UK General Discussion

[Insula Dei]

The cynic in you would be wrong. Rome doesn't really care about the toying around with slightly unorthodox positions on the celibate by transalpine bishops.

[Silent Hunter]

All this means that there will be no British say in the Conclave.

[You kip if you want to...]

All this means that there will be no British say in the Conclave.

Oh no.

[minionofmidas]

All this means that there will be no British say in the Conclave.

Oh no.

This is an outrage! Cameron should take Britain out of the Catholic Church in retaliation.

[You kip if you want to...]

Just seen a random tweet saying that UKIP are in the same position Labour was in 100 years ago. They're a hilarious bunch.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I disagree.  Labour is not all that funny.

[afleitch]

Cardinal O'Brien, in is own way, sort of admits it.

[Silent Hunter]

Just seen a random tweet saying that UKIP are in the same position Labour was in 100 years ago. They're a hilarious bunch.

100 years ago, Labour had over 40 MPs.

[DC Al Fine]

Just seen a random tweet saying that UKIP are in the same position Labour was in 100 years ago. They're a hilarious bunch.

100 years ago, Labour had over 40 MPs.

To be fair, UKIP is polling better than Labour did in the PV in the Dec 1910 election.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This apple is larger than that egg.

[Smid]

Just seen a random tweet saying that UKIP are in the same position Labour was in 100 years ago. They're a hilarious bunch.

100 years ago, Labour had over 40 MPs.

To be fair, UKIP is polling better than Labour did in the PV in the Dec 1910 election.

What electoral reform will be undertaken in the UK, which will allow the UKIP to gain voters (or the other parties to lose voters), in the way that universal suffrage allowed Labour to gain voters in the years following 1910?

[You kip if you want to...]

Just seen a random tweet saying that UKIP are in the same position Labour was in 100 years ago. They're a hilarious bunch.

100 years ago, Labour had over 40 MPs.

To be fair, UKIP is polling better than Labour did in the PV in the Dec 1910 election.

What electoral reform will be undertaken in the UK, which will allow the UKIP to gain voters (or the other parties to lose voters), in the way that universal suffrage allowed Labour to gain voters in the years following 1910?

None.

And UKIP's main demographic, (small-c) conservative, old, rich, white men have never really struggled with the franchise.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Just seen a random tweet saying that UKIP are in the same position Labour was in 100 years ago. They're a hilarious bunch.

100 years ago, Labour had over 40 MPs.

To be fair, UKIP is polling better than Labour did in the PV in the Dec 1910 election.

What electoral reform will be undertaken in the UK, which will allow the UKIP to gain voters (or the other parties to lose voters), in the way that universal suffrage allowed Labour to gain voters in the years following 1910?

Proportional representation.  It's not simply that people are protesting the EU by voting UKIP in European Parliament elections. It's that unlike with FPTP, people don't feel that a vote for UKIP is a wasted vote there.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Labour Party ran 78 candidates in January 1910 and 56 in December 1910. Most (almost all in December) of these candidates won, almost all of them faced no opposition from the Liberal Party (there was, of course, an electoral pact). Had Labour adopted a more aggressive approach to relations with the Liberals, the Party would have polled many more votes but won significantly less seats.

And, of course, there were no opinion polls in the 1910s.

What electoral reform will be undertaken in the UK, which will allow the UKIP to gain voters (or the other parties to lose voters), in the way that universal suffrage allowed Labour to gain voters in the years following 1910?

Oddly enough (and somewhat counterintuitively), it was proven a while ago that universal suffrage wasn't (as in: literally can't have logically been) the reason for Labour's great breakthrough after 1918, although it certainly helped as the '20s progressed.

[Leftbehind]

Just seen a random tweet saying that UKIP are in the same position Labour was in 100 years ago. They're a hilarious bunch.

100 years ago, Labour had over 40 MPs.

To be fair, UKIP is polling better than Labour did in the PV in the Dec 1910 election.

What electoral reform will be undertaken in the UK, which will allow the UKIP to gain voters (or the other parties to lose voters), in the way that universal suffrage allowed Labour to gain voters in the years following 1910?

Proportional representation.  It's not simply that people are protesting the EU by voting UKIP in European Parliament elections. It's that unlike with FPTP, people don't feel that a vote for UKIP is a wasted vote there.

PR would certainly help them enormously, but other parties would start taking them seriously and shine a light on their more unpopular policies (NHS-dismantling, banker loving, austerity max to a pick a few).  

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

PR would certainly help them enormously, but other parties would start taking them seriously and shine a light on their more unpopular policies (NHS-dismantling, banker loving, austerity max to a pick a few).  

True, but once they actually have seats and can keep them, UKIP might well change those parts of its platform that are not inseparably linked to Eurosceptism in order to broaden their appeal.  The same is true of course for the other UK parties.

[Silent Hunter]

At the moment, PR for this country is about as likely as me dating Jenna-Louise Coleman, so UKIP can't rely on that.

[You kip if you want to...]

I see Miriam caved to Nick Clegg. They're sending their son to a Catholic comprehensive (a "strict" one, for good measure).

All this comes after the kick off last month over Mrs González-Clegg wanting to send their son to a private.

[Siloch]

What Eastleigh showed us is that we will probably be seeing a lot more hung parliaments in the future. If the Tories can't win a middle England seat like that, they wont have a majority. If under a hugely unpopular government the Labour vote actually declines, they wont win a majority either.

What I really want to see is a by-election in a seat like Cambridge or Bristol West, I want to see if students stick with Lib Dems.

[Leftbehind]

What Eastleigh showed us is that we will probably be seeing a lot more hung parliaments in the future. If the Tories can't win a middle England seat like that, they wont have a majority. If under a hugely unpopular government the Labour vote actually declines, they wont win a majority either.

I disagree. Labour's 2010 position as also-rans in Eastleigh left it vulnerable to being squeezed and abandoned for more worthwhile vehicles. FPTP encourage tactical voting to such an extent that it'll bear next to no relation for most seats Labour will be looking to gain (most of which being Con-Lab marginals). If UKIP retains the support it's polling, Labour should walk the next general election in a manner reminiscent of Thatcher's 1980's victories, as the Liberals electoral progress looks to be rewound to the benefit - and consolidation - of the Labour vote.  

Oh and I'm certain Labour will gain Cambridge (see how Labour are comfortably beating the Liberals in the locals there).

[You kip if you want to...]

the Labour vote actually declines

It didn't.

What I really want to see is a by-election in a seat like Cambridge or Bristol West, I want to see if students stick with Lib Dems.

They haven't been and they won't.

With what local elections had shown us about Eastleigh, this result could've been predicted (albeit, not the UKIP surge, but the Liberal win). In a local campaign, which wouldn't decide the government at the end of the day, the Liberals had no business losing. And even then, their voters didn't stick with them - their decline in vote share (-14.48%) was the second worst we've seen for them in all of this parliament's by-elections (the first being Manchester Central) and this was completely in line with their national polling position (the UKPR average has them at 10%, down 14 on 2010).

Local results in seats like Norwich, Cambridge, Leeds NW, Fife, Cardiff, Withington have been brutal for them. Not to mention in their university targets: Oxford, Sheffield Central, Edinburgh, Durham, Newcastle...

Bristol though, to be fair, could be one of the places where they don't do as badly as expected. They're still the biggest group on the council and they still have the upper hand going into the May locals, although Labour could edge them out.

I'd think that in 2015, these are the seats in which we'll see most clearly this 'realignment of the left' that's being talked up. These as well as decent swings to Labour in already safe northern cities like Liverpool (where the shift away from the Liberals started at the 2010 election, even before the coalition), Manchester and Newcastle.

[Siloch]

The Labour vote did decline in Eastleigh, so after 3 years of "brutal cuts" as Labour say, they failed to increse their number of supporters, that is pathetic.

Eastleigh Labour vote
2010 - 5,153
2013 - 4,088

Labour is in for a 1992 style shock, not a 1983 style win.

I mean you guys are suggesting that Lib Dem voters will naturally swing to Labour, where did that happen in Eastleigh, lol it didn't.

[You kip if you want to...]

The Labour vote did decline in Eastleigh, so after 3 years of "brutal cuts" as Labour say, they failed to increse their number of supporters, that is pathetic.

Eastleigh Labour vote
2010 - 5,153
2013 - 4,088

Labour is in for a 1992 style shock, not a 1983 style win.

And the governing parties lost 20,000 votes between them and nearly 30% of the vote share, so I don't get your point really.

Unless you're suggesting that UKIP will be swept into number 10 in 2015? Aha.

I mean you guys are suggesting that Lib Dem voters will naturally swing to Labour, where did that happen in Eastleigh, lol it didn't.

Eastleigh's been the exception, not the rule.

Before the last election, the Tories did crap in places where they had no hope like Glasgow NE, Livingston and Sedgefield and still won.

[Leftbehind]

Labour is in for a 1992 style shock, not a 1983 style win.

I mean you guys are suggesting that Lib Dem voters will naturally swing to Labour, where did that happen in Eastleigh, lol it didn't.

I suggest you read my post again, I specifically pointed out that the race in Eastleigh is completely different to most seats Labour will need for a majority (ie they won't be on 10% with a Liberal incumbent; they'll be the best chance to oust the Tories.

Eastleigh is miles apart from the rest of the country in Liberal strength: see the local elections fortress they've built there at a time when they've seen repeated annihilations across the country to leave them at their lowest ever number of councillors.

You may as well face it, if you can't resolve the UKIP split your part will go into the election trailing Labour a significant amount and be crucified by the electoral system for it like Labour were in the 80's.

[You kip if you want to...]

Yeah, if the AV referendum was held now, the Tories wouldn't be so harsh about it...