General Election 2015

[Herr Tubthumper]

you should check your source, for a start minority governments are hung parliaments. prior to 2010, only hung parliament since the war was '74, and that covers 18 elections.

I meant 5 were minority and 5 were coalition. You are of course correct, all 10 were hung. My typo.

 

[Ernest]

Opinium Observer poll (16 - 17 Apr):
CON 36% (=)
LAB 32% (-2)
UKIP 13% (+2)
LD 8% (+1)
GRN 5% (-1)

Cue the usual excuses about statistical variance, margins of error, too many AB/C1's etc... etc...

Don't forget to list the other polls tonight

 

[Ernest]

Opinium Observer poll (16 - 17 Apr):
CON 36% (=)
LAB 32% (-2)
UKIP 13% (+2)
LD 8% (+1)
GRN 5% (-1)

Cue the usual excuses about statistical variance, margins of error, too many AB/C1's etc... etc...

Could you post the You Gov poll please ?

 

[Ernest]

[MENTION=409]Herr Tubthumper[/MENTION] I've beaten [MENTION=36]Titanic[/MENTION] to this

YouGov/Times Poll:

Lab 36%
Con 33%
Ukip 13%
Lib Dem 8%
Green 5%

 

[Hampster Gull]

[MENTION=409]Herr Tubthumper[/MENTION] I've beaten [MENTION=36]Titanic[/MENTION] to this

YouGov/Times Poll:

Lab 36%
Con 33%
Ukip 13%
Lib Dem 8%
Green 5%

Its an outlier ��

 

[beorhthelm]

Professor Robert Hazell of the University College London.

"Hung parliaments may seem unusual but they are not. Britain had 20 governments in the 20th century, according to Professor Robert Hazell of the UCL Constitution Unit. Of these, five were coalitions and five were minority governments.

hmm. that would seem solid, except that that a look through the wiki list of uk general elections tells me there were 26 governments in 20th century. what the quote tells me is the source is the Guardian, and i infer that a lazy journo has divided 100 by 5. there is no attributed quote to a professor, just a name drop, and misquoted something write or said elsewhere. it looks like a messy business before the war, still only 4 non majority governments. so i count 6 from 26 (actualy, couple of coalitions in there too. i count badly, its messy pre-war)., still not as stable as some would portray. chalk this one up to relying on Guardian... (and wiki)

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

hmm. that would seem solid, except that that a look through the wiki list of uk general elections tells me there were 26 governments in 20th century. what the quote tells me is the source is the Guardian, and i infer that a lazy journo has divided 100 by 5. there is no attributed quote to a professor, just a name drop, and misquoted something write or said elsewhere. it looks like a messy business before the war, still only 4 non majority governments. so i count 6 from 26, still not as stable as some would portray. (actualy, couple of coalitions in there too, its messy pre-war). chalk this one up to relying on Guardian...

So, have I got this right? You are using Wikipedia and the back of a fag-packet to discredit a UCL Professor

 

[beorhthelm]

So, have I got this right? You are using Wikipedia and the back of a fag-packet to discredit a UCL Professor

not at all, as i point out the Guardian doesnt actualy make any attributed quote. go look for yourself and count the number of governments in 20th century (thats what piqued my inquisition on the quote, i knew there have been more). then work from there. i will happily discredit the Guardian on the basis of a bloke down the pub if they can back it up. i also concede the jist of the point that FPTP hasnt produced the single party majority that is made out, though since the war there has only been two exceptions.

 

[Bry Nylon]

Before the election campaign started, Labour politicians were saying, "The more people see of Ed the more they will like him / warm to him." It seems that the exact opposite is happening.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Before the election campaign started, Labour politicians were saying, "The more people see of Ed the more they will like him / warm to him." According to the latest YouGov poll that seems to be exactly what is happening.

Yes, it is. Hence his enthusiasm for public debating.

 

[Bry Nylon]

Yes, it is. Hence his enthusiasm for public debating.

I respect you having your own opinion but please don't attempt to make it by editing my quote.

Sorry Bry. You're right - that is that action of a total ****wit.

 

[ROSM]

Before the election campaign started, Labour politicians were saying, "The more people see of Ed the more they will like him / warm to him." It seems that the exact opposite is happening.

The polls concerning whether people perceive ed m as prime minister quality seem to indicate he has made significant inroads in peoples perception. Doesn't necessarily mean labour will win though

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

So, have I got this right? You are using Wikipedia and the back of a fag-packet to discredit a UCL Professor

There were a lot of Hung Parliaments when Ireland was still around for obvious reasons. And one of the 'coalitions' was due to a spilt in the Liberal Party over the Irish issue.
Another two coalitions because of the wars and I would suggest that FPTP since 1945 is a better measure of the result of the electoral system, not since 1900.
Moreover I would argue the extension of the franchise from 1900-1948 means measuring electoral results since the 'first khaki election' isn't the best way to do things.
After 1918 property restrictions were lifted, 40% of women were given the vote as were all men over 21.
Additionally ten years later women's votes became equal to men - and up until 1948 we still have plural voting!
Finally of course it's only from 1969 those older than 18 could vote.

So although the professor is correct in the literal sense, I'd say it was a manipulation of the facts. The Country had changed drastically from 1900-1945, in terms of borders and also with the extension of the right to vote, that IMO it's wrong to include anything before this period.

If we measure from 1918 - this was a coalition Government and 1923 was a hung Parliament. Both still before equality of suffrage in 1928.

1929 produced a Hung Parliament, but in 1931 there was a decisive Conservative victory.
From 1935-1945 there was a coalition due to the War, which isn't the fault of FPTP and shouldn't be included in the statistics.

Since then only in Feb '74 and in 2010 has FPTP failed to produce a majority.

Therefore it could strongly be argued that in the modern era since 1945, FPTP has produced strong electoral results.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

I haven't got an answer to the obvious point that Ed Milliband is actually an extremely effective politician, with a track record of winning people over to support him, so I'm going to switch the focus to some specious point of order about messageboard posting etiquette...

Corrected for you.

 

[Kevlar]

The "good reason" you talk about is often war, often give aways or pandering to their supporters, often good social reasons.

Whislt income = debt it doesn't for a country. Their is international trade. some countries are richer than others, some run surpluse, eg germany, some run decificts, eg greece. Both examples are extremes

Continually running soverign deficits can only be done by 1. Defaulting on debt which leaves the lender worse off and ultimately the public 2. Inflating away the issue which leads the lender worse off and ultimately the public 3. Letting future generations pay by passing it on which means we can have a party or 4. Growing the economy strongly enough to pay it off at some point.everyone hopes for the latter, it'll be ok on the night, lets have ankther drink.

that is the theory but the reality is different
the uk like most countries do run structural deficits
and have done for over 400 years
generation after generation's governments have run deficits
there is no paying the stock of debt back
it is not just Greece that can not pay off the stock of debt
nor can UK USA not even Germany
to believe otherwise is to believe the last 400 years have not existed
and remember the uk ran up a larger govt sector debt to GDP ratio
even when there was a gold standard which provided some kind of restraint on sovereign monetary
power.
Monetary sovereign governments do not default
defaults are for countries like Argentina when they borrowed dollars
and their central bank does not have power to create US dollars
or Greece who have joined a currency union and no longer have the backing
of their own central bank.
There was that "joke"left by a labour treasury spokesmen
that the money has run out .
but it hasn't has it
indeed the coalition has been able to run more deficit in 5 years than the previous
13 years under labour.
why hasn't the money run out ?
because treasury spending is an instruction to the nationalized
Bank of England the issue of government bonds to account for
the gap between spending and revenue is just smoke and mirrors

 

[Stumpy Tim]

Surely by having a referendum, the people can decide? If we voted to stay 'in' then that's the issue done. Why you are voting for a party solely to stop people having a fair say on a legitimate question is baffling.

We had a referendum on the voting system - fair enough. It's not like we have referendums all the time!

Or do you not trust the people to return the right answer?

Apologies for the delay in responding as you ask a fair question. My problem isn't about trusting the people to make the right decision, it's more than that. Membership of the EU is a very complicated issue - one that I don't think I know enough about to make a proper decision. I would be in the "In" camp because all the major parties, apart from UKIP, support it and they're paid to understand all the issues. But that's not my main concern.

My problem is that I think an EU referendum wouldn't end up being debated. The very public debate will one on nationalism and immigration. Immigration is one very small part of EU membership, but it will dominate. This worries me hugely as I personally think the atmosphere in the UK will become very toxic & race will play a part. That troubles me greatly, and part of that comes from me being in a mixed race marriage with mixed race children.

 

[Machiavelli]

[MENTION=409]Herr Tubthumper[/MENTION] I've beaten [MENTION=36]Titanic[/MENTION] to this

YouGov/Times Poll:

Lab 36%
Con 33%
Ukip 13%
Lib Dem 8%
Green 5%

Somehow I predicted that [MENTION=36]Titanic[/MENTION] would post that Opinium poll but not the YouGov one. Titanic: predictable: shurely shome mishtake.

 

[Machiavelli]

Before the election campaign started, Labour politicians were saying, "The more people see of Ed the more they will like him / warm to him." It seems that the exact opposite is happening.

All the opinion poll evidence indicates that the public are warming to Ed, as his personal ratings are rising. Can you provide some evidence for your claim?

 

[Ernest]

All the opinion poll evidence indicates that the public are warming to Ed, as his personal ratings are rising. Can you provide some evidence for your claim?

Think it is fair to say Ed Miliband is growing into the campaign and proving people wrong whilst Cameron seems to be doing the opposite, a very tetchy and tired display this morning on the Andrew Marr show

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Think it is fair to say Ed Miliband is growing into the campaign and proving people wrong whilst Cameron seems to be doing the opposite, a very tetchy and tired display this morning on the Andrew Marr show

Given his performance this morning it's easy to see why the public are turning away from an angry tetchy Cameron to Ed Miliband.