General Election 2015 - Thoughts/Predictions/Results

[TheNewNo2]

On an unrelated note to marriage equality and tolerance, I think that an in/out referendum on EU membership is an incredibly bad idea. Let me explain why.


I am a pretty well-informed voter, yet I have not read the various treaties and such that form the EU, its governance and our role in it. I, like 99.99% of the country, do not have a job where such knowledge would be relevant, or any particular interest in it either. I am therefore not qualified to judge whether we should be in or out. My instinct says "in", but I don't have the detailed knowledge to judge. Similarly, I don't know who should run my local police service. I'm in no position to judge the relative merits of the candidates, I don't know what areas need more work, which need less. I don't know who would be more devoted to the job, who would be a slacker, literally all I know about them is the election propaganda, and obviously you can't trust any of that. I also don't know who should run my local health service, how much salt should be bought for the roads in winter, whether the road that needs repair is a higher priority than the footbridge over the railway. I'm not qualified to decide any of these matters.

What I am qualified to do is to elect representatives. Someone who will look into the details of EU membership and come to a conclusion based on the facts rather than soundbites. Someone who will conduct job interviews to determine which person would be better suited to run the police department. Someone who has the figures to know how much salt was used previously and whether it was sufficient, someone who can make informed judgments on whether a road is more important than a footbridge.


We have a system of representative democracy. We elect MPs, councillors, MEPs, etc, to represent our interests in discussions and debates over matters which we as voters don't know enough about. They should listen to what voters think, they should be guided by it, but they should not be bound by it. What I want from an elected representative is someone who puts the long-term good of the populus ahead of their short-term reelection prospects. Someone who will do things that are necessary, even if they are unpopular.

 

[DarloRich]

Media such as The Sun, The Daily Express and The Daily Mail?

i don't read those papers

 

[TheNewNo2]

The strong correlation with domestic abuse of women should be a good enough reason to hold back on allowing polygamy.

A woman's right not to be abused is a bit more important than a bloke's right to have more than one set of in-laws.

The solution to domestic violence is not to ban multiple marriages (and I should note I am not necessarily referring to one man marrying several women, but to more complex unions - triads, quads, interlocking marriages, etc), but to empower people. All too often people either do not report abuse, or it is not believed, or not prosecuted. Greater gender equality would help reduce the instances of abuse in the first place.

 

[telstarbox]

That's an interesting take TheNewNo2.

 

[DarloRich]

DarloRich have raised after lunch.

Please do - i am not seeking an argument, just exploring ideas/issues.

I feel strongly that an open society must accept the expression of extreme (but not criminally extreme) views in order to function. Without that outlet those with extreme views end up driven into the arms of those with criminally extreme views and the chance of moderation is lost.

 

[Johnuk123]

I think Sturgeon may end up as one of the most dishonest politicians in history.
Does anybody believe a word that comes out of her mouth like her saying they will do what's best for the rest of the UK - yeah right.

Independence is the SNP's one and only aim and getting it by any means is fine by them.

They will get it sooner rather than later I don't think anybody seriously thinks they can be held back.

Despite what her and Milliband say I think they will go in a proper coalition but maybe not straight away. The Trident question is immaterial as both main English parties agree with it so the SNP is irrelevant.

 

[DarloRich]

I think Sturgeon may end up as one of the most dishonest politicians in history.
Does anybody believe a word that comes out of her mouth like her saying they will do what's best for the rest of the UK - yeah right.

Independence is the SNP's one and only aim and getting it by any means is fine by them.

They will get it sooner rather than later I don't think anybody seriously thinks they can be held back.

Despite what her and Milliband say I think they will go in a proper coalition but maybe not straight away. The Trident question is immaterial as both main English parties agree with it so the SNP is irrelevant.

Would that be a proper coalition like the one UKIP and the Conservatives will enter into in the same circumstances? Well the only difference being UKIP might only have one or 2 MP's

 

[Johnuk123]

Would that be a proper coalition like the one UKIP and the Conservatives will enter into in the same circumstances? Well the only difference being UKIP might only have one or 2 MP's

Probably, but what's that got to do with the SNP.

 

[DarloRich]

Probably, but what's that got to do with the SNP.

nothing but your argument is exactly the same if you swap SNP for UKIP and Labour for Conservative.

 

[Johnuk123]

nothing but your argument is exactly the same if you swap SNP for UKIP and Labour for Conservative.

No it isn't, the difference being the SNP is a foreign party to the rest of the UK but will wield total power over the labour party by holding it to ransom for a fabulous deal for Scotland.

I don't blame them for that at all, my point is how Sturgeon is trying to pretend she is going to improve things for the rest of the UK which is plain lies.

The SNP has already apparently drawn up a provisional list of English infrastructure projects they would seek to cancel to provide the cash for a Scottish spending spree.

 

[DarloRich]

No it isn't, the difference being the SNP is a foreign party to the rest of the UK but will wield total power over the labour party by holding it to ransom for a fabulous deal for Scotland.

I don't blame them for that at all, my point is how Sturgeon is trying to pretend she is going to improve things for the rest of the UK which is plain lies.

The SNP has already apparently drawn up a provisional list of English infrastructure projects they would seek to cancel to provide the cash for a Scottish spending spree.

It is exactly the same: Whomever is able to form a government will have to do a deal with other parties.

How is your view on the SNP different from UKIP holding the balance of power in a Tory led government and extracting all manner of concessions which bear no relationship to their size or electoral success?

PS do you hold the same views in relation to the Ulster Unionists/DUP holding the balance of power for a Tory led government?

 

[Johnuk123]

It is exactly the same: Whomever is able to form a government will have to do a deal with other parties.

How is your view on the SNP different from UKIP holding the balance of power in a Tory led government and extracting all manner of concessions which bear no relationship to their size or electoral success?

PS do you hold the same views in relation to the Ulster Unionists/DUP holding the balance of power for a Tory led government?

It's not the same as UKIP at all as they're not a foreign party, they're nationwide. If UKIP only put up for election in Scotland then it would be the same.

If in the very unlikely scenario that UKIP with 1 or 2 seats go in with the Tories they would be fully entitled to ask for whatever as they are up for election everywhere.

The Irish parties are in a similar position to the SNP though although wouldn't expect the same spending spree.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

No it isn't, the difference being the SNP is a foreign party to the rest of the UK but will wield total power over the labour party by holding it to ransom for a fabulous deal for Scotland.

The SNP have already said they will not support a Conservative Government. And if they acted in a way that caused a Conservative Government, then much of their electoral support would very quickly evaporate. That puts them in a very weak bargaining position when it comes to supporting a minority Labour Government. So I don't think you need to worry at all about 'holding it to random' - that's basically Tory propaganda that's presumably being put out because the Conservatives have figured it's the best way they have to try and scare people off voting Labour.

If the election results in a combined Labour/SNP majority then the SNP will in practice have little choice but to support Labour, presumably in return for a few compromises on some policies.

I don't blame them for that at all, my point is how Sturgeon is trying to pretend she is going to improve things for the rest of the UK which is plain lies.

Really? And your evidence for this being lies is....?

 

[me123]

I don't blame them for that at all, my point is how Sturgeon is trying to pretend she is going to improve things for the rest of the UK which is plain lies.

The SNP has already apparently drawn up a provisional list of English infrastructure projects they would seek to cancel to provide the cash for a Scottish spending spree.

I'm going to have to ask you for some evidence relating to the statements above.

 

[Oswyntail]

Would that be a proper coalition like the one UKIP and the Conservatives will enter into in the same circumstances?...

... Tory propaganda that's presumably being put out because the Conservatives have figured it's the best way they have to try and scare people off voting Labour....

Labour want people to be scared of UKIP, Conservatives do the same with SNP. In either circumstance, formal coalitions are unlikely anyway - and I still very much doubt they will be necessary.
Is there not a slight variant of the Lothian Question to be considered as well here? Apart from the "injustice" of Scottish MPs voting on non-Scottish matters, should SNP MPs be allowed to vote in Westminster on Scottish matters at all? Let us imagine A weak Labour party, propped up by a thriving SNP (Possible? Hell yes!). A Finance bill is to be tabled, and the SNP have asked, as the price of their support, for the Barnett formula to be re-jigged in it in their favour (maintaining that a strongly financed Scotland is beneficial to the whole UK, of course). In any other well-run institution, if such a matter were to be debated or come to a vote, a section of the voters likely to benefit substantially and significantly from one outcome of the vote would "declare an interest" and absent themselves. Should SNP MPs who, by definition, represent a limited subset of the population, not be expeted to do likewise?

 

[WelshBluebird]

Is there not a slight variant of the Lothian Question to be considered as well here? Apart from the "injustice" of Scottish MPs voting on non-Scottish matters, should SNP MPs be allowed to vote in Westminster on Scottish matters at all? Let us imagine A weak Labour party, propped up by a thriving SNP (Possible? Hell yes!). A Finance bill is to be tabled, and the SNP have asked, as the price of their support, for the Barnett formula to be re-jigged in it in their favour (maintaining that a strongly financed Scotland is beneficial to the whole UK, of course). In any other well-run institution, if such a matter were to be debated or come to a vote, a section of the voters likely to benefit substantially and significantly from one outcome of the vote would "declare an interest" and absent themselves. Should SNP MPs who, by definition, represent a limited subset of the population, not be expeted to do likewise?

If you take that view then we should also apply that to:

• MP's who own property and act as landlords when it comes to housing and property legislation and bills.
• MP's who own shares or have close links to private healthcare companies when it comes to parts of the NHS being sold off or when it comes to allowing private companies to be involved.
• MP's who own shares or have come links to oil and gas companies when it comes to energy and fuel issues (such as fracking).
• Etc etc.

 

[DarloRich]

Labour want people to be scared of UKIP, Conservatives do the same with SNP. In either circumstance, formal coalitions are unlikely anyway - and I still very much doubt they will be necessary.

The polls issued today suggest otherwise. Labour & Conservatives are about equal on 33/34% http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/poll-tracker

Some interesting data on numbers of MP's may be found here: http://may2015.com/category/seat-calculator/

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Labour want people to be scared of UKIP, Conservatives do the same with SNP. In either circumstance, formal coalitions are unlikely anyway - and I still very much doubt they will be necessary.
Is there not a slight variant of the Lothian Question to be considered as well here? Apart from the "injustice" of Scottish MPs voting on non-Scottish matters, should SNP MPs be allowed to vote in Westminster on Scottish matters at all? Let us imagine A weak Labour party, propped up by a thriving SNP (Possible? Hell yes!). A Finance bill is to be tabled, and the SNP have asked, as the price of their support, for the Barnett formula to be re-jigged in it in their favour (maintaining that a strongly financed Scotland is beneficial to the whole UK, of course). In any other well-run institution, if such a matter were to be debated or come to a vote, a section of the voters likely to benefit substantially and significantly from one outcome of the vote would "declare an interest" and absent themselves. Should SNP MPs who, by definition, represent a limited subset of the population, not be expeted to do likewise?

Lots of issues in that.

The West Lothian question is important - there is an unfairness there that needs to be addressed. The problem is, as far as I can see, the only practical way to address it and keep geographical fairness and have a workable Government would be to devolve powers roughly equally to all parts of the UK, so you end up with some kind of English parliament too. Personally I'd be comfortable with that - with the Westminster Government and Parliament thereby losing many of its powers. But at the moment it seems few politicians dare suggest that because of the 'we don't want more politicians' thing.

Having said that, it seems to me that the electoral unfairness caused by Scotland having a parliament and England not having one is utterly dwarfed by the unfairness caused by our electoral system in the first place. Both Labour and the Conservatives have for many years been able to alternately take almost absolute power despite having only around 40% or less of the votes (and some of those votes probably being tactical votes by people who really would prefer to vote for a smaller party but feel unable to because of our electoral system, so the true support for the governing party is even lower). So I have very little sympathy for those politicians who complain about the 'West Lothian' unfairness while at the same time refusing to support PR - that seems to me a very clear case of focusing on the (metaphorical) speck of dust that unfairly works against you while ignoring the log that unfairly works in your favour.

Finally - the SNP. In my view this idea of the SNP only representing some parts of the UK is a bit or a red herring. In reality, all parties have core constituencies, core groups of people whom they draw lots of support from and whom they have a strong incentive to represent more than other groups of people. The SNP is no different to anyone else in that regard. The fact that their support is geographical rather than eg. based on 'homeowners' or 'businesses' or 'workers' or whatever makes it particularly easy for those opposed to the SNP to make an issue of this. But in the end for the system to work you have to trust that politicians will make some effort to represent the whole country, not just their constituents or their core voters - and generally that does happen. The SNP have so far indicated they will go along with this by seeking to represent people in the whole of the UK, and I don't see they have so far given any particular reason to doubt their intentions here.

 

[Johnuk123]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ence-spending-unless-Trident-is-scrapped.html

The SNP is prepared to block all government spending on defence under a Labour government if refuses to scrap Britain's Trident nuclear defence programme, the party's deputy leader has suggested.
Stewart Hosie said his party, which is forecast to have more than 50 MPs after the General Election, would vote against Commons measures with authorise spending by government departments.

Senior Conservatives warned that the move could lead to a US-style shutdown of entire government departments and enable Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond to "hold Ed Miliband to ransom". If Labour refuses to reach an agreement then the SNP will be "entitled to vote against any bit of legislation" and "any bit of spending" that it didn't agree with.

For those who think the SNP is on a mission to enrich the lives of the vast majority of the country that can't vote for them then this statement is quite clear, they are going to do the exact opposite.
Why would a party who seek to break away from the rest of the UK want to make itself popular in England, it's simply ridiculous to suggest anything of the sort. You wouldn't expect the SNP to come out saying how they would love to shaft the rest of the UK if given the chance by Labour. That's why they aren't to be trusted and once they are in a position to control Milliband you'll see how friendly towards England they will be.



http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/snp-says-could-order-labour-9078183

SNP says it could order Labour to begin high speed rail construction in Scotland, setting the whole project back years
Stewart Hosie, the Scottish National Party (SNP) Deputy Leader, issued the warning as speculation grew about a possible deal between Labour and the Scottish National Party after the May 7 general election.
He said the SNP could demand that construction of the the planned 250mph high speed line start in Scotland and then continue southwards, into Newcastle and the North of England.
In practice, this would lead to years of delay before the first phase of the route, connecting London to Birmingham, could actually begin.

Pretty clear to me that is.

 

[DarloRich]

@John123 - whilst i agree with you that SNP MAY be able to drive a good deal for Scotland (perhaps at the expense of England - will that be different from now?) it is the nature of a coalition/minority government to have to do deals. it will be no different for the Conservatives. The issue for them is that their natural allies will have fewer seats than their opponents.

However is the main issue that your favoured party might not win

PS the issue you over look is would SNP be happy to see a labour government fail allowing the Tory party back into power? That could well be a moderating influence on thier demands.

 

[Oswyntail]

...
Finally - the SNP. In my view this idea of the SNP only representing some parts of the UK is a bit or a red herring. ...

I'm not sure. In a more traditional situation, such as you describe, the Government of the day will vote in measures to benefit its core supporters, but those measures will be defined by the Government. The conundrum that had occurred to me was that an SNP-driven move to increase funding for Scotland would deny the Government this chance for definition, but would be providing the SNP with more funds to use on its own priorities in Scotland. These priorities could well conflict with the wishes of the overall funding body. Of course, one answer might be to give Scotland fiscal autonomy, which (IMHO) would lead to the demise of the SNP.

 

[BlythPower]

I'm going to have to ask you for some evidence relating to the statements above.

Have we had a response yet..?

 

[Oswyntail]

... it will be no different for the Conservatives. The issue for them is that their natural allies will have fewer seats than their opponents. .....

It is a mistake to think that their "natural allies" are only to be found to the right. After all, they have managed quite well for the last five years working with a naturally left-wing party. It could be argued that the "natural allies" of traditional Conservatives are actually the more moderate elements of the Labour party. There is greater consensus about how to manage affairs than the media would have us believe.

 

[Butts]

It is a mistake to think that their "natural allies" are only to be found to the right. After all, they have managed quite well for the last five years working with a naturally left-wing party. It could be argued that the "natural allies" of traditional Conservatives are actually the more moderate elements of the Labour party. There is greater consensus about how to manage affairs than the media would have us believe.

Left Wing Tories, Right Wing Labour and Orange Book Lib Dems - hardly a "fag paper" between them in most regards of policy

 

[47802]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ence-spending-unless-Trident-is-scrapped.html



For those who think the SNP is on a mission to enrich the lives of the vast majority of the country that can't vote for them then this statement is quite clear, they are going to do the exact opposite.
Why would a party who seek to break away from the rest of the UK want to make itself popular in England, it's simply ridiculous to suggest anything of the sort. You wouldn't expect the SNP to come out saying how they would love to shaft the rest of the UK if given the chance by Labour. That's why they aren't to be trusted and once they are in a position to control Milliband you'll see how friendly towards England they will be.


http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/snp-says-could-order-labour-9078183




Pretty clear to me that is.

Indeed so, I am seriously considering a tactical vote to try and keep the SNP out of a UK Government I know others in England who are thinking the same, so whatever the polls say I think there will be considerable tactical votes in this election, especially as the post above states I tend to fall in the Lib Dem/Right Wing Labour/Left Wing Tory category.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Indeed so, I am seriously considering a tactical vote to try and keep the SNP out of a UK Government I know others in England who are thinking the same, so whatever the polls say I think there will be considerable tactical votes in this election, especially as the post above states I tend to fall in the Lib Dem/Right Wing Labour/Left Wing Tory category.

Well the SNP are very unlikely to be in Government anyway, since both Labour and the Conservatives have ruled out a coalition with them.

But of interest? How would a tactical vote (assuming you live in England) work? Who would you vote for? If your overriding concern is to avoid any SNP influence (even a confidence-and-supply agreement) then the only way to achieve that is to ensure that either Labour or the Conservatives gets an absolute majority in Parliament. And with both parties basically tied, there's no way to tell whether you're more likely to get that by voting Labour or by voting Conservative (not that a majority is very likely to happen anyway).

 

[kylemore]

Well the SNP are very unlikely to be in Government anyway, since both Labour and the Conservatives have ruled out a coalition with them.

With respect they don't want to be in a coalition - they ruled it out themselves, the continuous "ruling out" of it by the Labour party is pure propaganda aimed at "Middle England" types. The most the SNP will do is support a minority administration on a case by case basis - a not unreasonable position surely.

 

[47802]

Well the SNP are very unlikely to be in Government anyway, since both Labour and the Conservatives have ruled out a coalition with them.

But of interest? How would a tactical vote (assuming you live in England) work? Who would you vote for? If your overriding concern is to avoid any SNP influence (even a confidence-and-supply agreement) then the only way to achieve that is to ensure that either Labour or the Conservatives gets an absolute majority in Parliament. And with both parties basically tied, there's no way to tell whether you're more likely to get that by voting Labour or by voting Conservative (not that a majority is very likely to happen anyway).

We know that SNP wont support the Tories full stop, but they may prop up a Minority Labour Government even if they are not in a formal coalition.

My constituency is essentially an English Labour/Tory Marginal currently held by Labour so my Lib Dem vote wont do much good, In the past I voted Lib Dem when Labour was at its most Left Wing, I voted for Tony Blair Labour and even Gordon Brown, This time I will probably vote Tory for the 1st time in the hope that the Tories can unseat the Labour candidate, if I didn't have the concern about the SNP I would probably vote Labour, although I'm not impressed by Ed Milliband either, and I do have a concern about the Tories increasingly moving to UKIP stance over Europe.

I also seem to be one of the few people who have been reasonably happy with the Tory/Lib Dem Coalition and would like to see it continue, as they have at least contained the worst excesses of the Tory party and kept the Tory Right wingers in there boxes.

 

[Tetchytyke]

A Finance bill is to be tabled, and the SNP have asked, as the price of their support, for the Barnett formula to be re-jigged in it in their favour (maintaining that a strongly financed Scotland is beneficial to the whole UK, of course). In any other well-run institution, if such a matter were to be debated or come to a vote, a section of the voters likely to benefit substantially and significantly from one outcome of the vote would "declare an interest" and absent themselves

Using your definition, all 600-odd MPs will "have voters likely to benefit from..one outcome of the vote". Those in favour of Scotland getting more money on one side, those in favour of Wales/Northern Ireland/England getting more on the other.

Trying to compare it with a planning application is fallacious.

There are definitely issues with the West Lothian problem- a problem which, ironically, has historically been more of an issue with a Labour government than a Conservative one- but trying to portray the SNP as a bogeyman isn't really the way of resolving it.

As an aside, I find it fascinating how the right-wing parties are now so suddenly in favour of devolution. When Labour proposed regional devolution in the north east the Tory bigwigs were tripping over themselves to campaign against it, which they succeeded in doing. I wonder what has changed?

This time I will probably vote Tory for the 1st time in the hope that the Tories can unseat the current Labour candidate, if I didn't have the concern about the SNP I would probably vote Labour

Then the scare tactics have worked in making you think a "tactical vote" for the Tories will make the blindest bit of difference.

The predictions remains that the Tories and Labour will virtually be neck-and-neck, and neither party will be able to form a working government without support from smaller parties. Labour are likely to find more smaller allies than the Tories are, but unless the Tories get 322 seats this is always going to be the case.

It's interesting how the right-wing media are already trying to portray a Labour government with SNP support as "illegitimate". It's even more interesting how the right-wing media didn't think this a problem during the 92-97 parliament, when John Major only kept a working majority thanks to the Ulster Unionists.

It's clear the tactic isn't for this vote, but it is to try and cow Miliband into not attempting to form a government out of this general election. The Tories have an awful lot more money than Labour, and so they're much more likely to out-spend Labour to win round two of a general election later this year.

 

[47802]

Then the scare tactics have worked in making you think a "tactical vote" for the Tories will make the blindest bit of difference.

The predictions remains that the Tories and Labour will virtually be neck-and-neck, and neither party will be able to form a working government without support from smaller parties. Labour are likely to find more smaller allies than the Tories are, but unless the Tories get 322 seats this is always going to be the case.

It's interesting how the right-wing media are already trying to portray a Labour government with SNP support as "illegitimate". It's even more interesting how the right-wing media didn't think this a problem during the 92-97 parliament, when John Major only kept a working majority thanks to the Ulster Unionists.

It's clear the tactic isn't for this vote, but it is to try and cow Miliband into not attempting to form a government out of this general election. The Tories have an awful lot more money than Labour, and so they're much more likely to out-spend Labour to win round two of a general election later this year.

Well you can call it scare tactics if you like, I call it a vote for the lesser of 2 evils which may not have much effect but we will see.