A Ukreen coalition would outrageous.
UK General Election 2015 | Conservatives win with an overall majority
- Thread starter langster
- Start date
A Scottish Cymru coalition would make half the world think we we're voting on the nations favourite food.
Yo! I've been busy. Give me a few articles to read. To which degree will Labour merely be the lesser evil? How do UK feel about the Greens? Etc
This one's pretty good: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/07/he-was-a-crook/308699/
Unless you meant about the election. I dunno. Charlie Brookers election wipe was a decent enough breakdown.
Last edited:
Couple more Labour friendly projections
May2015 - CON 273, LAB 268, SNP 56, LIB 28, UKIP 2, GREEN 1, OTH 22
Guardian - CON 273, LAB 273, SNP 52, LIB 27, UKIP 3, GREEN 1, OTH 21
May2015 - CON 273, LAB 268, SNP 56, LIB 28, UKIP 2, GREEN 1, OTH 22
Guardian - CON 273, LAB 273, SNP 52, LIB 27, UKIP 3, GREEN 1, OTH 21
No, I need to read up on the election. I've been out of UK for far too long to know shit.
Any labour unfriendly ones or are these just ones you've come across?
Just saw election etc. is predicting 289 torie to 257 labour but it's out of tune with everyone else I'm going to guess it's wrong.
The couple on the previous page are ambivalent to say the least, the most unfriendly is probably Elections Etc from a couple of days ago - CON 289, LAB 257, SNP 53, LIB 26, UKIP 3, GREEN 1, OTH 22.
The YouGov "Nowcast", based on their polling alone, is interestingly also different from the Kellner forecast, obviously he doesn't quite trust his polls. They put the big two level on 276 and the Lib Dems on 23. All everyone seems to pretty much agree on is that Lucas is staying in Brighton as the only Green MP.
Cant really answer the first one, time will tell I guess. The Greens are a complete joke in a lot of ways and I say that as someone who will most likely vote for them. They do raise certain issues that other parties don't which is why people vote for them. Its little more than a protest vote tbh, I think most people voting for them realise theyd be as competent in government as the Monster Raving Loony Party. The hope is it will make them either become a more serious party or that Labour might try to appeal more to Green voters if they have a decent turnout. Their leader is completely useless in interviews and stuff too which doesn't help.
@Silva
Think I've decided to vote Green, so no need to spoil on my behalf, if you were planning on it. You thinking Cannabis Is Safer Than Alcohol is the way to go?
Think I've decided to vote Green, so no need to spoil on my behalf, if you were planning on it. You thinking Cannabis Is Safer Than Alcohol is the way to go?
They're not running where I am, but I definitely would. I'll probably vote green tbh, tactical voting is pointless here and it'll have about the same effect as spoiling it. Their leader is a rich bloke who started Bebo (
) so they might have enough funds to find UKIP levels of support for a single issue.What makes them a joke (except for their leader not handling interviews well)?
Not standing here either. Wonder if they avoid fielding candidates where Greens do best, cause you'd think such studenty places would be the ones to go otherwise.They're not running where I am, but I definitely would. I'll probably vote green tbh, tactical voting is pointless here and it'll have about the same effect as spoiling it. Their leader is a rich bloke who started Bebo (
People perceive them as being pure idealists without the necessary experience or realistic policies to be a government. But to be honest all minor parties are like that, I think the main reason it's aimed at them more than anyone else is their optimistic attitude and how far to the left they are.
I suspect it's more to do with a lack of candidates, they're not even 6 months old yet.
Just checked and they're only fielding 32, so I suspect you're right. Had it in my head it was just under a hundred, for some reason...
The Daily Mail's reasoning for their lack of candidates would be that they all overdosed on smoking too much weed.
If you watch one of her interviews then you'll see what I mean about both her interview technique and the party in general. Their manifesto is completely uncosted. They plan to give everyone something like £70 a week, - can't remember the exact amount - which would cost something outrageous, obviously. Funded by a wealth tax which wouldn't even cover a fraction of it. You know, mad hippy shit basically.
They do however have 1 MP who is predicted to retain her seat tomorrow, who comes across infinitely better than their current leader. And if Labour are relying on other parties to form a government she might well be involved.
I was thinking that extending voting hours until 6am and being able to vote in petrol stations should be policies of theirs.
I love Brooker and he's a great entertainer, but I'm not going to trust him with updating me on the election.
I'd vote Green if I wasn't voting tactically but I agree with the bolded. It's sort of very admirable them picking a leader based on other things than charisma, but in the modern world it was very naive. Caroline Lucas is a far more well-known figure, a far-better public speaker and on the big stage the Greens were given through the TV debates they'd have had a decent go at overtaking the Lib Dems (in share of the vote if not number of seats) if she was in charge.
Basically the reason people like the Greens is because they're the most left wing party who operate throughout the country. If they got in at this point I don't think they'd do too well because there's no government experience in the party, but as a force to pressure a minority Labour government into being a little more progressive they'd have been great. Personally I think Bennett's performances might seriously hurt them, they had a lot of momentum a few months ago and they have more members than UKIP and the Lib Dems, but now it looks like that momentum is probably going to be stopped dead by a poor election result. If the worst should happen and Lucas loses Brighton Pavilion I can see a lot of their support deciding they might as well pack it in and focus on trying to drag the Labour Party to the left from within instead.
She's Brighton Pavilion (Hove is currently Tory). She'll win easily, anyway.
I should have known that, I was working for the Greens in Lewisham at the last election
. Must have gotten mixed up with Brighton and Hove Albion. Thanks for the correctionWhy isn't Caroline Lucas their leader anyway?
I think their hope was that Lucas stepping down allowed her to focus on being an MP whilst a new leader made a name for themself and thus could also take a seat. Sadly, Bennett's turned out to be a bit crap.
She was - but gave it up so other members could get media attention. Really wish they'd have chosen Molly Scott Cato though, she'd have been better.
She was at the last election but she stepped down, ostensibly to give another senior party member a greater platform now that she was a relatively well known face in parliament. The turnout of the vote to replace her was ridiculously low, something like 25% if I remember correctly so Bennett was elected by ~10% of the party membership.
She's a very nice lady. I was an intern for the Greens in the run-up to the election and my first day was at the Green Party conference where I turned up not knowing anyone and she invited me out for a meal she was having with a few party higher-ups (and paid for it too). Like I said above, I reckon the Greens would have had a decent crack at this election if she was still in charge.
I can't answer to that, but I do know there's plenty of myths about the Greens about, as there will be with a "new" party trying to form their politics. You might be right about this specific one, I don't know.
Still, I do know Miliband and Cameron are widely seen as jokes as well, so Green's leader being a joke shouldn't be much of a drawback?
Well, yeah, exactly. I'm still voting Green rather than those two.
I honestly think a big problem with the Greens is that they're called the Green Party. The immediate assumption is that they're a bunch of hippies (which, to be fair, a decent number of them are). I think if they were a left-wing party with a different name they'd probably get taken way more seriously. When I was canvassing in Lewisham in 2010 half the people thought I was talking about Greenpeace.
Baffling isn't it. Fair enough if they wanted to give Bennett a shot, but hell, Lucas is a solid speaker. Bennett is ponderous and prone to disaster. Bizarre call- surely they must have realised that Lucas was a massive (and their only) asset?
Molly Scott Cato is a decent speaker too. From the little I've seen, admittedly.
I don't know her tbf. I just felt, rightly or wrongly (a caveat I overuse), that Lucas was looking on thinking 'oh god, wtf', while Bennett delivered the mainfesto in her leaden style.
Tories are 65% less likely to post on message boards, I read, because they tend to just chat to their butlers instead.
I keep saying this here in Oz but no fecker listens.
Some people might take the Greens more seriously if they changed their name. But they might lose as similar number of "hippies" and protest votes if they gave the impression of being a party of the mainstream left. Personally I'd imagine they'd lose more support than they'd gain, given they're big beneficiaries of that protest, anti establishment vote.
Right Ive done my bit, you lot better not screw this up!