May 2015 UK General Election Campaign.

[mongers]

Well this seems to have started as of Jan 2nd, though publicity and coverage have been blown off course by events in France.

But it seems us Brits will have to put up with 4 month* election campaign, that promises to be pretty ugly and nasty in the way it's conducted.

So who are you going to vote for and what do you expect the make up of the next House of Commons and government to look like ?



* This assumes a desperate Lib.Dem party doesn' throw a spanner in the works, in a desperate attempt to distance themselves from the Tories and the government over the last 44 months.

[Liep]

It seems we suffer the same fate. Latest election news is the parties trying to outbid eachother in raising the budget for the intelligence bureau.

[Agelastus]

But it seems us Brits will have to put up with 4 month* election campaign, that promises to be pretty ugly and nasty in the way it's conducted.

The price of fixed term parliaments; soon may that bill be repealed.

[mongers]

But it seems us Brits will have to put up with 4 month* election campaign, that promises to be pretty ugly and nasty in the way it's conducted.

The price of fixed term parliaments; soon may that bill be repealed.

But can't the Lib.Dems bring down this parliament anyway, manufacturing a crisis within the coalition, perhaps over the NHS, may be their only tactic to save more than a handspan of MPs?

[derspiess]

For my imaginary ballot I'm voting UKIP until the Tories come to their senses.

[Admiral Yi]

Yesterday CNN showed some footage of Cameron at a joint press conference with Merkele discussing the Paris attack.  That was the first time I had heard Cameron's voice.

[mongers]

Yesterday CNN showed some footage of Cameron at a joint press conference with Merkele discussing the Paris attack.  That was the first time I had heard Cameron's voice.

Well it was the first ever occasion he'd managed to pluck up the courage to say something to a foreigner. 

[Admiral Yi]

I can't believe you thought that was a clever thing to say. 

[Agelastus]

But it seems us Brits will have to put up with 4 month* election campaign, that promises to be pretty ugly and nasty in the way it's conducted.

The price of fixed term parliaments; soon may that bill be repealed.

But can't the Lib.Dems bring down this parliament anyway, manufacturing a crisis within the coalition, perhaps over the NHS, may be their only tactic to save more than a handspan of MPs?

I think four months before they have to fight the election anyway is too late for the LibDems to pull that sort of stunt and hope it gets them back voters; if they were going to do that they should have pulled out a couple of years ago and let the Tories fumble around in a minority government for a while.

Say what you will about the LibDems, they've served well in this parliament. They did the only possible deal they could to give the country stable government at a moment of financial crisis and have, in the main, stuck by the agreement they struck. It's a shame their voters have betrayed them in such an immature fashion (you've spent years backing a party that advocates electoral reforms and coalition government and just when they've got the opportunity to convince the country that this could work in the long term you abandon them... )

[mongers]

I can't believe you thought that was a clever thing to say. 

That's what I thought when you posted this:

For example it's conventional wisdom on Languish and at large that English people are uncomfortable around strangers. 

[mongers]

But it seems us Brits will have to put up with 4 month* election campaign, that promises to be pretty ugly and nasty in the way it's conducted.

The price of fixed term parliaments; soon may that bill be repealed.

But can't the Lib.Dems bring down this parliament anyway, manufacturing a crisis within the coalition, perhaps over the NHS, may be their only tactic to save more than a handspan of MPs?

I think four months before they have to fight the election anyway is too late for the LibDems to pull that sort of stunt and hope it gets them back voters; if they were going to do that they should have pulled out a couple of years ago and let the Tories fumble around in a minority government for a while.

....

Maybe they were hoping for a bounce in the polls before now? 

[Agelastus]

Maybe they were hoping for a bounce in the polls before now?

I think it's a combination of three things. The first is what you've suggested, waiting for a boost in the polls; given the economy does seem to have categorically turned the corner it wasn't unreasonable of them to hope for an improvement in their support. Unfortunately for them it seems as if the boost from the economy is going solely to the Tories.

The second is the fact that they're still hoping to be in a balance of power position in the future and want to be regarded as a stable partner in any future coalitions. Tanking the Tories may look good in the short term but it's counterproductive to their long term goals of getting Proportional Representation and making coalition government the norm for this country. They need a reputation for reliability in such a situation.

And thirdly, I think Nick Clegg likes his job. Even backing out of the Coalition a couple of years ago was unlikely to succeed. Better to hang on and delay any post-election leadership battle as long as possible.

[Sheilbh]

Thought this was interesting:

What's more important to voters? Coherent policy or the chance to 'send a message'
38 commentsPhilip Cowley 5 February 2015 13:00

What are you doing when you vote? Much of the discussion about elections assumes – implicitly or explicitly – that voters are making a judgement about policies being put forward by the parties; that they would only vote for a party which had policies with which they broadly agreed; and, moreover, that these policies will have to form a vaguely coherent programme, and be realistic and affordable. Even allowing for that fact that we know that many voters don't know the details of the various policies proposed, it is still widely assumed that they would care if they knew.

This is why there is so much discussion of policy proposals as elections approach ('but how will you fund x, Minister?'), and this seems to be especially the case when discussing parties that are beginning to break through and be serious political players: 'You're going to vote for [insert new party here]? Do you know that they support [insert ludicrous idea here]?' This was seen most recently in Natalie Bennett's less-than-assured interview with Andrew Neil, when she seemed unable to articulate or explain some of the Greens' policies, but it is also a standard line when critiquing Ukip.

Ideally who wouldn't want coherent policies? And they might, perhaps, be important to you. But what if they are not to other people? To test this, YouGov ran a simple question for me, asking people to choose between two statements that described possible motivations and expectations when voting. It asked:

Which of these two statements comes closest to describing you:

When I vote in the general election, the party I choose must have coherent policies which they could implement in government.
When I vote in the general election, the party I choose will be about sending a message about the sort of society I want to live in.

The first is the more conventional policy motivation for voting, the second is more symbolic. Of course, many people will want both to be true – to be voting for a coherent set of policies which also sent a message about the sort of society they want – but the question format allows us to see which of these matters more to them.

Broadly speaking, the public split evenly between the two descriptions. Some 45% chose the policy motivation, 44% picked the symbolic, and the rest were unsure.  In other words, people overall were just as likely to see their vote primarily as a symbolic act as one which was about wanting a coherent set of policies.

Women were slightly more likely to select symbolic motivations (45%) over policy (41%), whereas men more were likely to select policy motivations (50%) over symbolic ones (41%).  Middle class (ABC1) respondents were more likely to select policy (51%) over symbolic motivations (41%), whereas working class (C2DE) respondents were more likely to select symbolic motivations (48%) over policy (38%).

But the largest differences were between the ways supporters of the different parties behaved. Conservative voters overwhelmingly selected policy, by 65% to 28%. They are the only party's supporters to select policy over symbolism, and they do so overwhelmingly. Lib Dems split pretty evenly between the two (47% policies versus 49% symbolic). Labour supporters, however, see their vote as more about sending a message (53% symbolic compared to 40% policy).

And then we have Ukip and the Greens.  Both, overwhelmingly, see their vote as being about sending a message, rather than requiring a coherent policy programme. For Ukip voters, the figures were 30% policy, 63% symbolic. For Green voters, it was 32% policy, 64% symbolic. (There weren't enough responses for the SNP, or Plaid, to be analysed separately with any confidence). The net score – that is, the percentage selecting policy minus the percentage selecting the message – for each party is shown in the figure below.


This shouldn't be taken to mean that policy doesn't matter to Green or Ukip voters (or indeed, that it is all that most Conservatives care about).  But most Green or Ukip voters clearly see the act of voting differently to the way most Conservatives voters (or indeed many Lib Dem and Labour voters) see it.

In particular, this might help explain why policy attacks on parties like the Greens or Ukip appear less effectual than they might normally be.  Pointing out to a Green or Ukip supporter that the sums don't add up, or that a policy won't work, might not matter much if the policies are less important than just sending a message.

Philip Cowley is Professor of Parliamentary Government at the University of Nottingham, and is co-editor of Sex, Lies and the Ballot Box (published by Biteback).

[Monoriu]

Pretty sure I am not eligible to vote, and even if I am, I won't vote.  But if I have to say which party I'll vote for, it will definitely be Thatcher's party 

[Sheilbh]

A Chris Patten loyalist hey?