The next coalition government

[danny la rouge]

"Newsnight" is working with the politics dept. at UEA to produce a rolling prediction of the seat numbers for the May GE. Here is a screenshot of their first prediction of the year that was broadcast last night.

On those figures, no 2 parties could form a coalition...it would require at least 3.

Two could easily form a coalition: Labour and Tory. In fact, that's the FT's prediction for May.

 

[brogdale]

Two could easily form a coalition: Labour and Tory. In fact, that's the FT's prediction for May.

Correct. I should have said...aside from the notion of such a 'National government'...

 

[bemused]

This is the least interesting election I can remember.

Labour seem to be rerunning their 1997 NHS campaign after forgetting they oversaw privatisation of huge chunks of the NHS under their care. Does anyone trust Ed Balls?

The Conservative Party has about as much character as water and seem to be pitching themselves as the best team of middle managers available.

And, the LibDems are best summed up as ... meh.

So boring is it I've resorted to telling people I'm voting for UKIP just because their reactions are so amusing.

I'm probably going to vote Green, not that I think they are any good but there isn't a none of the above option.

 

[butchersapron]

This is the least interesting election I can remember.

Labour seem to be rerunning their 1997 NHS campaign after forgetting they oversaw privatisation of huge chunks of the NHS under their care. Does anyone trust Ed Balls?

The Conservative Party has about as much character as water and seem to be pitching themselves as the best team of middle managers available.

And, the LibDems are best summed up as ... meh.

So boring is it I've resorted to telling people I'm voting for UKIP just because their reactions are so amusing.

I'm probably going to vote Green, not that I think they are any good but there isn't a none of the above option.

There is. Not voting.

 

[brogdale]

This is the least interesting election I can remember.

If you mean election campaign...you may well be right, but after just 4 days that judgement might seem a little too hasty?

The GE itself looks particularly interesting IMHO.

 

[bemused]

There is. Not voting.

I've considered that but can't do it. a) it's a habit b) I think it's a civic duty and c) it may appear I'm doing as Russel Brand says

 

[killer b]

Two could easily form a coalition: Labour and Tory. In fact, that's the FT's prediction for May.

is there anything in this? it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me - is it anything beyond clickbait?

 

[butchersapron]

I've considered that but can't do it. a) it's a habit b) I think it's a civic duty and c) it may appear I'm doing as Russel Brand says

Well, not being able to bring yourself to vote tory doesn't mean the option to vote doesn't exist.

 

[butchersapron]

is there anything in this? it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me - is it anything beyond clickbait?

It is not.

 

[bemused]

Well, not being able to bring yourself to vote tory doesn't mean the option to vote doesn't exist.

I've voted Tory in the past and in all honesty out of the three leaders Cameron appears the most managerial of them all. If I were picking someone to run a large regional plumbing wholesaler - of the three - it would be him.

I live in Croydon South so the Tory gets 50% of the vote - he's going to win no matter what.

My reason for not voting for any of them is that it's not really a choice. If you take the Labour and Tory positions and removed all the branding they are pretty much identical. What you have is two partys dancing around a handbag on the middle ground. The only thing separating them is a hardcore of voters who remember them as the idealistic parties of the 80s - which they aren't.

Sadly we don't have an English version of the Scottish or Welsh Nationalist parties because I'd vote for them. Not because I care if the UK is broken up but it would actually make local politics important again and I remember when local councils actually mattered; so did your vote.

 

[killer b]

If you take the Labour and Tory positions and removed all the branding they are pretty much identical. What you have is two partys dancing around a handbag on the middle ground.

Three. And all the rest, given a sniff of power. The only reason any of the minor parties look any different is because they never have to attempt to implement their manifestos, or are in any danger of having to.

 

[butchersapron]

Yes, the lib-dems dynamic over the last ten years should really have put paid to any such illusions. See also greens in every single situation anywhere in the world where they have approached a share of power - or any other small party - under PR, AV FPTP or any other electoral system.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

I've voted Tory in the past and in all honesty out of the three leaders Cameron appears the most managerial of them all. If I were picking someone to run a large regional plumbing wholesaler - of the three - it would be him.

.

Really? He'd be good in a senior marketing or brand function, but plumbing wholesalers don't need someone that heavyweight to produce the annual catalogue. He's light on detail, utterly reliant on officials, and very laissez-faire compared with any recent PM. I'd be much more comfortable with Miliband or Clegg to be hands-on and manage a business which is essentially about logistics, fulfilment, customer service and negotiation with suppliers.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

is there anything in this? it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me - is it anything beyond clickbait?

At 33/1, it's got lower odds with PaddyPower than other potential permutations. So there must be a few punters who take the idea seriously - even if they are just hedging against good odds they have on other options.

 

[danny la rouge]

is there anything in this? it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me - is it anything beyond clickbait?

For those who've clicked the FT too many times and can't get past the paywall now, here's what it says:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/fb55f168-807f-11e4-872b-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz3O340UKls
Will Britain have a National Government after the next general election?

Yes. Britain’s last election in 2010 resulted in the first coalition government since 1945. The next one in May will go further, recreating the “National” governments of the 1930s by bringing the two main parties, Labour and Conservatives, into power together. As in 1931, this will be a matter of necessity, not choice.

The shrinkage of the vote of all three main parties will make it impossible to construct a workable coalition involving the Liberal Democrats and either the Tories or Labour. The price of doing business with the surging fringe parties, such as the Scottish National party and Ukip, will be too high for either Labour or the Conservatives to stomach. So will the risk of a minority administration, followed by a quick second poll.

The formation of a National Government will not be easy — and there will be much agony over the question of who should lead it. Any coalition deal will be highly contentious and lead to defections from both sides. Politicians will take time to adapt to the newly fragmented landscape. Jonathan Ford

Is it inconceivable? No, it isn't. Is it likely? Under certain circumstances. Those are, minority Labour ahead of the Tories but UKIP on a considerably higher share than currently expected.

The SNP has already said its price for a confidence-and-supply pact with Labour would be binning the Trident replacement plans. Labour won't do that.

 

[killer b]

Won't an unexpected high vote for UKIP result in the dreaded UKIP/Tory coalition? I almost want it to happen just so people can see it'll be business as usual...

 

[butchersapron]

So Jonathan Ford taking a once in a lifetime opportunity to make this prediction and a name to be written in the annals of political predictions. I.e nothing. Nothing at all. As likely as Maurice's reading that UKIP and tory will merge before the election (starting at that point in 2013 it seems).

 

[Maurice Picarda]

before the election.

I don't believe I said that.

 

[butchersapron]

Believe what you want. I've just posted the evidence that you did say that.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

I said that the detoxification would reverse over a couple of years, and that has happened. The Tories are tacking towards UKIP on a number of issues. I also questioned whether in five years time there would be two parties competing for eurosceptic right wingers, and suggested that at some, unspecified point, pacts or mergers were inevitable.

For someone who argues like a seminarian you don't read texts very closely.

 

[butchersapron]

You started a thread titled Conservative UKIP merger and opened it with "It's going to happen, isn't it?" then proceeded to argue that this would take place before the 2015 general election. You also read Cameron being deposed as part of this already running process.

Then 18 months later you lie about it. You literally said, when i challenged this nonsense:

Fine, thank you. Two years to see who is right, then.

You put a may 2015 date on it.

Brilliant arch stuff.

 

[brogdale]

All very confusing.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

I said that I expected local pacts in the run-up to GE15, and that local pacts eventually become mergers. There aren't any local pacts yet, AFAIK. I'm surprised by that - it certainly seemed plausible in 2013 and it seemed plausible after the Kipper by election victories.

We won't know whether there were official or defacto local pacts until the constituency-by-constituency history of the GE15 campaign is written.

 

[butchersapron]

I said that I expected local pacts in the run-up to GE15, and that local pacts eventually become mergers. There aren't any local pacts yet, AFAIK. I'm surprised by that - it certainly seemed plausible in 2013 and it seemed plausible after the Kipper by election victories.

We won't know whether there were official or defacto local pacts until the constituency-by-constituency history of the GE15 campaign is written.

You actually argued in that thread that pact and merger means exactly the same thing. And that it had started now (i.e may 2013). Now you say that you said no such thing.

Lesson here kids - push 'em. They have no idea what they're talking about no matter how confident they sound.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Few is three or four. Perhaps five. It's not "a couple".

 

[Maurice Picarda]

You actually argued in that thread that pact and merger means exactly the same thing. And that it was starting now. Now you say that you said no such thing.

Lesson here kids - push 'em. They have no idea what they're talking about no matter how confident they sound.

I said that pacts inevitably lead to mergers, so that when Tory rightists - or senior kippers - discussed pacts, they were essentially contemplating eventual merger.

But they clearly occur over very different timescales.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

You literally said, when i challenged this nonsense:

You put a may 2015 date on it.

.

On pacts.

 

[butchersapron]

I said that pacts inevitably lead to mergers, so that when Tory rightists - or senior kippers - discussed pacts, they were essentially contemplating eventual merger.

But they clearly occur over very different timescales.

No you didn't -you said they are functionally the same right now.

This is brilliant stuff. You're disowning your argument on the original thread - losing that argument in the process and shuffling around to find things to throw overboard to save face today - people only need read the first two pages of that thread to see that you're sabotaging both.

 

[butchersapron]

On pacts.

Which you argued are mergers - and had a number of people forced into putting you right on. Which, of course, you disagreed with.

More.

 

[brogdale]

Few is three or four. Perhaps five. It's not "a couple".

That's funny.