UK General Election - May 7th 2015

[joevsimp]

If the polls are still displaying roughly the same picture on May 7th 2015 as they are now then will anyone really bother doing an exit poll?

In 2010 the final polls all had the Lib Dems significantly higher and Labour significantly lower than the exit poll and the final results.

yes,  I remember Election Night Special that year, they spent nearly an hour discussing what might have  caused the exit poll to be so far off until it emerged that it was spot on and the LibDems were actually losing seats.

[Angel of Death]

If the rise of the UKIP will result in the House of Commons finally being elected by some form of proportional representation, then they will have been a net force for good.

[Zanas]

If the rise of the UKIP will result in the House of Commons finally being elected by some form of proportional representation, then they will have been a net force for good.

What makes you think their rise would have such a result ?

[Harry Hayfield]

Could members weigh in on the following point (which was raised in a question I answered on All Experts.com)?

Ed Milliband currently has 258 MP's, in order to govern with a majority he only needs 321 MP's (a net gain of 63) or no less than 306 MP's (working in coalition with the Liberal Democrats or the SNP) (a net gain of 48)

[BaconBacon96]

A four way debate is the only one that seems reasonable. Inviting the Greens would probably be pushing it too far.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

If the rise of the UKIP will result in the House of Commons finally being elected by some form of proportional representation, then they will have been a net force for good.

What makes you think their rise would have such a result ?

Farage is a fan of AV Plus , I believe. (Of all the egregious errors Yes2AV campaign made, not making use of Farage was the worst)

Are they going to have five-way debates in Wales then? (Plaid+ four national parties)

[You kip if you want to...]

If the rise of the UKIP will result in the House of Commons finally being elected by some form of proportional representation, then they will have been a net force for good.

Wow, gross.

The rise of a racist party that makes many feel like unwanted guests in their own country, a party which has trashed even further our political discourse, but HEY, but our votes might be counted in a different way. Great.

[politicus]

If the rise of the UKIP will result in the House of Commons finally being elected by some form of proportional representation, then they will have been a net force for good.

Wow, gross.

The rise of a racist party that makes many feel like unwanted guests in their own country, a party which has trashed even further our political discourse, but HEY, but our votes might be counted in a different way. Great.

You are trivializing this. PR could potentially change both the political process and landscape quite a bit. You could argue that FPTP simply isn't real democracy, because you are forced to either waste your vote or vote for the lesser evil.

[You kip if you want to...]

If the rise of the UKIP will result in the House of Commons finally being elected by some form of proportional representation, then they will have been a net force for good.

Wow, gross.

The rise of a racist party that makes many feel like unwanted guests in their own country, a party which has trashed even further our political discourse, but HEY, but our votes might be counted in a different way. Great.

You are trivializing this. PR could potentially change both the political process and landscape quite a bit. You could argue that FPTP simply isn't real democracy, because you are forced to either waste your vote or vote for the lesser evil.

"Forced" is the wrong word. No one is forced to vote for any party, but I understand what you mean, obviously.

But to cheer on UKIP because we might get PR because of it is bordering on offensive.

One thing I remember about the AV referendum is that those who are so obsessed with this issue often tend to fail to see the bigger picture. PR would be a god-send though, of course.

[ChrisDR68]

Could members weigh in on the following point (which was raised in a question I answered on All Experts.com)?

Ed Milliband currently has 258 MP's, in order to govern with a majority he only needs 321 MP's (a net gain of 63) or no less than 306 MP's (working in coalition with the Liberal Democrats or the SNP) (a net gain of 48)

Both of those numbers should be easy to achieve given Labour's advantages in the electoral system at the moment. Ed Miliband's deep unpopularity with the public could be the one thing that stops it happening though.

If Labour end up as the largest party I somehow doubt they will enter into a coalition. They and the SNP loathe each other (party over what happened in 1979) and they have a tetchy relationship with the Lib Dems (which is probably an understatement) despite considerable overlap in philosophical outlook.

Depending on the arithmetic I'd expect a supply and confidence arrangement with one or two of the smaller parties if they end up as the largest party in a hung parliament.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why would UKIP being in favour of changing the electoral system make such a change more likely to happen? The LibDems (and their Alliance and Liberal predecessors) have been in favour - and a relevant political force - for even longer, and yet...

[afleitch]

Why would UKIP being in favour of changing the electoral system make such a change more likely to happen? The LibDems (and their Alliance and Liberal predecessors) have been in favour - and a relevant political force - for even longer, and yet...

There are elements in all parties that seem to rate any system of proportionality as worse than Hitler. Staying on that analogy, I think UKIP might contain a lot of people like that so it's a non starter. Though it might be in their manifesto for a couple of months for the hell of it.

Unlike the Lib Dems (and it's debatable even under STV whether the Lib Dems gain that disproportionately) UKIP would probably suffer somewhat. They will be quite happy with one or two boarding house seaside towns and a bit more media coverage come 2015 (seats which come 2017 will probably defect anyway)

[ChrisDR68]

A lot of negativity on here towards UKIP. However their central policy (withdrawal from the EU as the EU is on an irrevocable course towards a federal superstate which is not in the UK's interests to be a part of) has widespread support among the British public.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

A lot of negativity on here towards UKIP. However their central policy (withdrawal from the EU as the EU is on an irrevocable course towards a federal superstate which is not in the UK's interests to be a part of) has widespread support among the British public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_referendum_on_United_Kingdom_membership_of_the_European_Union#Exit_plan_competition

I would say "widespread" is hyperbole. Most seem to want to stay, but with renegotiated deals. (Although to be fair, the establishment can't organise a referendum campaign to save their lives, so who knows what would happen?

[You kip if you want to...]

A lot of negativity on here towards UKIP. However their central policy (withdrawal from the EU as the EU is on an irrevocable course towards a federal superstate which is not in the UK's interests to be a part of) has widespread support among the British public.

Your point being?

[EPG]

Could members weigh in on the following point (which was raised in a question I answered on All Experts.com)?

Ed Milliband currently has 258 MP's, in order to govern with a majority he only needs 321 MP's (a net gain of 63) or no less than 306 MP's (working in coalition with the Liberal Democrats or the SNP) (a net gain of 48)

At the moment, you have the following maths for a Labour government, and this is the most optimistic I can make it.

For: Labour (258), Lib Dem (57), PC (3), SDLP (3), Green (1), Independent (1), Alliance (1) = 324
Against: Conservative (304), DUP (eight), Ukip (1) = 313
Majority: 11
In reality, it would be hard to keep everyone onside to support that government, which is why it didn't happen in 2010. George Galloway and the SNP would try to cause trouble for Labour at times, in which case every vote matters.

The SNP aren't joining a Labour coalition as supplicant to their main rival at Holyrood, which is the place they really care about. Confidence and supply would require the SNP to cast positive votes on bills that involve just EW or EWNI matters. The SNP's interest is in getting fiscal powers OR in keeping a situation of tension in the UK such that it looks like a relatively much better government. Furthermore, alliance with nationalists would, I think, be toxic in much of England.

Assuming 20 seat gains for Labour and 15 for Conservatives from Lib Dems, it's 278 seats for Labour, 287 after including PC+SDLP+3. I think these are high but feasible levels of seat gains. Lib Dem losses to Conservatives don't matter much if Lib Dems vote to oppose a Labour government eventually. 287-328 (if Lib Dems abstain) requires 21 net gains from Conservatives. 287-350 requires 32. Add another 5 in each case for a more stable Labour government. Can they win about 25-35 seats, net? Yes, but it is less likely today than if this election had been fought a year early.

Your point being?

Beats me. Nationalising trains and the death penalty also have widespread support among the public, it really just means that they miss the days when they were young, rather than an intention to elect a party to enact those policies. Otherwise they would have done it before.

[You kip if you want to...]

If the polls are still displaying roughly the same picture on May 7th 2015 as they are now then will anyone really bother doing an exit poll?

In 2010 the final polls all had the Lib Dems significantly higher and Labour significantly lower than the exit poll and the final results.

yes,  I remember Election Night Special that year, they spent nearly an hour discussing what might have  caused the exit poll to be so far off until it emerged that it was spot on and the LibDems were actually losing seats.

Indeed. Listen to the instant disbelief about the LD number.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-G4_y_2K_E#t=4m50s

[YL]

A lot of negativity on here towards UKIP. However their central policy (withdrawal from the EU as the EU is on an irrevocable course towards a federal superstate which is not in the UK's interests to be a part of) has widespread support among the British public.

I'm a strong supporter of Britain remaining in the EU, but my distaste for UKIP has rather little to do with that.  It has more to do with other reactionary tendencies in the party, especially the scapegoating of immigrants and the tendency towards climate change denialism.  See also "Poujade, Pierre".

[You kip if you want to...]

A lot of negativity on here towards UKIP. However their central policy (withdrawal from the EU as the EU is on an irrevocable course towards a federal superstate which is not in the UK's interests to be a part of) has widespread support among the British public.

I'm a strong supporter of Britain remaining in the EU, but my distaste for UKIP has rather little to do with that.  It has more to do with other reactionary tendencies in the party, especially the scapegoating of immigrants and the tendency towards climate change denialism.  See also "Poujade, Pierre".

Their stance on the EU isn't too different to most Tory's position (outside of Cameron's clique at the top of the party). Although I think that's a profoundly destructive opinion, I'd be able to get past it. My problem with UKIP is that they're a racist party. End of story.

[ChrisDR68]

A lot of negativity on here towards UKIP. However their central policy (withdrawal from the EU as the EU is on an irrevocable course towards a federal superstate which is not in the UK's interests to be a part of) has widespread support among the British public.

Your point being?

My point being is that there would not be such a thing as the UK Independence Party if it were not for this central issue. They may have policies that cover most other stuff but they are essentially a single issue party.

Put it another way, is everyone here comfortable with the United Kingdom becoming part of a federal European superstate at some point in the future and if so why?

[You kip if you want to...]

A lot of negativity on here towards UKIP. However their central policy (withdrawal from the EU as the EU is on an irrevocable course towards a federal superstate which is not in the UK's interests to be a part of) has widespread support among the British public.

Your point being?

My point being is that there would not be such a thing as the UK Independence Party if it were not for this central issue. They may have policies that cover most other stuff but they are essentially a single issue party.

Put it another way, is everyone here comfortable with the United Kingdom becoming part of a federal European superstate at some point in the future and if so why?

Every poll shows UKIP voters more bothered about immigrants, foreigners and benefits, not necessarily the EU.

[EPG]

A lot of negativity on here towards UKIP. However their central policy (withdrawal from the EU as the EU is on an irrevocable course towards a federal superstate which is not in the UK's interests to be a part of) has widespread support among the British public.

Your point being?

My point being is that there would not be such a thing as the UK Independence Party if it were not for this central issue. They may have policies that cover most other stuff but they are essentially a single issue party.

Put it another way, is everyone here comfortable with the United Kingdom becoming part of a federal European superstate at some point in the future and if so why?

I think this is an exaggerated simplification of Ukip.

There has been British hostility to the EEC and EU since the beginning, at first as anti-Common Market factions in both main parties back when they really were the be-all and end-all of English and Welsh politics, later dissipated all across the British political spectrum in a more broad and shallow manner, but strongly localised among the Thatcherite Conservatives and a few straggler Labour members. It is not a new phenomenon that explains why Ukip is now a meaningful entity.

Ukip itself has existed for over two decades. Yet European integration didn't give it even a shadow of its current position. The UK hasn't subscribed to a major article of European integration since the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009. The next year, Ukip won just 3% at a general election and made a material difference to results in a handful of seats. The UK has agreed to practically no integration in the interim, nor has it been pushed to do so by a European Commission focused on economic, euro-based topics intensely controversial in the euro area but irrelevant in the UK.

So what changed? Ukip has been catapulted to current success by a few factors: the proportional, list-based European Parliament electoral law, almost uniquely designed to favour small anti-EU parties; an ability to attract former Conservative donors to fund its activities; above all, rapid EU immigration since 2004. They know it. And any interested observer of UK politics should know it, too. Like any political party, it is an avatar of its current voters rather that the issues that brought it into existence, otherwise the Corn Laws would be more relevant than they are today. And every study I know of suggests that Ukip voters' priority is to extract foreigners from their fields of vision.

[YL]

A Guardian/Observer article about Green ambitions.

The target list mentioned (other than Brighton Pavilion) is
Norwich South
Bristol West
St Ives
Sheffield Central
Liverpool Riverside
Oxford East
Solihull
Reading East
York Central
Holborn & St Pancras
Cambridge

I think they have a good chance of holding Pavilion.  They might have a chance in Bristol West if something goes wrong with the Labour challenge there, but I think it's more likely that they'll be squeezed, while I think they'll do well in Norwich South but catching Labour there is a tall order.

The others seem even longer shots.  They certainly have potential in Sheffield Central but are starting from a very low base having been squeezed in 2010.

[You kip if you want to...]

Aren't the Greens wildly unpopular in Brighton? I would've thought Labour were in with a shout of taking it back.

For them to think they have a chance anywhere outside of Brighton Pav is, quite frankly, hilarious.

[EPG]

A Guardian/Observer article about Green ambitions.

The target list mentioned (other than Brighton Pavilion) is
Norwich South
Bristol West
St Ives
Sheffield Central
Liverpool Riverside
Oxford East
Solihull
Reading East
York Central
Holborn & St Pancras
Cambridge

I think they have a good chance of holding Pavilion.  They might have a chance in Bristol West if something goes wrong with the Labour challenge there, but I think it's more likely that they'll be squeezed, while I think they'll do well in Norwich South but catching Labour there is a tall order.

The others seem even longer shots.  They certainly have potential in Sheffield Central but are starting from a very low base having been squeezed in 2010.

These target lists are exercises in public relations, unless you've photographed a secret document under someone's arm at Clapham Junction.

Greens poll about 4-7%, up from 1% at GE 2010 which might have been 1.5% if they contested every seat. It's surely, overwhelmingly, concentrated among low-turnout voters: young childless people, the unmortgaged, the bohemian bourgeoisie, people who might find something more exciting to do that Thursday than cast a symbolic vote.

In by-elections, the increase in the Green vote has been more homogenous than would be good for them: nowhere above 4%, and not correlated with the fall in Lib Dem votes either.

Greens would need the Lib Dems to do well, to turn these contests into 3-way marginals like Brighton, Pavilion. (Will the Conservatives even contest it, or encourage anti-Labour votes?) In those cases, it's hard to see where Green votes come from, unless Labour bleeds in places like Cambridge. But why would they?

It's conceivable in Norwich South. It would be pretty massive in Bristol West. The rest is a pretension at national-party status.