Guess so. Was he SAS or something. More fun than Clegg or Danny Alexander for sure.
UK General Election 2015 | Conservatives win with an overall majority
- Thread starter langster
- Start date
Paras I think, before he found fame as Paddy Pantsdown. I agree he'd probably be better than the average politician (certainly the current, bland PR-obsessed generation) and, unlike another former Lib Dem leader, he wouldn't drink through the entire election campaign budget.
I think you could call this election.... Close...
If that average was replicated on election night, Labour would be much the happier. I think Tories will eke out a small lead though.
Tory 35, Lab 33, would be my guess. Think there's a touch of shy Tory in England and shy Labour in Scotland.
They usually do a couple of points better than the polls.
Genuinely my vote would go to the monster raving loony party, it's a real thing. Their policies are incredible.
Didn't plan on registering but the girlfriend was worried she wouldn't be able to (we managed to register her 90 seconds before the close after a frantic search for her NI number) so did so in case I was required to vote on her behalf.
Now torn between spoiling the ballot or voting for Caroline Lucas. She's the only candidate in the entire country I'd consider voting for (apart from tactical votes against Clegg/Farage - were I in their constituencies) but I still feel not voting is probably a truer reflection of my views.
Now torn between spoiling the ballot or voting for Caroline Lucas. She's the only candidate in the entire country I'd consider voting for (apart from tactical votes against Clegg/Farage - were I in their constituencies) but I still feel not voting is probably a truer reflection of my views.
If you vote Lucas for me I'll spoil a vote for you. Unless you decide you'll vote.
Yeah, I like that idea
Can someone explain to me why Milliband and Labour are so vociferous about not going into government with SNP? Will they change their tune on election night?
Same reason the Tories keep vilifying them, they think the electorate are stupid, and frankly considering how the've responded, they might be right. And yes.
So essentially the Tories need a huge collapse in Labour and or SNP vote to get back into government?
Because they don't need to work with the SNP to get into government, they just need the SNP not to team up with the Tories.
Tories need a collapse in Labour or all their routes to government will be blocked, yes. Scotland's gonna vote the for the lefties anyway so that won't make much difference to them. Labour's shit-talking just to reassure the English electorate because their rhetoric has backfired from the first second in Scotland.
fecking politicians. In the North of Ireland the pro Union parties are forming pacts to win seats because their numbers advantage is dwindling. Normally they cant stand each other but now they are bum chums
Not exactly huge, if the polls are out by a couple of percent they're right in it. They only need ~290 seats and are currently projected around 280.
Probably a bit more than that, just because 10 more seats for the Tories would likely include some of the Lib Dem ones.
You're a definite shy Tory dota.
Popular vote doesn't matter as much, it comes down to individual seats. That's why I keep banging on about the SNP result not being what it seems now!
I suspect one big reason is the likely backlash from the non-Scottish part of the UK if the SNP becomes part of the Westminster government. The referendum has clearly left some political wounds on both sides of Hadrian's Wall and the prospect of a coalition with the SNP might be a vote loser in the rest of the UK. Changing their mind after the polls close could also damage their credibility in the future.
Because strangely, they don't need them (ish).
Agreeing they would go into a coalition with SNP now would not only ruin all their Scottish labour votes but it would dessimate their English votes.
After the election they don't need a 'coalition' either. What happened to the lib dems after 2010 has scared all other parties none of them want to be in 'coalition' at all now as they know they'll be the whipping boys.
regardless of the result on Thursday, it's Cameron who has first 'dibbs' at creating a government. To do this they have to have the confidence of the house and pass a queens speech. If the current polls are right, it's likely even with vote by vote support (as opposed to official coalition) that cons/ukip won't be able to pass a queens speech if lab/snp/lib dems all vote against it.
Therfore Cameron will not have been able to create a government, then the leader of the second largest party gets to go at the same thing.
The SNP are then in a predicament. If they vote against a labour queens speech they run the risk of forcing another election and giving tories another chance (their support would not forgive them for that). They'll be forced to vote with labour (many may abstain), labour may give them a few concessions but nothing major.
I think the next 'government' will be more of an anti tory /ukip vote by vote alliance than anything else.
Like I said a couple of days ago, from stories like this, the current make up seats implied in the large majority of projections, and the lack of any 'big events' between now and the election, the result looks pretty set. Conservatives are going to get the most seats, but the government described by @Dracula will be the only feasible outcome.Britain set to face weeks of political paralysis after election poll
Rebel Tories could block new Conservative-Liberal Democrat pact, while Nick Clegg faces revolt over possible Tory deal
Britain faces “weeks not days” without an effective government following Thursday’s general election if David Cameron wins the most seats and tries to renew his coalition vows with Nick Clegg, according to senior Tories and Liberal Democrats.
A Tory-Lib Dem coalition Mark Two is seen as one of the most likely results of an extremely close election. But senior MPs from both parties revealed they have deep reservations about such an outcome, and are privately planning to force their leaders into gruelling and protracted negotiations that could last well into the summer.
The latest Observer/Opinium poll has the two main parties neck and neck, with the Tories on 35% and Labour on 34%. The Liberal Democrats are on 8%, but are expected to secure more seats than their national polling would suggest. The Tories were also a point ahead in the Sunday Times/YouGov poll while a ComRes poll had the two main parties level on 33%.
The outcome of the election remains too close to call, and it is possible that Labour could emerge as the largest party, or could form the next government even if it fails to win the most seats. But senior Tories and Lib Dems believe the most likely outcome is a hung parliament with the Conservatives winning the highest number of seats.
Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has said that in the event of a hung parliament he would open talks with the largest party. But Tory backbenchers, who are resentful at Lib Dem influence during the last coalition, are determined to force Cameron to offer them a secret ballot on any potential deal with Clegg, allowing them to block the creation of another coalition without a fear of retribution for their decision.
They hope to strongarm Cameron into either giving in to rightwing demands over a prolonged period, or calling another election to try to win a majority. The powerful 1922 committee has already made Cameron accept that its chair, Graham Brady, will be involved in coalition negotiations. Now members are confident of forcing further concessions from a weakened leadership, according to one senior Tory source, who said backbench support for a secret ballot was “strong”.
Meanwhile, there were growing signs that Clegg could face a revolt from within his own party if he tries to push through a second deal with the Conservatives that includes an agreement to hold an in/out referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU. The Observer has learned that the business secretary, Vince Cable, is among several senior figures who are upset at an apparent decision by Clegg to abandon his previous opposition to a referendum, except in circumstances where there is a further transfer of powers to Brussels.
Cable – who is concerned that an in/out referendum will cause huge uncertainty for business – is understood not to have been consulted in detail by Clegg on his change of approach.
One senior Lib Dem source said: “Vince is not happy about this. He believes that what Clegg is doing is clearing the decks for another coalition with the Tories.” Cable does not believe that a referendum will settle the European issue, which, as with Scottish independence, will come back repeatedly.
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem energy secretary, has said that an in/out referendum would damage the UK’s ability to influence climate change discussions ahead of a UN meeting in Paris later this year.
A senior Lib Dem MP added that his party would not “fall for it again” if Clegg demanded a quick resolution to coalition negotiations in the name of national stability. “They will take weeks, not days, this time. We have learned a lesson from 2010,” he said. “The parliamentary party will meet the week following the election, and that will be just the start.”
While the Lib Dem rule book gives the party’s MPs the main say on whether to approve a new coalition, there will be a special conference of senior party officials that will vote on the deal. Although the decision of the conference is not binding, according to the rules, senior figures say if the conference votes the deal down, Clegg will have to accept defeat.
A second Lib Dem, who has held ministerial rank in the coalition, added that negotiations would have to deliver exceptional terms to be successful. He said: “I’d have to say, I’d be very reluctant too [to go into coalition]. I can conceive an arithmetic that would put an awful lot of pressure on us to do so. But my general view is that I wouldn’t have a great deal of enthusiasm for it.
“We’ve lost a third of our members, half of our councillors, two-thirds of our popular voters. And apparently we’re about to lose half of our MPs. Why would we want to do it all over again?”
A key Conservative MP, on the right of the party, said: “This is going to be slow and protracted. We don’t want a rushed deal over the weekend, and it is great news that the Liberal Democrats want to slow things down, too.
“We are going to have a secret ballot, which the leadership are far from signed up to but there is strong support for. What is crucial is that nothing is rushed.”
One of the country’s foremost constitutionalists, Professor Vernon Bogdanor, said the current “political dynamics” were unprecedented and a period of instability was sure to follow after Thursday. “The negotiations may well take longer than in 2010. But the constitutional framework is clear: the Queen’s speech is due to be delivered on 27 May. There must be a government in place by then. But the political dynamics are unprecedented if, as the polls suggest, the two major parties are deadlocked.”
In which case,
Best odds of a Labour Minority - 15/8.
Odds on any coalition with the Lib Dems - 5/4.
Might bet big on the two of these to slightly hedge the risk. Don't see a realistic alternative.
Best odds of a Labour Minority - 15/8.
Odds on any coalition with the Lib Dems - 5/4.
Might bet big on the two of these to slightly hedge the risk. Don't see a realistic alternative.
Why?
Krugman makes the same case...
'In May 2010, as Britain headed into its last general election, elites all across the western world were gripped by austerity fever, a strange malady that combined extravagant fear with blithe optimism. Every country running significant budget deficits – as nearly all were in the aftermath of the financial crisis – was deemed at imminent risk of becoming another Greece unless it immediately began cutting spending and raising taxes. Concerns that imposing such austerity in already depressed economies would deepen their depression and delay recovery were airily dismissed; fiscal probity, we were assured, would inspire business-boosting confidence, and all would be well'.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion
'In May 2010, as Britain headed into its last general election, elites all across the western world were gripped by austerity fever, a strange malady that combined extravagant fear with blithe optimism. Every country running significant budget deficits – as nearly all were in the aftermath of the financial crisis – was deemed at imminent risk of becoming another Greece unless it immediately began cutting spending and raising taxes. Concerns that imposing such austerity in already depressed economies would deepen their depression and delay recovery were airily dismissed; fiscal probity, we were assured, would inspire business-boosting confidence, and all would be well'.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion
Why?
Because his spin doctors told him those six vapid statements (I won't dignify them with the word "policies") will help reach target voters.
I'm switching allegiances from the Green party to the Cannabis Is Safer Than Alcohol party. Shame they're not standing in my constituency.
Milliband just really looks like someone who inspires so little confidence in anyone around him.
As for that post, if I was a Labour spin doctor I'd have just 2 things up there: 1) we promise to have a genuine shot at sorting out the immigration mess we caused. 2) We promise to tell the SNP to feck right off.
There you go, instant votes from all those people who voting Ukip as a protest but really don't want to vote them this time, and the general rag readers. Politics is simple
As for that post, if I was a Labour spin doctor I'd have just 2 things up there: 1) we promise to have a genuine shot at sorting out the immigration mess we caused. 2) We promise to tell the SNP to feck right off.
There you go, instant votes from all those people who voting Ukip as a protest but really don't want to vote them this time, and the general rag readers. Politics is simple
On a gravestone?
Everything about that is terrible.
I will never understand this unless your views are 'I don't give a shit'.
You can give a shit and still have no one on the ballot who would really represent you. That's the situation I'm in. I don't want to have to pick the person I disagree with least, but my only other options are not voting or drawing a penis on the ballot.
Last edited:
But that's pretty much the essence of an election, mate. It's not a time for idealism. If you want to have someone running for MP who you really believe in, that's probably only going to happen if you run as an independent.
They're standing in mine. Hopefully they can manage more votes than UKIP. Maybe even try to beat Lib Dems too.
For me it purely boils down to the fact me and my family/friends seem slightler better off these days than under Labour, despite all being working class. So I'd rather they stayed in than go back to Labour and possibly have the snp involved.
Not a lot, I know, but it's something.
If that's the best option then there really is no point. Our seat was won before campaigning even began "don't give a shit", give me a fecking break, I've got a vote worth less than the paper it's printed on and a selection of crap to choose from. Why should I play along and pretend it matters when it doesn't? And why, when my vote means so little, am I expected sell myself out to options I don't especially care for? I might buy into the argument if we didn't have this travesty of an electoral system, but as it stands there is no good reason for me to give any single candidate my vote.
Last edited:
Not sure why you'd class voting as selling out. Majority of people didn't even have the option 100 years ago, large swathes of the electorate now wilfully disenfranchising themselves isn't going to improve anything.