UKIP coalition post May 2015???

[Masbroughlad]

Following another bi-election defeat for the Tories following a defection to UKIP in Rochester.

What do people think the government will look like in May next year after the election?

Labour/Green/SNP coalition? Tory /UKIP coalition? No overall majority? Or an outright Labour or Conservative government?

Don't think the LibDems will have any significant role going forwards.....

Will be an interesting and potentially concerning future!

 

[WelshBluebird]

All this talk about the rise of UKIP and how they pose a threat and could decide stuff in the next parliament does annoy me. They only have two MPs. Both were the MP for the constituency anyway. I don't really think we can take anything from that. The real test will be the general election. It is just too early atm. I also find it laughable that no one mentioned the Greens as a potential thread to mainstream politics when they won their first MP, but as soon as UKIP won theirs it was all some people could talk about!

Certainly you are right to suggest that that coalition governments will probably be the thing from now on. I don't think enough people trust one party to do anything anymore! Also doesn't help when certain elements of the parties are so similar (certainly the right of the labour party isnt too far off the left of the tory party, the left of the labour party isnt too different to the greens, the right of the tory party is almost UKIP etc etc).

 

[Tetchytyke]

I didn't think UKIP would ever gain an MP, but I didn't expect there to be defections from the Tories. I don't think they'd have won either seat if the incumbent MP hadn't defected. It's also really hard to read too much into by-election results, as they tend to have more "protest votes" because the constituents know it won't change the Government. George Galloway destroyed Labour in a by-election and we'd hardly say he's changing the face of UK politics.

I don't see UKIP winning seats in a competition against an incumbent Conservative or Labour MP. When push comes to shove the Tory UKIP voters won't vote UKIP in case it puts Ed Miliband in Number 10, and the Labour UKIP voters won't vote UKIP in case it gives us more David Cameron.

I think Scotland will be interesting. Some analysts think the SNP could conceivably win 30-40 of Scotland's 59 seats, and the SNP have categorically stated that they won't work with the Tories. They also don't vote on things that don't affect Scotland, as a matter of principle, which could make a coalition very hard work.

I think people are generally dissatisfied with the two mainstream parties. We saw that in 2010 with the LibDems, who've now been tarnished by being in Government (as many thought would happen). So now people are looking at alternatives. In Scotland the SNP have 50% approval ratings, in Wales you're seeing more from Plaid Cymru. In England we're seeing that dissatisfied voters are either moving to UKIP (right wing) or Green (left wing). The SNP are the only ones who have a proven track record in Government. If UKIP enter a coalition their approval will tank, just like the Lib Dems' did- they will no longer be a protest vote.

What changes all this is that Cameron has legislated for a fixed-term Parliament. This means that we'll be stuck with a minority Government for five years if the vote goes how the bookies are predicting. Should be fun. Still, Belgium didn't have a Government at all for almost 18 months and they survived...

 

[gordonthemoron]

considering the amount of meddling both conservative and labour governments have done in recent years, no government sounds like an improvement

 

[SS4]

I can't see UKIP getting into power even as part of a coalition. They will get a good chunk of what they want simply by forcing Cameron to move right to combat UKIP which means Labour can move into the place the Tories occupy now. Labour don't seem to be haemorrhaging support among the left to the greens or perhaps it's just not reported.

It doesn't help that UKIP are given a disproportionate amount of column inches and screen time for their successes. The Press doesn't even acknowledge that Farage's appearances have more spin than a pulsar

 

[Tetchytyke]

The right-wing BBC give Farage an extraordinary amount of publicity. Anyone would think that their political editor is the former head of the Oxford University Conservative Association and their Chair of Trustees is a former arms dealer.

 

[SS4]

The right-wing BBC give Farage an extraordinary amount of publicity. Anyone would think that their political editor is the former head of the Oxford University Conservative Association and their Chair of Trustees is a former arms dealer.

But the BBC must have a left-wing bias, Richard Murdock told me so /s

edit: Anyone who thinks the BBC is left wing go and have a look at their stance on trade unions and industrial action, particularly in London

 

[Masbroughlad]

All this talk about the rise of UKIP and how they pose a threat and could decide stuff in the next parliament does annoy me. They only have two MPs. Both were the MP for the constituency anyway. I don't really think we can take anything from that. The real test will be the general election. It is just too early atm. I also find it laughable that no one mentioned the Greens as a potential thread to mainstream politics when they won their first MP, but as soon as UKIP won theirs it was all some people could talk about!

Certainly you are right to suggest that that coalition governments will probably be the thing from now on. I don't think enough people trust one party to do anything anymore! Also doesn't help when certain elements of the parties are so similar (certainly the right of the labour party isnt too far off the left of the tory party, the left of the labour party isnt too different to the greens, the right of the tory party is almost UKIP etc etc).

Couldn't agree more. I wish the Greens could get more coverage. UKIP are media fodder!

 

[ainsworth74]

The right-wing BBC give Farage an extraordinary amount of publicity. Anyone would think that their political editor is the former head of the Oxford University Conservative Association and their Chair of Trustees is a former arms dealer.

But the BBC must have a left-wing bias, Richard Murdock told me so /s

edit: Anyone who thinks the BBC is left wing go and have a look at their stance on trade unions and industrial action, particularly in London

Perhaps then as both left and right accuse them of bias they, in fact, manage to tread a path that is broadly down the middle of the two schools of thought?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think they've always leaned to the right, which is why Tony Blair made such a song and dance about Andrew Gilligan (who now writes for the right-wing Telegraph and Evening Standard, proving his point). And now they've got even worse, because they know that if they don't pander to the right-wing they'll find that their golden goose, the TV Tax, gets abolished.

More than anything, though, I think they pander to whichever party is in Government. In any other coountry "state broadcaster" means "Government mouthpiece", why would the UK be any different?

 

[WelshBluebird]

At least from what I have seen, they tend to broadly support the party in power. Makes sense when that government can essentially revoke the BBC's funding by passing a law!
Of course, there are many exceptions when it comes to "non news broadcast" political stuff (Question Time and Have I Got News For You tend to be fairly left wing).

 

[Manchester77]

Labour/Green/SNP coalition?

Definatly not! Natalie Bennett has confirmed that if they have enough MPs they will not do a 'liberal democrats' and sell out on their ideology just to get a little bit of power.

 

[Jonny]

Definatly not! Natalie Bennett has confirmed that if they have enough MPs they will not do a 'liberal democrats' and sell out on their ideology just to get a little bit of power.

It would hardly be selling out their ideology - the greens are also known as the watermelons (green on the outside but red in the middle). I can't help getting over the irony of a possible coalition between nationalists (SNP) and socialists (Labour) though - bearing in mind what happened the last time there was a National Socialist government in a major European culture (go figure).

 

[Manchester77]

It would hardly be selling out their ideology - the greens are also known as the watermelons (green on the outside but red in the middle). I can't help getting over the irony of a possible coalition between nationalists (SNP) and socialists (Labour) though - bearing in mind what happened the last time there was a National Socialist government in a major European culture (go figure).

Well it would since the greens are an actual left wing party who support traditional left policies whereas new labour are a centre right party so for the greens to go into a coalition with labour it would be them selling out of their beliefs. I can't get over the fact you've called labour socialists! Since Blair labour haven't been even remotely socialist! The SNP are more left than labour (they certainly were at the last GE).

 

[Oswyntail]

The Conservatives would not contemplate a coalition involving UKIP. They are quite happy to dump their nutters there, and would not wish to have them back. Besides, I very much doubt UKIP will actually have enough seats.
I very much doubt anyone would want to enter a coalition with Labour either, simply because most of the parties are bending over backwards to portray themselves as the "only true left-wing party" (as if that might be what the British public actually wants).
My hunch is that the Conservatives will win a small overall majority, and will invite any LibDem who wants to to enter into a coalition.

 

[Jonny]

Well it would since the greens are an actual left wing party who support traditional left policies whereas new labour are a centre right party so for the greens to go into a coalition with labour it would be them selling out of their beliefs. I can't get over the fact you've called labour socialists! Since Blair labour haven't been even remotely socialist! The SNP are more left than labour (they certainly were at the last GE).

Labour are generally socialist, even Blair's "New Labour" showed some socialist tendencies (although they might prefer social democrat). Under the two red Eds (Ed Miliband and Ed Balls) they are heading back towards Socialist ideologies that sound good and get votes but are unsustainable in the long run.

 

[43021HST]

because most of the parties are bending over backwards to portray themselves as the "only true left-wing party" (as if that might be what the British public actually wants).

I think that is indeed what the British Public want, if you look at the polls for Rail Re-nationalisation and keeping the NHS, etc.

Labour are generally socialist, even Blair's "New Labour" showed some socialist tendencies (although they might prefer social democrat). Under the two red Eds (Ed Miliband and Ed Balls) they are heading back towards Socialist ideologies that sound good and get votes but are unsustainable in the long run.

Are you saying that Capitalist policies are sustainable? I believe it was unfettered Capitalism that brought us the crash of 2008, not a few people on welfare as the press would have you believe.

 

[yorksrob]

How do we know how many people would vote for UKIP or Green for example with our current electoral system ?

 

[Manchester77]

How do we know how many people would vote for UKIP or Green for example with our current electoral system ?

In the cases o the green larty not many because they know that they wouldn't have a chance of getting many seats. A very recent YouGov survey showed that if people knew that their vote would get the greens in they'd vote green.

 

[Butts]

The Coalition we need in Con-Lab-Lib .....consisting of

Left Wing Conservatives

Right Wing Labour

Orange Book Liberal Democrats

Led by Ken Clarke or Alan Johnson

 

[St Rollox]

How do we know how many people would vote for UKIP or Green for example with our current electoral system ?

Suppose all we have to go by is the present opinion polls.
Labour, Tory and LibDems are seeping votes all around the UK.
Labour in Scotland are showing up with a percentage in the polls not seen for decades.
If they lost 20 seats in Scotland i doubt Labour could find another 20 in England to replace them.

 

[Jonny]

I think that is indeed what the British Public want, if you look at the polls for Rail Re-nationalisation and keeping the NHS, etc.



Are you saying that Capitalist policies are sustainable? I believe it was unfettered Capitalism that brought us the crash of 2008, not a few people on welfare as the press would have you believe.

What we had wasn't pure capitalism - it was a pick'n'mix of socialism, capitalism, populism and a few other things designed to win votes for the reds. The 1978/9 winter of discontent was down to "old labour" and the events of 2008 onwards had little to do with the structure of the 'system', but had a lot to do with reckless bank lending, and over-dependence on access to credit to fund major purchases (not just homes, but cars and such like), discretionary spending, business expansions etc...

An underlying issue was the lack of supply of residential accommodation that has sent prices and rents through the roof in recent years, that brewed up on Labour's watch. In fact, Labour were happy to turn a blind eye as mortgage equity withdrawal (which should be negative in a healthy economy) ran positive from 2000 to 2008.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How do we know how many people would vote for UKIP or Green for example with our current electoral system ?

I can think of several european election wards where UKIP came in first place, just in North-East England alone: http://www.durham.gov.uk/media/5160...pdf/EuropeanElection22May2014LocalResults.pdf

Repeated, they would see a few supposedly safe Labour seats fall to UKIP. These would be cases of vote UKIP, get UKIP (although this may not apply with a Conservative incumbent).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As an aside, I wonder how many deposits the Liberal Democrats will be able to keep. If they are paying it themselves, it could be very expensive.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Are you saying that Capitalist policies are sustainable? I believe it was unfettered Capitalism that brought us the crash of 2008, not a few people on welfare as the press would have you believe.

As one British Prime Minister was honest enough to say,

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money"

Several other ones and at least one would-be ones also know this but aren't honest enough to admit it.

As another one once said:

Murray N. Rothbard, a notable economist, wrote this about the other problem with Socialism - lack of incentives:

from http://mises.org/library/end-socialism-and-calculation-debate-revisited
If, for example, everyone under socialism were to receive an equal income, or, in another variant, everyone was supposed to produce "according to his ability" but receive "according to his needs," then, to sum it up in the famous question: Who, under socialism, will take out the garbage? That is, what will be the incentive to do the grubby jobs, and, furthermore, to do them well? Or, to put it another way, what would be the incentive to work hard and be productive at any job?

 

[radamfi]

How do we explain the continued success of the Scandinavian countries?

 

[21C101]

I don't think anyone will be entering a coalition after what has happened to the Libdems.

Best either Tory or Labour will get is an informal supply and confidence arrangement which, unless they show rather better political skills than the current lot have to date, will last a couple of years if they are lucky.

I don't think UKIP or SNP would enter such an arrangement, the best bet for Tories is DUP supply and confidence and Labour the Libdems.

The outcome UKIP want is an indecisive election with things going from bad to worse afterwards and ideally some sort of political arrangement between Labour and the Tories to prop up whichever has most seats.

 

[Jonny]

How do we explain the continued success of the Scandinavian countries?

Norway has had a surplus of oil revenue that has funded some fairly lavish social programmes. The money sloshing around has crossed over borders as well. Also, the phrase "got away with it" springs to mind.

 

[St Rollox]

Norway has had a surplus of oil revenue that has funded some fairly lavish social programmes. The money sloshing around has crossed over borders as well. Also, the phrase "got away with it" springs to mind.

Plus they don't try to pass themselves off as a world power.
See Trident.

 

[ainsworth74]

Plus they don't try to pass themselves off as a world power.
See Trident.

Huzzah a full £2bn to £3bn saved per year out of the UKs budget of approximately £700bn per year that will change everything!

 

[Drsatan]

Huzzah a full £2bn to £3bn saved per year out of the UKs budget of approximately £700bn per year that will change everything!

Not to mention axing Trident would mean many highly-skilled jobs were in engineering and physics would be lost. Hardly an incentive.

 

[Manchester77]

While I'm no supporter of trident you could save far more money per year by scrapping the NHS Internal Market and turning the system back its original design as opposed to the marketised system we have today where the costs of the market alone cost £10bn.

 

[Butts]

While I'm no supporter of trident you could save far more money per year by scrapping the NHS Internal Market and turning the system back its original design as opposed to the marketised system we have today where the costs of the market alone cost £10bn.

Which particular "design" are you referring to - there have been multiple reorganisations since it's inception after the War.

If you are referring to the PFI contacts where the NHS has to pay exorbitant amounts of money to the Companies that built a lot of the premises, where are you going to get the Billions of pounds necessary to buy them out of the contracts.