General Election 2015

[Herr Tubthumper]

You must be absolutely FILLING your boots with the bookies, I imagine.

View attachment 64631

My boots are stuffed, no more room. But, I have a massive windfall arriving in a few weeks so I might buy some more on the tick.

 

[beorhthelm]

With this comment, you're expecting the FPTP electoral system to deliver a fair or logical result. That's not what it's designed for; it's designed to provide clarity, and a clear government. (That it didn't do this at the last election or this one might just suggest that it's time has past.)
At the last election Lab had c29% of the vote, the Tories c36%, yet the difference in seats was less than 50 (258 vs 306). This is basically because the Tories have a large number of constituencies (mostly in the south-east) where they get resounding majorities. Labour's majorities aren't so resounding. So, if you combine both the points I've made, you'll get the clearest answer to your question (and the SNP doesn't really come into it). Lab-Con marginals mean that not only does one party gain a seat, the other one doesn't despite being close. This obviously doesn't pertain to Lab-SNP marginals.

its not the FPTP but the distorted constituency size that gives Labour more seats for the % of national vote. there are plenty of urban and old working class areas where the Labour candidate romps home on large majorities.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

How about we come to some agreement: I'll put the same amount of money as you do on a bet? I'll go for this market (as the odds are better for Labour); and you can go, for instance, for the Tories forming a government (either minority, confidence-and-supply, or coalition) where the odds are fairly similar. See:

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/next-government

Name your price (within reason).

Come on [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION]. Put your money where your mouth is and take up this challenge.

 

[Gwylan]

I’m naturally a Labour voter but if Ed ‘not even the best politician in his own family’ Milliband is the best they have to offer, I can’t bring myself to vote.

I keep seeing this and I can't understand it all. As far as I can see, David M was the anointed heir, a shoo-in for the leadership and completely cocked it up. Ed M was the rank outsider (he wasn't even second favourite) but, being a consummate politician, worked the field, built up alliances and set out a vision that won the day. The Labour leadership election demonstrated two things clearly - David is no politician, he was a policy wonk and ace bureaucrat but had no feeling for an electorate; Ed emphatically is, he set out a vision and persuaded enough voters to back him.

Now, people may not like him or reject his policies but to say that his brother is a better politician than him is complete nonsense: Ed wins elections even when the odds are stacked against him; David can't win when everything's in his favour - that counts for a lot

 

[Machiavelli]

its not the FPTP but the distorted constituency size that gives Labour more seats for the % of national vote. there are plenty of urban and old working class areas where the Labour candidate romps home on large majorities.

It's both. Can we agree on that?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

its not the FPTP but the distorted constituency size that gives Labour more seats for the % of national vote. there are plenty of urban and old working class areas where the Labour candidate romps home on large majorities.

FPTP only works adequately for a two party system. It's antiquated and needs changing.

 

[Jim D]

With this comment, you're expecting the FPTP electoral system to deliver a fair or logical result. That's not what it's designed for; it's designed to provide clarity, and a clear government. (That it didn't do this at the last election or this one might just suggest that it's time has past.)
At the last election Lab had c29% of the vote, the Tories c36%, yet the difference in seats was less than 50 (258 vs 306). This is basically because the Tories have a large number of constituencies (mostly in the south-east) where they get resounding majorities. Labour's majorities aren't so resounding. So, if you combine both the points I've made, you'll get the clearest answer to your question (and the SNP doesn't really come into it). Lab-Con marginals mean that not only does one party gain a seat, the other one doesn't despite being close. This obviously doesn't pertain to Lab-SNP marginals.

I missed your point earlier. I was thinking about overall majority. I can see that Labour could have more seats that the Tories but, without those Scottish seats, they could not form a government on their own - and that will be something that voters will need to consider.

 

[Titanic]

Funny but the Sun only mentions it's own poll when it has the Tories in front, when Labour are in front it puts crap about Ed Miliband's kitchen on the front page instead. I don't think they have quite worked out that social media is ridiculing them and their attempts at smears are having the opposite effect.

Rather like Grauniad's contortions when their poll showed the Tories with a 6 point lead?

 

[Norman Potting]

I find myself watching the build up to this election like a game between Palace and Pompey. It’s impossible to like any of them

I’m naturally a Labour voter but if Ed ‘not even the best politician in his own family’ Milliband is the best they have to offer, I can’t bring myself to vote. The equivalent to me is putting Sami Hyypia in charge of the Albion. How we hasn’t been ousted would be a mystery until you see the eminently unlikeable characters like Balls and Harman waiting in the wings. Simon Danczuk called that one right

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ob-says-labour-mp-simon-danczuk-10127466.html

Equally, the thought of an alliance between them and the SNP sends a shiver down my spine. So the SNP, who don’t want to be part of Britain, all of sudden carry the balance of power in British politics and all English issues. How does that work?

On the flip side, the current administration don’t really deserve a 2nd go. Cameron seems to have few passionate causes and policy will change with public opinion, Clegg hasn’t kicked up enough stink to have any clout and Osbourne wouldn’t be out of place as the baddie in your local theatres Christmas pantomime. The whole ‘we are all in the together’ mantra sticks in your throat when the only policies pushed through have been 50% tax and the like.

So who am I going to vote for? Bloody UKIP or the Greens. The reason? The only parties where I live who are anti HS2. It matters not, as my local Tory MP has a 12K majority / 53 % vote share but the choice of those 2 makes me feel like a fecking student again. The only other option is Monster raving looney candidate (yes, really)

Splendid post - nails it for me, particulalry the SNP bit.

 

[Bozza]

How about we come to some agreement: I'll put the same amount of money as you do on a bet? I'll go for this market (as the odds are better for Labour); and you can go, for instance, for the Tories forming a government (either minority, confidence-and-supply, or coalition) where the odds are fairly similar. See:

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/next-government

Name your price (within reason).

Come on [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION]. Put your money where your mouth is and take up this challenge.

Once again, you confuse my looney teasing with what you believe I want to, or think will, happen.

And [MENTION=409]Herr Tubthumper[/MENTION], you're well aware of past gambling problems - I couldn't say the last time I had a bet and I intend it to keep it that way, thanks.

Even if I wanted a Tory led government next time round there is no way I would bet on it, as it's clearly so close that how it's going to play out really is anyone's guess right now. I think it's going to be fascinating to watch it all unfold.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

You must be absolutely FILLING your boots with the bookies, I imagine.

View attachment 64631

To busy choosing a speedboat to place any further bets. **** knows where I'm going to park it.

 

[Machiavelli]

I missed your point earlier. I was thinking about overall majority. I can see that Labour could have more seats that the Tories but, without those Scottish seats, they could not form a government on their own - and that will be something that voters will need to consider.

If there's no overall majority (which seems extremely likely), there are three possibilities:
-- minority government
-- coalition government
-- confidence-and-supply
The Tories problem is that they're far less likely than Labour to form any of these, because so many parties have ruled out working with them, their projected seats are too low to run a minority, and their possible partners (Lib Dems, UKIP and DUP) are unlikely to get enough seats between them to help them run a government.
So, if Labour have more seats than the Tories, they'll be able to form one of those three possibilities, but they're also likely to do so if they have less seats than the Tories.
I dispute your claim that Lab will not be able to form a government without those Scottish seats -- both the above and my previous response to you provides the explanation.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Once again, you confuse my looney teasing with what you believe I want to, or think will, happen.

And [MENTION=409]Herr Tubthumper[/MENTION], you're well aware of past gambling problems - I couldn't say the last time I had a bet and I intend it to keep it that way, thanks.

Even if I wanted a Tory led government next time round there is no way I would bet on it, as it's clearly so close that how it's going to play out really is anyone's guess right now. I think it's going to be fascinating to watch it all unfold.

Fair enough, I understand. Maybe an ice-bucket challenge then? Bozza and friends versus the Loonies has a ring to it. For charity? It could convert a lot of the hot air in this thread to something more meaningful and tangible and for a good cause.

 

[Machiavelli]

Once again, you confuse my looney teasing with what you believe I want to, or think will, happen.

And [MENTION=409]Herr Tubthumper[/MENTION], you're well aware of past gambling problems - I couldn't say the last time I had a bet and I intend it to keep it that way, thanks.

Even if I wanted a Tory led government next time round there is no way I would bet on it, as it's clearly so close that how it's going to play out really is anyone's guess right now. I think it's going to be fascinating to watch it all unfold.

Glad to hear you avoid the bookies.
A genuine question: does this mean that you reject gambling advertisements on here?
And you can carry on teasing, but why restricted to those on the left?

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

With this comment, you're expecting the FPTP electoral system to deliver a fair or logical result. That's not what it's designed for; it's designed to provide clarity, and a clear government. (That it didn't do this at the last election or this one might just suggest that it's time has past.)
At the last election Lab had c29% of the vote, the Tories c36%, yet the difference in seats was less than 50 (258 vs 306). This is basically because the Tories have a large number of constituencies (mostly in the south-east) where they get resounding majorities. Labour's majorities aren't so resounding. So, if you combine both the points I've made, you'll get the clearest answer to your question (and the SNP doesn't really come into it). Lab-Con marginals mean that not only does one party gain a seat, the other one doesn't despite being close. This obviously doesn't pertain to Lab-SNP marginals.

Not really much of an effect. Of the top 50 majorities in 2010 29 of them were labour wins. Only 16 for Tories. Tories catch up after that, but pretty even really.

a bigger effect is the fact that Labour constituencies in England are about 10% smaller than conservative ones.

Also Labour wins seats with lower turn out 61% compared to 68%.

 

[beorhthelm]

It's both. Can we agree on that?

not really, because its not correct. whatever the perceived problems of FPTP, this isnt one of them. FPTP results due to three way splits or low % majorities balance out. there are many, many safe Labour seats in Scotland (maybe not those), Wales and northern cities that are 30% smaller than those safe Tory seats in the shires and south east.

the core problem really is comparing national votes to a system that returns MPs per seat. if each seat was the same size, the national vote wouldn't match the seats. in any constituency based system a vote of 51% or 65% will return the same number of MPs.

 

[Bozza]

Glad to hear you avoid the bookies.
A genuine question: does this mean that you reject gambling advertisements on here?

Nope. Two reasons:

1. Most people are able to bet quite happily without going over the top.
2. I don't believe that adverts for bookies on NSC (although I'm not sure I've ever seen one) are going to impact 'problem gamblers' as they wouldn't have made any difference to me.

And you can carry on teasing, but why restricted to those on the left?

I think I've said it before, but some of the intellectual snobbery from some (not all) of those on the left grates with me. Besides, watching bundle-of-fun [MENTION=1416]Ernest[/MENTION] suddenly get all twisted and snide is great fun to watch.

 

[Machiavelli]

Besides, watching bundle-of-fun [MENTION=1416]Ernest[/MENTION] suddenly get all twisted and snide is great fun to watch.

Ernest's political posts are somewhat different to his football ones.

 

[Machiavelli]

Not really much of an effect. Of the top 50 majorities in 2010 29 of them were labour wins. Only 16 for Tories. Tories catch up after that, but pretty even really.

a bigger effect is the fact that Labour constituencies in England are about 10% smaller than conservative ones.

Also Labour wins seats with lower turn out 61% compared to 68%.

I stand corrected

 

[Machiavelli]

I think I've said it before, but some of the intellectual snobbery from some (not all) of those on the left grates with me.

What's that? Do you mean: providing explanations; accusations of being selfish; both; something else?