Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The next coalition government

My point is I want to vote for someone who is a leader with a vision - not a manager, which all of the current lot are pitching themselves as. It wasn't a compliment.

There is no vision from anyone in the three main parties. They all represent the same basic politics (neoliberalism) dressed up in slightly different ways. All you vote for, if you vote, is for a slightly different garnish on the shit sandwich they all want to feed you.
 
There is no vision from anyone in the three main parties. They all represent the same basic politics (neoliberalism) dressed up in slightly different ways. All you vote for, if you vote, is for a slightly different garnish on the shit sandwich they all want to feed you.
That's a vision though
 
Not a huge fan of Steve Fisher's work, but I couldn't help noticing that his latest seat prediction (of a hung parliament) had Lab 29 seats short of a majority...with the LDs on...29 seats.:D

386fc910-7e2e-4195-8899-9013f559fa6e_zps167ad41f.png
 
Yesterday's Election Forecast prediction (UEA), also predicting a hung parliament, had Labour a few seats further short...37 short.

 
From Anthony...
Projections

The latest forecasts from Election Forecast, May 2015 and Elections Etc are below. All are still predicting a hung Parliament. Note that Steve Fisher has made some substantial changes to his Elections Etc model in order to treat England and Scotland separately, and hence reflect the increase in SNP support in Scotland

Elections Etc – Hung Parliament, CON 283(nc), LAB 278(-3), LD 23(-3), SNP 41(+5), UKIP 3(nc)
Election Forecast – Hung Parliament, CON 278(+1), LAB 286(-3), LD 28(+1), SNP 34(+2), UKIP 3(nc)
May 2015 – Hung Parliament, CON 269(-4), LAB 289(+9), LD 27(+3), SNP 38(-8), UKIP 4(nc)

FPTP, eh? The party most reviled by the electorate are pretty much the only one that can confidently make plans for government. Those 20 to 30 seats will almost certainly have to form the basis of the next coalition.
 
It seems bizzarre that most of the seats the lib dems are likely to lose thanks to their collaboration with the tories will go to...the tories :hmm:
 
"Light blue touch-paper and retire"

Today's Guardian report on the state of polling:-
If Britain votes along the lines of the average of the polls, the two main parties are projected to win a total of 273 seats each, compared with the 326 required for an outright majority, while the Scottish National party’s current support would translate into 49 seats at Westminster if a general election was held today.
Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP’s leader, has said her party would not form a coalition with David Cameron’s Conservatives, but has indicated that she would be prepared to work with Labour, making a Labour-SNP alliance the most likely starting point for any government after May.

But together they would be four short of an overall majority,

...and, as if by magic...

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...ce-of-dup-says-yougov-president-30939720.html
One of Britain's major polling experts has predicted that Sinn Fein could be forced to take its seats at Westminster to balance the growth of DUP influence in a minority government.
 
"Light blue touch-paper and retire"

Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP’s leader, has said her party would not form a coalition with David Cameron’s Conservatives

The G doesn't give an exact quote - does anyone know if she has specifically mentioned Cameron (eg "we won't form a coalition with Cameron led Tories") or ruled out coalition with Tories in general?
 
The G doesn't give an exact quote - does anyone know if she has specifically mentioned Cameron (eg "we won't form a coalition with Cameron led Tories") or ruled out coalition with Tories in general?
She certainly said it in no uncertain terms in a C4 News interview.
 
It seems bizzarre that most of the seats the lib dems are likely to lose thanks to their collaboration with the tories will go to...the tories :hmm:
It's almost as if they don't know their own politial history and will gob-gob liked stuned goldfish when they see the tories have fucked them for ANOTHER generation.
 
It's almost as if they don't know their own politial history and will gob-gob liked stuned goldfish when they see the tories have fucked them for ANOTHER generation.

You don't need to read any history books to see that one coming tbf.

Good fucking riddance to them anyway.
 
Latest batch of predictions..
Projections

The latest forecasts from Election Forecast, May 2015 and Elections Etc are below. All are still predicting a hung Parliament, though Election Forecast and May2015 have the Conservatives catching up with Labour after a week of close polls.

Elections Etc – Hung Parliament, CON 282(-1), LAB 280(+2), LD 24(+1), SNP 40(-1), UKIP 3(nc)
Election Forecast – Hung Parliament, CON 283(+5), LAB 285(-1), LD 27(-1), SNP 32(-2), UKIP 2(-1)
May 2015 – Hung Parliament, CON 280(+11), LAB 280(-9), LD 24(-3), SNP 38(nc), UKIP 5(+1)

..and Herdson (on Smithson's site) posted a reminder about a piece written for the Guardian in March from Huhne, (I know), articulating the position that the Fixed term parliament act makes a minority administration less viable/likely..and, (surprise, surprise), a coalition more likely. Nonetheless, an interesting take...
The Fixed-term Parliaments Act means that the prime minister can no longer call an election at a time of his choosing. … Elections are held every five years, except when two thirds of the Commons votes for one, or a government loses a vote of confidence and there is no further successful vote within 14 days.

True, a minority-government prime minister could engineer the loss of a vote of no confidence, but they would then run the risk that the main opposition party would establish a new administration and delay the election. Since the prime minister would only attempt to force an election if he thought he would win, the opposition would have every incentive to avoid losing. So that stratagem looks flawed.

The fixed-term act introduces a further difficulty for minority governments, because the timing of an election would now be in the hands of the combined opposition majority. Any loss of a vote of confidence would trigger an election if the government could not scrabble together a majority. A minority government would constantly be at risk of an election being called at a time of the opposition’s choosing.

The opposition strategy would then be clear: let the government flounder. Deny or amend ministerial legislation. Maybe even deprive the government of money. None of this would cause it to fall, because the fixed-term act requires a specific vote of no confidence. When the administration was looking truly shambolic, you force and win a vote of no confidence, calling an election at the point of the governing party’s maximum disadvantage.

What if Ed Miliband and David Cameron begin to dislike the fixed term? What if they were jointly keen to re-establish the prime minister’s prerogative to call general elections? They could, of course, combine to do so. But why would the opposition to a minority government want to hand over control of the timing of the next general election to its principal opponent?

All of which tells me that minority governments will be less popular in future, and that coalitions are more likely to be the response to a hung parliament. And as for hung parliaments, we shall see. If Labour and the Tories are closely competitive, and if Scotland stays part of the union, it will be hard for winner to take all.”
 
Yesterday's (latest) Electoral Calculus prediction...

b6344794-ea19-4b7c-b92a-4af9f0d3c723_zps7195c30e.png


e2a : but...as Smithson says...
The Baxter approach is totally mathematical. He has a seat model to which he inputs his latest polling average based on national surveys not constituency polls.
...and, as such, probably 'under-cooks' the number of seats that the LDs will retain, and UKIP's number of MPs.
 
This is quite funny....with the dawning prospects of a fragmented, hung parliament, Lab have been 'snuggling up' to the NI Unionists. It appears from Dodds' comments that he actually believes what they've been telling him.:D

Any such coalition would require Lab on, at least, 314 seats.
 
Mustn't forget there's still time for the polls to shift towards one party getting a small majority, the first past the post system is very good at creating that. Same time, yes, coalition/working agreement is looking the most likely. The obvious point is that the actual results will mathematically decide what is possible in terms of coalitions. But surely the Tories will want to avoid a UKIP entanglement, even if you could imagine some kind of dampening of hostilities between them in the run up to a referendum? Most of all, there won't be enough UKIP MPs to make a coalition/agreement possible. Equally, Labour will be very wary about any kind of working agreement with SNP (even if the SNP themselves are keen to play ball - as they no doubt will be).

Assuming there's no overall majority that pretty much leaves 1. Lab-Lib 2. Con-Lib as the only options. Libs have no morals, proven themselves to be effective human shields, will already be in whipped cur mode after losing seats - not much of a downside for Lab or Con taking them on board. If Lab or Con did get a small majority their options open up to some extent, but ultimately it's the Libs (and quite possibly, still Clegg).

Edit: All of that is also based on an assumption that the SNP seat predictions are currently overstated (which I suspect they are). If they did get 50 that might stop any LibLab arrangement getting over the winning post. Wouldn't stop a ConLib coalition as virtually all the SNP seat increase would be at Labour's expense.
 
Last edited:
Mustn't forget there's still time for the polls to shift towards one party getting a small majority, the first past the post system is very good at creating that. Same time, yes, coalition/working agreement is looking the most likely. The obvious point is that the actual results will mathematically decide what is possible in terms of coalitions. But surely the Tories will want to avoid a UKIP entanglement, even if you could imagine some kind of dampening of hostilities between them in the run up to a referendum? Most of all, there won't be enough UKIP MPs to make a coalition/agreement possible. Equally, Labour will be very wary about any kind of working agreement with SNP (even if the SNP themselves are keen to play ball - as they no doubt will be).

Assuming there's no overall majority that pretty much leaves 1. Lab-Lib 2. Con-Lib as the only options. Libs have no morals, proven themselves to be effective human shields, will already be in whipped cur mode after losing seats - not much of a downside for Lab or Con taking them on board. If Lab or Con did get a small majority their options open up to some extent, but ultimately it's the Libs (and quite possibly, still Clegg).

Edit: All of that is also based on an assumption that the SNP seat predictions are currently overstated (which I suspect they are). If they did get 50 that might stop any LibLab or ConLab arrangement getting over the winning post.
Yes FPTP is designed to produce majoritarian results, but let's not forget that it evolved as the product of a fairly simple, two-party adversarial chamber. Now we are well and truly in a multi-party era, any period in which the two biggest parties are close to popular parity is likely to produce a hung parliament electoral outcome. More than that, the present polling pretty consistently points to an outcome that is fragmented, as well as hung, in which no two parties (excluding the fanciful notion of a Con/Lab 'national administration) can join to form a coalition.

That said, you're quite right; there is still time for the polls to change.
 
Yes FPTP is designed to produce majoritarian results, but let's not forget that it evolved as the product of a fairly simple, two-party adversarial chamber. Now we are well and truly in a multi-party era, any period in which the two biggest parties are close to popular parity is likely to produce a hung parliament electoral outcome. More than that, the present polling pretty consistently points to an outcome that is fragmented, as well as hung, in which no two parties (excluding the fanciful notion of a Con/Lab 'national administration) can join to form a coalition.
.
Yes, FPTP is totally unsuited to a situation where even the top parties are struggling to get a third of the votes (not that I give a fuck which system they use!). Most of all it shows what a fuck up it was the Liberals agreeing to put something short of full PR in the referendum. Who knows, they would have struggled to get full proportionality accepted, but it would have been a better sell than AV.
 
Yes, FPTP is totally unsuited to a situation where even the top parties are struggling to get a third of the votes (not that I give a fuck which system they use!). Most of all it shows what a fuck up it was the Liberals agreeing to put something short of full PR in the referendum. Who knows, they would have struggled to get full proportionality accepted, but it would have been a better sell than AV.

They were never going to get anywhere near PR. In fact the closest they ever came was when Heath was horse-trading with Thorpe (now wouldn't those two have made an interesting couple in the rose garden?) after the "Who governs?", Feb 1974 election. This gives a pretty good account of the events following the hung parliament result, but overlooks the fact that Heath did actually discuss offering PR to the Libs with his cabinet colleagues and some commentators mark that as the point at which Fatch made up her mind that Heath was a traitor to the party. The rest is history.....as they say....
 
Back
Top Bottom