Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A Con-UKIP electoral pact? Forget it. It isn’t going to hap
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A Con-UKIP electoral pact? Forget it. It isn’t going to happen
Split parties do not win elections, so the saying goes. Nor, by extension, do parties whose natural support base is divided between parties, particularly under FPTP – which is why from time to time we hear calls from some on the right-of-centre for an electoral pact between the Conservatives and UKIP, who look at the 45-50% that the two parties poll between them and dream of landslide go…
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
As I noted at the time, AV was the Lab/Cons' best chance to avoid PR, and they blew it...
i) Lab maj, risk of rightist voters coalescing around the Tories in 2020 to the detriment of UKIP, after another sharp dose of Socialism.
ii) Con maj, would probably still be a relatively centrist government; still space for UKIP to grow in Opposition, and to benefit from government unpopularity.
iii) Lab-Lib coalition, risk similar as i) but more scope for UKIP to compete with Tories as the one "true" Right party.
iv) Con-Lib coalition, similar opportunities to now, largely dependent on the popularity/credibilty of the next Labour leader.
Guido et al was well up for a Con/LD pact last time - I'm not good enough to google the link.
Morris - Lewis is 4/6 on Betfair winner US - we've got a flush fund from the monday night football - thoughts?
EDITED - it's early in the morning and I forgot my style guide.
EDIT 2 - typo
- for the punters, investors, and the non-betting contributors.
Me & my Gf (aka Briskin and co) are thinking about buying shares (lower end of the limit) in a Ftse company. (guess the one in question!)
If we rang the stockbroker the next working day - being aware of the various limits - Could we get it thorough in either name?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_number_of_parties
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29660345
One for the cage rattlers, is Vaz playing politics?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/missing-rotherham-abuse-scandal-files-fuel-public-suspicion-of-a-deliberate-coverup-9802307.html
I agree that the Tories and UKIP won't pact up. The Tories would be much more likely to turn to Ulster which at least has a coherence.
I really don't expect UKIP to have more than a handful of MPs anyway, at most. So despite a lot of frothing, I think it will be business as usual, with a small LibDem rump. But whether it will go Labour or Conservative as the biggest party we shall see. My money's still on a Conservative win.
Most important issues affecting country - diff vs OA
Immigration/Asylum
Con: +9
UKIP: +39
Economy
Con: +12
UKIP: -16
Issues affecting you/your family:
Economy
Con:+ 11
UKIP: -8
Immigration
Con: =
UKIP: +32
Only an idiot would try to appeal to both (and I know, there are enough of them on the Tory backbench)
Mr Herdson rightly points out that the previous experience of pacts with the Tories has been as a results of splits within the Liberals who suffered severely as a result. Were a future LibDem leader, back in opposition, able to bring back the Red LD’s, then, unless UKIP collapse following a successful IN referendum, ww would indeed be a four party electoral system.
Incidentally, what would be the effect on UKIP of a 55-45 vote to stay in the EU in 2017, were a referendum to happen? It’s clear that in spite of all the talk of “it being over for a generation” last month Scottish independence doesn’t really off the table. Yet! Might just be the last rumblings of course.
Is Cameron hoping that it all falls apart before he offers some sort of vote?
Many thanks Mr Herdson, another interesting and well written Saturday thread that will hopefully, stimulate much discussion.
If the Conservatives have overdone their pitch to the LD-Guardian voters they seem to have been targeting, they may also have gained the LDs 'don't stand for anything' problem. UKIP on the other hand do have clear goals.
It might help if UKIP beefed up their 'family-friendly' policies, to boost their appeal to social-conservatives, and differentiate themselves from the Conservative Party.
"Ukip needs to be truly radical and think outside the box. It must look at reversing the State dependency of 4/5ths of all families that Labour brought about through it so-called ‘tax’ credits system. It has to look at ending expensive one option childcare subsidies, in return for notional work, and set families free. Instead, it must, unashamedly, through tax allowances promote marriage and support responsible families. Relieving families of those responsibilities via state subsidised institutionalisation of children makes no more economic than it does social sense."
http://conservativewoman.co.uk/kathy-gyngell-ukip-confidential-farage-hijacked-liberal-left-family-policy/
Think about it...
Sinn Fein: "so now WE are also in 'coalition' with 'the UK government' ? I think feckin' not! Kiss my feckin' arse", etc...
The risks to the peace process are too obvious. SF would withdraw from power sharing in NI ("we can stomach getting into bed with the Unionists here in Ireland, but never the Brits!"), and the boyos - who've never gone away, you know - would soon be back to 'protect' the minority community from such perfidy...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29663308
"The failure to stop the abuse of young girls in Rochdale is the subject of a major internal investigation at GMP, but the results of that report are yet to be delivered two years on.
In a letter obtained by ITV News, a third officer claims there is a "cover-up" within the force.
He says the report has been re-written on nine separate occasions to water down the apparent failings and to distance senior officers from the probe."
http://www.itv.com/news/2014-10-14/itv-news-investigation-finds-hundreds-of-child-abusers-walking-free-in-manchester-due-to-police-failings/
"One of their [DUP] MPs told Breitbart London they planned to support the Conservatives forming a minority government. They would then vote for them in any confidence motions, making the Conservatives impossible to topple. But crucially they would force them to negotiate for DUP votes on every single piece of legislation."
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/17/In-A-Hung-Parliament-UKIP-Should-Follow-DUPs-Lead
Meanwhile Labour's childish attempt to attack Lord Freud continues to blow up in their face
As Dan Hodges wrote (I paraphrase) all that will come of this is that :Labour are seen as being on the side of noisy minorities and against everyone else.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2797904/labour-faces-backlash-demanding-disabled-row-minister-lord-freud-sacked.html
That is about 30% of UKIP's total, and about 6% in overall VI.
It would be fine to leave the other 70% ,who are mainly old Labour ,alone.
One of the mistakes in analysis is the fact that 2010 is constantly used as a reference point. Many of these UKIP voters in Essex in 2015 would have been Labour in 1985.
They've toyed with the Lib Dems, the BNP, the EngDems and whoever in between.
If the Tories come first, possible but not yet probable IMO, they would hope to have enough support either side of them to push through their agenda.
Imagine 30 Lib Dems for libertarian things plus 30 Nationalists/NI for devolution/referendums/EU.
I include kippers as nationalist, and lump them together with the SNP and Plaid in the sense that when they are looked at as a lump, then it's easy to see that the nationalist bloc damages the main two in a reasonably equitable way.
So the Rotherham files are being "disappeared" on a regular basis. Yup, that will reassure people that justice will be done.
I assume Ed has called for a Judge-led enquiry?
No one is discussing the SNP holding the balance of power, but with current Scottish opinion polls this dangerous scenario is quite probable.
As a long-time supporter of PR it would be great to see the Tories embrace it. A rock solid commitment may be the one way I might - as a one off - actually vote Tory. Unfortunately, as is the case with Labour FPTP delivers too many advantages to the Tories for them to change their minds.
The S.Yorkshire Police Crime Commissioner election may shake things up. If ITV push the Greater Manchester Police angle, we should also see pressure on the (ex Labour MP) GMP PCC to do something too.
And anyone who thinks everything is going rosily for UKIP needs to look at some facts. They've just spectacularly failed in their Thurrock target seat:
http://order-order.com/2014/10/17/ukip-get-thumped-in-their-target-seat/
And talk of Delingpole deserting UKIP back to the Tories:
http://order-order.com/2014/10/17/delingpole-coy-on-tory-return-rumour/
I predict this time next year UKIP will be a minor rump of malcontents. This country is centrist. Has been for the last 60 years, ever since Attlee, and will remain so.
Or are you predicting that UKIP will repeat 2010's 3% vote share in 2015?
A question for the psephologists here.
How well would UKIP perform in a national election run by Multimember STV with approximately county sized (boroughs for London) constituencies? What if the constituencies matched the European regions? And the same question for the Greens. Assume they perform about what they're polling now, how many MPs are we talking?
I think those would be most likely systems of PR based on British and Irish history of electoral reform. Can't imagine Tories wanting to give up at least a vaguely local notion of constituency link.
I'm just wondering if the Greens might do better in larger, Euro style constituencies than the header gives credit for. They would clearly be more transfer friendly than UKIP (who will get most of their votes on first choice judging from their unfavourable ratings among other voters, whereas Greens could pick up most of their votes from transfers from all major parties).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2653992/Tories-plotting-form-coalition-Northern-Ireland-MPs-avoid-sharing-power-Clegg.html
And, yes, looser agreement would be the idea. That is how it has worked in the past. Ulster leave the Tories to get on with their job but vote with them when called upon.
A Miliband government is a price well worth paying for a repeat of the 1993 Canadian Federal elections where the Progressive Conservative party was reduced from 156 to two seats. The Canadian UKIP (Reform Party) only got 52 seats and they had to put up with a Liberal government.
Eventually the two merged with the old Progressive Conservative party (what an Oxymoron that was) the junior partner and there is now a Conservative government in Canada.
The destruction of the Conservative party has been inevitable since the treachery of November 1990.
While I disagreed with some of Thatchers policies, she was quite clearly for ordinary hardworking people, not the gilded elite, which is why the wets despised her.
UKIP's "unfavourable" numbers are not noticeably worse than other parties, I believe the LDs are in the relegation position.
But in this case surely only "favourable" numbers would be relevant? Again, UKIP are not noticeably worse than other parties.
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/09/27/comres-poll-farage-as-popular-as-cameron/
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/IoS_SM_Political_Poll_28th_September_2014_8723.pdf
Joining forces with UKIP, even with nose peg attached, would:
- Demonstrate that the Tories are weak and unable to get a majority on their own
- Re-toxify their brand
- Allow Labour to use any anti-UKIP lines to tar the Tories with the same brush
- Re-invigorate the Lib Dems as the party of the centre
- Cause an uproar among moderate Tories, giving even more of a picture of a party divided
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q8vDQaAYaQg
Chances of Ed calling for a Judge-led enquiry on this matter are zero imho.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/missing-rotherham-abuse-scandal-files-fuel-public-suspicion-of-a-deliberate-coverup-9802307.html
But power, and the compromises of power, corrupt all. (And would, in time, corrupt UKIP as well.) Choices are hard, and they all have consequences. It all looks endearingly black and white from the viewpoint of opposition (or, for that matter, from a discussion board on a website).
Personally, I think the saddest corruption of the LibDem's time in power has been their loss of emphasis on civil liberties. The way the LibDem's cravenly fell in line once they got their MI6 briefing was disgusting.
I suspect I would also be making a mistake to assume that classical-liberal MPs were a powerful/dominant faction in the LDs.
And does Nick Clegg realise just how profoundly he's alienating a substantial part of the key political betting vote?
It would be like saying labour won't win in London if they don't take Fulham and Chelsea ... Will probably still win without it, but if they won it they're a certainty
And what role does James Delingpole play in Ukip?!?!?! Any at all???
Honestly you'd be better off just saying "I really hope Ukip fail because it that would make life easier for the Tories" than posting what you just have. There's nothing wrong with just really wanting your team to win, you don't have to back it up with invented evidence that they might
https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/why-vote-liberal-democrat-2015
Nick Clegg already lost my vote by vetoing Michael Howard as our European Commissioner.
I might actively campaign against him now if there's no reshuffle/Carmichael isn't next out.
At the next election it is likely, on current polling, that the Lib Dems will be put through the mincer and these ratios will recover somewhat from a Tory perspective but Scotland faces the choice of which of the 2 larger parties is going to be most disproportionately represented.
I think there are lessons here for the UK. Parties that have that extra 10% do disproportionately well under FPTP in a multi party system. Look at what Labour achieved in Scotland. 42% of the vote obtained 72% of the seats. Joe Public may think this is unfair but there is vanishingly little evidence that politicians think that way until it happens to them. Labour could well repeat this success in the UK next time around. Anyone who thinks their reaction to that would be "maybe we need to change this" is deluding themselves.
Another lesson from Scotland is that in a multi party system regional strength is critical. The Tories suffer because their support is broadly spread. The Lib Dems do relatively well because of their strength in the north and the borders.
In the UK the Tories are incredibly strong in most of the south and a significant rump will survive the worst of disasters (look at 1997). Labour has their rotten boroughs in the Northern cities and London and are secure. The Lib Dems have (or had) the south west. UKIP, it seems to me are in danger of being the equivalent of the Scottish Tories with too broad a support to score significantly.
And that will suit the traditional parties just fine, thank you very much.
Open door free migration is mandatory in the EU. I don't blame migrants from coming here one little bit, just as I don't blame British migrants going the other way. But what migrant labour does is suppress wages, and add to that globalisation where you can outsource jobs and and services to cheaper populaces (migration without actually needing migrants). Which is why wages have stagnated and CEOs now earn 129x average wages.
But where we don't help ourselves is that we price people out of the labour market. I remember one vivid example a few years ago where a government minister visited Merthyr Tydfil to bemoan local unemployment, pointing to jobs in Cardiff. That the jobs were shift based on minimum wage with no public transport available early or late, and that many of the unemployed had children where even if the childcare was available for shifts it would completely swallow the wages didn't seem to be understood. Want to combat tax credits, economic inactivity, migration all in one go? Massively subsidise childcare as they do in most civilised countries. Then you get less migrant labour, wages rise, you can cut tax credits.
Or, you can insist no one needs "government handouts", cut them up front, and wonder why your economy just crashed.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/james-delingpole/8994141/ukip-are-playing-it-safe-so-theyve-rejected-me/
Plus we remember the stupid Kipper candidate in Wells.
You can't trust the Kippers to honour any pact.
The Tory party has survived since 1688 by reinventing itself and moving with the times. I have no doubt we will continue to do so while other, lesser parties come and go. It seems our Whig cousins have forgotten how to do that.
As for post 2015 pacts, it is almost certain any UUP/DUP MPs will support the Tories and as SF don't take their seats, for the Tories the finishing line is closer to 315 than 326.
http://election-data.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/which-seats-will-ukip-target-at-general.html
And there was the super encouraging Survation poll (UKIP 25%) analysis that suggested 100+ UKIP MPs from South England!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2789512/record-poll-surge-gives-ukip-25-survey-hand-farage-astonishing-128-mps-puts-ed-miliband-new-low.html
I suppose it only formalises a reality - a third of the people at all major party conferences are not party members but journalists, lobbyists, etc. (as I was myself at the other conferences).
Incidentally, Labour are first out of the blocks taking bookings from exhibitors for next year, and they've put the prices up (no early bird discount) and apparently sold over half the stands already. Nothing from the other parties yet. My recollection is that last year both major parties were pretty snappy, while getting stands with the LibDems, Greens and especially UKIP was slower - with UKIP, as I said here, it was a real struggle till the last moment.
The government sets a minimum wage and then devalues it.
Lunatic behaviour.
Bugger and damnation.
Then again it does increase the chances of my Carmichael as next Lib Dem leader bet as a winner.
@DPJHodges: By the weekend the narrative surrounding Lord Freud will be "you know what, he had a point".
.
First I've seen of this consultation - are other NGOs on the ball about it?
http://www.fabians.org.uk/election-2014-the-numbers/
I suspect the principle objective behind targeting Labour voters is to panic Mr Miliband into backing an EU in/out referendum. But at the election I'd expect UKIP to be targeting their best prospects, which appear to be mostly Conservative seats.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/oct/14/ukip-seats-general-election-2015
"Last week a UKIP insider told me that if they win tonight's by election in West Thurrock it will be a very positive signal for their GE chances in the constituency... apparently its a very strong area for Labour".
Ukip went backwards on Thursday so now you say
It is a ward Ukip had very little expectation of winning, and makes little or no difference to the chances next year.
I would be interested whether you think Thursdays Thurrock result was good/bad
bribing, sorry canvassing.I don't believe for a moment a committed Tory like TSE was ever serious about voting LD - as the GE approaches, his inner Tory has been shining ever more brightly.
On topic, David's article is, as always, well argued and constructed so thanks for that. It reminded me of debates about the SDP in the 1980s and particularly as the 1987 election approached (and there are some striking parallels between then and now) as to whether David Owen could support a minority Labour administration led by Neil Kinnock.
Had a Hung Parliament occurred in 1987 (which many thought until quite late in the day was a real possibility) the Alliance leaders, who had tried (and not often successfully) to play the equidistance card, faced a real problem. It's probably fair to say most Liberals then much preferred supporting Kinnock to Thatcher but on the SDP side it was much less clear.
While I doubt it would have been in Thatcher's nature to play the game, the possibility of supporting a post-Thatcher minority Conservative administration was there and had the scenario arisen, it might well have torn the Alliance apart.
For UKIP, the position is the same - if push comes to shove and they have enough MPs to make the difference and the phone rings, what are they going to do ? Would the Party be cohesive enough (and it's not been easy for the LDs) to survive entering into even an S&C deal with either Conservative or Labour - could Douglas Carswell support a minority Labour administration on the basis there would be an immediate EU referendum (say Oct 2015 ?)
It's quite clear that Cameron is now desperate to cling to power and he will promise anything to anyone to achieve it - that's fair enough. Without power, the Conservative Party is as much use as a chocolate fireguard - they're hapless in Opposition as the long Labour years demonstrated.
Its a curious move by the Lib Dems, suggesting a new low in relations between Clegg and Cable.
Well, remember the shape of the electorate. Too much of it goes around on a zimmer frame. And amongst those there are lots of women who have convinced themselves that they had their lives ruined by not being able to go out to work, when actually they quit school as fast as they could & joined a typing pool in order to make eyes at management trainees (all right, I'm talking about my mother but she wasn't the only one by a long chalk).
So the Parties are cautious about encouraging working mothers - the most voter-friendly combination is, as so often, to say one thing and do the opposite.
My prediction is that Scotland specific polling will put Labour-SNP ithin 2 percentage points of each other which means no vast haul of seats for the SNP.
Am surprised that the Nats have followed Brown and set themselves up for a more prolier than thou approach to politics in Scotland. Crowning Sturgeon looks like a short term fix, unless she wanted to make sure that Salmond was stuffed by his failure to secure a result.
Good luck in attracting investment to Scotland, because leaving the leftist fishwife in charge doesn't look too smart.
Once the video was released, you had condemnation of the remarks from one side and after a little while a counter-attack (led by the likes of FOX News) which consisted of two strands - a) criticising whoever leaked the speech and b) asserting that Romney was right and had a valid argument. We're seeing the same thing here - the initial outrage was overdone - it was a classic case of "more in sorrow than anger" but given Freud's history I can see why Labour wanted to milk it for all they had.
Saying the unsayable (so to speak) isn't easy - it cost Sir Keith Joseph the Conservative leadership in 1974-5 (arguably) and has plagued the likes of Peter Lilley, Michael Portillo and others but if we've reached the point where the controversial can never be uttered, where does that leave political debate ?
I'm all for criticising the lazy speech, the assertion not supported by fact, the unwarranted generalisation (and it happens on here all the time) but a well-argued case for raising taxes or legalising drugs or restricting abortion time limits or abolishing the Monarchy (for examples) need and must be aired without a kneejerk response. There are those who cannot and will not be persuaded from established positions (and we see that on here a lot too) but there are many more who are genuinely open-minded.
Sometimes debate means putting forward an argument to which some will instinctively be repelled but if that argument is coherent and evidence-based, it surely has a right to be heard and considered.
Open door free migration is mandatory in the EU. I don't blame migrants from coming here one little bit, just as I don't blame British migrants going the other way. But what migrant labour does is suppress wages, and add to that globalisation where you can outsource jobs and and services to cheaper populaces (migration without actually needing migrants). Which is why wages have stagnated and CEOs now earn 129x average wages.
But where we don't help ourselves is that we price people out of the labour market. I remember one vivid example a few years ago where a government minister visited Merthyr Tydfil to bemoan local unemployment, pointing to jobs in Cardiff. That the jobs were shift based on minimum wage with no public transport available early or late, and that many of the unemployed had children where even if the childcare was available for shifts it would completely swallow the wages didn't seem to be understood. Want to combat tax credits, economic inactivity, migration all in one go? Massively subsidise childcare as they do in most civilised countries. Then you get less migrant labour, wages rise, you can cut tax credits.
Or, you can insist no one needs "government handouts", cut them up front, and wonder why your economy just crashed.
The change doesn't have to be overnight. You could convert the tax credits into non-refundable tax allowance over a period of time, by freezing the tax credits and balancing their inflation-devaluation with balanced increases in non-refundable tax allowances.
I believe the Consevativewoman.co.uk article however is principally advocating a marriage tax allowance, or a transferrable tax allowance (to support stay at home mums).
I agree with you about the low wages though. For this to work it would be better to first end the open door immigration policy of the current government, and relieve the downward pressure on wages.
I think we see the same dynamic now with UKIP. Leaving a party after a number of years is a wrench, not as bad as changing loyalty to a football team but close. Relatively small differences have become exaggerated and given wildly disproportionate importance. Sharp and bitter words will have been said.
There is more chance of most UKIP supporters wanting to support a minority Labour administration next time around than dealing with Cameron and his ilk. Its pure psychology.
My top-of-my-head thoughts:
Full list PR. Labour do a good deal worse than FPTP, the Tories a little worse and the Lib Dems, SNP and Plaid a little better. UKIP end up with 100+ MPs and the Greens and other minority parties poll higher than at present. Parliament ends up with a whole profusion of fringe parties with 1-10 MPs but there are still four main blocks. c.40-60 Greens
List PR operated regionally with a threshold. Zaps all the fringe parties but otherwise as above. With a high-ish threshold (say, 5%), the Greens may struggle in some regions. c.30-50 Greens
AMS. Depends on the size of the constituencies but if, as in Scotland, we're looking at 15-20 MPs per area (half FPTP, half top-up), then that would also impose a high enough threshold to hit parties polling sub-5%. This effect hit the Scottish Greens in 2011, who were consistently at the cusp of picking up regional seats and only ended up with 2 MSPs (i.e. 1.5% of the parliament) on 4.4% of the vote. c.20-30 Greens.
STV. Would need much smaller seats to be able to operate - probably 4-7 MPs per constituency. The higher threshold would not only hit the Greens very hard but would start to hit the Lib Dems widely too, and UKIP, Labour and the Tories more selectively. UKIP would particularly suffer from a lack of transfers with Labour probably gaining most due to other left-of-centre parties being eliminated. On current polling however, a Con-UKIP majority government would still be possible. c.10 Greens
Open lists in STV-sized constituencies (my preferred option). Similar to the above except that the effect of transfers would be eliminated. c.10 Greens.
Whatever system is used, PR would benefit the smaller parties but the specific choice would have a big impact on by how much each is assisted.
Farage doesn;t want a pact with Dave. He wants Dave's head on a platter.
When the realities of FPTP bite come the autumn they will be fading as a force. Protest groups never survive long, and UKIP are just a protest.
The "battle for the soul" of the Party is beginning. So much depends on next year - IF the core of the Parliamentary Party survives (and I reckon that's 40+) Nick Clegg could even carry on as leader (he's young enough). Realistically, I suspect Nick will resign soon after the election and the fun and games will begin. Tim Farron (who will probably survive) starts as the huge favourite to take over and the obvious challengers from the Orange Book side are either not standing or will have huge fights to survive.
I was musing the other day on whether Tom Brake might be a challenger - Ashcroft (and the 2014 locals) suggest the two Sutton seats could well be held and Tom has strong pro-EU and Green credentials. The idea of the Party leader representing a London constituency would be novel and one we ought to consider.
The concern for UKIP is - as the polling OGH showed yesterday - that there is tactical voting against them. But right now, I'd say that's a pretty small issue, so (were I asked to do a UKIP seats spread) I'd go 6-12. A big spread, but there's lots of uncertainty.
Longer-term, the big danger for UKIP is a referendum on EU membership. If the election is won by 'out', then I think the internal divisions in UKIP (between the libertarians and the authoritarians), make it hard for it to continue. While if it is 'in', then - as in Scotland - the country is unlikely to want another referendum for 20 years, and therefore the pitch needs to change.
The investments by Welcome Trust and others has transformed the City, the housing market, the shops, restaurants and the general feel of the place.
The SNP anti business (seeking to out compete Scottish Labour on this involves taking fairly radical positions) model is relatively new, it is not really John Swinney's cup of iron bru, but became increasingly prominent during the referendum. I think it is highly likely that Sturgeon will continue down this path.
UKIP are in the exact opposite space on almost all policy. They have more in common with just about every other party.
The next PM will most likely need to be able to draw from different minorities at different times to push through individual policy measures. Virtual PR.
All the time avoiding a no-confidence ambush.
Everyone gets a bit of what they want, but no one gets everything.
UKIP national vote share 17%, 166 seats won.
Lib Dems national vote share 13%, 427 seats won.
Spot the party with the genuinely concentrated support.
No doubt the jobs will be relocated offshore in a decade or two at most.
Astonishingly, the Scottish Civil Service:
......failed to draw up any risk assessment for a separate Scotland’s currency after the UK parties ruled out a formal deal to share the pound.
This is despite Mark Carney, the Bank of England governor, warning it would have to raise billions of pounds of reserves if it wanted to keep sterling without a formal currency union. Starting a new currency would also have created serious problems, including higher interest rates.
Martin Brooks, a Telegraph reader, tabled a Freedom of Information request for any risk analysis the Scottish Government conducted about “Plan B” currencies.
But the elections and constitutions division turned down the request on the basis that “the Scottish Government is not required to provide information it does not have.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11170481/Hundreds-of-Scottish-civil-servants-worked-on-plan-on-how-to-break-up-Britain.html
Closer to home, there's a (very) outside chance of a UKIP 'confidence-and-supply' arrangement for the Tories next year, if you believe Nigel Farage, and they promise an immediate EU referendum. Personally, I'm not convinced. Not least of which because I don't think his MPs will be decisive.
Much more likely: we get PR introduced for local government in the next parliament, as part of the price for a second Con-Lib Dem coalition (if the maths works.. I have my doubts) and without a referendum. The Tories might not mind (it allows them to rebuild in the north) and they could trade their budgets for it (IHT/40% tax cuts) + the EU referendum.
We could then see Tory-UKIP pacts in the north at a local authority level, which would allow the Right to potentially start running age-old Labour councils.
UKIP post 'in' is a tricky one. I think that depends on the size of their local government/Westminster base. Elected representatives are likely to think voters would be wise to re-elect them, and come up with reasons for them to do that.
Fortunately 'in' will lose. And the pro-EU voters will follow the example of the US loyalists, and emigrate to Canada!
[Once in Canada they will be converted to the good side: small government. :-) ]
I don't think however that more than a tiny minority would have considered supporting a minority Conservative administration led by Margaret Thatcher. Had it been a Howe or a Heseltine, that would have been very different.
I've only considered leaving the Party (I've been a member for over 30 years) on a couple of occasions and have never considered defecting. I just don't get that though I realise to have any chance of elected office you need a Party behind you so those who jump are by definition politically ambitious. I could imagine leaving the LDs and being non-aligned (as most people are in truth) but not just jumping into another Party.
It's worth noting (via Guido) that the UKIP candidate there has been deselected -
Apparently slightly mysteriously - internal party ructions of some sort.
http://www.yourthurrock.com/UKIP-candidate-Kerry-Smith-selected/story-23226874-detail/story.html
There's an interesting quote from him at the end
He said: "I am in the dark. However, we are all on notice that should a bigger candidate come into the picture, then we may have to stand aside."