Printable View
Now that the UK election has been called, the result is still too close to call. All that seems certain is that the Tories look favourites to form a government, either on their own or with the Lib Dems (Con 40%, Lab 32, Lib Dems 17%). Things will tighten asthe weeks go by, with the Scots and Welsh nationalists and even the DUP possibly in the numbers mix.
I hate the phrase "too close to call". Another invention of the modern media.
A coalition in the UK would be very unusual, their electoral system doesn't lend itself to coalitions. I'd be saddened to see the Lib Dems go into goverment with the Tories, although I wouldn't be all that surprised given the way those dolts Campbell and Clegg have taken the party.
if the Tories get in I'd consider moving on.
The marginals appear to be going Tory from commentators I've heard. With first past the post, obviously the overall figures are less important.
I wouldn't say there's an expectation of real change either way in the UK, as was the expectation when Labour won in '97, so nothing that interesting to me to be honest. I actually wouldn't be surprised to see Brown pull it out of the fire a la Major in 1992 though.
were the uk due to have an election or was it just called on because the way things are ............leading to can we not do the same ???
This election was due yeah.
Am hoping the Lib Dems get into power, Labout have lost the plot and the Tories are evil mental cases.
Nah, they were due to. Only thing that had to be decided was the date. For one to be called here the it'd need either the greens to pull out, or FFail to call one. Not going to happenQuote:
Originally Posted by saint dog
I'd take a hung parliament.
None of the main parties are even remotely trustworthy at present, and all of them have policies in certain areas that I'd prefer they didn't implement. So, a nice fractious House of Commons will suit me fine.
The most likely result is a narrow Conservative win. Cameron appears to be inoffensive enough to enough people to win despite most people still not really being sure about the Tories in general. However, Labour are widely disliked after the last few years, Brown is variously viewed as ineffectual and uninspiring, and the Lib Dems will always suffer from third-party syndrome - "Nick who?". So a Tory win by a handful of seats is likely, but not necessarily my favoured outcome.
We had to have an election by May 6 at the latest. There was speculation that Brown would call one in 2007 when Labour were doing well in the polls, but he decided against it after the Tory Conference that year led to a significant bounce for them.
Also, yes, as dahamsta said, a hung parliament is quite unlikely usually, but is a realistic possibility this time. The Tories have a slight lead in the polls - just the circumstances which would force a hung parliament under our system.
I would've loved to see the Lib Dems get in when Charlie was in charge, but not under the current idiot. Or the idiot before him.
Hopefully Brown will be able to hang on to power, but between Iraq and expenses, about the only guarantee of major change to the British system at this stage will be if he's forced to cut a deal with Clegg, even if like dahamsta says, they try to stand for everything and nothing. One of the bizarre stats of first-past-the-post means that if Labour lose the overall vote by +- 4%, they'll remain the largest party in terms of seats, which pretty much sums up the advantages of PR.
We've had a number of Governments where the power has essentially rested with small parties and independents - PR isn't the perfect system either.Quote:
Originally Posted by culloty82
It can certainly be improved upon, but it's the best system available today.
Probably worth pointing out that Brown has been working on bringing PR to the UK.
Probably. Of course we also have the effective gerrymander of our system by the two main parties with the preponderance of 3 and 4 seaters*.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
*I realise that is contradictory to a certain extent on the point I was making about smaller parties holding power, but if we're going to have our system, we should at least try and get it as proportional as possible.
Ditto. But he wasn't overly popular with the voters.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
To be honest though, it's not the leader who's important, but the policies. Theirs are the best of a bad bunch. Hopefully they can get a hung parliament if enough people vote against the Tories, so they can finally get PR.
I wasn't aware of that. What specifically has he done to effect reform? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
Nothing of substance as yet as far as I'm aware, but he has been talking about it positively, which I reckon is substantive coming from the leader of Labour and the PM>
No major developments expected in England until the debates, but the Northern parties are in full election mode. Fermanagh-South Tyrone is expected to go Unionist after the DUP and UUP agreed a joint candidate, South Antrim will be between UUP leader Reg Empey and veteran Bible-thumper Willie McCrea, while Paisley Jnr faces a battle in North Antrim from die-hard Jim Allister. The only real drama in nationalist areas will be in South Down, where the new SDLP leader Margaret Ritchie is expected to edge out Sinn Fein's Catriona Ruane.
john hume was shouting at mark durkan on the banks of the foyle today during a photo op. apparently the local mp for the area was spending too long on the phone.
If the largest party (probably Conservatives) fail to get 325 seats for an overall majority, most likely they'd look to do a deal as you suggest. Both the NI unionst and Scotland/Wales nationalist blocs are likely to get 11 or 12 seats, of course Sinn Fein will abstain as ever and I'd expect the SDLP to stay neutral on this issue. The LibDems usually lose support when Conservatives revive, so Clegg & co may lose 25 of their 60 odd seats. I reckon Cameron would prefer to deal with the unionists, although given their limited numbers his working majority might still be very small.Quote:
Originally Posted by culloty82
One of the main reasons for this is that the electorate tends to be smaller in Labour areas (inner cities, old industrial towns) than in Conservative (suburban and countryside), so it takes fewer voters to elect each Labour MP. In turn the discrepancy is largely caused by people in poorer urban areas being more transient and less likely to register.Quote:
One of the bizarre stats of first-past-the-post means that if Labour lose the overall vote by +- 4%, they'll remain the largest party in terms of seats, which pretty much sums up the advantages of PR
Of the 18 NI constituencies, 17 currently have an MP reflecting the relative local strength of unionists and nationalists. The exception is South Belfast, which will probably also revert to unionist. So it could be 12-6 overall. The breakdown in F/ST is about 53-47 in nationlists' favor.Quote:
the Northern parties are in full election mode. Fermanagh-South Tyrone is expected to go Unionist after the DUP and UUP agreed a joint candidate...the only real drama in nationalist areas will be in South Down, where the new SDLP leader Margaret Ritchie is expected to edge out Sinn Fein's Catriona Ruane
William Hill are saying a 13/8 chance (ie about 35%).Quote:
Originally Posted by Cymro
Why do you think Clegg and Campbell are particularly idiotic compared with Kennedy?Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
The STV system works well for you (and locally for us in NI), I'd much prefer we used it across Britain. Brown's only real suggested change to the system until the last month or so has been for an alternative vote system. This at least means any winning candidate has to get 50% of the vote, but it isn't proportional.Quote:
It can certainly be improved upon, but it's the best system available today...Probably worth pointing out that Brown has been working on bringing PR to the UK
If we ever adopt STV nationwide, the constituencies should all be roughly the same size (in population, not geographical area). Ideally five seaters, with each constituency replacing six or seven of the current ones, to give us 500 MPs. A quota of 17% would mean the 'big three' parties should have an MP in pretty much all the English constituencies. Nationalists and unionists would remain localised as now while smaller parties (UKIP, BNP, Greens etc.) would, by concentrating on their strong areas, be able to get a bit more than they do now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
To give even more proprtionality, I'd have a wholly directly elected upper house, so unlike both our Lords and your senate. With a single constituency and open lists, so if the Green Party (say) got 3% of the vote nationally, they'd get 3% of its members. There might be an advantage in not tying these members (senators?) to geographical seats.
I still think Gildernew might scrape Fermanagh South Tyrone. The move to put forward a Unionist unity candidate might galvanise the nationalist vote around Sinn Fein. The SDLP have ran Tommy Gallagher every time since 1992 until now and McKinney might not be able to retain the support base from his work over the last couple of decades. The Alliance are also running for the first time since 1997 although it's hard to guess how many votes they'll take off both sides. Connor will be the favourite but I don't think it's a dead cert.