politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If LAB find they need to go into coalition then it’s highly likely that they’ll have come 2nd on votes
Lots of talk at the moment about another hung parliament fueled partly by the hitherto unlikely “revelation” from Ed Balls that he’s respected all along the LD decision in May 2010 to go into coalition with the Tories.
The obvious response is to blame it on the voting system and promise to change it. But that's going to be hard to sell to Ed Miliband because his job will depend on the wonkiness of the voting system.
Maybe he should offer to change to PR, but only if there's a cross-party consensus. That makes it all the Tories' fault, assuming they're still trying to defend FPTP.
The LDs could claim that coalition with Labour would be more likely to deliver voting reform, having failed to do it with the tories? But anyway, do LD voters care (I guess the members do). Does it even register on the "Issues facing britain"?
The LDs could claim that coalition with Labour would be more likely to deliver voting reform, having failed to do it with the tories? But anyway, do LD voters care (I guess the members do). Does it even register on the "Issues facing britain"?
For the LibDems it would be a good opportunity to advertise the brokenness of FPTP. It may be obvious to us, but a lot of voters have no idea how loose the connection between votes and seats is, and they wouldn't like it if they did.
The extra twist here will be if UKIP come third, but get zero seats.
If Labour lost the election on points but won more seats and went into a weak coalition with the Liberals that had a majority of only 10 as indicated in the electoral calculus scenario above, it would be a legitimacy free short lived disaster for both parties (who would both be dependent upon their wilder backbenchers supporting every bill) and almost certainly result in another election a year later which neither party can afford.
As todays Guardian poll shows (lab 35 tories 32) , such a scenario is far from unthinkable though
Ah the joys of FPTP - no matter how silly a national result it throws up Tories have to defend it as the best system. What amuses me most about the system is that few seem to understand that we do not have a national election and that national vote or percentage tallies are irrelevant.
So here is the balance. First past the post doesn't accuratly (or at all much of the time) represent the views of the majority of voters, but usually delivers a majority government. Full PR delivers a representative result but pretty much guarantees coalitions. Personally as a democrat I want. STV in multi member constituencies but I'm not in the majority on the left of Labour never mind in the whole party r in the country.
Politically though it's simple. We have 650 unique and seperate simultaneously run elections. If Tories don't like the fact that their policies have made them lightly supported across large parts of the UK thus making national polls translate poorly into seats, they shouldn't defend the systems. As they and then complain of "bias" I assume they don't understand how it works. When this "bias" massively reduces the number of seats that UKIP wins I assume it won't be a problem for them....
The difficulty with Electoral Calculus are the LibDem numbers. Since Feb 74 their vote share has borne little correlation to bums on seats in the HoC.
Presently 14% with gold standard ICM and IMO likely to hit 16/18% they might score as low as 30 seats but possibly as high as 50 with their election strategy based on throwing the kitchen sink at 75 targets and letting the other 575 seats wither on the vine.
SuperEd now claiming he can save the middle classes. So if it's like the working class that's outsource your jobs, stick you on benefits and bring in a better class of immigran. You're saved !
"The foundations of middle-class life – well-paid jobs, strong pensions, the housing ladder and university education – have all been “undermined”, according to the Labour leader."
So basically he wants to reverse Labour's policies 1997-2010 where, wages stagnated, pensions were wrecked, houses became unaffordable and unis started charging.
If Labour lost the election on points but won more seats and went into a weak coalition with the Liberals that had a majority of only 10 as indicated in the electoral calculus scenario above, it would be a legitimacy free short lived disaster for both parties (who would both be dependent upon their wilder backbenchers supporting every bill) and almost certainly result in another election a year later which neither party can afford.
As todays Guardian poll shows (lab 35 tories 32) , such a scenario is far from unthinkable though
Why would such a coalition be less legitimate than a Tory majority built on 38% of the vote? FPTP stinks. But the Tories support it. Thus, they have to accept what it delivers.
The other thing that would undermine the legitimacy of such a government is that Labour and the Lib Dems conspired together to block the boundary reform to their considerable advantage. As usual they got a pretty much free pass for this gerrymandering at the time but it would be thrown into very sharp focus in the event of a result such as OGH contemplates. I think there would be a price to pay for that.
The other thing that would undermine the legitimacy of such a government is that Labour and the Lib Dems conspired together to block the boundary reform to their considerable advantage. As usual they got a pretty much free pass for this gerrymandering at the time but it would be thrown into very sharp focus in the event of a result such as OGH contemplates. I think there would be a price to pay for that.
There was no gerrymandering. FPTP delivered a result. The proposals were presented to Parliament and the Tories failed to make their case. This is the system your party supports. The Tories merely wanted to make it easier for themselves to secure a majority on much less than 50% of the vote. If legitimacy really were an issue, the Tories would be screaming to high heaven about the LDs getting less than 10% of the seats in the Commons on well over 20% of the votes.
The other thing that would undermine the legitimacy of such a government is that Labour and the Lib Dems conspired together to block the boundary reform to their considerable advantage. As usual they got a pretty much free pass for this gerrymandering at the time but it would be thrown into very sharp focus in the event of a result such as OGH contemplates. I think there would be a price to pay for that.
The voters won't care. They (rightly) believe all the parties are just looking out for themselves on these issues. If they just want to undo the Tory reform they can just say these things should only be done with an all-party consensus.
Other Lib-Lab angle: The Tories are too divided for a coalition majority of X to be stable. This isn't particularly fanciful: 90 of them just demanded that their Prime Minister blow up the position he'd carefully crafted to satisfy them on the EU.
"Years of underinvestment forced the Blair government to allocate large sums of money to the NHS, and the current government has had to ring-fence funding for this ailing institution.
"Despite all this, difficulties remain; the mid-Staffordshire, Morecambe Bay and Colchester scandals illustrate how widespread problems in the NHS are."
Francois boys attack the NHS and lots of other things in the UK.
@Alanbrooke Ed Says, on the prosperity of the Middle Class “The motors that once drove and sustained it are no longer firing as they used to. Access to further education and training, good quality jobs with reliable incomes, affordable housing, stable savings, secure pensions: they have all been undermined.”
Yes they bloody have all been undermined. By you and the Labour party from 1997 to 2010.
Other Lib-Lab angle: The Tories are too divided for a coalition majority of X to be stable. This isn't particularly fanciful: 90 of them just demanded that their Prime Minister blow up the position he'd carefully crafted to satisfy them on the EU.
No more fanciful than saying Labour is unstable since their MPs keep getting jailed.
I think issues of legitimacy are building up fast. To all those already mentioned must be added the greater saliency of the West Lothian question post a likely narrow, and thus not definitive, "No" win in Scotland, and continuing turmoil over a European referendum. What Jack W and others are underestimating IMV is how much this is helping UKIP ride disgust at the political establishment. I would be most surprised if UKIP did not both outpoll the LDs nationally in votes cast at the next GE and win a few seats, including off the LDs. This will create an explosive mix. I am fearful.
If Labour lost the election on points but won more seats and went into a weak coalition with the Liberals that had a majority of only 10 as indicated in the electoral calculus scenario above, it would be a legitimacy free short lived disaster for both parties (who would both be dependent upon their wilder backbenchers supporting every bill) and almost certainly result in another election a year later which neither party can afford.
As todays Guardian poll shows (lab 35 tories 32) , such a scenario is far from unthinkable though
Why would such a coalition be less legitimate than a Tory majority built on 38% of the vote? FPTP stinks. But the Tories support it. Thus, they have to accept what it delivers.
FPTP may or may not stink, nut Labour have hardly been in a hurry to get rid of it. Their 'no official position' position on AV was laughable.
Remember the Plant Commission? Or the Jenkins' commission? Labour did nothing: they make noises towards changing whilst out of power, but when in power do f'all.
It's an intellectually incoherent position.
The Lib Dems need congratulating for having got a voting change referendum put in front of the public. Sadly for them, it was rejected, and has put back the cause of voting change by a generation.
If Labour lost the election on points but won more seats and went into a weak coalition with the Liberals that had a majority of only 10 as indicated in the electoral calculus scenario above, it would be a legitimacy free short lived disaster for both parties (who would both be dependent upon their wilder backbenchers supporting every bill) and almost certainly result in another election a year later which neither party can afford.
As todays Guardian poll shows (lab 35 tories 32) , such a scenario is far from unthinkable though
Why would such a coalition be less legitimate than a Tory majority built on 38% of the vote? FPTP stinks. But the Tories support it. Thus, they have to accept what it delivers.
FPTP may or may not stink, nut Labour have hardly been in a hurry to get rid of it. Their 'no official position' position on AV was laughable.
Remember the Plant Commission? Or the Jenkins' commission? Labour did nothing: they make noises towards changing whilst out of power, but when in power do f'all.
It's an intellectually incoherent position.
The Lib Dems need congratulating for having got a voting change referendum put in front of the public. Sadly for them, it was rejected, and has put back the cause of voting change by a generation.
Indeed - we have the system we have. Labour is profoundly wrong not to want to see it changed. But then they, like the Tories, have a vested interest in it being maintained. As a result, Labour cannot complain about a majority Tory government on 38% of the vote and the Tories cannot complain about Labour winning most seats despite coming second in vote share. Talk of legitimacy, or lack of it, is ridiculous. As is our voting system.
I think issues of legitimacy are building up fast. To all those already mentioned must be added the greater saliency of the West Lothian question post a likely narrow, and thus not definitive, "No" win in Scotland, and continuing turmoil over a European referendum. What Jack W and others are underestimating IMV is how much this is helping UKIP ride disgust at the political establishment. I would be most surprised if UKIP did not both outpoll the LDs nationally in votes cast at the next GE and win a few seats, including off the LDs. This will create an explosive mix. I am fearful.
I'm unsure why Ukip should expect special treatment or why there will be an explosive mix should Ukip pick up a few seats and "No" win the referendum.
In the modern age constitutional issues rarely have the Brits taking to the barracades and whilst Liberals had to chew on their "Focus" leaflets for decades at the unfairness of FPTP they simply had to take the medicine and get on with it. So will Ukip.
SuperEd now claiming he can save the middle classes. So if it's like the working class that's outsource your jobs, stick you on benefits and bring in a better class of immigran. You're saved !
"The foundations of middle-class life – well-paid jobs, strong pensions, the housing ladder and university education – have all been “undermined”, according to the Labour leader."
So basically he wants to reverse Labour's policies 1997-2010 where, wages stagnated, pensions were wrecked, houses became unaffordable and unis started charging.
Yes they bloody have all been undermined. By you and the Labour party from 1997 to 2010.
The problem the Conservatives have is that their Cameroon leadership saw nothing wrong with these things whilst in opposition and judging by their policies see nothing wrong with these things now that they're in government.
What we have is government of the PPE, by the PPE and for the PPE.
The difference between Cameron and Miliband is that Miliband is the more determined fighter and doesn't suffer from Cameron's insecurity complex.
Have you ever heard the Conservatives pointing out that 'in January 2004, Gordon Brown appointed Miliband as Chairman of HM Treasury's Council of Economic Advisers as a replacement for Ed Balls, with specific responsibility for directing the UK's long-term economic planning' ?
"Years of underinvestment forced the Blair government to allocate large sums of money to the NHS, and the current government has had to ring-fence funding for this ailing institution.
"Despite all this, difficulties remain; the mid-Staffordshire, Morecambe Bay and Colchester scandals illustrate how widespread problems in the NHS are."
Francois boys attack the NHS and lots of other things in the UK.
If Labour lost the election on points but won more seats and went into a weak coalition with the Liberals that had a majority of only 10 as indicated in the electoral calculus scenario above, it would be a legitimacy free short lived disaster for both parties (who would both be dependent upon their wilder backbenchers supporting every bill) and almost certainly result in another election a year later which neither party can afford.
As todays Guardian poll shows (lab 35 tories 32) , such a scenario is far from unthinkable though
Why would such a coalition be less legitimate than a Tory majority built on 38% of the vote? FPTP stinks. But the Tories support it. Thus, they have to accept what it delivers.
FPTP may or may not stink, nut Labour have hardly been in a hurry to get rid of it. Their 'no official position' position on AV was laughable.
Remember the Plant Commission? Or the Jenkins' commission? Labour did nothing: they make noises towards changing whilst out of power, but when in power do f'all.
It's an intellectually incoherent position.
The Lib Dems need congratulating for having got a voting change referendum put in front of the public. Sadly for them, it was rejected, and has put back the cause of voting change by a generation.
Indeed - we have the system we have. Labour is profoundly wrong not to want to see it changed. But then they, like the Tories, have a vested interest in it being maintained. As a result, Labour cannot complain about a majority Tory government on 38% of the vote and the Tories cannot complain about Labour winning most seats despite coming second in vote share. Talk of legitimacy, or lack of it, is ridiculous. As is our voting system.
There is no such thing as a perfect voting system. Every system has advantages and disadvantages depending on your viewpoint, and can be seen as ridiculous. It's a case of picking the least-worst system, and again that depends on your viewpoint.
This is irrelevant for this discussion, but personally I have two things I want from any changes system: 1) To be able to choose a candidate, as we do at the moment, and not a party; 2) Any new system should give political parties less power, not more.
JosiasJessop [7.49am] I don't see why the LibDems should be congratulated for getting the wrong referendum. I have never seen anyone defend AV (the Australian system IIRC). I think the Aussies use it as a quid pro quo for compulsory voting.
What Clegg should have done was to get a Bill allowing councils to change their voting system, after a local referendum, to whatever they liked. Then we could all have measured the performance of councils elected by PR (of whatever form) with those elected by FPTP. As things stand, we can be sure of only two things:-
(1) this debate is all heat and no light; (2) Clegg's undoubted achievement in this Parliament has been to stop Cameron abolishing the list seas in the Greater London Assembly.
This is before we get to the problem of low turn-out in referenda and legitimacy.
Yes they bloody have all been undermined. By you and the Labour party from 1997 to 2010.
The problem the Conservatives have is that their Cameroon leadership saw nothing wrong with these things whilst in opposition and judging by their policies see nothing wrong with these things now that they're in government.
What we have is government of the PPE, by the PPE and for the PPE.
The difference between Cameron and Miliband is that Miliband is the more determined fighter and doesn't suffer from Cameron's insecurity complex.
Have you ever heard the Conservatives pointing out that 'in January 2004, Gordon Brown appointed Miliband as Chairman of HM Treasury's Council of Economic Advisers as a replacement for Ed Balls, with specific responsibility for directing the UK's long-term economic planning' ?
Cameronism is simply Brownism in second gear. That said Miliband is Brownism in fifth.
"Years of underinvestment forced the Blair government to allocate large sums of money to the NHS, and the current government has had to ring-fence funding for this ailing institution.
"Despite all this, difficulties remain; the mid-Staffordshire, Morecambe Bay and Colchester scandals illustrate how widespread problems in the NHS are."
Francois boys attack the NHS and lots of other things in the UK.
It seems increasingly likely to me that the GE 2015 result will be reasonably close in terms of votes and seats. Pretty sure Ed M has the better chance of becoming PM. Albeit a very weak one with Hollandaise French ambitions.
Jack W. I feel the national mood has become much more brittle since Lehman. Hostility to London, and all it represents, culturally as well as politically and economically has become much more potent. English nationalism is a real force which the three main parties all find very hard to handle. It is this that explains much of UKIP's rise, which is clearly quite without any recent historical parallel. Of course these are merely my views based on following UKIP closely, but I would be intrigued to hear your explanation for their success, and the wider reasons why you think the emotions they are riding can be safely ignored.
"Years of underinvestment forced the Blair government to allocate large sums of money to the NHS, and the current government has had to ring-fence funding for this ailing institution.
"Despite all this, difficulties remain; the mid-Staffordshire, Morecambe Bay and Colchester scandals illustrate how widespread problems in the NHS are."
Francois boys attack the NHS and lots of other things in the UK.
Good morning all. If Labour wins the largest number of seats, Labour wins the election, with or without a majority. In football terms, its the team with the largest number of points which wins the league, even if another team has a much superior goal difference!
As for OGH's inference of LibDem indefatigability, utter nonsense. If the LibDems poll below 15% we will see them revert to where they belong, pre 1979 holding a dozen or so seats around the celtic fringes of the country. At the rate they are retiring there will hardly be any left to defend the seats they won in 2010.
If Labour lost the election on points but won more seats and went into a weak coalition with the Liberals that had a majority of only 10 as indicated in the electoral calculus scenario above, it would be a legitimacy free short lived disaster for both parties (who would both be dependent upon their wilder backbenchers supporting every bill) and almost certainly result in another election a year later which neither party can afford.
As todays Guardian poll shows (lab 35 tories 32) , such a scenario is far from unthinkable though
Why would such a coalition be less legitimate than a Tory majority built on 38% of the vote? FPTP stinks. But the Tories support it. Thus, they have to accept what it delivers.
FPTP may or may not stink, nut Labour have hardly been in a hurry to get rid of it. Their 'no official position' position on AV was laughable.
Remember the Plant Commission? Or the Jenkins' commission? Labour did nothing: they make noises towards changing whilst out of power, but when in power do f'all.
It's an intellectually incoherent position.
The Lib Dems need congratulating for having got a voting change referendum put in front of the public. Sadly for them, it was rejected, and has put back the cause of voting change by a generation.
Indeed - we have the system we have. Labour is profoundly wrong not to want to see it changed. But then they, like the Tories, have a vested interest in it being maintained. As a result, Labour cannot complain about a majority Tory government on 38% of the vote and the Tories cannot complain about Labour winning most seats despite coming second in vote share. Talk of legitimacy, or lack of it, is ridiculous. As is our voting system.
There is no such thing as a perfect voting system. Every system has advantages and disadvantages depending on your viewpoint, and can be seen as ridiculous. It's a case of picking the least-worst system, and again that depends on your viewpoint.
This is irrelevant for this discussion, but personally I have two things I want from any changes system: 1) To be able to choose a candidate, as we do at the moment, and not a party; 2) Any new system should give political parties less power, not more.
But that's just me. Others obviously differ.
I agree with the last two lines in many respects. Not only will a PR system alter the way politics is conducted but the Commons Chamber will have to be physically reconstructed to do away with the 2 swords gap of our present adversorial system.
Ah the joys of FPTP - no matter how silly a national result it throws up Tories have to defend it as the best system. What amuses me most about the system is that few seem to understand that we do not have a national election and that national vote or percentage tallies are irrelevant.
So here is the balance. First past the post doesn't accuratly (or at all much of the time) represent the views of the majority of voters, but usually delivers a majority government. Full PR delivers a representative result but pretty much guarantees coalitions. Personally as a democrat I want. STV in multi member constituencies but I'm not in the majority on the left of Labour never mind in the whole party r in the country.
Politically though it's simple. We have 650 unique and seperate simultaneously run elections. If Tories don't like the fact that their policies have made them lightly supported across large parts of the UK thus making national polls translate poorly into seats, they shouldn't defend the systems. As they and then complain of "bias" I assume they don't understand how it works. When this "bias" massively reduces the number of seats that UKIP wins I assume it won't be a problem for them....
Indeed. There is no point complaining about marginal bias in a system which is heavily biased to the two big parties. I doubt the system will ever change - like so many things that exercise our minds, the public don't understand it, never mind care.
FPTP may or may not stink, nut Labour have hardly been in a hurry to get rid of it. Their 'no official position' position on AV was laughable.
Remember the Plant Commission? Or the Jenkins' commission? Labour did nothing: they make noises towards changing whilst out of power, but when in power do f'all.
It's an intellectually incoherent position.
The Lib Dems need congratulating for having got a voting change referendum put in front of the public. Sadly for them, it was rejected, and has put back the cause of voting change by a generation.
Indeed - we have the system we have. Labour is profoundly wrong not to want to see it changed. But then they, like the Tories, have a vested interest in it being maintained. As a result, Labour cannot complain about a majority Tory government on 38% of the vote and the Tories cannot complain about Labour winning most seats despite coming second in vote share. Talk of legitimacy, or lack of it, is ridiculous. As is our voting system.
There is no such thing as a perfect voting system. Every system has advantages and disadvantages depending on your viewpoint, and can be seen as ridiculous. It's a case of picking the least-worst system, and again that depends on your viewpoint.
This is irrelevant for this discussion, but personally I have two things I want from any changes system: 1) To be able to choose a candidate, as we do at the moment, and not a party; 2) Any new system should give political parties less power, not more.
But that's just me. Others obviously differ.
I agree with the last two lines in many respects. Not only will a PR system alter the way politics is conducted but the Commons Chamber will have to be physically reconstructed to do away with the 2 swords gap of our present adversorial system.
Hmmm. Is PR any less adversarial?
Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons: I forgot to add compulsory voting, as long as there were 'none of the above' and 'I do not agree with this system' boxes.
In fact, 'I do not agree with this system' might be useful at the bottom of current ballot papers. If enough (say 33%) of papers are so marked, it will trigger a referendum on voting systems. And next time, one with more than just two options.
While I hate to derail a thread on voting reform (even though I agree - I said after the AV vote that it would take a 'wrong' GE result to put voting systems back on the agenda) has anyone else read this landmark Miliband article in the Telegraph? The crusader against a crisis of confidence in our middle classes? Can anyone spot the strategy here as it reads as total BS from start to finish to me. What am I missing?
The House of Commons has far too many members. It should be reduced not to 600 but 500 MPs or even 400. The Scottish system of FPTP constituency MSPs plus 8 regional top-up MSPs elected by PR works quite well. We just have far too many of them. Scotland is vastly over-governed.
In England it would ensure decent Tory representation in the north and decent Labour representation in the south. It would also enable the Greens, LibDems, UKIP, BNP, George Galloway bunch and other minority groups also get a reasonable representation from those English regions where they are strong.
Jack W. I feel the national mood has become much more brittle since Lehman. Hostility to London, and all it represents, culturally as well as politically and economically has become much more potent. English nationalism is a real force which the three main parties all find very hard to handle. It is this that explains much of UKIP's rise, which is clearly quite without any recent historical parallel. Of course these are merely my views based on following UKIP closely, but I would be intrigued to hear your explanation for their success, and the wider reasons why you think the emotions they are riding can be safely ignored.
Ukip's rise has much to do with public anger at the main parties and with the LibDems in government the traditional outlet isn't available. To some extent it reminds of the period leading up to the Feb 74 election with much talk of the Liberals as the third force and indeed they scored well in vote share but failed in seats.
However in the final analysis four factors will undermine Ukip.
1. Far greater scrutiny as the GE looms 2. The much improving economy 3. The prospect of a Miliband government. 4. The unforgiving nature of FPTP.
SuperEd now claiming he can save the middle classes. So if it's like the working class that's outsource your jobs, stick you on benefits and bring in a better class of immigran. You're saved !
"The foundations of middle-class life – well-paid jobs, strong pensions, the housing ladder and university education – have all been “undermined”, according to the Labour leader."
So basically he wants to reverse Labour's policies 1997-2010 where, wages stagnated, pensions were wrecked, houses became unaffordable and unis started charging.
You can't have regular votes on voting systems (or separation, for that matter). The decision has to stand until and unless something significant changes. The despicable EU habit of repeatedly asking a question until the 'right' answer emerges is not a tactic that we should adopt.
@JosiasJessop "In fact, 'I do not agree with this system' might be useful at the bottom of current ballot papers. If enough (say 33%) of papers are so marked, it will trigger a referendum on voting systems. And next time, one with more than just two options."
If we have more than just two options, what voting system should we use to pick the next voting system?
@JosiasJessop "In fact, 'I do not agree with this system' might be useful at the bottom of current ballot papers. If enough (say 33%) of papers are so marked, it will trigger a referendum on voting systems. And next time, one with more than just two options."
If we have more than just two options, what voting system should we use to pick the next voting system?
FPTP works well for the Conservatives. It gives them a share of seats that far exceeds their national vote (47% of seats on 36% of the vote). It also means they don't have to share power with other right-wing parties. Cameron would hate to have to appoint Farage to the Cabinet, or negotiate a confidence and supply arrangement with him.
The House of Commons has far too many members. It should be reduced not to 600 but 500 MPs or even 400. The Scottish system of FPTP constituency MSPs plus 8 regional top-up MSPs elected by PR works quite well. We just have far too many of them. Scotland is vastly over-governed.
In England it would ensure decent Tory representation in the north and decent Labour representation in the south. It would also enable the Greens, LibDems, UKIP, BNP, George Galloway bunch and other minority groups also get a reasonable representation from those English regions where they are strong.
I agree. The Scottish version of AMS is a decent system of PR - retaining good constituency links but with a high degree of proportionality and also without the dreaded and horrible months long insomnia of STV to which all proponents should be racked and subjected to the iron maiden !!
Okay. I haven't mentioned the dreaded 'HS2' word for two weeks now. As you can imagine, I'm perspiring and panting from the sheer effort of keeping quiet about this brilliant opportunity for Britain ...
FPTP works well for the Conservatives. It gives them a share of seats that far exceeds their national vote (47% of seats on 36% of the vote). It also means they don't have to share power with other right-wing parties. Cameron would hate to have to appoint Farage to the Cabinet, or negotiate a confidence and supply arrangement with him.
It simply works even better for Labour.
What's your considered projection for Ukip vote share/seats at the GE ?
Jack W. I feel the national mood has become much more brittle since Lehman. Hostility to London, and all it represents, culturally as well as politically and economically has become much more potent. English nationalism is a real force which the three main parties all find very hard to handle. It is this that explains much of UKIP's rise, which is clearly quite without any recent historical parallel. Of course these are merely my views based on following UKIP closely, but I would be intrigued to hear your explanation for their success, and the wider reasons why you think the emotions they are riding can be safely ignored.
Ukip's rise has much to do with public anger at the main parties and with the LibDems in government the traditional outlet isn't available. To some extent it reminds of the period leading up to the Feb 74 election with much talk of the Liberals as the third force and indeed they scored well in vote share but failed in seats.
However in the final analysis four factors will undermine Ukip.
1. Far greater scrutiny as the GE looms 2. The much improving economy 3. The prospect of a Miliband government. 4. The unforgiving nature of FPTP.
1. Far greater scrutiny as the GE looms 2. The much improving economy 3. The prospect of a Miliband government. 4. The unforgiving nature of FPTP.
As they say over at CiF - fixed it for you.
Are you serious? UKIP is a NOTA party. Great to give the incumbents (and the opposition) a bloody nose but the joke stops in May 2015.
On topic - FPTP is simple to understand and fits well the public's appetite and attention span. By all means let the specialists (political parties, etc) use PR but for the masses, FPTP is at our level. Hence we aren't going to vote to change it no matter how ludicrous it might be as illustrated by equations and spreadsheets.
Okay. I haven't mentioned the dreaded 'HS2' word for two weeks now. As you can imagine, I'm perspiring and panting from the sheer effort of keeping quiet about this brilliant opportunity for Britain ...
Jack W I do not really see the parallel with Feb 74. The issues today, Scotland, Europe, globalisation, are so different from the cohesion of national debate ultimately fostered by the Cold War. Of course there is much in your four points. However, 1. Scrutiny damages UKIP only marginally. Farage was able to campaign successfully in Buckingham against expenses sleaze despite having 3 MEPs either in, or on their way to jail. This Teflon character persists, because they are the vehicle of protest. 2. The improving economy helps London more than the rest of the country. The UKs problem is that the money is made in London, the votes are elsewhere. 3. Many kippers see no real difference between Cameron and Milliband. This opinion is widely shared even outside UKIP. 4. FPTP's unforgiving nature will help UKIPs vote share in the North, where they will mop up Tory and LD, BNP etc remnants. It will not stop them winning a few seats (Eastleigh?) Being generally a lot angrier than most LDs over the years, it will all incite them more, even without the added fuel of calls for a European referendum.
Okay. I haven't mentioned the dreaded 'HS2' word for two weeks now. As you can imagine, I'm perspiring and panting from the sheer effort of keeping quiet about this brilliant opportunity for Britain ...
With the Wythenshaw and Sale East byelection coming up, I wonder whether HS2 will make an appearance in the campaign. The Manchester Airport station is beside the constituency so there should be some local interest.
In the 50's, 60's and 70's the Tory seat share consistently exceeded their vote share. The classic example was 1951 when Labour lost power despite winning almost 50% of the votes cast. I'd accept though, that Labour were losing experienced ministers through age and the effects of six years in office ....... eleven for those of them who had been Coalition ministers.
Jack W. I feel the national mood has become much more brittle since Lehman. Hostility to London, and all it represents, culturally as well as politically and economically has become much more potent. English nationalism is a real force which the three main parties all find very hard to handle. It is this that explains much of UKIP's rise, which is clearly quite without any recent historical parallel. Of course these are merely my views based on following UKIP closely, but I would be intrigued to hear your explanation for their success, and the wider reasons why you think the emotions they are riding can be safely ignored.
Ukip's rise has much to do with public anger at the main parties and with the LibDems in government the traditional outlet isn't available. To some extent it reminds of the period leading up to the Feb 74 election with much talk of the Liberals as the third force and indeed they scored well in vote share but failed in seats.
However in the final analysis four factors will undermine Ukip.
1. Far greater scrutiny as the GE looms 2. The much improving economy 3. The prospect of a Miliband government. 4. The unforgiving nature of FPTP.
1. Far greater scrutiny as the GE looms 2. The much improving economy 3. The prospect of a Miliband government. 4. The unforgiving nature of FPTP.
As they say over at CiF - fixed it for you.
Are you serious? UKIP is a NOTA party. Great to give the incumbents (and the opposition) a bloody nose but the joke stops in May 2015.
On topic - FPTP is simple to understand and fits well the public's appetite and attention span. By all means let the specialists (political parties, etc) use PR but for the masses, FPTP is at our level. Hence we aren't going to vote to change it no matter how ludicrous it might be as illustrated by equations and spreadsheets.
You forget that at one point both the SNP and LibDems were NOTA parties and look what happened to them.
FPTP works well for the Conservatives. It gives them a share of seats that far exceeds their national vote (47% of seats on 36% of the vote). It also means they don't have to share power with other right-wing parties. Cameron would hate to have to appoint Farage to the Cabinet, or negotiate a confidence and supply arrangement with him.
It simply works even better for Labour.
What's your considered projection for Ukip vote share/seats at the GE ?
Okay. I haven't mentioned the dreaded 'HS2' word for two weeks now. As you can imagine, I'm perspiring and panting from the sheer effort of keeping quiet about this brilliant opportunity for Britain ...
The expansion of China's road and rail networks will be seen in a hundred years time in the same way that the trans-continental railroad in the 1860 is now, or the interstate network a century later. Massive projects that opened up a country.
Jack W. I feel the national mood has become much more brittle since Lehman. Hostility to London, and all it represents, culturally as well as politically and economut I would be intrigued to hear your explanation for their success, and the wider reasons why you think the emotions they are riding can be safely ignored.
Ukip's rise has much to do with public anger at the main parties and with the LibDems in government the traditional outlet isn't available. To some extent it reminds of the period leading up to the Feb 74 election with much talk of the Liberals as the third force and indeed they scored well in vote share but failed in seats.
However in the final analysis four factors will undermine Ukip.
1. Far greater scrutiny as the GE looms 2. The much improving economy 3. The prospect of a Miliband government. 4. The unforgiving nature of FPTP.
1. Far greater scrutiny as the GE looms 2. The much improving economy 3. The prospect of a Miliband government. 4. The unforgiving nature of FPTP.
As they say over at CiF - fixed it for you.
Are you serious? UKIP is a NOTA party. Great to give the incumbents (and the opposition) a bloody nose but the joke stops in May 2015.
On topic - FPTP is simple to understand and fits well the public's appetite and attention span. By all means let the specialists (political parties, etc) use PR but for the masses, FPTP is at our level. Hence we aren't going to vote to change it no matter how ludicrous it might be as illustrated by equations and spreadsheets.
You forget that at one point both the SNP and LibDems were NOTA parties and look what happened to them.
Absolutely they have to start from somewhere and hence I left your "greater scrutiny" point. The LDs in particular have, over the many many years, developed some kind of coherent narrative (ie extreme left fantasy) so that when they were presented with the opportunity to form a government there was at least a position to start from (even if the movement away from that position alienated many of their supporters).
UKIP has emerged in a very specific not to say unique set of circumstances where there has been a global crisis with far-reaching effects intruding into our daily lives. It has been a perfect storm of protest where just to protest qualifies as a protest party. It was not like that for the LDs (or SNP) and it is for that reason that I believe that UKIP support will dissolve rather than gain momentum and solidify.
The House of Commons has far too many members. It should be reduced not to 600 but 500 MPs or even 400. The Scottish system of FPTP constituency MSPs plus 8 regional top-up MSPs elected by PR works quite well. In England it would ensure decent Tory representation in the north and decent Labour representation in the south. It would also enable the Greens, LibDems, UKIP, BNP, George Galloway bunch and other minority groups also get a reasonable representation from those English regions where they are strong.
Interesting idea for a 2015 coalition deal.
The Conservatives get redrawn boundaries. The LibDems get PR, of sorts. Because both parties are happy you may not even need a referendum.
If the LibDems could choose to form a government with either Con or Lab, and Cameron offered Clegg this, could he refuse?
The kippers are almost certainly going to drop after the EU elections and before the GE in 2015. Just like they did after the May local elections last year.
The point being the trends show it won't be to anywhere near the 3.1% the Cameroons desperately need. Hence the tory Eurosceptics starting to run around like headless chickens on Europe already.
Doing well in local elections while maintaining a stubbornly high VI for years makes this very different from the one issue EU elections surge the kippers use to get.
Mr. Topping, Machiavelli suggested that princes who rise to power rapidly lose it just as swiftly, whereas those who gain it slowly and through great effort are likelier to hold onto it.
Mr. Capitano, you can't change the voting system without a referendum. It may be legally possible, but it would be reprehensible and indefensible.
Jack W I do not really see the parallel with Feb 74. The issues today, Scotland, Europe, globalisation, are so different from the cohesion of national debate ultimately fostered by the Cold War. Of course there is much in your four points. However, 1. Scrutiny damages UKIP only marginally. Farage was able to campaign successfully in Buckingham against expenses sleaze despite having 3 MEPs either in, or on their way to jail. This Teflon character persists, because they are the vehicle of protest. 2. The improving economy helps London more than the rest of the country. The UKs problem is that the money is made in London, the votes are elsewhere. 3. Many kippers see no real difference between Cameron and Milliband. This opinion is widely shared even outside UKIP. 4. FPTP's unforgiving nature will help UKIPs vote share in the North, where they will mop up Tory and LD, BNP etc remnants. It will not stop them winning a few seats (Eastleigh?) Being generally a lot angrier than most LDs over the years, it will all incite them more, even without the added fuel of calls for a European referendum.
Taking your rebuttal points in turn :
1. The limited constituency scrutiny that Farage met in Buckinham will be as nothing compared to what is coming after the Euro Elections. Think Daily Mail Nazi claims against Clegg last time and multiply it significantly over several months.
2. It's certainly the case that aspects of the recovery are London led, especially the housing market but unemployment is falling almost nationwide and voter recognition of better times ahead are not only London led as the polls indicate.
3. Again the polls indicate presently that 30% of Ukippers will move back to the Conservatives at the prospect of a Miliband government. I expect that number to increase through the election campaign as voters fully turn their minds to electing a government and not a protest vote.
4. I admire your optimism over FPTP but it really is a most unforgiving mistress. Look at the second places the Alliance racked up in 1983 and 25% of the vote secured them only 23 seats, the vast majority of which were incumbent MP's. Ukip have a vast mountain to climb to obtain a couple of seats. They may not even achieve that and yet secure 12/14% of the vote.
The kippers are almost certainly going to drop after the EU elections and before the GE in 2015. Just like they did after the May local elections last year. Doing will in local elections and with a stubbornly high VI makes this very different from the one issue EU elections surge the kippers use to get
The point being the trends show it won't be to anywhere near the 3.1% the Cameroons desperately need. Hence the tory Eurosceptics starting to run around like headless chickens on Europe already.
Have faith Mick. The British public will see sense. Of course there will remain 3-5% of them who would prefer to cut their noses to spite their faces or, as per @JackW are playing the long game but no more, probably less.
FPTP works well for the Conservatives. It gives them a share of seats that far exceeds their national vote (47% of seats on 36% of the vote). It also means they don't have to share power with other right-wing parties. Cameron would hate to have to appoint Farage to the Cabinet, or negotiate a confidence and supply arrangement with him.
It simply works even better for Labour.
What's your considered projection for Ukip vote share/seats at the GE ?
Okay. I haven't mentioned the dreaded 'HS2' word for two weeks now. As you can imagine, I'm perspiring and panting from the sheer effort of keeping quiet about this brilliant opportunity for Britain ...
The expansion of China's road and rail networks will be seen in a hundred years time in the same way that the trans-continental railroad in the 1860 is now, or the interstate network a century later. Massive projects that opened up a country.
Except CHina are doing both at the same time.
If you have the time try and watch the report. Quite sobering on many levels.
The kippers are almost certainly going to drop after the EU elections and before the GE in 2015. Just like they did after the May local elections last year. Doing will in local elections and with a stubbornly high VI makes this very different from the one issue EU elections surge the kippers use to get
The point being the trends show it won't be to anywhere near the 3.1% the Cameroons desperately need. Hence the tory Eurosceptics starting to run around like headless chickens on Europe already.
Have faith Mick. The British public will see sense. Of course there will remain 3-5% of them who would prefer to cut their noses to spite their faces or, as per @JackW are playing the long game but no more, probably less.
That would be the 3-5% Cameron toggled between ignoring or insulting ? Why would you vote for someone who belittles your views ?
I think we should recall that Farage came third in Bucks in 2010. I'd also be interested if someone's worked out which seats the Tories would have won in 2010 if it hadn't been for the Kippers. The three quoted in the Torygraph wouldn't have made that much difference.
Jack W. I feel the national mood has become much more brittle since Lehman. Hostility to London, and all it represents, culturally as well as politically and economut I would be intrigued to hear your explanation for their success, and the wider reasons why you think the emotions they are riding can be safely ignored.
Ukip's rise has much to do with public anger at the main parties and with the LibDems in government the traditional outlet isn't available. To some extent it reminds of the period leading up to the Feb 74 election with much talk of the Liberals as the third force and indeed they scored well in vote share but failed in seats.
1. Far greater scrutiny as the GE looms 2. The much improving economy 3. The prospect of a Miliband government. 4. The unforgiving nature of FPTP.
As they say over at CiF - fixed it for you.
Are you serious? UKIP is a NOTA party. Great to give the incumbents (and the opposition) a bloody nose but the joke stops in May 2015.
On topic - FPTP is simple to understand and fits well the public's appetite and attention span. By all means let the specialists (political parties, etc) use PR but for the masses, FPTP is at our level. Hence we aren't going to vote to change it no matter how ludicrous it might be as illustrated by equations and spreadsheets.
You forget that at one point both the SNP and LibDems were NOTA parties and look what happened to them.
Absolutely they have to start from somewhere and hence I left your "greater scrutiny" point. The LDs in particular have, over the many many years, developed some kind of coherent narrative (ie extreme left fantasy) so that when they were presented with the opportunity to form a government there was at least a position to start from (even if the movement away from that position alienated many of their supporters).
UKIP has emerged in a very specific not to say unique set of circumstances where there has been a global crisis with far-reaching effects intruding into our daily lives. It has been a perfect storm of protest where just to protest qualifies as a protest party. It was not like that for the LDs (or SNP) and it is for that reason that I believe that UKIP support will dissolve rather than gain momentum and solidify.
Globalisation won't be going away. So long as globalisation generates social changes that people dislike, causes some people to lose out financially, makes people worry for their childrens' future, transfers power from national to supranational institutions, there will be a big constituency for UKIP.
The kippers are almost certainly going to drop after the EU elections and before the GE in 2015. Just like they did after the May local elections last year. Doing will in local elections and with a stubbornly high VI makes this very different from the one issue EU elections surge the kippers use to get
The point being the trends show it won't be to anywhere near the 3.1% the Cameroons desperately need. Hence the tory Eurosceptics starting to run around like headless chickens on Europe already.
Have faith Mick. The British public will see sense. Of course there will remain 3-5% of them who would prefer to cut their noses to spite their faces or, as per @JackW are playing the long game but no more, probably less.
That would be the 3-5% Cameron toggled between ignoring or insulting ? Why would you vote for someone who belittles your views ?
the 3-5% are lost forever. No one is trying to get them back. As for the Cam toggle, well it sort of shakes some sense into them. It's all very well flirting at being a rebel but a slap around the face with a cold fish will make many see sense.
Of course there will remain 3-5% of them who would prefer to cut their noses to spite their faces or, as per @JackW are playing the long game but no more, probably less.
Precisely what is going to drive them down to that 3-5% level? Wishful thinking?
I'll say it again, look at the kipper drop after the May local elections. It was a substantial one but it stopped, and that was after the Bloom idiocy and a less than good few months of kipper headlines. The mistake you and the Cameroons are making is thinking that you can just sit back and watch a protest party gather strength and do well in local elections and by-elections but for their base level of VI to somehow remain just as low as it was four years ago.
Every day with a high kipper VI in the polls (usually higher than the lib dems despite no prompt) and every election where the kippers do well moves that base higher, not by a vast amount of course, but by more than enough to make a repeat of that 3.1% in 2015 look like a forlorn pipe dream.
The most predicted moves in voting most people think will happen in 2015 are that the lib dems will go up from where they are and the kippers will go down. I agree with that but the question is by how much for each of them because massive surges or massive crashes in VI just don't happen by themselves. Drops and rises yes, huge movement, no.
The point being the trends show it won't be to anywhere near the 3.1% the Cameroons desperately need. Hence the tory Eurosceptics starting to run around like headless chickens on Europe already.
Have faith Mickg the long game but no more, probably less.
That would be the 3-5% Cameron toggled between ignoring or insulting ? Why would you vote for someone who belittles your views ?
the 3-5% are lost forever. No one is trying to get them back. As for the Cam toggle, well it sort of shakes some sense into them. It's all very well flirting at being a rebel but a slap around the face with a cold fish will make many see sense.
That's simply why Cameron won't win. There was no point in insulting people it gained him nothing and alienated more people than it convinced. As for the SE Tory view of "well they'll have to come back" that's precisely what convinced me not to vote for him ( thx R Nabavi ). It's pointless berating Labourites for voting like sheep and then doing the same yourself. The Tories won't win a majority because they don't have enough attractive policies, Cameron can't manage a broad church and they have written off large chunks of the countrty. On current performance they deserve not to win.
The ONS House Price Index for November falls by 0.1%, from 5.5% annual rate of growth to October to 5.4% annual rate to November.
Growth becomes more even across country. The year-on-year increase reflected growth of 5.6% in England, 5.4% in Wales, 2.5% in Scotland and 3.3% in Northern Ireland.
In the regions of England: London (11.6%), the South East (4.5%) and the West Midlands (4.4%), all regions except South East and London (3.1%).
Prices for first time buyers up 6.4% in November compared with 5.1% for owner-occupiers.
Sean F rightly said that globalisation won't be going away. The problem for governments is how to deal with it, and especially how to react to companies like Amazon or Google which have a bigger turnover than many countries have GDP's. It's easy to wish things were as they were once upon a time, but once upon a time isn't going to come back. I'd love to be able to be 21 again, especially if I could know what I know now, but it ain't going to happen!
I think the penny is beginning to drop amongst the commentariat that an unstable outcome is quite likely in 2015. The financial markets remain almost entirely blissfully unaware of the political risk, but that's mainly because they are focused on 2014 which looks set to be a good year for the UK economy. I expect that the markets will begin to consider the risk towards the end of the year, although in a couple of sectors (particularly energy of course, but also housebuilding) analysts, fund managers and financial journalists are already beginning to sound warnings. So far, though, that has been more about Ed Miliband's naivety than the prospect of no stable government:
"Years of underinvestment forced the Blair government to allocate large sums of money to the NHS, and the current government has had to ring-fence funding for this ailing institution.
"Despite all this, difficulties remain; the mid-Staffordshire, Morecambe Bay and Colchester scandals illustrate how widespread problems in the NHS are."
Francois boys attack the NHS and lots of other things in the UK.
On the issue of healthcare, they're right, aren't they? The French system is certainly one of the very best in the worlds, whereas the NHS is decidedly mediocre. Jeremy Hunt's response is a joke - it's a weird British quirk that we kneejerk defend the NHS and stick our heads in the sand if anyone says otherwise. We should move to a more French system, including more private players.
FPTP works well for the Conservatives. It gives them a share of seats that far exceeds their national vote (47% of seats on 36% of the vote). It also means they don't have to share power with other right-wing parties. Cameron would hate to have to appoint Farage to the Cabinet, or negotiate a confidence and supply arrangement with him.
It simply works even better for Labour.
What's your considered projection for Ukip vote share/seats at the GE ?
BTW - Are you still in Luton South ?
6-8%. 1-3 seats. I'm still in Luton South.
Thanks. Don't suppose you're willing to share which 3 seats? ;-)
The Tories won't win a majority because they don't have enough attractive policies, Cameron can't manage a broad church and they have written off large chunks of the countrty. On current performance they deserve not to win.
That's a very twisted way of looking at things. The choice of government is not some kind of school prize, to be awarded on merit or to encourage effort.
The issue isn't which party 'deserves' to win, it's which is the best government out of those of offer. It would be perverse indeed if we end up back with Labour; of course, voters are perverse.
Based on his past record, Cameron's best bet is probably to make any old pledge and wait and see whether he can keep it later. But a mere referendum promise will no longer do. His party does not trust him. It wants to know the shape of the renegotiation package – with veto rights – or he is in trouble.
We already know that tory Eurosceptics want far more red meat/detail and with the very real prospect of five more months of them playing games and forcing Cammie and Hague to reveal what they won't consider, something will have to give.
FPTP works well for the Conservatives. It gives them a share of seats that far exceeds their national vote (47% of seats on 36% of the vote). It also means they don't have to share power with other right-wing parties. Cameron would hate to have to appoint Farage to the Cabinet, or negotiate a confidence and supply arrangement with him.
It simply works even better for Labour.
What's your considered projection for Ukip vote share/seats at the GE ?
BTW - Are you still in Luton South ?
6-8%. 1-3 seats. I'm still in Luton South.
Thanks. Don't suppose you're willing to share which 3 seats? ;-)
I don't know what his are, but I reckon UKIP will do similarly and the 3 are Eastleigh, Farage's Seat and One Lucky Seat from the Top 10 Seats he Might Run In (See PP's market).
A few random thoughts from me this morning - four second places at Plumpton yesterday. It's a long slog up that hill in the mud when your fancy isn't going to get there !!
AFAIK, the LD policy, in the event of an election producing NOM, is still to talk to the Party with the largest number of votes rather than seats so in OGH's scenario, the Conservatives would be the first stop but as I've said before, I'm far from convinced either the Conservatives or Labour (let alone the LDs) will want to go down Coalition Street in 2015 so all this is just an academic exercise.
In the above scenario, I suspect a desultory attempt to keep the Coalition going would founder on the realities of the Parliamentary arithmetic and Ed M would lead a minority Labour administration which in truth would be quite secure.
I find the latest set of tractor statistics from Comrade Setholov of this parish of interest. Inflation at 2% (good), house prices rising 6.4% (not so good), wages rising (not sure). The disparity between income and affordability grows yet wider as our old friends supply and demand do battle in the housing marketplace. The coming rises in interest rates (which should be starting now and this morning's data vindicates those of us who have been advocating a return to normal monetary policy for some time) will be sharper and more damaging then they need to be because of Osborne's poor policy-making.
As it becomes more and more likely that Redward is going to be PM, I think it more and more likely we'll pressure on interst rates. MArkets will (rightly) see that UK the deficit reduction drive is dead and that we're back to borrowing forever. Expect gilt prices to start falling in line with the polls. This will play into base rates and mortgage rates.
If Dave was smart (a BIG 'if') he'd make alot of noise about the very real risk of 'vote Labour / lose your house'.
The coming rises in interest rates (which should be starting now and this morning's data vindicates those of us who have been advocating a return to normal monetary policy for some time) will be sharper and more damaging then they need to be because of Osborne's poor policy-making.
How does an inflation figure spot-on target at 2% vindicate those who have been advocating a return to normal monetary policy? Surely it vindicates the judgement of the BoE?
The coming rises in interest rates (which should be starting now and this morning's data vindicates those of us who have been advocating a return to normal monetary policy for some time) will be sharper and more damaging then they need to be because of Osborne's poor policy-making.
How does an inflation figure spot-on target at 2% vindicate those who have been advocating a return to normal monetary policy? Surely it vindicates the judgement of the BoE?
I think stodge is linking interest rates directly to house price increases. Apparently those of us in the North West (annual HPI 0.6%) have to suffer higher interest rates just to keep the London market (annual HPI 11%) under control.
The less lib dem MPs there are the less chance there is of a coalition. (which will always be an unlikely outcome in FPTP anyway) Even the most blinkered of Clegg's ostrich faction of spinners aren't making any predictions of sweeping gains for 2015, so I think we all know that less lib dem MPs in 2015 is just what's going to happen.
Surely low inflation is bad news as it slows down the inflating away of debts ?
It just means that a Chancellor cannot sit back and let the debts inflate themselves away. A Government has to be pro-active in reducing state expenditure to get the finances under control.
So 2% CPI is fine with a Chancellor like St. George but would be far more problematic under a government not entirely committed to reducing state spending.
RPI, which determines interest on inflation linked gilts has remained at 2.7%. This needs to fall as well CPI to help get the deficit down.
It's quite amusing that Ed Miliband's two main criticisms are (1) "the squeezed middle" and (2) there is a "cost of living crisis". In reality it is the richest and poorest 10% of society that has seen their income reduce the most, and the growth in the cost of living is at the target level.
It's quite amusing that Ed Miliband's two main criticisms are (1) "the squeezed middle" and (2) there is a "cost of living crisis". In reality it is the richest and poorest 10% of society that has seen their income reduce the most, and the growth in the cost of living is at the target level.
For a chump who keeps banging on about "one nation" - he is remarkably keen to divide us all up into class pools fighting against each other for bribes.
The coming rises in interest rates (which should be starting now and this morning's data vindicates those of us who have been advocating a return to normal monetary policy for some time) will be sharper and more damaging then they need to be because of Osborne's poor policy-making.
How does an inflation figure spot-on target at 2% vindicate those who have been advocating a return to normal monetary policy? Surely it vindicates the judgement of the BoE?
I think stodge is linking interest rates directly to house price increases. Apparently those of us in the North West (annual HPI 0.6%) have to suffer higher interest rates just to keep the London market (annual HPI 11%) under control.
Yes, unfortunately interest rates are a crude weapon but that's what we have in monetary policy and that's the price we pay for having a divergent economy. It's the same rate whether you're in London or Liverpool (that's regrettable and something which we should look at though I don't have a solution).
I fully appreciate that tackling a problem in one region risks exacerbating another problem in another region. Avery and those of his ilk are claiming recovery is spreading out across the land and all will enjoy significant good times (given steadfast voting) for decades to come but the truth is that there is already a problem in London (there always has been in truth) with housing supply and demand and the current rampant house price inflation not only reflects this but has been accentuated by current monetary policy.
I wonder what Tories will think about Lib Dems in about say 3 years time. If in 2015 Labour do win a majority, taking over a recovering economy, the Tories are going to feel pretty fed up. The Lib Dems blocked their attempts to change the number of constituencies, with boundary changes, so that every MP had roughly the same number of electors. They now have a Labour government with a majority, only having scored about the same number of votes, who are benefitting from a period of growth in the economy, by implementing some popular policies. Although still having a large debt, but a lower deficit, which they fund by implementing higher taxes on wealth.
In this situation, the Tories are going to be pretty annoyed with the Lib Dems, as the coalition period has proved a disaster for them, with little being shown for their efforts in getting the budget deficit down. The one policy area of making FPTP fairer, which would have helped the Tories, was blocked by the Lib Dems. Most Tories are going to feel pretty annoyed, as Labour enjoy government, with no intention of implementing significant boundary changes.
The coming rises in interest rates (which should be starting now and this morning's data vindicates those of us who have been advocating a return to normal monetary policy for some time) will be sharper and more damaging then they need to be because of Osborne's poor policy-making.
How does an inflation figure spot-on target at 2% vindicate those who have been advocating a return to normal monetary policy? Surely it vindicates the judgement of the BoE?
I think stodge is linking interest rates directly to house price increases. Apparently those of us in the North West (annual HPI 0.6%) have to suffer higher interest rates just to keep the London market (annual HPI 11%) under control.
Yes, unfortunately interest rates are a crude weapon but that's what we have in monetary policy and that's the price we pay for having a divergent economy. It's the same rate whether you're in London or Liverpool (that's regrettable and something which we should look at though I don't have a solution).
I fully appreciate that tackling a problem in one region risks exacerbating another problem in another region. Avery and those of his ilk are claiming recovery is spreading out across the land and all will enjoy significant good times (given steadfast voting) for decades to come but the truth is that there is already a problem in London (there always has been in truth) with housing supply and demand and the current rampant house price inflation not only reflects this but has been accentuated by current monetary policy.
Another factor might be that a sizeable % homes in London may be bought without the need for a mortgage - not sure interest rates have an impact - other than knocking out competition for houses.
Comments
Maybe he should offer to change to PR, but only if there's a cross-party consensus. That makes it all the Tories' fault, assuming they're still trying to defend FPTP.
The extra twist here will be if UKIP come third, but get zero seats.
As todays Guardian poll shows (lab 35 tories 32) , such a scenario is far from unthinkable though
So here is the balance. First past the post doesn't accuratly (or at all much of the time) represent the views of the majority of voters, but usually delivers a majority government. Full PR delivers a representative result but pretty much guarantees coalitions. Personally as a democrat I want. STV in multi member constituencies but I'm not in the majority on the left of Labour never mind in the whole party r in the country.
Politically though it's simple. We have 650 unique and seperate simultaneously run elections. If Tories don't like the fact that their policies have made them lightly supported across large parts of the UK thus making national polls translate poorly into seats, they shouldn't defend the systems. As they and then complain of "bias" I assume they don't understand how it works. When this "bias" massively reduces the number of seats that UKIP wins I assume it won't be a problem for them....
Presently 14% with gold standard ICM and IMO likely to hit 16/18% they might score as low as 30 seats but possibly as high as 50 with their election strategy based on throwing the kitchen sink at 75 targets and letting the other 575 seats wither on the vine.
Feb 74 - 19.3% .. 14
Oct 74 - 18.3% .. 13
May 79 - 13.8% .. 11
Jun 83 - 25.4% .. 23
Jun 87 - 22.6% .. 22
Apr 92 - 17.8% .. 20
May 97 - 16.8% .. 46
Jun 01 - 18.3% .. 52
May 05 - 22.0% .. 62
May 10 - 23.0% .. 57
"The foundations of middle-class life – well-paid jobs, strong pensions, the housing ladder and university education – have all been “undermined”, according to the Labour leader."
So basically he wants to reverse Labour's policies 1997-2010 where, wages stagnated, pensions were wrecked, houses became unaffordable and unis started charging.
Labour making us poor since forever.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10569973/Ed-Miliband-I-can-save-the-middle-class.html
"Years of underinvestment forced the Blair government to allocate large sums of money to the NHS, and the current government has had to ring-fence funding for this ailing institution.
"Despite all this, difficulties remain; the mid-Staffordshire, Morecambe Bay and Colchester scandals illustrate how widespread problems in the NHS are."
Francois boys attack the NHS and lots of other things in the UK.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/10569714/France-attacks-ailing-NHS-and-claims-it-has-better-roads-and-rail.html
Ed Says, on the prosperity of the Middle Class
“The motors that once drove and sustained it are no longer firing as they used to. Access to further education and training, good quality jobs with reliable incomes, affordable housing, stable savings, secure pensions: they have all been undermined.”
Yes they bloody have all been undermined. By you and the Labour party from 1997 to 2010.
Remember the Plant Commission? Or the Jenkins' commission? Labour did nothing: they make noises towards changing whilst out of power, but when in power do f'all.
It's an intellectually incoherent position.
The Lib Dems need congratulating for having got a voting change referendum put in front of the public. Sadly for them, it was rejected, and has put back the cause of voting change by a generation.
In the modern age constitutional issues rarely have the Brits taking to the barracades and whilst Liberals had to chew on their "Focus" leaflets for decades at the unfairness of FPTP they simply had to take the medicine and get on with it. So will Ukip.
What we have is government of the PPE, by the PPE and for the PPE.
The difference between Cameron and Miliband is that Miliband is the more determined fighter and doesn't suffer from Cameron's insecurity complex.
Have you ever heard the Conservatives pointing out that 'in January 2004, Gordon Brown appointed Miliband as Chairman of HM Treasury's Council of Economic Advisers as a replacement for Ed Balls, with specific responsibility for directing the UK's long-term economic planning' ?
This is irrelevant for this discussion, but personally I have two things I want from any changes system:
1) To be able to choose a candidate, as we do at the moment, and not a party;
2) Any new system should give political parties less power, not more.
But that's just me. Others obviously differ.
Excellent display by Murray. Great serving.
What Clegg should have done was to get a Bill allowing councils to change their voting system, after a local referendum, to whatever they liked. Then we could all have measured the performance of councils elected by PR (of whatever form) with those elected by FPTP. As things stand, we can be sure of only two things:-
(1) this debate is all heat and no light;
(2) Clegg's undoubted achievement in this Parliament has been to stop Cameron abolishing the list seas in the Greater London Assembly.
This is before we get to the problem of low turn-out in referenda and legitimacy.
LOL
I assume the internal mail still hasn't worked. Are you about next week for a beer with Sunil ?
As for OGH's inference of LibDem indefatigability, utter nonsense. If the LibDems poll below 15% we will see them revert to where they belong, pre 1979 holding a dozen or so seats around the celtic fringes of the country. At the rate they are retiring there will hardly be any left to defend the seats they won in 2010.
Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons: I forgot to add compulsory voting, as long as there were 'none of the above' and 'I do not agree with this system' boxes.
In fact, 'I do not agree with this system' might be useful at the bottom of current ballot papers. If enough (say 33%) of papers are so marked, it will trigger a referendum on voting systems. And next time, one with more than just two options.
In England it would ensure decent Tory representation in the north and decent Labour representation in the south. It would also enable the Greens, LibDems, UKIP, BNP, George Galloway bunch and other minority groups also get a reasonable representation from those English regions where they are strong.
However in the final analysis four factors will undermine Ukip.
1. Far greater scrutiny as the GE looms
2. The much improving economy
3. The prospect of a Miliband government.
4. The unforgiving nature of FPTP.
Its a great idea by Ed that making everybody richer is good. Amazing that no-one else has thought of it before. Still he got one thing right
"“Our programme is rooted in an understanding that this crisis began before the Tory-led government came to power,” he writes."
You can't have regular votes on voting systems (or separation, for that matter). The decision has to stand until and unless something significant changes. The despicable EU habit of repeatedly asking a question until the 'right' answer emerges is not a tactic that we should adopt.
"In fact, 'I do not agree with this system' might be useful at the bottom of current ballot papers. If enough (say 33%) of papers are so marked, it will trigger a referendum on voting systems. And next time, one with more than just two options."
If we have more than just two options, what voting system should we use to pick the next voting system?
It simply works even better for Labour.
Anyway, two new stories of relevance today:
A new FE college will be set up to train engineers for the project:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25714315
HS2 boss pledges to make the project cheaper, and to get it to the north quicker (whatever that means).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25724576
BTW - Are you still in Luton South ?
1. Far greater scrutiny as the GE looms
2. The much improving economy3. The prospect of a Miliband government.4. The unforgiving nature of FPTP.As they say over at CiF - fixed it for you.
Are you serious? UKIP is a NOTA party. Great to give the incumbents (and the opposition) a bloody nose but the joke stops in May 2015.
On topic - FPTP is simple to understand and fits well the public's appetite and attention span. By all means let the specialists (political parties, etc) use PR but for the masses, FPTP is at our level. Hence we aren't going to vote to change it no matter how ludicrous it might be as illustrated by equations and spreadsheets.
1. Scrutiny damages UKIP only marginally. Farage was able to campaign successfully in Buckingham against expenses sleaze despite having 3 MEPs either in, or on their way to jail. This Teflon character persists, because they are the vehicle of protest.
2. The improving economy helps London more than the rest of the country. The UKs problem is that the money is made in London, the votes are elsewhere.
3. Many kippers see no real difference between Cameron and Milliband. This opinion is widely shared even outside UKIP.
4. FPTP's unforgiving nature will help UKIPs vote share in the North, where they will mop up Tory and LD, BNP etc remnants. It will not stop them winning a few seats (Eastleigh?) Being generally a lot angrier than most LDs over the years, it will all incite them more, even without the added fuel of calls for a European referendum.
With the Wythenshaw and Sale East byelection coming up, I wonder whether HS2 will make an appearance in the campaign. The Manchester Airport station is beside the constituency so there should be some local interest.
I'd accept though, that Labour were losing experienced ministers through age and the effects of six years in office ....... eleven for those of them who had been Coalition ministers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-23222240
The expansion of China's road and rail networks will be seen in a hundred years time in the same way that the trans-continental railroad in the 1860 is now, or the interstate network a century later. Massive projects that opened up a country.
Except CHina are doing both at the same time.
UKIP has emerged in a very specific not to say unique set of circumstances where there has been a global crisis with far-reaching effects intruding into our daily lives. It has been a perfect storm of protest where just to protest qualifies as a protest party. It was not like that for the LDs (or SNP) and it is for that reason that I believe that UKIP support will dissolve rather than gain momentum and solidify.
The Conservatives get redrawn boundaries. The LibDems get PR, of sorts. Because both parties are happy you may not even need a referendum.
If the LibDems could choose to form a government with either Con or Lab, and Cameron offered Clegg this, could he refuse?
If you think this points to them going as low as that in 2015 then I fear you are going to be in for a bit of a shock.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png
The kippers are almost certainly going to drop after the EU elections and before the GE in 2015. Just like they did after the May local elections last year.
The point being the trends show it won't be to anywhere near the 3.1% the Cameroons desperately need. Hence the tory Eurosceptics starting to run around like headless chickens on Europe already.
Doing well in local elections while maintaining a stubbornly high VI for years makes this very different from the one issue EU elections surge the kippers use to get.
Mr. Capitano, you can't change the voting system without a referendum. It may be legally possible, but it would be reprehensible and indefensible.
1. The limited constituency scrutiny that Farage met in Buckinham will be as nothing compared to what is coming after the Euro Elections. Think Daily Mail Nazi claims against Clegg last time and multiply it significantly over several months.
2. It's certainly the case that aspects of the recovery are London led, especially the housing market but unemployment is falling almost nationwide and voter recognition of better times ahead are not only London led as the polls indicate.
3. Again the polls indicate presently that 30% of Ukippers will move back to the Conservatives at the prospect of a Miliband government. I expect that number to increase through the election campaign as voters fully turn their minds to electing a government and not a protest vote.
4. I admire your optimism over FPTP but it really is a most unforgiving mistress. Look at the second places the Alliance racked up in 1983 and 25% of the vote secured them only 23 seats, the vast majority of which were incumbent MP's. Ukip have a vast mountain to climb to obtain a couple of seats. They may not even achieve that and yet secure 12/14% of the vote.
If you think this points to them going as low as that in 2015 then I fear you are going to be in for a bit of a shock.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png
The kippers are almost certainly going to drop after the EU elections and before the GE in 2015. Just like they did after the May local elections last year. Doing will in local elections and with a stubbornly high VI makes this very different from the one issue EU elections surge the kippers use to get
The point being the trends show it won't be to anywhere near the 3.1% the Cameroons desperately need. Hence the tory Eurosceptics starting to run around like headless chickens on Europe already.
Have faith Mick. The British public will see sense. Of course there will remain 3-5% of them who would prefer to cut their noses to spite their faces or, as per @JackW are playing the long game but no more, probably less.
That would be the 3-5% Cameron toggled between ignoring or insulting ? Why would you vote for someone who belittles your views ?
the 3-5% are lost forever. No one is trying to get them back. As for the Cam toggle, well it sort of shakes some sense into them. It's all very well flirting at being a rebel but a slap around the face with a cold fish will make many see sense.
I'll say it again, look at the kipper drop after the May local elections. It was a substantial one but it stopped, and that was after the Bloom idiocy and a less than good few months of kipper headlines. The mistake you and the Cameroons are making is thinking that you can just sit back and watch a protest party gather strength and do well in local elections and by-elections but for their base level of VI to somehow remain just as low as it was four years ago.
Every day with a high kipper VI in the polls (usually higher than the lib dems despite no prompt) and every election where the kippers do well moves that base higher, not by a vast amount of course, but by more than enough to make a repeat of that 3.1% in 2015 look like a forlorn pipe dream.
The most predicted moves in voting most people think will happen in 2015 are that the lib dems will go up from where they are and the kippers will go down. I agree with that but the question is by how much for each of them because massive surges or massive crashes in VI just don't happen by themselves. Drops and rises yes, huge movement, no.
Inflation, CPI, falls to 2.0%, the BoE target!
"Cost of living crisis"? What cost of living crisis?
That's simply why Cameron won't win. There was no point in insulting people it gained him nothing and alienated more people than it convinced. As for the SE Tory view of "well they'll have to come back" that's precisely what convinced me not to vote for him ( thx R Nabavi ). It's pointless berating Labourites for voting like sheep and then doing the same yourself. The Tories won't win a majority because they don't have enough attractive policies, Cameron can't manage a broad church and they have written off large chunks of the countrty. On current performance they deserve not to win.
The ONS House Price Index for November falls by 0.1%, from 5.5% annual rate of growth to October to 5.4% annual rate to November.
Growth becomes more even across country. The year-on-year increase reflected growth of 5.6% in England, 5.4% in Wales, 2.5% in Scotland and 3.3% in Northern Ireland.
In the regions of England: London (11.6%), the South East (4.5%) and the West Midlands (4.4%), all regions except South East and London (3.1%).
Prices for first time buyers up 6.4% in November compared with 5.1% for owner-occupiers.
ONS HPI falls to 5.4% annual growth with London being the main driver - HPI would be between 3 and 4% without London.
It's easy to wish things were as they were once upon a time, but once upon a time isn't going to come back.
I'd love to be able to be 21 again, especially if I could know what I know now, but it ain't going to happen!
I think the penny is beginning to drop amongst the commentariat that an unstable outcome is quite likely in 2015. The financial markets remain almost entirely blissfully unaware of the political risk, but that's mainly because they are focused on 2014 which looks set to be a good year for the UK economy. I expect that the markets will begin to consider the risk towards the end of the year, although in a couple of sectors (particularly energy of course, but also housebuilding) analysts, fund managers and financial journalists are already beginning to sound warnings. So far, though, that has been more about Ed Miliband's naivety than the prospect of no stable government:
http://www.fundweb.co.uk/news-and-analysis/politics/fund-managers-slam-milibands-housebuilder-criticisms/2004484.article
http://www.fundweb.co.uk/news-and-analysis/uk/uk-income-managers-trim-utilities-after-miliband-ups-political-risk/2002701.article
http://www.cityam.com/article/1381721764/miliband-s-policies-have-already-damaged-britain-s-economy
A 2% increase in the minimum wage equate to about £5.20 a week (£270 a year) at the full rate.
I wonder if the Low Pay Commission will go for it.
It's on everything else the French are rubbish.
The issue isn't which party 'deserves' to win, it's which is the best government out of those of offer. It would be perverse indeed if we end up back with Labour; of course, voters are perverse.
We already know that tory Eurosceptics want far more red meat/detail and with the very real prospect of five more months of them playing games and forcing Cammie and Hague to reveal what they won't consider, something will have to give.
A few random thoughts from me this morning - four second places at Plumpton yesterday. It's a long slog up that hill in the mud when your fancy isn't going to get there !!
AFAIK, the LD policy, in the event of an election producing NOM, is still to talk to the Party with the largest number of votes rather than seats so in OGH's scenario, the Conservatives would be the first stop but as I've said before, I'm far from convinced either the Conservatives or Labour (let alone the LDs) will want to go down Coalition Street in 2015 so all this is just an academic exercise.
In the above scenario, I suspect a desultory attempt to keep the Coalition going would founder on the realities of the Parliamentary arithmetic and Ed M would lead a minority Labour administration which in truth would be quite secure.
I find the latest set of tractor statistics from Comrade Setholov of this parish of interest. Inflation at 2% (good), house prices rising 6.4% (not so good), wages rising (not sure). The disparity between income and affordability grows yet wider as our old friends supply and demand do battle in the housing marketplace. The coming rises in interest rates (which should be starting now and this morning's data vindicates those of us who have been advocating a return to normal monetary policy for some time) will be sharper and more damaging then they need to be because of Osborne's poor policy-making.
As it becomes more and more likely that Redward is going to be PM, I think it more and more likely we'll pressure on interst rates. MArkets will (rightly) see that UK the deficit reduction drive is dead and that we're back to borrowing forever. Expect gilt prices to start falling in line with the polls. This will play into base rates and mortgage rates.
If Dave was smart (a BIG 'if') he'd make alot of noise about the very real risk of 'vote Labour / lose your house'.
Personally, I'm still expecting zero.
I think stodge is linking interest rates directly to house price increases. Apparently those of us in the North West (annual HPI 0.6%) have to suffer higher interest rates just to keep the London market (annual HPI 11%) under control.
So 2% CPI is fine with a Chancellor like St. George but would be far more problematic under a government not entirely committed to reducing state spending.
RPI, which determines interest on inflation linked gilts has remained at 2.7%. This needs to fall as well CPI to help get the deficit down.
Last night you accused a poster of being Tim, please can you not do so in future.
Mike Smithson has made it clear this kind of behaviour is unacceptable, can you confirm you understand this instruction.
This applies to all posters.
Dreadful man.
I fully appreciate that tackling a problem in one region risks exacerbating another problem in another region. Avery and those of his ilk are claiming recovery is spreading out across the land and all will enjoy significant good times (given steadfast voting) for decades to come but the truth is that there is already a problem in London (there always has been in truth) with housing supply and demand and the current rampant house price inflation not only reflects this but has been accentuated by current monetary policy.
In this situation, the Tories are going to be pretty annoyed with the Lib Dems, as the coalition period has proved a disaster for them, with little being shown for their efforts in getting the budget deficit down. The one policy area of making FPTP fairer, which would have helped the Tories, was blocked by the Lib Dems. Most Tories are going to feel pretty annoyed, as Labour enjoy government, with no intention of implementing significant boundary changes.