interviewers in the country. He's even left Owen Jones speechless before, how many people can do that?!

How can anyone adore the BBC?? They get a fortune in TV license money and then they show Bargain Hunt, Pointless, Escape to the Country etc etc. ITV shows are often better.

BBC seam bias to me, why do they distort the map to make Cornwall look bigger than Wales?? Why do they ignore major terror attacks in Nigeria?? And they give UKIP more attention than the Greens who have more party members.
Remember the media helps win election campaigns. Nick Robinson said Salmond didn't answer his question on Scottish Independence but he did but it was edited out.
Similary the Daily Politics asks why the NHS got worse in Wales to Labour, he said it was cuts to social care then the BBC guy said "okay you're not going to answer it are you" and ended it.
They attacked Gordon Brown for calling a woman a bigot, but she is the deffinition of that term being bigotted against Eastern Europeans in her comment.
What has BBC said to Tories over VAT increase, bedroom tax, falling tax receits, less people in work in many towns including mine?

 

[radamfi]

How can anyone adore the BBC?? They get a fortune in TV license money and then they show Bargain Hunt, Pointless, Escape to the Country etc etc. ITV shows are often better.

BBC One overall has better ratings than ITV. Obviously that's not a measure of quality, and obviously people have different tastes. The BBC is obliged to cater for a wide variety of tastes as part of its public service remit. ITV also has a certain amount of public service obligation, but not as much and nowhere near as much as it did, say, in the 1980s.

Why do they ignore major terror attacks in Nigeria??

The main domestic news programmes are very biased towards domestic news, and foreign news is generally biased towards English speaking countries, which I think is wrong, but that is what is demanded by the general British public. The BBC does cater for world news, however, on the World Service and world news can of course be seen on the website and on BBC Four.

 

[LateThanNever]

Or more accurately most other European nations have particularly small militaries for their population size.

Or perhaps, in the aftermath of the second world war, they are realistic and stick to the EU.

As think should the UK. Indeed I'm with the Lib Dems who think we should just gently modernise the nuclear deterrent not pay a fortune to replace it. To quote an American General "if anyone uses it [the nuclear deterrent] against us we are all going to die at about the same time.."

 

[ainsworth74]

Or perhaps, in the aftermath of the second world war, they are realistic and stick to the EU.

Perhaps though I'm more talking about the traditional 'stay at home or nearby' type equipment rather than going to some far flung nation and 'kicking the doors in' type stuff (tanks and soldiers rather than aircraft carriers and sailors). A look across NATO (which is mostly the same nations as the EU with a few extras) shows that everyone is getting smaller and smaller (though the US are starting from huge and heading towards massive).

There aren't 20,000 Warsaw Pact tanks sat on the inter-German border any more which means that NATO can quite happily reduce and do so quite considerably but I do feel that, especially in the last five or so years, the shrinkage has less to do with meeting threats and more about being an easy area to cut.

Indeed I'm with the Lib Dems who think we should just gently modernise the nuclear deterrent not pay a fortune to replace it.

We're not replacing it we're buying new submarines to carry it. Trident and the warheads will still be in service out to at least the 2030s. You could slow down procurement of the submarines but that would just spread the cost (so it looks like less per year but the amount at the end is still the same) but that risks extra costs from the old submarines and damaging the skills/knowledge base of submarine design and construction (we've done that once already in the 90s and it was hellishly expensive and difficult to fix in the 00s).

Further the Lib Dems own study showed (and the MOD have been saying since the 60s) if you're going to have nukes the only sensible and cost effective way of doing it credibly is to do it from subs with ballistic missiles.

To quote an American General "if anyone uses it [the nuclear deterrent] against us we are all going to die at about the same time.."

This is true and the point of the deterrent is of course to ensure that no one will use it because we'll get to die together.

 

[LateThanNever]

Perhaps though I'm more talking about the traditional 'stay at home or nearby' type equipment rather than going to some far flung nation and 'kicking the doors in' type stuff (tanks and soldiers rather than aircraft carriers and sailors). A look across NATO (which is mostly the same nations as the EU with a few extras) shows that everyone is getting smaller and smaller (though the US are starting from huge and heading towards massive).

There aren't 20,000 Warsaw Pact tanks sat on the inter-German border any more which means that NATO can quite happily reduce and do so quite considerably but I do feel that, especially in the last five or so years, the shrinkage has less to do with meeting threats and more about being an easy area to cut.



We're not replacing it we're buying new submarines to carry it. Trident and the warheads will still be in service out to at least the 2030s. You could slow down procurement of the submarines but that would just spread the cost (so it looks like less per year but the amount at the end is still the same) but that risks extra costs from the old submarines and damaging the skills/knowledge base of submarine design and construction (we've done that once already in the 90s and it was hellishly expensive and difficult to fix in the 00s).

Further the Lib Dems own study showed (and the MOD have been saying since the 60s) if you're going to have nukes the only sensible and cost effective way of doing it credibly is to do it from subs with ballistic missiles.



This is true and the point of the deterrent is of course to ensure that no one will use it because we'll get to die together.

I don't disagree - though I didn't understand that that the renewal was just for subs. But still is it worth it?
The French still seem to manage to be "the USA's oldest ally" - true of course - without spending the money we do and with generally older equipment manage to have a substantial say [in spite of a currently seriously flawed, if intelligent, President].

 

[radamfi]

If you live in Denmark, Slovenia, Luxembourg or Hungary, is your life at risk compared to living in the UK because you have a puny military and don't have nuclear weapons? If, to stay safe, you have to have a UK level of military, then only a small proportion of the world's population are safe.