UK General Discussion

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The reality is that they're all pretty terrible.

[You kip if you want to...]

Just to annoy everyone with that age-old cliche:

The only poll that's accurate is the election.

[You kip if you want to...]

The Tories appear to be gunning for a resignation from Burnham over this care report.

[minionofmidas]

Just to annoy everyone with that age-old cliche:

The only poll that's accurate is the election.

Even that one has a pretty splodgy track record.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And our old friend Ipsos-MORI weighs in...

Labour 40, Con 29, UKIP 12, LDem 10

---

I'm not particularly optimistic wrt the election, to be honest. We'll hold basically (perhaps literally?) everything we currently have and will make gains elsewhere, but I don't know whether it'll be enough. That some gains will be by decent margins (almost certainly) is actually a worry.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Because Labour need to win a majority to be sure of forming a government. There will be a certain number of minor party MPs Labour could presumably rely-ish on for one reason or another at least for confidence votes (Plaid, the SDLP - if they have any seats left, that is, Lucas/Galloway/etc), but after that you have the unreliable DUP and SNP. The DUP at least are easy to bribe, but like most congenitally corrupt parties are greedy. The current LibDem leadership will have to be ousted for any kind of deal with Labour that lasts more than five seconds.

And Labour have done well to very well in most constituencies that currently have Labour MPs. This is good news, given how badly we did in 2010. There are also quite a few constituencies that do not have Labour MPs where Labour have done rather well. This is also good news. But there are a lot of seats that we sort of have to win where recovery has clearly started, but...

Of course this might just be an expression of pessimism.

[Earthling]

What are the chances of Clegg actually surviving after the next election? The party keep this government going because they hope any recovery will bring them seats in 2015, but looking at the polls, things look very bleak for them. If the Lib Dems lose badly, Clegg, Cable, Alexander and the others are finished, right?

[You kip if you want to...]

If Ed Balls has anything to do with it, in a hung parliament situation, the heads of the key Orange Bookers will be demanded. Eye for an eye over the last lot of negotiations and their demands for Brown's resignation.

The Liberals won't be in the best position when negotiating with Labour or the Tories, considering what their election result will presumably look like. The big two will have the upper hand and bankbenchers on in both of the big two will be unsympathetic.

[You kip if you want to...]

And Labour have done well to very well in most constituencies that currently have Labour MPs. This is good news, given how badly we did in 2010. There are also quite a few constituencies that do not have Labour MPs where Labour have done rather well. This is also good news. But there are a lot of seats that we sort of have to win where recovery has clearly started, but...

Of course this might just be an expression of pessimism.

And on the other side of the coin, there are a seats that the Tories must win, but since 2010 they've done nothing but fall back.

I'm thinking of the likes of Wirral South and Edgebaston. Can you see the Tories winning Corby back or holding on in places like Warrington and Stockton?

Because of the level of collapse for the LibDems, the election will be a massive realignment in sections of the country, no matter who wins over all. Without the signs of an obvious landslide coming for either side, this renders the conventional wisdoms pretty pointless.

[ObserverIE]

There will be a certain number of minor party MPs Labour could presumably rely-ish on for one reason or another at least for confidence votes (Plaid, the SDLP - if they have any seats left, that is

The three SDLP seats all look secure enough; Belfast South would have been a lost cause under the abortive boundaries, but on the existing boundaries, continuing demographic drift there is going to push it away from Unionism. The only probable change next time round is the DUP regaining Belfast East from Alliance. Belfast North and Fermanagh South Tyrone are more distant possibilities for change, again due to demographic drift.

[You kip if you want to...]

David Ward, Lib Dem MP for Bradford East, has the whip removed after controversial comments about Israel.

[YL]

David Ward, Lib Dem MP for Bradford East, has the whip removed after controversial comments about Israel.

It's just a temporary suspension, presumably effectively a "final warning".

[You kip if you want to...]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/18/nhs-bain-capital_n_3616118.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Erm...

[afleitch]

Because Labour need to win a majority to be sure of forming a government. There will be a certain number of minor party MPs Labour could presumably rely-ish on for one reason or another at least for confidence votes (Plaid, the SDLP - if they have any seats left, that is, Lucas/Galloway/etc), but after that you have the unreliable DUP and SNP. The DUP at least are easy to bribe, but like most congenitally corrupt parties are greedy. The current LibDem leadership will have to be ousted for any kind of deal with Labour that lasts more than five seconds.

And Labour have done well to very well in most constituencies that currently have Labour MPs. This is good news, given how badly we did in 2010. There are also quite a few constituencies that do not have Labour MPs where Labour have done rather well. This is also good news. But there are a lot of seats that we sort of have to win where recovery has clearly started, but...

Of course this might just be an expression of pessimism.

What would be very curious is if Labour won say a small majority or formed a coalition government in 2015 after Scotland voted in favour of independence the year before (unlikely of course) Such a result in Scotland would no doubt cause a constitutional crisis anyway (as Westminster are not taking the vote as seriously as perhaps it should) and could conceivably force a general election. If it did occur, then independence is scheduled for 2016. Would seats in Scotland even be contested? I suspect that strategically the Tories wouldn't (as they would only loose 1 seat anyway). It's all wonderful wishful thinking of course.

[You kip if you want to...]

Because Labour need to win a majority to be sure of forming a government. There will be a certain number of minor party MPs Labour could presumably rely-ish on for one reason or another at least for confidence votes (Plaid, the SDLP - if they have any seats left, that is, Lucas/Galloway/etc), but after that you have the unreliable DUP and SNP. The DUP at least are easy to bribe, but like most congenitally corrupt parties are greedy. The current LibDem leadership will have to be ousted for any kind of deal with Labour that lasts more than five seconds.

And Labour have done well to very well in most constituencies that currently have Labour MPs. This is good news, given how badly we did in 2010. There are also quite a few constituencies that do not have Labour MPs where Labour have done rather well. This is also good news. But there are a lot of seats that we sort of have to win where recovery has clearly started, but...

Of course this might just be an expression of pessimism.

What would be very curious is if Labour won say a small majority or formed a coalition government in 2015 after Scotland voted in favour of independence the year before (unlikely of course) Such a result in Scotland would no doubt cause a constitutional crisis anyway (as Westminster are not taking the vote as seriously as perhaps it should) and could conceivably force a general election. If it did occur, then independence is scheduled for 2016. Would seats in Scotland even be contested? I suspect that strategically the Tories wouldn't (as they would only loose 1 seat anyway). It's all wonderful wishful thinking of course.

If Labour are relying on their 40-odd seats in Scotland to get to Number 10 (alone or with the Libs), the Tories have probably got the upper hand in forming a government anyway, surely.

[Leftbehind]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/18/nhs-bain-capital_n_3616118.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Erm...

Well I can't see myself ever donating blood again. Another widely unpopular, borderline-criminal sell-off that you wouldn't bet on being reversed. You've got to stop and admire the ruthless efficiency of Tory governments at delivering their ideology (neoliberalism), whereas contemporary Labour governments just feel like caretakers, fiddling around the edges but one-by-one accepting all the stuff they inherited with little question. You can see it already in the ruddlerless and passionless opposition. I still think Labour will win the next general election, but the Tories have already won in any meaningful sense.

[Silent Hunter]

In other news, three Tory councillors in Havering (my home borough) have defected to UKIP, quadrupling their representation on the council.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In other news, three Tory councillors in Havering (my home borough) have defected to UKIP, quadrupling their representation on the council.

The grammar nazi in me wants to know how those councilors quadrupled their votes, even tho I realize that you meant the UKIP quadrupled its representation on the council.  (Yes, I am aware that some English dialects use plural pronouns for groups, but even in that case, your pronoun choice is merely ambiguous instead of wrong.)

[YL]

In other news, three Tory councillors in Havering (my home borough) have defected to UKIP, quadrupling their representation on the council.

The grammar nazi in me wants to know how those councilors quadrupled their votes, even tho I realize that you meant the UKIP quadrupled its representation on the council.  (Yes, I am aware that some English dialects use plural pronouns for groups, but even in that case, your pronoun choice is merely ambiguous instead of wrong.)

I think what he wrote is normal in British English.

Anyway, my image of Havering is of a rather UKIP-friendly sort of place, but of course the London election cycle means they haven't had a chance to establish themselves there in a full council election since they started polling well nationally.

[Silent Hunter]

Anyway, my image of Havering is of a rather UKIP-friendly sort of place, but of course the London election cycle means they haven't had a chance to establish themselves there in a full council election since they started polling well nationally.

That's definitely true - the only elected UKIP councillor in London is from Havering and Andrew Rosindell represents Romford.

[Supersonic]

In other news, three Tory councillors in Havering (my home borough) have defected to UKIP, quadrupling their representation on the council.

The grammar nazi in me wants to know how those councilors quadrupled their votes, even tho I realize that you meant the UKIP quadrupled its representation on the council.  (Yes, I am aware that some English dialects use plural pronouns for groups, but even in that case, your pronoun choice is merely ambiguous instead of wrong.)

It's incredibly uncommon to say the UKIP. Just saying.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In other news, three Tory councillors in Havering (my home borough) have defected to UKIP, quadrupling their representation on the council.

The grammar nazi in me wants to know how those councilors quadrupled their votes, even tho I realize that you meant the UKIP quadrupled its representation on the council.  (Yes, I am aware that some English dialects use plural pronouns for groups, but even in that case, your pronoun choice is merely ambiguous instead of wrong.)

It's incredibly uncommon to say the UKIP. Just saying.

Well I'd hate to say a UKIP as that would imply there were other UKIPs.  One is enough.

[MaxQue]

In other news, three Tory councillors in Havering (my home borough) have defected to UKIP, quadrupling their representation on the council.

The grammar nazi in me wants to know how those councilors quadrupled their votes, even tho I realize that you meant the UKIP quadrupled its representation on the council.  (Yes, I am aware that some English dialects use plural pronouns for groups, but even in that case, your pronoun choice is merely ambiguous instead of wrong.)

It's incredibly uncommon to say the UKIP. Just saying.

Well I'd hate to say a UKIP as that would imply there were other UKIPs.  One is enough.

It's usually UKIP, without a or the.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In other news, three Tory councillors in Havering (my home borough) have defected to UKIP, quadrupling their representation on the council.

The grammar nazi in me wants to know how those councilors quadrupled their votes, even tho I realize that you meant the UKIP quadrupled its representation on the council.  (Yes, I am aware that some English dialects use plural pronouns for groups, but even in that case, your pronoun choice is merely ambiguous instead of wrong.)

It's incredibly uncommon to say the UKIP. Just saying.

Well I'd hate to say a UKIP as that would imply there were other UKIPs.  One is enough.

It's usually UKIP, without a or the.

I gathered that.  British English tends to drop the's in places American English would use them, most famously before the word hospital.  Still does what sounds strange to my ears also apply to other political parties in British Engish when their name is used as a noun and not as an adjective such as in "Loony Party candidate"?

[tpfkaw]

Using the pronoun "they" for political parties or other organizations is very common and perfectly legitimate in American English.