Giving your ball a rub for the election

[cwathen]

I'm going to predict Conservatives as the largest party, but not by much and certainly not a majority.

What will happen next depends on how much SNP gain and how much LD lose. If Con+LD (and possibly + UKIP although I doubt they will make much difference) gives a larger number of seats than Lab+SNP, then I reckon Cameron will have a go at a minority government with no more coalition but a confidence and supply arrangement.

If on the other hand Lab+SNP gives more than any arrangement the tories can cobble together, then sadly I believe we will end up with a Labour minority government propped up by the SNP under something looser than formal coalition or confidence and supply (so Milliband can deny doing a U-turn on dealing with the SNP) but which will amount to the same thing.

Nick Clegg and whichever out of Cameron or Milliband doesn't end up as PM will have resigned by the end of the week.

Either way, whether we end up with a Conservative or a labour government it will feel like a hollow victory for the winner, who will now have to set out on 5 years of treading on eggshells over certain issues to make sure they don't upset the parties that they rely on to vote their key legislation through and I'm not sure that parliament will stand 5 years of working like that without a vote of no confidence triggering an early election, but even in that case unless there is significant change of opinion in favour of one party another election under FPTP is likely to deliver a similar outcome - or an even worse one given that the situation has gone backwards since 2010. Whilst I voted to retain FPTP last time, I think the issue of electoral reform will come up again and it may be that the system has to change to get back to elections delivering strong governments.

[Alexia]

The fundamental issue I have with PR is that it is not one big election, but 650 little ones. We are not technically voting for parties, but candidates. I realise in practice this is complete bollocks, but it's the truth. While we have 59 parties standing, should only those who can afford to stand 621 candidates be afforded the opportunity to get representation? We'd end up with 2-party politics like the USA. At least in FPTP you can be a single issue / local party and still get elected. I'm thinking Martin Bell, Peter Law, Independent Kidderminster Health Concern, Galloway etc. Under PR such small parties wouldn't get a look in.

STV would be better, but there is no truly, 100% fair way of allocating election votes, let's face it.


Interesting article about PR from LSE here : http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/generalelection/ ... -under-pr/

[cwathen]

The fundamental issue I have with PR is that it is not one big election, but 650 little ones. We are not technically voting for parties, but candidates. I realise in practice this is complete bollocks, but it's the truth. While we have 59 parties standing, should only those who can afford to stand 621 candidates be afforded the opportunity to get representation? We'd end up with 2-party politics like the USA. At least in FPTP you can be a single issue / local party and still get elected. I'm thinking Martin Bell, Peter Law, Independent Kidderminster Health Concern, Galloway etc. Under PR such small parties wouldn't get a look in.

My reasons for supporting FPTP were that the system's biggest perceived flaw (a minority of the electorate can elect a majority government) is far outweighed by the fact that the outcome under FPTP is 'wrong' for the least number of people. Therefore it's fairer than any PR system.

However, if it's going to continually return hung parliaments that rely on a post-election deal which no one voted for (particularly if the governing party came second in the election, as could have happened last time if the Lib Dems did a deal with Labour instead of the Tories and could still happen this time depending on what happens with the SNP), then it just isn't working any more. You could put the 2010 election down to an anomaly, but over the past 5 years the growth of fringe parties has increased which has just made the situation worse - we're going into this election knowing that the outcome will be a hung parliament and knowing that the deal needed to form a government is going to be even more muddy than the last one. I don't deny that I want Cameron and a Conservative government - but I want it because I believe in several key area of their manifesto (particularly the EU referendum) which I may now not get if they have to do deals. The same could be said about Labour supporters not getting what they want if Labour is governing with anything less than a majority.

We effectively have 2 party politics anyway - whatever is uncertain about this election what is certain is that the PM will definitely be either Cameron or Milliband, the main governing party will definitely be either Conservative or Labour. Would it not be better for one of those 2 parties to be elected under a system which gives them a government of authority and strength?

[Alexia]

Fringe parties have risen to fill the gaps abandoned by Labour and Tories, and even by Lib Dems. Race to the centre has abandoned many, not just on the fringes, but just plain old lefties and righties.

[Alexia]

Am I still allowed to make a prediction in this thread?

Yes, but for 2020.

Conservatives: 200 seats
Federal Party: 249 seats
Labour: 50 seats
Lib Dems: 0 seats
Plaid Cymru: 40 seats
His Holiness Saint Nigel Farage of Wherever He Thinks He Can Get Votes Memorial Party: 0 seats
Lyme Regis Independence Party: 1 seat.

[robschneider]

Conservative majority. Left vote split between SNP, Labour and Green.

[cwathen]

I'll just keep rubbing my balls for five years if it's all the same with you.

I think it's far too early to say whether or not the conservatives will get a 3rd term, particularly since both them and Labour will be going into the next election with different leaders. The conservative majority is big news because no one thought it possible, but as majorities go it's very very slim, slimmer than John Major got in 1992. If Labour find another Blair, public opinion could swing in their favour as significantly as 1997 and they could get in with a landslide. If they just muddle along, the conservatives could get in again.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Lib Dems decide the ultimate way forward is a rerun of 1981 where they form an alliance with another party (possibly the greens), standing one candidate representing both in order to capitalise on supporters of both parties prior to formal merger later down the line.

I do think UKIP will be the party to watch. They may have only won a single seat but they came second in 120. Back in 2010 they came second in precisely zero. Given a continued rise in popularity over the next 5 years it's certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that they may well see similar gains to that of the SNP next time.

Whether the SNP will stay on top will be interesting. The headline news is that in Scotland the SNP won 56 out of 59 seats leaving Labour with only 1, but what isn't being widely reported is that Labour still came second in around 40 of them. On the assumption that there will be no 2nd Scottish referendum nor any voting reform during the next parliament, it's certainly conceivable that this could turn around again next time, particularly if Labour sort themselves out and promises a better deal for Scotland causing tactical voting that it's better to vote for a party who could actually make it to power and deliver in Westminster rather than voting for the SNP which may well have the numbers to shout loudly, but still has no real clout.