PDA

View Full Version : Next General Election Result


Doors to Automatic
1st Jun 2008, 16:37
With Brown about to get stabbed in the back by his own party I thought it would be interesting to try and predict the outcome of the next election.

The Tories are currently 24 points ahead in the polls but past experience would suggest that the actual election result will be a lot less extreme.

Looking back in history; in 1992 there was a swing of around 16 points from the worst opinion polls to the actual result; in 1997 it was about 12 points. Since then the swings have been less.

Given the exceptional nature of the 1992 result I am going to guess a swing of between 10 points in favour of Labour (giving a Tory lead of 14 points) and 16 points (Tory lead of 8 points). On a typical vote share and the Libs staying on around 18% this would give a Tory majority of between 86 seats and 12 seats short.

My prediction is half-way in between - a Tory majority of 37 seats


What does everyone else think at this stage?

It would be good if this thread is kept from descending into a political slanging match and predictions are justified with reasoned evidence.

frostbite
1st Jun 2008, 18:13
You may well be right - unless Brown adopts the Mugabe electioneering approach.

Dan D'air
1st Jun 2008, 18:15
Hasn't he already? I don't recall him actually having a mandate, he was elected Nu Labour leader unopposed.

IMHO, about 60 in the blue corner after the next election.

Big Tudor
1st Jun 2008, 18:59
I think it really depends on how many will be bothered to get out and vote. I think that the majority of people still think there is too little to decide between the 2 main parties. I've got a horrible feeling we are heading for a hung parliament (well they all should be :E ) which would benefit nobody. The only question is which of the 2 main parties would the Lib Dems jump into bed with? Haven't seen enough of the new boy to work out which shade of yellow he is.

Flap 5
1st Jun 2008, 19:12
There maybe one thing that comes out of Gordon's incompetence as prime minister and that is hopefully a much higher turnout at the next general election. This happened with the London mayoral election.

People are getting really fed up with fuel prices, bank failures and general mismanagement of the economy and maybe will get out to vote next time.

MarcJF
1st Jun 2008, 19:21
turning it round slightly, have you ever met anyone who owns up to voting these muppets in in the first place?

Beatriz Fontana
1st Jun 2008, 20:40
it really depends on how many will be bothered to get out and vote

Unless there's a complete Tory disaster, the electorate will come out to vote because they'll be voting for "anything but Gordon". Bit like what happened in Oz (so I'm told by political types over there!).

50 seats to the Tories.

BlooMoo
1st Jun 2008, 21:19
Current mid spread offered on si is 349-Tory vs 233 Labour - Lib Dem at their usual inconsequential level. Anyone have any stats on spread-bet sentiment historically?

Effluent Man
2nd Jun 2008, 10:11
I bet on both '97 and 2001 and got both within 10 seats.There is an extra complication emerging though and this is the large demographic moves that are likely to see the Tories end of with far fewer seats than their percentage of the popular vote would suggest.

This has happened several times in the past and is why constituency boundaries get reviewed and altered.A typical example of the move would be a middle class voter living in a marginal constituency who retires to (say) Devon,where the electorate would vote in a stuffed dog if it wore a blue rosette.This has worked the other way though,before we get a blitz of conspiracy theories and the Electoral Commission is an independent body.

As the original post observes the part of government moves back into the frame as the election nears.Every government for 50 years suffered massive reverses at by elections,with the exception of the current one until Crewe&Nantwich.It really started in 1962 when the Liberals won Orpington.Interestingly two years later a discredited Tory party led by Alec Douglas-Home,(And it would have been harder to have found a politician more out of step with the zeitgeist of the "swinging 60's" )almost hung on,losing to Harold Wilson by just 6.

My best guess : Biggest party,Dave's,no majority. Hard to see a Tory/Lib alliance as the Libs are left of Labour so a Lab/Lib coalition.

Binoculars
2nd Jun 2008, 15:02
"anything but Gordon". Bit like what happened in Oz (so I'm told by political types over there!).

In Oz it's called the "It's Time" factor. Twas amazing listening to the deniers approaching the election. There is none so deaf.....

Goodbye Gordon! There will be no need for a coalition, it's Tory! Tory! Tory! * and the extent of the sweep I suspect will astonish the good citizens of England.

(*Wasn't that a movie once?)

Effluent Man
3rd Jun 2008, 09:24
Unfortunately for that scenario one thing is lacking - A Tory.Dave has trimmed to incorporate the PC brigade, witness the opposition to the extension of the time limit for terrorist suspects.Tory policies are not significantly at variance to New Labour in most respects,maybe foxhunting. Brown is pretty useless in his current job but probably the best Chancellor since Geoffrey Howe.

Dan D'air
3rd Jun 2008, 10:06
Brown is pretty useless in his current job but probably the best Chancellor since Geoffrey Howe.

How do you explain the state of the economy then, it's not all about Global influence Effluent.

Effluent Man
3rd Jun 2008, 11:01
Oil/energy prices,credit crunch,house prices,general fear from those struggling to maintain Premiership lifestyles on ordinary salaries and wanting someone else to blame when it all goes wrong.

Binoculars
3rd Jun 2008, 12:10
I don't think anybody really wants to hear that sort of reasoning, EM. It's much easier just to blame the gummint, whatever flavour it is.

The gummint orta do sumthin about it I tell ya!

Flap 5
3rd Jun 2008, 12:34
The government is in charge of the regulation and regulatory authorities. These authorities have failed with regard to Northern Rock and other banks where they have been allowed to get into the situation they are in. The government therefore is to blame. They are in charge.

Gordon Brown was not the best Chancellor. That is just spin. He raided the pension funds, he sold our gold when it was at a low value, he has created tax credits which only have a 20% takeup rate, created pension credits requiring pensioners to fill out pages of forms - again with the result of a low takeup rate etc. etc..

When will you Labour supporters take your blinkers off? :hmm:

Binoculars
3rd Jun 2008, 12:40
I don't live in England, I'm not a Labour supporter, I just agreed with EM's post that many things are beyond the control of a government of any colour. He didn't mention banks at all, let alone pensioners having to fill out pages of forms, shock horror!

If you choose to blame the government for the price of oil, interest rates or housing prices, perhaps you would like to tell us all how your flavour of government would do it differently.

What was that about blinkers? Answer the point raised or stay out of it.

Neptunus Rex
3rd Jun 2008, 12:44
Gordon Brown. Brilliant Chancellor? Is he not the one who sold off all the gold, only to see the price rocket?

Anyway, it's a moot point. By the time the next election comes around, Britain will have its second unelected Prime Minister in the same term - David Miliband.

May you live in interesting times!

:\

Flap 5
3rd Jun 2008, 13:17
Binos,

The point raised is about the next general election in the UK. I have answered it in a reasonable way. I am not getting into a slanging match with anyone. Please do not do so with me.

Effluent Man
3rd Jun 2008, 13:19
I think if you read some of my posts you will find stuff that would make most Labour supporters apoplectic.I have voted Labour,Tory and as a protest UKIP.What seems to get up some people's noses is failure to slavishly follow a party line,no matter what that party might be.

My opinion,for what it is worth,and that may be very little,is that Brown managed the economy in a reasonably competent manner for a decade,no more than that.My post was really to outline the fact that Nigel Lawson did a much worse job in the late eighties with boom/bust policies,Need I mention Lamont? Major was a decent guy who just got unlucky,politicians who are unlucky are rarely forgiven.As least he got his leg over the deliciously feisty Edwina.

Big Tudor
3rd Jun 2008, 13:20
Doors to Automatic asked It would be good if this thread is kept from descending into a political slanging match in post 1.
Flaps 5 wrote When will you Labour supporters take your blinkers off?
Flaps, if you don't want catch fish then then don't dangle worms in the water! :=

Binoculars
3rd Jun 2008, 13:22
No problem if you want to call it a slanging match, Flap5. I couldn't care less.

But you have conspicuously failed to answer any of the points of either EM or myself. If that's your idea of debate, so be it. It fits in well with those who find it convenient to blame the government for everything because they have never had an original thought.

MarcJF
3rd Jun 2008, 20:54
Gordon Brown flies into Washington , still an unknown quantity to most people in the U.S. despite his bizarre appearance on American Idol recently. In advance of the trip, profiles of the Prime Minister have been appearing in the U.S. This column tuned in by satellite to Eye-Witness News, Palm Beach , for a preview of the visit:



"Good morning America , how are you? This is your favourite son, Chad Hanging, reporting. The President of Englandland, Norman Brown, is arriving in our nation's capital this afternoon to meet with President Bush. But just who is this guy? Let's cross to our special correspondent Brit Limey."



Hey, Chad . As you can see, I'm standing in the world-famous Trafalgar Circus, with the House of Fayed directly behind me.



So what can you tell us about Norman Brown?



Well, Chad , he has been President for about a year now. He used to be Chancellor.



What, you mean he's, like, German?



No, that's what they call their Treasury Secretary over here.



And is he a Conservative, like President Tony Blair?



No, Chad . He's Labour. President Blair wasn't a Conservative, either. He only pretended to be.



So how did Brown get the job?



He just kept shouting at President Blair until he stood down.



But he won an election, right?



No, Chad , there wasn't an election. He did think about calling one, but decided against it because he was frightened he might lose.



How can you change Presidents without having an election? I mean, it's not like President Blair was assassinated.



That's just the way it works in Englandland. The leader of the party with the most seats in the House of Lords gets to be President.



So Norman Brown was elected leader of the Labour Party?



Negative, again, Chad . He did raise money and have a leadership campaign, but no one stood against him.



What, nobody? No primaries, no general election, nothing?



Affirmative, Chad .



Let me get this straight. His party hasn't elected him, the country hasn't elected him, yet he still gets to be President. Sounds like a tinpot Commie dictatorship to me.



You could say that, Chad . Norman Brown doesn't really like anyone being given the chance to vote on anything.



Someone must have voted for him, some time.



Oh, yes. He was elected to the House of Lords by his constituents in Scotlandland.



He's Scoddish, then?



That's a big Ten-Four, Chad.



So is he President of Scotlandland, too?



No, that's a guy called Alan Salmon.



Hang on, if Brown's from Scotlandland, how can he be President of Englandland?



That's just the way it goes in this crazy country, Chad . Brown can make laws for Englandland, but not for his own people in Scotlandland. Not that it matters much because Brown has signed away most of Englandland's lawmaking powers to unelected European bureaucrats in Brussels , Belgiumland.



That would be like stripping Congress of the power to make laws in America and handing it over to Mexico .



I guess so.



How in the Hell did the people of Englandland vote for that.



They didn't. Brown wouldn't let them, even though it was a solemn promise in his party's manifesto the last time people were allowed to vote.



Couldn't the Supreme Court have stopped him?



Not really. The Supreme Court of Englandland is now in Strasbourg , where the geese come from.



Isn't there any opposition?



There's a guy called Boris.



Sounds Russian.



I wouldn't be surprised, Chad . There are millions of Eastern Europeans living here now, mainly in Peterburl. Englandland has seen mass immigration over the past ten years, but no one voted for that, either.



What in the name of Ulysses S. Grant is going on over there, Brit? We're talking about the country which gave us Magna Carta, saw off the Armada, stood alone against Hitler and invented parliamentary democracy. How does Norman Brown get away with it? He must be a popular guy.



Far from it, Chad . According to the latest opinion polls, he's the most unpopular President ever. His approval ratings are even worse than George Dubya Bush. There's talk about him having to stand down soon. He's already promised the job to some guy who works for him - name of Balls.



Say again, Brit, you're breaking up.



Balls.



You're damn right there, buddy.

Flap 5
3rd Jun 2008, 21:04
Touche Marc. It looks like some of our colonial cousins in Oz have a similarly jaundiced view of our Great Leader.

BillHicksRules
3rd Jun 2008, 22:04
What is all this nonsense about unelected leaders?

We do not have an unelected leader.

Anyone who says we do just makes themselves look like an idiot.

ORAC
3rd Jun 2008, 22:12
How can you change Presidents without having an election? Short American history lesson... :E:E

Gerald Ford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford) was the first person appointed to the vice presidency under the terms of the 25th Amendment, and became President upon Richard Nixon's resignation on August 9, 1974. Ford was the fifth U.S. President never to have been elected to that position, and the only one never to have won a national election at all......

BillHicksRules
3rd Jun 2008, 22:14
ORAC,

:D:D:D

Bravo sir.

Cheers

BHR

Big Tudor
3rd Jun 2008, 22:33
Is having a Scotsman in charge of the UK that much different from having a Texan in charge of Hawaii & Alaska? At least (most) of President Broon's realm falls in the same time zone.

And correct me if I am wrong but when the UK Parliament passes a law it applies to all countries of the UK. No state opt outs here.

ORAC
3rd Jun 2008, 22:41
And correct me if I am wrong but when the UK Parliament passes a law it applies to all countries of the UK. No state opt outs here.
Scot's Law: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_law) Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament can apply to the whole of the UK including Scotland, to Scotland alone or not to Scotland at all.

The Scotland Act 1998 does not affect the power of the Westminster Parliament to legislate as regards Scotland, but during its passage the Sewel Convention was established, which effectively requires the consent of the Scottish Parliament to Westminster legislation on devolved matters.........

Big Tudor
3rd Jun 2008, 22:49
Ok, I was wrong! :oh:

I was refering to the case in the US where the Defense of Marriage act in 1996 effectively ruled out same-sex marriages. Massachusetts and California both now recognise same sex marriage, even though it is still not recognised by federal governement. Could this situation occur here, i.e. a law is passed and accepted by the constituent parts of the UK and is then rejected some years later?

Life's a Beech
4th Jun 2008, 00:02
effluentBrown is pretty useless in his current job but probably the best Chancellor since Geoffrey Howe.You must be thinking of a different Brown. It was obvious from the start that the man was completely incompetent. There is only one major decision he made that was good, giving independence to the Bank of England on interest rates, and Brown completely ruined that when he redefined inflation for his own ends.

Yes there is a difficult economic environment. Brown had the opportunity to set the UK economy and government finances in a state that would help us ride it out. Instead he did exactly the opposite, and has made it all far worse. He did it all for short-term political gains, and is now realising that short-term gains don't work in the long term.

Next election? Labour are screwed. They might barely survive. The figures are getting worse for them, not better.

P.S. Those mentioning the boundary changes are right that they are decided by an independent commission. However the Conservative party admit that they were caught napping at the last changes by leaving it to the politically neutral, and Labour had lobbied very hard for changes in their favour. There is incredible bias in Labour's favour. That does Labour no credit, in fact it is quite disgusting that they will damage our democracy for their own political gain.

James 1077
4th Jun 2008, 04:07
turning it round slightly, have you ever met anyone who owns up to voting these muppets in in the first place?


The father-in-law did. He was heavily involved in the local labour party and ran in local council elections. He's been a member of the labour party pretty much since he left school at 15 to start an apprenticeship with BT and was none-too-pleased about his only daughter running off with a Tory!

To show quite how bad it has got for the Labour party he's a lib dem now!

Doors to Automatic
6th Jun 2008, 23:26
What is all this nonsense about unelected leaders?

We do not have an unelected leader.

Anyone who says we do just makes themselves look like an idiot.

Really? I must have slept through the General Election where that dour Stalinist Moron was elected! Please do enlighten us BHR!

Effluent Man
7th Jun 2008, 10:45
And you should be pleased about that.If the election had been called in October Gordon would now be safely in power until late 2012.As it is you have a chance of changing the government in less than two years.May I also remind you that when the Thatcher/Major change took place in November 1990 there was no election.

I suppose it's a matter of whether you a elect a person or a political party.I voted for Blair,I would not have voted for Brown.I guess that I am therefore pretty much alone on this forum in being able to claim to be less than completely gruntled about the situation with any degree of justification.

Doors to Automatic
7th Jun 2008, 11:02
I agree with you Effluent Man. Personally I think the constitution should be changed to force an election every four years, no PM can run more than two terms and any incoming PM that has not been voted in should be forced to call an election within a year of taking office.

Effluent Man
7th Jun 2008, 12:17
I would agree,apart from the no PM to run more than two terms bit.I don't see the point in ruling out able and popular politicians.

Nobody is ever going to agree with every policy of a government,it has to be an "on balance" decision and certainly the PC agenda has got up my nose.I am beginning to think that it might be me out of step though,especially when I hear politicians whom I had assumed to be well to my right arguing for the human rights of terrorist "suspects".

Krystal n chips
7th Jun 2008, 12:46
Whilst I am far from being a fan of Nu Labour....or rather the inept, indifferent and incompetent control freaks and generally consumate liars that comprise the Gov't.....(saved you the cost of a call here Gordon ! :E ) erm, I have a looooooong memory and thus it comes as no surprise that despite his protestations and cherubic inane grin, the leader...well not actually a leader, more a convenient muppet to fill the post on an interim basis.....of the Nu Conservative's ....has been happily leading a party who have been engaging in their favourite hobby, well more than a hobby actually, a way of life for them...and doing some rather nostalgic trough snuffling......which, as I recall they had some expertise in.

So, whilst Gordon et al...being too arrogant to listen and understand / rectify the problems they have induced...will shortly be the "Opposition"....here's a little taste of history to remind us of the impending alternative.........and why now really would be a good time to become "ex UK".....for those who can make the escape.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7441597.stm

Please note the side menu re MEP's !

Effluent Man
7th Jun 2008, 13:09
My belief is that few,if any,politicians go into the job with the intention of creaming off as much as they can for themselves.However,once there the culture really does encourage it.There are all sorts of perqs and allowances that are completely legit,and it is only human nature to take what you are entitled to.

Ms.Spelman appears to have strayed the wrong side of the line on this and the MEP Chichester has also sailed too close to the wind.Derek Conway was of course an out and out crook.I would say the Tories are more exposed on this than any other party.Glass houses and stones come to mind.

Life's a Beech
7th Jun 2008, 19:15
BillHicksRules

Blair stated categorically before the last general election that he would remain as party leader for a full term. That was specifically to lay to rest Conservative claims of "vote Blair, get Brown". That is the basis on which people voted.

The only people that did vote for him are Scottish, yet he forms many policies relating to England and Wales that have no effect on Scotland. The only country in which he still has full, direct authority on all issues is England. So calling Brown unelected leader is entirely justified shorthand, and people are angry about this constitutional abomination.

How do you justify it? Who did elect him to this position?

BillHicksRules
8th Jun 2008, 09:58
DTA,

That "dour Stalinist Moron" has been elected at every General Election since 1983. So I guess you have slept through a lot of General Elections.

Effluent Man,

" suppose it's a matter of whether you a elect a person or a political party.I voted for Blair,I would not have voted for Brown.I guess that I am therefore pretty much alone on this forum in being able to claim to be less than completely gruntled about the situation with any degree of justification."

Unless you lived in the Sedgefield constituency you did not vote for Blair. You may have voted Labour with the intention of electing the party that Blair led.

This thread just shows the general level of ignorance in the British electorate.

Cheers

BHR

heli_port
8th Jun 2008, 10:41
Tories ftw!

Utrinque Apparatus
8th Jun 2008, 10:42
BHR

This thread represents the ignorance of the British electorate ? :rolleyes:

Your grasp of statistical sampling is as accurate as the Government's figures when it tries to understand the economy, education, taxation (rather, tax and spend profligacy), law and order, immigration, liberty, freedom of the individual, health and every other facet of life in the UK today. The questionable funding of the labour party, distortion of the House of Lords and House of Commons by the ne'er do wells in power today is at the heart of a deep corruption of our society and if you can't see that, then you really need to take a hard, honest look at the damage wrought on the country for ten years by this failed experiment.

The mere fact that precious New Labour has been found out is anathema to all those who were gullible enough to fall for the Blair con and Brown's incompetence (wait for the pensions scandal to come home to roost).

Nick Riviera
8th Jun 2008, 11:13
What BHR states is true in the sense of that is the way our election process actually works at the purest level. However, his smug and superior attitude (plus calling the electorate ignorant - what a great politician he would make) hides the fact that, in the real world, virtually everybody votes for who they want to be PM, whether they are in his constituency or not. At the last 3 elections, Labour voters voted for Blair regardless of whose name was on their local ballot paper. That is how it actually works, no matter how supercilious BHR wants to be about that. So nobody has ever voted Brown to be PM. No matter how much BHR uses semantics and the 'official rules' to dispute this it is true nonetheless.

Effluent Man
8th Jun 2008, 11:41
My point exactly.There are Tories who,if they led their party would gain my vote.David Cameron isn't one of them.

I feel that there are issues that are also extremely important that are being played for political gain, the detention of terrorist suspects in particular.How the Tories can justify siding with the Labour left and a rag bag of do gooders in denying 42 days is beyond me.I would happily give them 42 years!

Doors to Automatic
8th Jun 2008, 12:35
BHR - That inept Communist control-freak might have been voted as an MP but not as a PM.

BillHicksRules
8th Jun 2008, 12:54
UA,

If you are going to use a quote in a vain attempt to berate me, I suggest you best use something I actually said. However, do not let the truth get in the way of your having a rant.

“if you can't see that, then you really need to take a hard, honest look at the damage wrought on the country for ten years by this failed experiment.

And of course prior to 1997 were were living in Shangri-la

NR,

“At the last 3 elections, Labour voters voted for Blair regardless of whose name was on their local ballot paper”

And you call me smug and superior ( I am but hey it is nice to here it from someone else ) yet you feel that you can speak for every Labour voter for the last 11 years! That takes some serious self-confidence!

DTA,

Please stop you are making to hard for me to make you look like a fool since you are doing such a good job all by yourself.

EM,

Are you having a competition with DTA as to who can show the greatest ignorance in a single thread?

Cheers

BHR

Effluent Man
8th Jun 2008, 15:01
I seem to remember your man Lament playing games with interest rates in September 1992,before he took a multi billion pound beating from George Soros.Some chancellor he was.

Big Tudor
8th Jun 2008, 15:33
It would be good if this thread is kept from descending into a political slanging match and predictions are justified with reasoned evidence.
Oh well, it did last for nearly 2 pages.
Doors to Automatic you appear to be guilty of breaking your own request sir :hmm:

Nick Riviera
8th Jun 2008, 18:56
BHR

Yet again you must resort to wordplay to answer the issue. Of course I cannot speak for the intentions of every Labour voter, but if you don't believe that the majority voted for Blair then you are the one showing ignorance. But then that is no surprise since you have already told one poster that he didn't vote for Blair, as he stated, unless he was in Sedgefield. But you see, he DID vote for Blair because that is how it works in the real world.

Now, is there any chance you could explain why you think that Brown has won a vote to be PM, without resorting to some theory of voting wordplay and spin and just relating it to real life?

Best not to hold my breath.

Utrinque Apparatus
8th Jun 2008, 20:21
BHR

I did quote you

Didn't you say " This thread just shows the general level of ignorance in the British electorate" ? :rolleyes:

Your tactics are very new labour. That's why they are a spent force in British Politics since the great British public, and most Ppruners, have at last cottoned on - unlike your good self, trying vainly to defend a spent Government headed by a lame duck, incompetent PM.

Let your sleeping dogma lie :8

BillHicksRules
8th Jun 2008, 20:52
UA,

If you had been on this site for any length of time you would know that far from being the Labour stooge you believe me to be I have actually stood for election against Labour since the turn of the millenium. So yet again your assumptions and misquotes do not seem to ring true.

As I said before far be it from me to let the truth stand in your way.

NR,

Brown was elected to be an MP by his constituency. His party then chose him to be their leader. His party is the government therefore he is PM. What part is unclear to you?

As an earlier poster put it John Major became PM the same way. Was he not entitled to the post? What about Churchill in 1940, no general election there? Is it only Labour who is not allowed to change leaders between general elections as I think that the Tories have done it several times since 1945.

We live in a constitutional monarchic parliamentary democracy. This means you elect your constituency MP and then get no more say in what goes on, unless the government holds a referendum, until the next election comes around. Is this news to you all?

Cheers

BHR

BlooMoo
8th Jun 2008, 21:06
I have actually stood for election against Labour since the turn of the millenium

Interesting BHR. In what capacity? Why since 'turn of millennium'? Why not sooner? Why not later? Did you 'stand' before 'with' labour in some way or did you enter politics in order to stand against them?

Genuinely interested.

BillHicksRules
8th Jun 2008, 21:25
BlooMoo,

Stood for Councillor with Lib Dems ( now now do not groan!!).

I have always voted LD. I stood in 2003.

The reason was the previous year I had had a milestone birthday and decided rather than just rant at the TV each night at the incompetence and sleaze in politics I would put my hat in the ring.

Long story short, I will not stand again for any party. If you want to know more then PM me.

Suffice to say it was a wonderful and awful experience that more folks (especially in here) should try.

Cheers

BHR

BlooMoo
8th Jun 2008, 21:52
BHR- thankyou.

Personally, I feel 'party politics' should have no place in 'local politics' but that is maybe wishful thinking in practical terms. People (including me) in my view tend to vote locally on party (i.e idealogical) lines primarily because local candidates present themselves as 'towing one cart or the other' in terms of policy and given that there is so little autonomy these days for local authorities vs central Government then a local vote effectively = party vote in many minds.

When voting locally, I will listen to the views of an independent whereas I can just go to the labour/libdem/tory websites for the views of the others. Local Council suffrage to central party-political policy is in my view the evil in our midst as a country.

Regardless of our own personal views on party lines - whatever they actually may be - I have tremendous respect for anyone who has or does stand up and be counted as an independent.

BM

Utrinque Apparatus
9th Jun 2008, 09:37
Explains a lot BHR. Precisely, had I been on the forum longer, I would have been aware of your shortcomings as a reasoned debater, however like most of those on here who recognise your obviously poor grasp of the finesse required of politicians, we'll just agree that the country/town hall/village fete is far better off without another self aggrandising wannabe.

One needs a little bit of charm and charisma to listen to the other points of view, and the general reaction to your trolling should give you a clue as to why you failed, and continue to do so apparently judging from your history on the forum - I didn't need to go back too far.:hmm:

BillHicksRules
9th Jun 2008, 10:15
UA,

So what you are saying is that your argument was that shallow that you once its shortcomings were pointed out you have ditched it already.

It is nice to see you have set this special time aside to be humiliated.

I am very content to listen to and engage in reasoned debate with someone who has the facts at hand and a grasp of the concepts in question. If you feel you want to do that then I am more than happy to engage you on the facts at hand. However, since you have yet to present any argument beyond misquoting me and making repeated failed attempts at pigeon-holing me I hope you will not be overly offended if I do not get too worked up about your attempt at trolling.

Cheers

BHR

Nick Riviera
9th Jun 2008, 14:57
BHR

Thank God I didn't hold my breath or my children would now have no father. In your patronising way you ask do I not understand the concept of what you wrote. Yes I do, I understand very well the theory of the way the political process works in the UK. Now let's go back to the real world, you may have heard of it. People vote for who they want to be PM. Why do you think that some Labour MPs think they should have a change of leader? Because they look unelectable with Brown as PM. With a different leader it just might be different as they know that is the reality of how people vote. Down at the student union during the theory of politics discussions this is not how it works. But in the real world (that concept again) this is what happens.

So, Brown has never been elected PM. Period. In fact he has never even been voted in as party leader, but that's a different story. You have tried the expected trick of trying to divert the question into a discussion about how the Tories have done the same, but that is an irrelevance. I don't deny that has happened, but we are not discussing that. I am not trying to make an anti-Labour point, I have asked you to explain why Brown has been elected as PM. The fact that I could ask the same question about Major or Churchill is neither here nor there (although, to his credit, at least Major had to win a vote within his party).

James 1077
9th Jun 2008, 23:00
Don't know about you but when I lived in the UK I had no idea whatsoever who my MP or candidate was. And neither did my friends or family.

My voting decision process would be to have a look at the party's political manifesto and their leader and then decide which party would be best at running the country.

For local elections it was easier as I just ticked Conservative as the others would have raised Council Tax to even more rediculous levels.

For European elections it was also easy as I just voted UKIP because nobody else wanted us out of the EUSSR (to be honest I'm upset with UKIP as they took up seats in the parliament - they should have saved us all the money and effort and just stayed away).

At no point did I choose to elect a candidate - my choice was in electing a party for their policies and leader. The candidate was simply the vessel that had to be used to do this.

Doors to Automatic
10th Jun 2008, 00:03
Big Tudor - point taken :)

BHR - not sure why stating fact makes me a fool but perhaps you could stop pontificating for long enough to make your prediction for the next election in keeping with the spirit of this thread.

Not bothered if you are predicting a Lab, Cons or Lib win just interested in your prediction and a justification thereof.

Effluent Man
11th Jun 2008, 09:24
A perfectly valid point.Of 55 posts only 3 or possibly for address the question that was put in the original thread.
My specific bid: Tories largest party 15 seats short of overall majority.

BillHicksRules
11th Jun 2008, 23:14
DTA

Can you tell me where you feel you posted facts?

“BHR - That inept Communist control-freak might have been voted as an MP but not as a PM.” – No Fact there.

“I agree with you Effluent Man. Personally I think the constitution should be changed to force an election every four years, no PM can run more than two terms and any incoming PM that has not been voted in should be forced to call an election within a year of taking office.” – No fact there, merely opinion.

“Really? I must have slept through the General Election where that dour Stalinist Moron was elected! Please do enlighten us BHR!” – No fact there

“My prediction is half-way in between - a Tory majority of 37 seats” – Yet again no fact.

“I am going to guess a swing of between 10 points in favour of Labour (giving a Tory lead of 14 points) and 16 points (Tory lead of 8 points). On a typical vote share and the Libs staying on around 18% this would give a Tory majority of between 86 seats and 12 seats short.” – To paraphrase Nelson “ I see no facts”

So where are the facts? Just the facts, mam!

Cheers

BHR

p.s. I do not see any party getting a majority at the next election mainly due to ever-increasing voter apathy.

Doors to Automatic
7th Jul 2008, 12:58
BHR - I was stating the fact that Gordon Brown has been voted in as an MP but not as a PM. I believe that is a fact unless I am very much mistaken.

selfloadingcargo
7th Jul 2008, 14:01
Personally, I feel 'party politics' should have no place in 'local politics' but that is maybe wishful thinking in practical terms.

I wholeheartedly agree - on both counts. What can be done to change that I wonder?

I have tremendous respect for anyone who... does stand up (to) be counted as an independent.

Absolutely. Invariably vote independent in local elections if they are demonstrably interested in local affairs

Blacksheep
7th Jul 2008, 19:17
I think its impossible to predict so far ahead.

Thatcher was a dead certain loser until General Galtieri gave her a free pass. A lot can happen in a couple of years, but if nothing spectacular occurs and Brown fumbles along in his present incompetent fashion, he will cost his party even more loss of popularity than he already has. As a consequence, Labour will lose the next election by a huge landslide - perhaps even being pushed into third place. Brown will then be ejected to the back benches by his party and, given his character, he is unlikely to remain there. No doubt he will either head off into the EU to be European Commissioner for pensions and savings or he'll award himself a life peerage and shuffle off to sulk in the Lords.