General Election 2015 - Thoughts/Predictions/Results

[TheKnightWho]

My view on Farage's performance is that it will have rallied his core vote and activists, whilst turning-off almost everybody else. No doubt that was the intention, and as a tactic it has merit.

This. He was repeatedly ignored for raising irrelevant points that were clearly self-interested - does anyone really care about hospital parking fees in our leaders' debate, for example? - and frankly the point about HIV was utterly disgusting. There were a few times when it was noticeable that everyone else there found what he was saying really unpleasant. Part of me wants to leave the EU just so they can't claim to have easy solutions to complex, difficult problems.

In a poll of who performed worst he also scores highest. Clearly he's working for a core base of people, but for the rest of us he's just confirming our worst suspicions. What's even worse is that him saying these things turns them into big issues within his party, in a way that can be extremely damaging for others. UKIPers whine about everyone being biased against UKIP, but frankly for a lot of us we'll stop being anti-UKIP when it stops being anti-us! And that includes a large number of groups.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Nicola Sturgeon was the most impressive overall and if SNP does support Labour after the election should be Deputy PM, thought Ed Milliband was better than he has been in the past

I agree that Nicola Sturgeon performed very well. I also noticed the contrast between how she was clearly trying to reach out to voters in England, where Leanne Wood basically only trying to talk to Welsh voters.

One thing that did strike me is one of the Conservatives' campaigning tactics in England appears to be to try to scare people with a message of (roughly speaking) 'If you vote Labour you'll get the SNP and the SNP are evil. So you need to vote Conservative'. I wonder whether - by talking so much about ending austerity and creating a fairer society across all the UK - which will have undoubtedly impressed quite a few people outside Scotland, Nicola may have rather effectively torpedoed that strategy - since it means a lot of people in England may now be starting to think that having the SNP influencing the Government would actually be quite good for the UK.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This. He was repeatedly ignored for raising irrelevant points that were clearly self-interested - does anyone really care about hospital parking fees in our leaders' debate, for example? - and frankly the point about HIV was utterly disgusting.

I thought it was a shame that the other leaders so often did ignore him. Many of his points were based on flawed logic, but because the other leaders on the whole didn't challenge him on that, the result will probably be quite a few viewers going away mistakenly thinking that Farage's logic was correct. (Though given how limited the time was, I can understand the other leaders not doing so. 20 seconds rebutting Farage's silly claims is 20 seconds that you can't spend talking about what your own party is going to do).

 

[CC 72100]

I agree that Nicola Sturgeon performed very well. I also noticed the contrast between how she was clearly trying to reach out to voters in England, where Leanne Wood basically only trying to talk to Welsh voters.

I think she needed to though, because there are arguably a considerable amount of English voters who are concerned about her influence on a future government following the referendum last year. She basically had to put out a message of friendship as opposed to "English money for Scottish government".

Milliband at times appeared to be too slick, too much looking into the camera, too much 'at home' as if it was a party election broadcast and the other leaders weren't there.

 

[me123]

I broadly agree with me123 and TheJRB excellent summaries of last night.

Nicola Sturgeon was the most impressive overall and if SNP does support Labour after the election should be Deputy PM...

She is the First Minister of Scotland is not standing for a seat in the coming election. She therefore won't be deputy PM. You could have Alex Salmond though...

Or, what I think is more likely and what I personally hope happens, the SNP will support the government on a vote-by-vote basis, and not form a formal coalition with Labour. They can support what they want to support without making sacrifices and losing support, like the Lib Dems have done.

 

[radamfi]

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/next-government

are showing Labour minority and Conservative minority governments more or less equally likely.

Nick Clegg is predicted to keep his seat:

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/sheffield-hallam/winning-party

 

[Oswyntail]

In my view, the whole "debate" was going to be a sham anyway, with the six "leaders" lining up to say to Cameron "you're rubbish, you are". I was not disappointed. The only way to handle Farage might be to give him enough rope anyway. Greens were a massive disappointment, but the they would be once they move out of their environmental hinterland; I enjoyed SNPs thunderous look when Plaid said Scotland was doing rather well out of Barnett, but that was the high point for either nationalist argument. I thought Clegg did rather well out of a duff set of cards, and Cameron did what any incumbent has to, "stick with us". I do wish Miliband would put some flesh on his plans - and drop the lies about the NHS. And I always hear the alarm bells when anyone, whatever the context, asks us to forget what they did in the past.
No thinking person would have been swayed either way by the show - which was all it was.

 

[me123]

.
No thinking person would have been swayed either way by the show - which was all it was.

[youtube]0YOh-rpvjYg[/youtube]

 

[northwichcat]

Ms Bennett, Plaid Cymru

I think you made a copy and paste error there.

My thoughts are:

Natalie Bennett, Green- Put forward some good points which the other leaders didn't come up with. However, overall not strong enough to give the impression that the Greens could run the country. I think the Greens have the potential to gain the same level of support as the Lib Dems but they aren't currently achieving that.

Nick Clegg, Lib Dem- I think he did the right thing to try and distance himself from the Conservatives now the Coalition has ended and rightly wasn't too vocal about when the Lib Dems were in disagreement with the Conservatives while the Coalition was operating. Last time his policy of raising the personal allowance to £10,000 (when Labour and the Conservatives said it wouldn't be possible) was a real vote winner but this time he's not offering something as good as that this time so I imagine the Lib Dems won't gain as many votes.

Nigel Farage, UKIP- What would he do apart from exiting the EU and cutting immigration? Not a lot by the sound of things. He hinted that Grammar schools should be brought back but didn't say that would be one of their policies. To me he gives the impression he has one page of a very old Conservative manifesto and wants to implement that one page.

Ed Miliband, Labour- Was a vast improvement on Gordon Brown 5 years ago when Brown stood there flogging his dead horse on ID cards and agreeing to everything Nick Clegg said. Ed strongly gave the impression he'd try and balance the recovery fairer than the Conservatives would. He was also the only leader who could address Leanne Wood and Nicola Sturgeon's concerns about Wales and Scotland being pulled out of the EU against their wishes by simply saying Labour don't want to waste time and money with an EU referendum.

Leanne Wood, Plaid Cymru- My opinion is similar to TheJRB's opinion. I don't know how the representative sample the poll for News At Ten was obtained but as a non-Welsh person living in England I would be happy Plaid Cymru forms parts of a Coalition after the next election based on her performance.

Nicola Sturgeon, SNP- The one person I'm not sure about. I can't vote for her party but didn't come away with any strong feelings about the SNP based on her arguments, so all I say is not as good as Leanne Wood in my opinion.

David Cameron, Conservative- I can see why he didn't want lots of leaders debates despite it being him who wanted them 5 years ago. He's not got any new ideas so the leader's debate only allows other leaders to tear his ideas apart. He's sounding a bit like Tony Blair once he ran out of ideas and gave a date for standing down and doesn't sound like he'd make a good Prime Minister for the next 5 years.

 

[me123]

I think you made a copy and paste error there.

Not a copy and paste error, just a stupid one Corrected, many thanks.

 

[TheNewNo2]

I was impressed by Farage during the debate, but only in that he managed to make every single answer about immigration. He went 50s in the last question without mentioning it, I thought he was going to go the full minute, but no.

Of the seven onstage I was most impressed by Sturgeon, and while I'm against independence (but pro-self-determination) the policies and views she articulated largely mirrored mine.

I am a Green supporter, and thought that Bennett made a lot of sense, but she never got pressed on anything and was mostly ignored, so didn't have to justify her policies. I think that of the two main parties I found Miliband most impressive.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Nigel Farage, UKIP- What would he do apart from exiting the EU and cutting immigration? Not a lot by the sound of things. He hinted that Grammar schools should be brought back but didn't say that would be one of their policies. To me he gives the impression he has one page of a very old Conservative manifesto and wants to implement that one page.

Other than giving us free hospital parking (something that both Wales and Scotland has, which England doesn't), the NHS will be free at the point of delivery and the costing of NHS services will come out of general taxation.

UKIP are wanting the railways returned to the public and that HS2 is to be scrapped, so that the cash that was going to be used for HS2 would be spent on upgrading the infrastructure, reopening of lines and stations and buying much needed new units!

UKIP oppose tolls, so those at Dartford and the ones on the Humber Bridge would be removed, again the cash to pay for maintenance would come out of general taxation.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

UKIP is a Libetarian party i.e. let people just get on with their lives and the govenment only deals with the more important stuff.

No it isn't.

...

UKIP are wanting the railways returned to the public ...

UKIP oppose tolls, so those at Dartford and the ones on the Humber Bridge would be removed, again the cash to pay for maintenance would come out of general taxation.

Proved my point quite well, thanks.

Edit - Will also add their opposition to a flat tax, opposition to gay marriage, and the fact that the majority of their supporters want to reintroduce the death penalty doesn't bode well for their 'libertarian' claims either.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Is it not the case that a flat tax, while possibly supported by many libertarians, is not a libertarian policy but a fiscally conservative one?

 

[TheJRB]

Proved my point quite well, thanks.

Edit - Will also add their opposition to a flat tax, opposition to gay marriage, and the fact that the majority of their supporters want to reintroduce the death penalty doesn't bode well for their 'libertarian' claims either.

Is it not the case that a flat tax, while possibly supported by many libertarians, is not a libertarian policy but a fiscally conservative one?

That's because right wing populism chooses to be libertarian when it pleases and interventionist when it suits also. It surprises me how few people see that UKIP is almost a parallel UK version of the Republican Tea Party faction.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Is it not the case that a flat tax, while possibly supported by many libertarians, is not a libertarian policy but a fiscally conservative one?

Which is essentially what libertarianism is: to paraphrase Penn Jillette it's as far right as you can go economically and as far left as you can go socially; most libertarian economics is rooted in the Austrian school of thought. You'd get some libertarians (particularly ancaps) who'd tell you any form of tax is reprehensible, but I think in reality a lot would settle for a low-as-possible flat tax. That's the problem with us libertarians, we agree on little beyond the core values

 

[yorksrob]

I believe UKIP did toy with the idea of a flat tax, which is possibly why they were asked about it, but they abandoned it. Given that such a policies introduction would inevitably benefit the wealthy at the expense of the less well off, I can't see it becoming politically popular any time soon.

 

[TheNewNo2]

A flat tax, while sounding all very good and SimCity, would never work in reality because it's not a progressive tax. People on low income would have a significant tax hike while people on high incomes would be given a tax cut. Depending on how capital gains is taxed, particularly high earners might end up paying nothing at all.

UKIP is a party with no depth - while some of their policies sound good, in reality they're entirely unworkable. It also seems to me that the UK part is a fraud, it's the ENP really.

US Tea Partiers aren't libertarian, they're by and large socially conservative, rabidly so even. What they have managed is to turn the Republican party into the party of "Whatever Obama does, I want the opposite". I sort of want Obama to endorse the republicans at the 2016 election, just to see what happens.

 

[me123]

UKIP is a party with no depth - while some of their policies sound good, in reality they're entirely unworkable. It also seems to me that the UK part is a fraud, it's the ENP really.

I agree with both of your points.

I have yet to hear a well thought out policy from UKIP. Nigel Farage behaves like the man down the pub who has all the answers, and his thoughts are almost as well thought out as your typical man down the pub. They say what they think people want to hear (or, rather, what Daily Mail readers want to hear), but when you actually delve any deeper then it doesn't stand up to scrutiny and simply is not thought out. For example, their overarching policy of leaving the EU (which they claim will save us money) doesn't factor in the adverse effects of leaving a common economic area. In general, they seem to be promising huge gains through some very dubious means, which greatly concerns me.

UKIP is irrelevant outside of England, and certainly in Scotland. We may have a UKIP MEP but he's proven himself to be nothing short of a bigot. Their right wing policies do not strike a chord with the Scottish electorate, and the "UK" part of their name actually alienates many Scots (even those who support the Union), because a "Scottish" party is perceived to stand up for our interests - most other parties, even Labour and the Tories, have "Scottish" in their official name.

 

[deltic]

Lib Dems hit 10% for first time in ages in latest YouGov poll with UKIP down to 13% - SNP have a 13 point lead over Labour in Scotland. UKIP's biggest support is in the North of England where they seem to be picking up Labour voters.

 

[northwichcat]

Other than giving us free hospital parking (something that both Wales and Scotland has, which England doesn't)

Good idea on paper.

However, if it results in commercial bus services serving hospitals no longer being viable (as a result of more people travelling by car) will the tab to subside the services be picked up to prevent people unable to travel by car having difficulties reaching the hospital?

 

[Metrailway]

I believe UKIP did toy with the idea of a flat tax, which is possibly why they were asked about it, but they abandoned it. Given that such a policies introduction would inevitably benefit the wealthy at the expense of the less well off, I can't see it becoming politically popular any time soon.

I believe UKIP's initial plan was that the flat tax was to be set at 31%, but this would replace both the graduated Income Tax and the (relatively regressive) Employee Class I National Insurance contributions.

I don't agree with it and it would be deeply unpopular.

Regarding the Liberals, I think Clegg will survive the election... just... Probably will be helped by some tactical voting by some Tory supporters residing in the seat. They will still lose a good number of seats though - maybe left with 25-35 seats after May 7th.

I do think the SNP will sweep the board in Scotland - probably getting around 45+ seats.

 

[northwichcat]

Lib Dems hit 10% for first time in ages in latest YouGov poll with UKIP down to 13% - SNP have a 13 point lead over Labour in Scotland. UKIP's biggest support is in the North of England where they seem to be picking up Labour voters.

The problem with opinion polls is we don't have proportional representation when it comes to actually voting.

Last time opinion polls were suggesting a gain in votes for Conservatives and Lib Dems and less votes for Labour. All those happened. However, the extra Conservative votes resulted in them winning more seats but the extra Lib Dem votes didn't result in them winning extra seats.

 

[Butts]

I agree with both of your points.

I have yet to hear a well thought out policy from UKIP. Nigel Farage behaves like the man down the pub who has all the answers, and his thoughts are almost as well thought out as your typical man down the pub. They say what they think people want to hear (or, rather, what Daily Mail readers want to hear), but when you actually delve any deeper then it doesn't stand up to scrutiny and simply is not thought out. For example, their overarching policy of leaving the EU (which they claim will save us money) doesn't factor in the adverse effects of leaving a common economic area. In general, they seem to be promising huge gains through some very dubious means, which greatly concerns me.

UKIP is irrelevant outside of England, and certainly in Scotland. We may have a UKIP MEP but he's proven himself to be nothing short of a bigot. Their right wing policies do not strike a chord with the Scottish electorate, and the "UK" part of their name actually alienates many Scots (even those who support the Union), because a "Scottish" party is perceived to stand up for our interests - most other parties, even Labour and the Tories, have "Scottish" in their official name.

What about their proposal to have separate "well ventilated" smoking rooms in Bars and Clubs if there is a demand for them.

This seems a perfectly reasonable idea to me.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The problem with opinion polls is we don't have proportional representation when it comes to actually voting.

Last time opinion polls were suggesting a gain in votes for Conservatives and Lib Dems and less votes for Labour. All those happened. However, the extra Conservative votes resulted in them winning more seats but the extra Lib Dem votes didn't result in them winning extra seats.

I wouldn't shed to many tears for The Liberal Democrats. If you compare their share of the vote in Scotland at the last general Election to that of the Conservatives and the number of seats each won they are massively over represented.

 

[507021]

The problem with opinion polls is we don't have proportional representation when it comes to actually voting.

I agree with this. Not everybody who plans to vote in the General Election has access to the internet or a computer. There are also a fair number of undecided voters too so - so there are at least two reasons why the opinion polls aren't a true reflection of how people are intending to vote

 

[me123]

What about their proposal to have separate "well ventilated" smoking rooms in Bars and Clubs if there is a demand for them.

This seems a perfectly reasonable idea to me.

I disagree.

Smoking legislation has been some of the most important public health legislation enacted in the UK. I know it is becoming increasing popular around the world to enact public smoking bans, and I am not aware of a single country who have repealed their legislation.

The aim of the smoking ban is two-fold. It stops those of us who do not smoke from being exposed to smoke, which we welcome. And it works - there have been public health studies demonstrating reduced hospital admissions related to the implementation of the ban. It also removes the normality from smoking tobacco, and discourages smokers from doing so, and therefore encourages them to stop their habit. At present, to smoke you have to step outside which does remove the incentive to do so. The legislation, in fact, primarily benefits bar staff who are no longer exposed to passive smoke - this benefit would be entirely removed if they had to work/serve in a smoker's room.

What about the pubs can clubs that cannot create a smoker's room, either because of lack of finances or lack of space? They would be disadvantaged by the legislation, because they couldn't provide the facilities and would lose clientele to other establishments. And you can't

UKIP's plans for a smoking room are very poorly considered. Smokers are not going to ostracise themselves by sitting in a designated room. Everyone else is going to join them if they wish to smoke. It dilutes the public health benefits massively and reverses the progress that is being made to reduce the harm caused by smoking.

Again, this is a prime example of UKIP taking an idea that is popular with the typical guy down the pub and not really thinking things through. They stand with the aim to ensure that the "legal" tobacco product remains legal, and they don't want to criminalise the smoker. Unfortunately, they forget that smoking is the only legal product in this country that kills when used as intended by the manufacturer. It is a dangerous product, whose effects kill hundreds of thousands every year, cost the NHS over £2 billion pounds, and has further adverse effects on the economy (such as need for increased social care, and lost revenue to sick days etc). Smoking is not safe. Smoking is not risk free for either the user or those around them. The legislation is necessary to protect public health, and I vehemently oppose the relaxation of the law.

 

[yorksrob]

UKIP's plans for a smoking room are very poorly considered. Smokers are not going to ostracise themselves by sitting in a designated room. Everyone else is going to join them if they wish to smoke. It dilutes the public health benefits massively and reverses the progress that is being made to reduce the harm caused by smoking.
.

I disagree that the smoking room proposal is poorly thought through. As to the quandary for establishments which don't lend themselves to separate smoking rooms, the choice is blindingly simple. Either the owner makes the necessary alterations to build one, or he doesn't have one.

There are valid public health reasons for having a full smoking ban, but let's not kid ourselves that this is because there are no viable alternatives. It is a policy choice.

There are also negatives which should be considered, not least local residents who have to put up increased noise from smokers who are outside when they wouldn't previously have been as well as increased pressure on struggling pubs.

 

[PermitToTravel]

That's permitted now though by building an "outdoor room", like pretty much every nightclub does.

 

[Butts]

That's permitted now though by building an "outdoor room", like pretty much every nightclub does.

Unfortunately in winter temperatures these facilities are much use as an ashtray on a motorbike due to their lack of proper enclosure.

 

[TheNewNo2]

There's no such thing as a sufficiently well-ventilated room to avoid the problems of second hand smoke. The ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces was just about the best public policy change of my lifetime. Now it's possible to walk into a bar for 10 seconds and not need to shower. It made going out so much more pleasant.

 

[Butts]

There's no such thing as a sufficiently well-ventilated room to avoid the problems of second hand smoke. The ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces was just about the best public policy change of my lifetime. Now it's possible to walk into a bar for 10 seconds and not need to shower. It made going out so much more pleasant.

You've missed the point entirely here - it is a self contained room that you only enter if you wish to smoke.

Getting back to The Election will everyone be watching David Dimbleby's swansong before he hands over to Hugh Edwards for future contests.

Over 50 years experience he will be hard to replace !!