General Election 2015 - Thoughts/Predictions/Results

[Johnuk123]

Five times World Snooker Champion Ronnie O'Sullivan is endorsing Labour

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fH4yIR-iZg

I've met him a few times at 2 different prisons when he was visiting his murderer dad Ronnie senior, arrogant beyond belief he is and as he's got older he's got worse.

I met him first when he was about 17, he used to come with his mother then one day he turned up without her, he told me she'd just been banged up in Holloway for tax evasion in the family sex shop/brothel business, lovely family they are.

He always used to turn up looking the worse for wear and always without exception was awkward and particularly nasty to the searching staff.
I remember him being ejected from the visits room when he refused to move his Mercedes from an unauthorised parking area, arrogant, selfish and totally up himself.

 

[BlythPower]

The Conservatives have released details of their long term economic plan.

 

[zuriblue]

Rupa Huq, Labour candidate for Ealing and South Acton is manhandled and hit in the face with leaflets by a Tory activist when she tries to engage Boris Johnson.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/02/labour-rupa-huq-grabbed-boris-johnson_n_7194912.html

Not good.

 

[St Rollox]

When the leader of the British Labour Party turns up for a meeting in Glasgow East and has to use the back door you know it's meltdown.
Must be the first labour leader in modern history to run away from six young anarchists dancing to the Muppet Song.

 

[zuriblue]

When the leader of the British Labour Party turns up for a meeting in Glasgow East and has to use the back door you know it's meltdown.
Must be the first labour leader in modern history to run away from six young anarchists dancing to the Muppet Song.

Well he has been thumped once, although that was a Tory not a Nat (even though the yobbo was wearing an Alex Salmond mask)

 

[me123]

I wonder if Jim Murphy will become the most useless Scottish Labour leader in history? During his reign, if the polls are to be believed, he may not get into Holyrood (leaving the job of holding the Scottish Government to account to the absolutely hopeless Kezia Dugdale), almost certainly will lose his seat in Westminster, and will have guided what was once Scotland's biggest party into complete oblivion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Must be the first labour leader in modern history to run away from six young anarchists dancing to the Muppet Song.

Not quite true. Remember Iain Gray running away from his own supporters and hid in the bathroom of a nearby Subway sandwich shop?

[youtube]LfQmg8VSj0E[/youtube]

"I've been in Rwanda just after the genocide, I've walked the killing fields of Cambodia"... Yep, and you ran away from your own supporters and hid.

(Sorry, I know I've posted this quite a few times in the past, but it is such a defining moment in Scottish history, when people realised "this plonker can't be FM" and elected a pro-nationalist government to a majority position and... here we are!)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well he has been thumped once, although that was a Tory not a Nat (even though the yobbo was wearing an Alex Salmond mask)

Doesn't surprise me. I will agree that there is a faction of Nationalist supporters who partake in this pathetic, appalling, and sometimes criminal behaviour that, I (and I hope all other SNP supporters) do not condone. However, it would not surprise me in the slightest that similarly minded idiots supporting other parties are also trying to defame the SNP in this manner.

 

[ainsworth74]

I have created a poll which will hopefully contain an option that works for everyone.

The poll includes the seven main political parties (judged on the basis of their inclusion in the main seven way leaders debate) arranged, hopefully )), alphabetically.

Also it includes a few additional options allowing you to choose 'Other' if you're not voting for one of the main parties and options to specify which political orientation this party hold. Two options to cover spoiling ballots and not voting at all are provided.

There is also an 'Other: Other' option which is for people who don't fit into any of the above options (perhaps voting for an independent candidate or a single issue party). If voting 'Other: Other' you're welcome to explain your vote but only if you want to of course (this applies to all the other options as well).

It should be anonymous and it will close and the results shown shortly after the real polls close on Thursday.

 

[Mojo]

If a son/daughter of a Labour MP was in the audience would the BBC have allowed them to grill Cameron?

Given the booing, sighing and other comments that Conservative representatives, as opposed to the constant clapping that most Labour representatives, have gotten over the past five years, then probably, yes.

I have created a poll which will hopefully contain an option that works for everyone.

I feel as if I have no choice but to vote tactically. I have always voted Conservative but in my seat it's a fight between Lib Dem and Labour.

Now I've had a dislike for the Lib Dems since before it was fashionable but will be voting Lib Dem this time, as the local MP is fairly reasonable,
but primarily to stop Labour.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I've posted what I would vote, rather than what I'll be forced to.

They really should introduce RON (Re-Open Nominations), to satisfy those who can't stand any of them.

 

[radamfi]

I've posted what I would vote, rather than what I'll be forced to.

They really should introduce RON (Re-Open Nominations), to satisfy those who can't stand any of them.

I haven't answered the poll yet, but, again, I will be voting different to what I would really vote if we had a fairer voting system. I think two polls are needed, one for your preferred choice and another for what you will actually vote for.

 

[yorksrob]

According to Rail Magazines round up of the parties election coverage, a Lib-Dem coalition source hints that NR's current status won't be retained saying "it (NR) may not be in public hands forever". This sets alarm bells ringing for me as I won't countenance any party prepared to sell off the infrastructure.

Just goes to show the extent to which the Lib-Dems have ceased to be a credible alternative to the free market Establishment.

 

[bnm]

I see mention of tactical voting here, there and everywhere.

A woolly minded choice, voting against your own principles, and a false response to the question of the ballot. And history shows it's an extremely risky tactic that can back-fire.

Many influential commentators, groups, and even some senior Labour party figures urged Labour supporters to vote tactically for the LibDems in 2010 in Conservative held marginal seats. That worked well didn't it? The LibDems walked into Government with the Conservatives as a result.

Having it known in a particular constituency that tactical voting may occur can lead to other voters deciding to strategise as well in reaction to what they expect the tactical voters could be doing.

Vote with your principles. Attempting to be clever can leave you with egg on your face.

 

[yorksrob]

I see mention of tactical voting here, there and everywhere.

A woolly minded choice, voting against your own principles, and a false response to the question of the ballot. And history shows it's an extremely risky tactic that can back-fire.

Many influential commentators, groups, and even some senior Labour party figures urged Labour supporters to vote tactically for the LibDems in 2010 in Conservative held marginal seats. That worked well didn't it? The LibDems walked into Government with the Conservatives as a result.

Having it known in a particular constituency that tactical voting may occur can lead to other voters deciding to strategise as well in reaction to what they expect the tactical voters could be doing.

Vote with your principles. Attempting to be clever can leave you with egg on your face.

Alas I have no other option as, due to the wonder of Democracy my party of choice isn't represented in my constituency.

 

[bnm]

You have other options, although I'll concede none are ideal.

Don't vote.
Spoil your ballot.

Third way. In a constituency where your party of choice is not represented then voting for the nearest candidate to match your principles could also be considered. I wouldn't see that as tactical voting.

My argument against tactical voting was mainly considering those who choose to vote against their principles even when they have a candidate matching said beliefs.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I see mention of tactical voting here, there and everywhere.

A woolly minded choice, voting against your own principles, and a false response to the question of the ballot. And history shows it's an extremely risky tactic that can back-fire.

Many influential commentators, groups, and even some senior Labour party figures urged Labour supporters to vote tactically for the LibDems in 2010 in Conservative held marginal seats. That worked well didn't it? The LibDems walked into Government with the Conservatives as a result.

Having it known in a particular constituency that tactical voting may occur can lead to other voters deciding to strategise as well in reaction to what they expect the tactical voters could be doing.

Vote with your principles. Attempting to be clever can leave you with egg on your face.

It's a fact of FPTP that you vote against who you don't want rather than who you do. Not that it's out of choice, but it's a fact of the matter that you vote for the worst of two evils when your own party has no chance.

 

[yorksrob]

You have other options, although I'll concede none are ideal.

Don't vote.
Spoil your ballot.

Third way. In a constituency where your party of choice is not represented then voting for the nearest candidate to match your principles could also be considered. I wouldn't see that as tactical voting.

My argument against tactical voting was mainly considering those who choose to vote against their principles even when they have a candidate matching said beliefs.

Or vote for the least worst of the remainder.

TBH, I've not decided which of these options I will be pursuing.

 

[bnm]

It's a fact of FPTP that you vote against who you don't want rather than who you do. Not that it's out of choice, but it's a fact of the matter that you vote for the worst of two evils when your own party has no chance.

I vote against who I don't want by voting for who I do. And accept the result however it falls.

It's unprincipled to do otherwise.

For many years I lived in a two-way marginal where the consistently third placed party was my party of choice. Never did I vote for the 'lesser of two evils' as you put it. Both were equal in their unpalatability.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I vote against who I don't want by voting for who I do. And accept the result however it falls.

It's unprincipled to do otherwise.

For many years I lived in a two-way marginal where the consistently third placed party was my party of choice. Never did I vote for the 'lesser of two evils' as you put it. Both were equal in their unpalatability.

No - if I'm voting for someone, for whatever reason, it means I want them to have an extra vote. That's my decision to make.

 

[radamfi]

Many influential commentators, groups, and even some senior Labour party figures urged Labour supporters to vote tactically for the LibDems in 2010 in Conservative held marginal seats. That worked well didn't it? The LibDems walked into Government with the Conservatives as a result.

If you assume that Labour voters switching to Lib Dems in 2010 gave the Lib Dems more seats, what would the alternative have been had they voted Labour as you suggest they should do? Possibly a Conservative majority government, which they would have thought to be even worse.

Tactical voting is inevitable in a FPTP voting system. Firstly, voting is largely irrelevant in the vast majority of seats in any case because they are safe. In the marginals, there is nearly always only one party who is far away in second place. The locals know who has the best chance of unseating the incumbent so inevitably support gravitates to that candidate.

Your beef shouldn't be with the innocent voter who is forced into making such decisions. You should be focusing your ire on the politicians who force this voting system on us.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I see mention of tactical voting here, there and everywhere.

A woolly minded choice, voting against your own principles

Really? And what if your 'principles' include 'always acting in the way that's going to do the most good in the circumstances'? That seems to me to be a very good principle to follow. and would arguably be betrayed by not voting tactically, if your preferred candidate stands no chance of winning, but voting tactically could stop an awful candidate winning.

Many influential commentators, groups, and even some senior Labour party figures urged Labour supporters to vote tactically for the LibDems in 2010 in Conservative held marginal seats. That worked well didn't it? The LibDems walked into Government with the Conservatives as a result.

Actually I'd say that for anyone who did that, it probably worked well. Voting tactically would have contributed slightly to having a LibDem MP instead of a Tory MP, thus slightly strengthening the LibDem's hand in the coalition negotiations, and leading to the Government not being quite as 'bad' as it would otherwise have been.

 

[yorksrob]

Your beef shouldn't be with the innocent voter who is forced into making such decisions. You should be focusing your ire on the politicians who force this voting system on us.

Spot on!

 

[bnm]

Which politicians forced this voting system on us?

I seem to remember the country being given a choice of systems not so long ago. The decision was the status quo. That was a democratic decision. Not one forced on the people.

I'll stick to my principles thanks and vote for the party I believe in. Not play some risky unprincipled tactical game that could, as it has in the past, fail.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Which politicians forced this voting system on us?

I seem to remember the country being given a choice of systems not so long ago. The decision was the status quo. That was a democratic decision. Not one forced on the people.

I'll stick to my principles thanks and vote for the party I believe in. Not play some risky unprincipled tactical game that could, as in has in the past, fail.

People vote for the party they want to get their vote. That's it. Principles don't come into any of it.

If you want people to vote for the party they like the most then advocate a system that means people always have the incentive to do that. Otherwise they'll keep voting as damage control and not for the party they like the most. Voting doesn't happen with no context. Obviously.

 

[yorksrob]

Which politicians forced this voting system on us?

I seem to remember the country being given a choice of systems not so long ago. The decision was the status quo. That was a democratic decision. Not one forced on the people.

I'll stick to my principles thanks and vote for the party I believe in. Not play some risky unprincipled tactical game that could, as it has in the past, fail.

Whilst being careful not to offer the voting system (proportional representation) that the majority wanting change wanted.

A very predictable ploy.

 

[radamfi]

I'll stick to my principles thanks and vote for the party I believe in. Not play some risky unprincipled tactical game that could, as it has in the past, fail.

Give us an example where tactical voting failed. A better one than the 2010 example you gave earlier.

 

[bnm]

Give us an example where tactical voting failed. A better one than the 2010 example you gave earlier.

None to hand at the moment. How about countering with an example where it succeeded. Not a single constituency mind, that's easy.

I'll have another national example to show you on May 8th.

 

[TheKnightWho]

None to hand at the moment. How about countering with an example where it succeeded. Not a single constituency mind, that's easy.

I'll have another national example to show you on May 8th.

Maybe every single poll that shows that people's preferred policies vs. their actual voting intentions always differs due to tactical voting?

This is one of the most well-known facts of FPTP - trying to deny it spectacularly misunderstands our current voting situation.

 

[bnm]

This is one of the most well-known facts of FPTP - trying to deny it spectacularly misunderstands our current voting situation.

Citations? To prove my spectacular misunderstanding.

I understand how FPTP works thanks. I'm saying that tactical voting within that system may not work and can be counter-productive.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Citations? To prove my spectacular misunderstanding.

I understand how FPTP works thanks. I'm saying that tactical voting within that system may not work and can be counter-productive.

Citations that FPTP encourages tactical voting? Look at some of the Wikipedia citations on the FPTP article for a start, and if they don't satisfy you I'll give you some more when I'm not on my phone. This is not controversial at all.

And you're saying that it's counter-productive because those Labor voters didn't get everything they wanted. Except that misses the point: the choices were vote Lib Dem and get a Lib Dem, or vote Labour and get a Tory. The Lib Dems might not do everything a Labourite might want, but they'll do more than the Tories for them. That isn't a good example for you at all - in fact it literally proves my point.

 

[radamfi]

None to hand at the moment. How about countering with an example where it succeeded. Not a single constituency mind, that's easy.

How about this?

http://www.thinkscotland.org/thinkpolitics/articles.html?read_full=12758

I GREW UP in a little village in Banff and Buchan. The local MP lived nearby. He was a Conservative. Altogether there were 22 Conservative MPs in Scotland. There were two SNP MPs. What happened? The answer is simple, there was tactical voting.

After the traumas of the 1980s, the Conservatives were condemned as the “nasty party.” From then on Labour, Lib Dem and SNP voters would gang up to make sure that the Tory always lost his or her seat. Scotland is one of the best examples of how well tactical voting can work. It got the Conservatives down to no seats at all in 1997 and to one seat in 2010. This handed the SNP one of their best arguments and is a primary cause of the growth in support for independence. Remember all the times they went on about England voting Tory, but there being only one Tory in Scotland. That’s their grievance and it was caused by tactical voting. So don’t let anyone say that tactical voting doesn’t work, or that it’s somehow an illegitimate tactic. This is how democracy has long worked in Scotland.