UK - Election 2015

It might be an important vote, too, Glenn. Marginal Lib/ Con seat.

Aside.....I got my first ever century at Wells, in that constituency.
 
Last edited:
Anyone want to update or share their prediction ? I'm still getting that 1992 feeling, Tory majority , albeit a small majority .
 
Darat said:
Anyone want to update or share their prediction ? I'm still getting that 1992 feeling, Tory majority , albeit a small majority .
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree with that conclusion, SNP sidelined, shot their bolt if you like.
Milliband without hope retreats to avoid being replaced, and comes to terms with the Tories.
I doubt if the Welsh vote is going to make much difference.
 
Last edited:
OK, neck-on-block time.......

Tories 300 seats
Labour 255 seats
Lib Dems 25 seats
SNP 50 seats
UKIP 3 seats

Cons/ Lib coalition government, lasting less than 2 years.
 
ceptimus said:
I don't get why a possible future government needs to promise to pass a law to do what it's promising to do anyway?
Presumably any promises they make that are not backed up by promised laws are promises that everyone can expect them not to keep.
Click to expand...

I agree. Promising to legislate or instituting legislation for a manifesto promise is laughable. How can we trust any party that's prepared to do that.

Labour manifesto April 2001 p20
We will not introduce ‘top-up’ fees and have legislated to prevent them
Click to expand...

We all know what happened just a few short months later.
:mad:
 
Darat said:
Anyone want to update or share their prediction ? I'm still getting that 1992 feeling, Tory majority , albeit a small majority .
Click to expand...

My gut is hung parliament with the Conservatives the largest single party. The Conservatives, LibDems and Unionist parties form a minority coalition which limps along with support from UKIP.
 
Well, we are in uncharted waters. Scotland to be an SNP landslide, obviously. The Conservatives often seem to pick up votes from those who aren't comfortable admitting their support openly. So maybe that will help. I fancy the last few days of campaigning may prove to be very important. How much damage will UKIP do?

I'll go:

Conservatives 324
The rest 324
The speaker 1
The Greens 1

giving the Greens the balance of power and ushering in a new age of environmental awareness with policies aimed predominantly at the polar ice caps and the rain forests.
 
The Don said:
My gut is hung parliament with the Conservatives the largest single party. The Conservatives, LibDems and Unionist parties form a minority coalition which limps along with support from UKIP.
Click to expand...
Various predictions here.
 
anglolawyer said:
Well, we are in uncharted waters. Scotland to be an SNP landslide, obviously. The Conservatives often seem to pick up votes from those who aren't comfortable admitting their support openly. So maybe that will help. I fancy the last few days of campaigning may prove to be very important. How much damage will UKIP do?

I'll go:

Conservatives 324
The rest 324
The speaker 1
The Greens 1

giving the Greens the balance of power and ushering in a new age of environmental awareness with policies aimed predominantly at the polar ice caps and the rain forests.
Click to expand...
No, it gives the Speaker the balance of power ushering in a new age of people shouting "Order, order!"
 
I'll take a risk on on some outside bets.

Nigel Farage will be an M.P. after the election but Nick Clegg won't. The Lib Dems will have an embarrassing time trying to negotiate a coalition while simultaneously electing a new party leader.

UKIP will get a larger share of the national vote than the Lib Dems, despite which the Lib Dems will have ten times more seats than UKIP in the House of Commons (twenty-odd compared to two).
 
UKIP seem to have been forgotten in the new enthusiasm for the Scot Nats.
I think the Tories will lose out to Labour in a lot of seats as they lose votes to UKIP.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
UKIP seem to have been forgotten in the new enthusiasm for the Scot Nats.
I think the Tories will lose out to Labour in a lot of seats as they lose votes to UKIP.
Click to expand...


UKIP are being forgotten as regards potential coalition partners for the simple (and obvious) reason that they will not win more than a few seats maximum. Therefore they will have very little weight or influence in any post-election coalition horse-trading.

And there are also sound reasons why neither Labour nor the Conservatives are worried to any great degree about Ukip stealing enough of either party's vote to affect the outcome adversely. That's because none of the key marginals feature Ukip as a serious player. The Conservatives are already reconciled to losing one or two Kent/S Essex seats to Ukip, and it's not worth them using time, energy and resources to fight that battle - those resources are far more effectively spent focussing on the key marginals.

Miliband's extraordinarily bold - and unequivocal - statement on the QT show last night about refusing to do any coalition (or C&S) deals with anyone, least of all the SNP, was clearly made very deliberately as a direct message to the Scottish electorate (and them alone). The current Labour Strategy Team view is that a large number of previous Labour voters in Scottish constituencies are considering voting SNP (and telling this to the pollsters) because they would like to see Labour in power in Westminster but in a coalition with the SNP (thereby putting Scotland policy issues fairly far forward in the next Labour/SNP government). The strategy decision which resulted in Miliband's announcement is therefore intended to persuade this cohort of voters that they need to vote Labour rather than SNP.


My current seats prediction:

Conservative: 315
Labour: 270
SNP: 40
LibDem: 12
Others: 13

Next government: another Con/LibDem coalition, but with significantly less LibDem representation and influence than previously.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
UKIP seem to have been forgotten in the new enthusiasm for the Scot Nats.
I think the Tories will lose out to Labour in a lot of seats as they lose votes to UKIP.
Click to expand...

I worried about this previously, but their poll numbers are heading consistently down, and I think they will suffer last-minute as people ponder the dangers of wasting a vote on them and letting in a Europhile Labour candidate in the process.
 
LondonJohn said:
......Next government: another Con/LibDem coalition, but with significantly less LibDem representation and influence than previously.
Click to expand...

My prediction too, but I don't think such a coalition will survive the European referendum proposed for 2017, nor the pent-up fury of the Tory right who resent the steadying influence the Lib Dems had on the last government.
 
Darat said:
Anyone want to update or share their prediction ? I'm still getting that 1992 feeling, Tory majority , albeit a small majority .
Click to expand...

Tory-LD minority government..........for now.

I just don't think Lab have done enough in England to allow anyone else to become kingmakers.

Interestingly I read yesterday that the word from the Palace is that Queenie will not deliver the Queen's Speech unless a deal has already been reached, and it is sure to pass. Now, apparently there are three weeks for this to get done. If neither large party can broker an agreement (there would need to be some hefty abstentions I suspect) then is that a new election?
 
LondonJohn said:
The strategy decision which resulted in Miliband's announcement is therefore intended to persuade this cohort of voters that they need to vote Labour rather than SNP.
Click to expand...

This is what I see going on here, and I don't think it will work, more likely after all these debates for me is a larger conservative chunk of the seats and as already stated several times yet another con/dem coalition...and I see it as no bad thing personally :)
 
malicus said:
Tory-LD minority government..........for now.

I just don't think Lab have done enough in England to allow anyone else to become kingmakers.

Interestingly I read yesterday that the word from the Palace is that Queenie will not deliver the Queen's Speech unless a deal has already been reached, and it is sure to pass. Now, apparently there are three weeks for this to get done. If neither large party can broker an agreement (there would need to be some hefty abstentions I suspect) then is that a new election?
Click to expand...



This partly depends on the precise interpretation of the situation. The Queen gave a Queen's Speech in November 1978, for example, when there was a minority Labour government propped up by a so-called "confidence and supply" pact with the Liberal party.

The point about the Queen's position is very likely to be moot. Pure minority government (i.e. without any deals or pacts with other parties to ensure a working majority, particularly in regard to no-confidence votes) really cannot work in the UK. Therefore, if we got to a point after next week's election where a) no single party had an overall majority, and b) neither the Conservatives nor Labour could form a government with a working majority, there would be an automatic stalemate and a new election anyhow - regardless of what the Queen thinks. It would, in other words, never come to a position where a government was asking the Queen to deliver a QS, and she refused to do so on these grounds.
 
During the run to the Scottish independence vote I was constantly told my desire for devo max was a pipe dream. With the predicted huge SNP majority in Scotland there is no doubt more powers and a form of devo max is now guaranteed.

This outcome shows what the majority of Scots want is a powerful Scotland within the UK.
 
Nessie said:
During the run to the Scottish independence vote I was constantly told my desire for devo max was a pipe dream. With the predicted huge SNP majority in Scotland there is no doubt more powers and a form of devo max is now guaranteed.
Click to expand...
If the "Vow" is fulfilled, there will be a "form of devo Max", indeed.
Nessie said:
This outcome shows what the majority of Scots want is a powerful Scotland within the UK.
Click to expand...
But is that what the Westminster establishment wants? They want the UK, but do they want a powerful Scotland?

Norman Tebbit was in the press recently bewailing the creation of the Scottish Parliament, which he said (perhaps accurately) was agreed by Labour simply to stop the independence movement in its tracks once and for all; but in fact it has had if anything the opposite effect.

Would the granting of devo max have a different outcome?
 
Last edited:
Craig B said:
.......But is that what the Westminster establishment wants? They want the UK, but do they want a powerful Scotland?......?
Click to expand...

It's already overly-powerful. Too many MPs, too much influence for its size and importance. Clearly no-one down here relishes the prospect of even more power going to Scotland, one of the reasons that Scottish independence has generally been more popular in England than it is in Scotland.
 
MikeG said:
It's already overly-powerful. Too many MPs, too much influence for its size and importance. Clearly no-one down here relishes the prospect of even more power going to Scotland, one of the reasons that Scottish independence has generally been more popular in England than it is in Scotland.
Click to expand...
Is that so, that Scottish independence is more popular in England than in Scotland? It is most certainly not true of the political class, which is prepared to stoop to many ruses, and make many concessions, however distasteful, if only it can thereby preserve the Union.

Britain IS the Union. Without it, what would England be? We've heard politicians wanting to renew Trident simply to keep current status in the community of countries. These people could not countenance the loss of Scotland, which would entail an even greater decline than the abandonment of the nuclear deterrent.

And how the French would laugh at the misfortune suffered by la perfide Albion!
 
Craig B said:
If the "Vow" is fulfilled, there will be a "form of devo Max", indeed. But is that what the Westminster establishment wants? They want the UK, but do they want a powerful Scotland?

Norman Tebbit was in the press recently bewailing the creation of the Scottish Parliament, which he said (perhaps accurately) was agreed by Labour simply to stop the independence movement in its tracks once and for all; but in fact it has had if anything the opposite effect.

Would the granting of devo max have a different outcome?
Click to expand...

The devo max movement has been shown to be the most powerful. The vote was no for independence and now a resounding yes is coming for the SNP to ensure more powers.

Meanwhile the English have come to realise they should have more regional control over their affairs. That will be based about Westminster and keep them happy. It is also backed by the SNP since unlike Labour they will not be voting on purely English affairs.

The headline is misleading, the voting will only be on affairs which affect Scotland.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-sturgeon-snp-mps-will-vote-on-english-issues

"And we will make our voices heard, when appropriate, by voting on matters which affect England but which also affect Scotland financially. We will vote on nominally “English” matters at each and every opportunity when Scotland’s national and economic interests are directly affected.

That is not just our policy as a party, it is our duty as democratically elected representatives of constituencies across Scotland which face being profoundly affected by Westminster decisions. As such, it is essential that Scottish MPs – not just those from the SNP – continue to vote on issues affecting all parts of the UK."
 
Craig B said:
Is that so, that Scottish independence is more popular in England than in Scotland?......
Click to expand...

It was in 2012.

And 2013

I can't find any polls which show the English preferring the Scots to stay in the Union at a higher rate than the Scots do, but of course, there don't appear to have been any recent polls on the issue.

We're just fed up of the whining.
 
MikeG said:
About 12 times what Scotland is. Silly argument.
Click to expand...
And you're welcome to it. We do not desire to be any more than for example Norway is. I cite the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath.
May it please you [Pope John XXII] to admonish and exhort the King of the English, who ought to be satisfied with what belongs to him since England used once to be enough for seven kings or more, to leave us Scots in peace, who live in this poor little Scotland, beyond which there is no dwelling-place at all, and covet nothing but our own.
Click to expand...
 
Craig B said:
And you're welcome to it.........
Click to expand...

It was your argument, not mine. If England is nothing without the Union, by your argument, then Scotland is a twelfth of nothing, which rather makes the argument for sticking together, I'd have thought.
 
MikeG said:
It was your argument, not mine. If England is nothing without the Union, by your argument, then Scotland is a twelfth of nothing, which rather makes the argument for sticking together, I'd have thought.
Click to expand...
We have no pretensions, and desire no special status in the world. The political establishment in Westminster still seems to hanker after the former status enjoyed by Britain during the period of Empire. We don't even want to be a twelfth of that, but to be what we are, or could be: a small N European democracy.
 
Craig B said:
......The political establishment in Westminster still seems to hanker after the former status enjoyed by Britain during the period of Empire......
Click to expand...

I've seen no evidence for that, or anything like that. Have you? In which case, do share.
 
MikeG said:
I've seen no evidence for that, or anything like that. Have you? In which case, do share.
Click to expand...
OK.
John McTernan, one of Blair’s special advisers, said - “If we didn’t have Trident we’d be Belgium. Some people would find that a comfortable place to be. I wouldn’t. If Britain is going to be a major power, Britain should have the kinds of weapons a major power has.”
Click to expand...
He's has also been adviser to the now Leader of the Labour Party in Scotland.
 
So, not a politician, only one person, and incidentally a Scot. That's all you've got? I'll remind you that you talked about "The political establishment at Westminster", and the best you can come up with is some guy no-one's ever heard of who doesn't work at Westminster.
 
Craig B said:
If the "Vow" is fulfilled, there will be a "form of devo Max", indeed. But is that what the Westminster establishment wants? They want the UK, but do they want a powerful Scotland?
Click to expand...
You certainly have the Sun on your side when it comes to Scottish interests. May the Force be with you!
That is, the Scottish edition of the Sun.


The latest, and last, round of Ashcroft polls is also interesting. Jim Murphy might retain his seat due to traditional Tory voters going over to Labour. The Labour voters in Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale, don't return the favour. :)
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
It's already overly-powerful. Too many MPs, too much influence for its size and importance.
Click to expand...
That has largely been corrected: with the institution of a Scottish Assembly, the number of Scottish MPs has greatly been reduced.

Wikipedia gives these population figures in the 2011 census:
UK: 63,181,775
Scotland: 5,313,600
Purely proportional to population, that would mean 55 out of 650 MPs. There are 59.
 
Craig B said:
We have no pretensions, and desire no special status in the world. The political establishment in Westminster still seems to hanker after the former status enjoyed by Britain during the period of Empire. We don't even want to be a twelfth of that, but to be what we are, or could be: a small N European democracy.
Click to expand...


Personally, I think that post-election, there should be a referendum in Greater London to create an independent city state. After all, Greater London has a population of over 8 million (way more than Scotland), 74 Westminster constituencies, and over 20% of the current UK's entire economic output. I think that Greater London would be incredibly successful as an independent city state.

Oh wait. That would be a stupid and reductive idea wouldn't it...... :rolleyes:
 
LondonJohn said:
Personally, I think that post-election, there should be a referendum in Greater London to create an independent city state. After all, Greater London has a population of over 8 million (way more than Scotland), 74 Westminster constituencies, and over 20% of the current UK's entire economic output. I think that Greater London would be incredibly successful as an independent city state.

Oh wait. That would be a stupid and reductive idea wouldn't it...... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I think it's a fine idea. The rest of the country could then get on with its own business without being continually jerked around by the financial sector. This would require the dumping of sterling, of course, but there's the Euro solution to that. So do go ahead. Make our day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom