Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If LAB find they need to go into coalition then it’s highly
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.
0
This discussion has been closed.
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.