UK General Election - May 7th 2015

[136or142]

"But a monkey in a suit could have led Labour to victory in 1997 and 2001"

They also said that in 1992 and look what happened.

Yeah, the Tories swiftly dumped Thatcher and subsequently overtook Labour in the polls.

Huh? Thatcher was dumped in 1990.

However, it seems the polls were basically tied from March 1991 until the election.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1987-1992

I guess they didnt' say that in 1992.  I thought I remembered everybody saying it was Labour's election's to lose.

[EPG]

Fwiw, in the last poll conducted before Smith's death in May 1994, Labour had a 21 point lead.

And in mid-term polls in May 2012, Labour had a 13 per cent lead.

But if we are to discuss structural factors then we have to consider alternative possibilities, don't we? And you can easily turn matters on their head to an extent; i.e. that Labour was constantly in power with only a small break between 1964 and 1979. Which also proves relatively little.

I fear counter-factuals because considering only one is incomplete: they could be better or worse. Maybe a more united and effective Labour Party also unites opposition more effectively around the Conservatives because socialism is more of a threat. Maybe disunity in 1950 reflects a lack of support for any one future direction of Labour. Maybe winning bigger in 1950 would have established a Nordic social-democratic consensus. OK - all are valid and I don't have strong beliefs about which is more true, but some of these depend on the partly-exogenous factor of what the electorate is willing to tolerate. What we can certainly say is that Labour doesn't win power very often, and that when they do, like 1964-79, they don't win enough to govern as the leadership would like. The rest is unprovable, like what would have happened with more experienced and louder Conservative voices, and a weaker Labour consensus, in 1997-2001.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Blair basically did a whole bunch of cosmetic changes while the real legwork in ridding the party of trots was done by Kinnock and Smith. I mean sure, I give him credit in swinging a certain breed of urban middle-class constituency towards the party - but any notion that Blair single-handedly changed Labour from a socialist party to a bunch of sell-out liberals is silly. I mean was Blair's economic policy particularly different from say, the Wilson government?

[ChrisDR68]

Blair basically did a whole bunch of cosmetic changes while the real legwork in ridding the party of trots was done by Kinnock and Smith. I mean sure, I give him credit in swinging a certain breed of urban middle-class constituency towards the party - but any notion that Blair single-handedly changed Labour from a socialist party to a bunch of sell-out liberals is silly. I mean was Blair's economic policy particularly different from say, the Wilson government?

Again that underestimates his broad appeal in my view.

The Tories found him so hard to campaign against that for three general elections in a row they were stuck at or near their core vote of around 31-32%... a full 4% less than their next worst performances (in Oct 1974 and 2010). The Conservatives had never experienced anything like it since the introduction of universal suffrage in 1928.

His government could arguably have been a little more left leaning in the policies it followed. He would have been likely to get away with it depending on the policies in question and how far they went, but one of his concerns was that Labour had never in their history won a second successive full term of office having already served a full term. When seen in this light you can understand his caution.

The other thing to bear in mind is that many (perhaps most) left leaning voters tend to have unrealistically high expectations of what a Labour government can and should do when in power so they tend towards disillusion and disappointment almost as a matter of course when those expectations are not met.

The British people are a cautious and conservative bunch overall and are easily spooked if they think a Labour government could put the economy in jeopardy. That's what I believe Blair always kept in mind while he was PM.     

[politicus]

The other thing to bear in mind is that many (perhaps most) left leaning voters tend to have unrealistically high expectations of what a Labour government can and should do when in power so they tend towards disillusion and disappointment almost as a matter of course when those expectations are not met.

Agree on "can", but what a Labour government should do is obviously a political choice. Being "unrealistic" about that just means having a different opinion than the party leadership.

[Harry Hayfield]

For the record I'm voting SNP in the GE (while I have done at Holyrood, the Tories have got my GE votes in the past even though they count for nothing)

My word, may I ask what has caused this sea change from Con to SNP? (and does this mean that even Dumfriesshire is at risk of going SNP?)

[Clyde1998]

The Guardian are reporting about the possibility of a "national coalition" - between the Conservatives and Labour to prevent a "full-blown constitutional crisis". (https://archive.today/ww2Yf)

The current projection (from http://electionforecast.co.uk/)/b]
LAB - 289 seats (37 short)
CON - 276
N/G - 37
SNP - 34
LIB - 26
DUP - 8
UKIP - 3
SDLP - 3
PC - 2
GRN - 1
OTH - 8 (I expect SF - 5)
SNP, PC and GRN currently operate as one block in parliament - shown as "N/G".

Target - 326 (or 323 without SF)

So - the other scenarios are:
LAB + N/G + SDLP - 329 (3 maj)
LAB + N/G - 326 (0 maj)
LAB + LIB + SDLP - 318 (8 short)
LAB + LIB - 315 (11 short)
CON + LIB + DUP + UKIP - 313 (13 short)
CON + LIB + DUP - 310 (16 short)
CON + LIB - 302 (24 short)

Could be interesting...

[politicus]

"one Downing Street insider punt the concept of a Tory-Lib Dem-Green coalition, a senior Tory suggest a Conservative-SNP deal based on faster devolution, and a Labour figure float a Labour-Lib Dem-SNP-Plaid Cymru agreement reliant on big tax rises and slower spending cuts."

This seems very, ehm ... creative. How credible is the writer?

[Clyde1998]

"one Downing Street insider punt the concept of a Tory-Lib Dem-Green coalition, a senior Tory suggest a Conservative-SNP deal based on faster devolution, and a Labour figure float a Labour-Lib Dem-SNP-Plaid Cymru agreement reliant on big tax rises and slower spending cuts."

This seems very, ehm ... creative. How credible is the writer?

I'm not sure really, but they're not the only ones reporting it...

FT - https://archive.today/F60Oj
Spectator - https://archive.today/RGEIC
New Statesman - https://archive.today/IQYmK

The Tories and Labour are out of touch at the moment though...

Conservative-SNP deal will never happen.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

"one Downing Street insider punt the concept of a Tory-Lib Dem-Green coalition"

lol, which insider would that be? Like one of the people who come to clean on weekends?

I think the Guardian are just trolling its userbase with that article.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Guardian are reporting about the possibility of a "national coalition" - between the Conservatives and Labour to prevent a "full-blown constitutional crisis". (https://archive.today/ww2Yf)

That is not 'the Guardian are reporting...' but 'a particularly silly and out-of-touch commentator who writes a terrible column for the Guardian is pontificating that...' which is a rather different thing.

Future point of reference for everyone: any coalition involving Labour would have to be approved by a Special Conference, which would not necessarily be mere rubber stamping job (it would depend on the circumstances). Note also that a lot of people in Labour - i.e. those on the Left and the more trad. sections of the Right - dislike coalitions because that would involve sharing power with a (this is not the language used, but it is the mentality at work) bourgeois party.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Wrt the other debate, more on that later but for now... um... some people seem to be forgetting what political life was like in the 1990s. The Major government was a slow-motion trainwreck's slow-motion trainwreck...

[afleitch]

Here's a fun fact. Since 1983, compared to the vote share in the projected national vote for local elections held the year before a GE, the government has increased it's vote at the GE by an average of 7, the opposition has decreased it's share by an average of 2 and the third party has decreased it's share by 3.

So based on the 2014 locals the Conservatives would have 37% and Labour 29%. That would be no change at all on what happened last time. If the Lib Dems and UKIP are seen as third party that would be 8% and 15% respectively. If Lib Dems are seen as a government party then that's 18% for them

[Phony Moderate]

52% for right-wing parties? Vomit.

[afleitch]

Yey...polls. So much for the festive break.

Opinium

CON 32+3
LAB 33-3
LD 8+2
UKIP 17+1
GRN 4-1

[136or142]

Yey...polls. So much for the festive break.

Opinium

CON 32+3
LAB 33-3
LD 8+2
UKIP 17+1
GRN 4-1

From U.K Polling Report
Note that fieldwork for the poll was the 30th Dec to 2nd Jan, so included New Years Eve and New Years Day. There isn’t actually any real evidence that doing fieldwork on bank holidays when many people are out doing stuff produces odd results… but I’m a bit wary of it. There are examples of polls done on bank holidays producing very odd results, but there are also examples of polls done on perfectly normal days producing odd results and polls done on banks holidays producing normal looking ones.

Also, the U.K Polling Report 'uniform swing project' currently predicts a Labour majority of 26.

Regarding a "Conservative-Lib Dem-Green coalition"
Does the Green Party even have a seat?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's also an Opium poll and they're sh!te.

---

The Greens currently hold Brighton Pavilion. The MP in question (Caroline Lucas) is personally popular, but the local authority is also run by the Greens and is a walking disaster which may complicate her re-election chances.

[Zanas]

Well yes they have Brighton Pavilion, and I think they have a realistic shot at keeping it, but not at conquering another one.

[Barnes]

It's also an Opium poll and they're sh!te.

---

The Greens currently hold Brighton Pavilion. The MP in question (Caroline Lucas) is personally popular, but the local authority is also run by the Greens and is a walking disaster which may complicate her re-election chances.

That Greens administration in Brighton has been quite amusing to watch over the past few years.

[136or142]

Thanks for the reply
1.Is she the Green Party leader?
2.Was she elected in a by election or at the last general election? and was she party leader at the time?

I ask because I note the Green Party has elected at least 4 members to parliaments lately under first past the post (party leaders in the Canadian province of New Brunswick and the federal parliament, and provincially, not the leader but the highest profile Green, Andrew Weaver, here in B.C) and in either Australia or New Zealand.

If you reply that I should just wiki it myself, I have no problem with that.

[MaxQue]

Thanks for the reply
1.Is she the Green Party leader?
2.Was she elected in a by election or at the last general election? and was she party leader at the time?

She was elected at the last general election and she was the leader then, but stepped down as leader since then.

[Phony Moderate]

A recent constituency poll showed Lucas ahead by 10% and the constituency poll conducted around this point in the previous parliament predicted her victory too.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I imagine if the Greens get more attention she might become leader again. Remember when Farage stood down for some guy to lead UKIP for a while?

[136or142]

Thanks for the reply
1.Is she the Green Party leader?
2.Was she elected in a by election or at the last general election? and was she party leader at the time?

She was elected at the last general election and she was the leader then, but stepped down as leader since then.

Thanks.

[ChrisDR68]

Wrt the other debate, more on that later but for now... um... some people seem to be forgetting what political life was like in the 1990s. The Major government was a slow-motion trainwreck's slow-motion trainwreck...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/04/tony-blair-vacuum-british-politics-centre-ground

As if right on cue Andrew Rawnsley has written this interesting piece about Tony Blair in the Guardian today. As usual with anything to do with Blair you get the usual snide and spiteful comments from Joe Public in the comments section underneath it.

On Labour disliking coalition as they don't want to share power with a bourgeois party Rawnsley neatly sums this up this type of thinking (although this time on who voted for Blair) in the same article by calling it a tribal ghetto mentality.