My folks attended a talk by Michael Portillo in the past week and he told them that they are expecting a Lab - SNP coalition.
UK General Election 2015 | Conservatives win with an overall majority
- Thread starter langster
- Start date
You are taking the average from a completely different time frame that I haven't references, I'm talking about roughly where we are right now (3 weeks before the election). Just as an example using the source I previously quoted between 15th and 22nd of April 2005 the polls had an average Labour support at 40%, they finished with 36.2% of the vote. During the same period the Conservatives polled an average of 32.5% and finished with 33.2%. Likewise in 2010 between those dates Conservatives polled 33% and finished with 36%.
Either way I don't want to get into a long drawn debate over it, as I don't actually care. I still maintain that despite polling a couple of points behind at this stage, the Conservatives will gain more votes and win more seats. Do you actually disagree with that or are you arguing for the sake of it? Either way if that doesn't happen you can quote me and say I was wrong, not that I'll actually care as in my view my life will not change even slightly whether Ed Miliband or David Cameron are PM.
All of this talk about Tory/Labour swings and swinging has its thread i am sure (though what Theresa does with Balls is an image i'd rather not have), however there is a need for some local data.
New polling by Lord Ashcroft shows the Scottish Labour leader and the party's Uk election chief are on course to lose their seats in an SNP landslide.
A like emphasis on a few bellweather constituencies in England wouldn't go amiss.
New polling by Lord Ashcroft shows the Scottish Labour leader and the party's Uk election chief are on course to lose their seats in an SNP landslide.
A like emphasis on a few bellweather constituencies in England wouldn't go amiss.
Last edited:
I'm not saying they are all the same, that's stupid. I just don't think any of the parties will take the country into a good direction. The green's are unrealistic and naive and I don't think their candidate for the PM is any good, if Ed is a charisma vacuum so is she. And the the tories I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole, as you may have seen from my posts in here. Th lib dems are nigh untrustworthy, i don't and won't forgive clegg for abandoning the students and basically letting the tories have free reign to do what they want.
There have been loads, Labour have been shown leading in seats where tories won by 9 points in 2010 as recently as monday. And ahead in sheffield hallam a couple of weeks back.
There's a difference between polls being skewed, as in inherently biased towards a particular party, and polls moving towards another party as elections get closer. The former argument is usually put forward by the side that's losing and turns out to be wrong, the latter has some truth in it, but it's usually the governing party that benefits rather any single one, and certainly doesn't have a hard and fast 4% rule to it. As I said earlier, pollsters account for it in their forecasts, which is why almost all show fairly even seat numbers despite Labour having a slight edge in in voter intention right now.
I suppose that i am making a accusation of irrelevance as opposed to skewing, as i struggle to see how 1-3,000 polled nationally can adequately account for those highly narrow contests which might determine who governs the country. I'd rather know about what is occurring in the ten most vulnerable seats for each party, soon after each manifesto launch and debate if possible.
Last edited:
Yeah the second part of the post wasn't really directed at you but to the earlier discussion. Ashcroft's polls are definitely essentially to understand what's going on, for instance the national swing implied in the UK polls implied Jacob Rees-Mogg's seat in Somerset was a toss-up/leaning Labour, but the recent poll of the constituency found him miles ahead no doubt in part due to his individual prominence. Then there are seats in London showing a bigger Labour swing than implied by the UK polls. But in all the nationwide stuff gives you a pretty good idea of what's going on when looked at collectively and over a decent period of time, then the constituency polls add in the details. A lot of the time the backup the main data.
Received my postal vote. Think I'll vote for Labour but hoping to look at the parties manifestos (apart from UKIP) and decide for certain at the end of the weekend.
He's not British. Get him out of here!
Exactly! How many lies did he tell to make enough money on benefits to pay for his suit?
So apparently Lord Ashcroft's latest polls have Jim Murphy losing his seat in May. Will be pretty embarrassing if so for him considering he's leader of Scottish Labour. It's a big problem up here for Labour in that not only will they possibly lose seats, but they could have big names like Douglas Alexander (Shadow Foreign Secretary) possibly losing their seats as well. Same with the Lib Dems for Danny Alexander.
What Labour would give to have Salmond back.
That'd probably make it politically harder to defend a deal post Election, I'd wager he's far more disliked in England than Sturgeon.
I'm tempted to actually vote for Labour, I really like the idea of an Australian points based system for immigration along with the tension getting eased on the NHS through less people using the service so it stays free (which is an absolute must for me). The less people looking for work will also increase the wage that people get, especially in the areas that pay minimum wage. That is what UKIP are offering in their policy but I'm becoming a little fond of Miliband and what he is stating. He seems to really want to control immigration more and that is something that everyone should really be looking at as levels are getting a little out of control. Not just the NHS, pay scale but also education and housing which is feeling the burden. If he can do that while still being in the EU is quite debatable but he is definitely towing that line.
Something that made me laugh about the latest set of live debates is that when Ed said he was going to get tougher on immigration because of those points everyone in the audience cheered and clapped quite intensely, when Nigel said the same thing using slightly different language everyone was stone silent. Some people can't see the wood from the trees and then when Nigel had a pop at the audience was even more amusing but he was right to say such as it was clear as day that they were not really taking everything in.
Something that made me laugh about the latest set of live debates is that when Ed said he was going to get tougher on immigration because of those points everyone in the audience cheered and clapped quite intensely, when Nigel said the same thing using slightly different language everyone was stone silent. Some people can't see the wood from the trees and then when Nigel had a pop at the audience was even more amusing but he was right to say such as it was clear as day that they were not really taking everything in.
That's very true, I was just thinking they'd have stood a much better chance of doing well in Scotland and getting a majority with Salmond still in charge.
As Cheesy mentioned earlier though, this is really just a transfer of their Holyrood and referendum vote share (~45%) into the Westminster elections, but FPTP being such a bollocked up system means that with less than half the votes they can possibly get over 90% of the seats (which Labour can't really complain about as they benefited from the same thing previously). The main driver for it as far as I can tell is being fed up with Labour taking them for granted and teaming up with the Tories for the referendum, so I think it would have happened regardless of the leader change. Sturgeon has certainly made her own mark though and some polls have showed them creeping over 50% for Scotland which is insane, as is being ahead of Douglas Alexander by over 10% in a constituency he won in 2010 with 60% vote share! Genuine political change this election, will go down in the books.
Not to mention that the girl up against him would be one of the youngest MP's ever. People may end up rejecting a potential foreign secretary for a young, inexperienced candidate instead. That shows you how disillusioned a lot of people are in Scotland with Labour.
What, if anything, should Labour have done differently with its campaigning in Scotland?
So far as Ed is concerned i think he has been too standoffish in his dealings with Sturgeon, no ruffled feathers at any point really.
ETA: Just seen Ubik's response to Cheesy.
So far as Ed is concerned i think he has been too standoffish in his dealings with Sturgeon, no ruffled feathers at any point really.
ETA: Just seen Ubik's response to Cheesy.
That's because whereas it's one of many things Miliband talks about (even if he does often resort to soundbites), Farage has a reputation for constantly going back to immigration with just about everything he says to the point where it becomes tiresome.
Yup, not sure they can get it back with a Westminster-linked party either.
Where does the SNP stand on legalising it?
Avoid complacency. Labour had, and still have, the attitude that people in Scotland will simply vote for them election day because it's what they've traditionally always done. Their campaign has an air of arrogance, in that anyone who doesn't vote for them is essentially putting Cameron into power. While the "Vote SNP get Tory" message hasn't been well received, they keep on using it.
I think this is largely a symptom of change which has been boiling over for a while, though. The SNP comfortably beat Labour in the 2011 Scottish elections, and the two parties were close to being even in 2007. Before that, Labour had comfortably beaten SNP in both Holyrood and Westminster. SNP support has been increasing for nearly a decade now, and it was arguably a matter of time before that translated to UK elections.
Legalising what?
They're essentially relying on a major SNP feck up post election now. If that were to happen, they'd probably manage to regain at least some of their support, even if not all of it. I think the days of Labour completely dominating Scotland are done.
Problem is that their Holyrood party equivalent have Jim Murphy in charge. Whereas they needed to distance themselves from New Labour up here, they've appointed a Scottish leader who is considerably more New Labour than the UK-wide leader.
Man, that phrase shouldn't need explaining. Anyway I googled and it looks like they probably won't.
Ah yeah, just clicked it. And aye, they're against it unfortunately. Seems to only be the Greens and Lib Dems who are really in favour of it.
All the parties have main policies that they bang the drum on, it shouldn't take anything away from the credence (or lack of) them. Who are you voting for anyway, if I may ask? SNP?
True, but none of them talk about any of their policies to the extent Farage talks about immigration.
And aye, I imagine I'll vote SNP. They're far from perfect and have plenty of flaws of their own, but I feel like they'll do a decent job of representing Scotland's interests down south and there's not really any decent alternatives.
I think he was a desperation choice driven by the timing of the change, the SNP surge and him being one of the few MPs that seemed to have a good chance of retaining his seat. There are plenty of soft Tories that could switch in his seat still, but it's not looking good.
I think they may need a proper cutting adrift so they can actually fight the SNP from even ground ideologically. It's a bit like Greece in the eurozone, one can't devalue its currency to increase competitiveness as that's controlled from elsewhere, the other can't alter its policies to suit the opposition in its local area as that's controlled elsewhere to win votes in England. There needs to be a unionist party there not hamstrung by England, otherwise the SNP will have free reign and it'll be independent within the decade.
The thing is Indian political parties currently differ quite fundamentally on many policies. The prev govt was corrupt as hell but started a huge rural employment guarantee scheme and made both universal education and access to food fundamental rights (constitutionally guaranteed), while the current govt will try and gut these programs (the employment scheme in particular) and looks at China (high foreign investment, export industries, etc.) as the way forward - and is less corrupt at the top.
Also the previous govt wouldn't actively foment communal hatred while the current one is in bed with horrible religious groups. This is an entertaining but over-the-top defence of the last government.
But both left and right are united in their deference to the rich corporates, for whom the previous govt meant profits because of crony/state capitalism while the current one means no environmental regulations to deal with.
The turnout in India is comparable to and sometimes higher than Wesern countries, and that is really remarkable given that: some people are poor enough that they must work on election day, so many people are illiterate (yet passionate about politics) and that the country is so vast and its voting booths are so remote for some villages. Lack of engagement in India is more a rich and/or urban phenomenon.
They'd have been better off picking one of their current MPs, and someone not really at all connected to New Labour. Neil Findlay looked like a decent candidate for their leadership, but Murphy won out in the end obviously.
And the problem with cutting adrift is that it doesn't really help stop independence at all. What you end up with is another major party who are campaigning in Scotland, and Scotland only. If you want to make us feel closer to the Union, I don't think a different Labour party will help, especially when they'd be viewed by many as just another branch of UK Labour (like Scottish Labour are often viewed).
The Tories might gradually start to improve up here though, since their Scottish leader Ruth Davidson is an excellent politician and actually has her own opinions, unlike Murphy who simply says he dislikes poverty and expects people to vote for him without any substance.
Current MSPs you mean? I think they wanted a "big hitter" reputation wise. Maybe Douglas Alexander will be looking for something to do in a few weeks and looks to stand for Holyrood.
The thing about a separation would be they could actually disagree with Labour without looking absurd. It would run the risk of heightening the independence but when the alternative seems even worse, sometimes you have to do something drastic. It's also possible Scotland could like having its MPs wielding more power in Westminster as an independent block than subsumed within another party, could turn off the idea of separating Scotland rather than having a more powerful voice and role within it. I don't see the Tories making any significant strides whatsoever, Davidson is a good performer but that's what being certain of losing allows you to do. In the end I think some sort of Federal agreement would be the only thing that stops independence anyway.
Could be an option. Well-known enough to be a big name, but not associated with New Labour and Blair to the extent Murphy is.
And I agree with your last part there that federalism maybe be the union's only alternative in the long-term, providing the SNP vote doesn't collapse at some point.
I'm sure it's possible that I could find the answer to this question somewhere online but I don't really trust any of the papers or blogs so I'll do what people born in the 90s always do: put my faith in anonymous strangers online.
How many seats are UKIP actually likely to win? All the articles I see online vary to seeing them as a spent force that will decline quickly to a hugely influential party that won't go away.
How many seats are UKIP actually likely to win? All the articles I see online vary to seeing them as a spent force that will decline quickly to a hugely influential party that won't go away.
Yeah I also think he's a far better politician, and he regularly gets spoken of as having a very good strategic mind. The rebuilding north of the border is one of if not the most important priorities for the party in whatever guise it might take on, and I think it's high time that Labour's best Scottish politicians devoted their time and effort to it.
Predictions range between 1-6. Clacton's probably the only one they're pretty sure of winning, whilst they're close in 4 or 5 others that could go either way (including Farage's target of South Thanet).
Judging by the debate audience fix issues, sounds as though UKIP are being short-armed anyway. Tough enough when most people hate your party for no other reason than others do and it's cool to jump on the bandwagon, let alone when your performance in the debate is obscured by media staging.
Thanks. I felt the need to check because I came across a forum where some loons predicted "80 seats, minimum". I knew that was mental but wasn't sure what was the accepted range.
Yeah there've been a few in here thinking the same, in fairness by looking at the national share of the vote it seems logical they would get that, but it's very hard for small parties to break through in our electoral system.