5 days to go so whats your prediction ?
Heres an interesting bbc interactive website for guessing MPs returned from share of the popular vote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8609989.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8609989.stm)
My guess is -
Popular vote:
Conservative.. 35%
Labour............ 27%
Lib-Dems........ 30%
Others.............. 8%
MPs Returned:
Conservative.. 276 MPs
Labour............ 249 MPs
Lib-Dems.......... 96 MPs
Others.............. 29 MPs
'Winning post' is 326 seats
However I think tactical voting is going to be a bigger factor this election and I can't use the above calculator to reflect my guess on how local seats I know about will go.
I can't speak for anyone else, but it's a little hard for me to get all that worked up about an election that seems very much to be a beauty contest with little or no ideological content.
I'm guessing Conservative. They've got wonderful plans for Minehead.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 01, 2010, 06:15:39 PM
I'm guessing Conservative. They've got wonderful plans for Minehead.
What do they have planned for your head?
Josq will be drunk.
A Tory win, and hopefully the complete and utter destruction of the cancer that is the Labour party in this country.
A liberal-conservative government would be great!
I suspect Cameron will be in charge.
I predict a red-green coalition government.
Are the Torries opposed to electoral reform as proposed by Mr. Nick? If not, then a Con-Lib coalition...
Tories fall just short of a majority I think.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 01, 2010, 06:18:56 PM
Josq will be drunk.
Its a Thursday so perhaps so.
Then again I may take the night out for the election....but only 4 left...hmm...
I'd go with a narrow conservative lead too.
37% Conservatard -- 305 seats
31% Game Show Hosts -- 98 seats
26% Neotrotskyist -- 220 seats
6% Miscellaneous silly Celts and lunatics -- 27 seats
A complete train wreck.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2010, 05:49:17 PM
I can't speak for anyone else, but it's a little hard for me to get all that worked up about an election that seems very much to be a beauty contest with little or no ideological content.
This is the most ideological election we've had in years. Probably since 1992. The parties have serious policy differences and quite strong ideological disagreements too. It's unlike any election I can remember because it seems like a real Labour vs Tory (and the Liberals) as opposed to Blair against the Conservative chamber of horrors.
Labour will get only 10% of the vote, but because of rotten boroughs, they'll have enough MPs to have a majority government.
Quote from: Fate on May 01, 2010, 09:56:44 PM
Are the Torries opposed to electoral reform as proposed by Mr. Nick? If not, then a Con-Lib coalition...
Tories are opposed to electoral reform in all its forms.
My prediction - though it's meaningless in so close and tempestuous an election - is a small Tory majority :weep:
About the issue of electoral reform that the Lib-Dems are promoting: could someone give me the gist of it?
And what do the resident Brits think about it?
Quote from: clandestino on May 02, 2010, 07:40:02 AM
About the issue of electoral reform that the Lib-Dems are promoting: could someone give me the gist of it?
And what do the resident Brits think about it?
Proportional Representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#Single_transferable_vote_in_a_multi-member_constituency).
Not really sure what people think on it - electoral reform is something only understood and concerned by those who are quite politically aware here. It's not a major issue for most people since they don't know what it's all about.
Tories 310~ seats
Labour 195~ seats
Lib-Dems 115~ seats
Quote from: clandestino on May 02, 2010, 07:40:02 AM
About the issue of electoral reform that the Lib-Dems are promoting: could someone give me the gist of it?
And what do the resident Brits think about it?
I think they want Single Transferable Vote in multi-member seats. I think similar to the German model. Personally I support it. My great voting dilemma is that I live in a Labour-Tory marginal. I want to vote Lib Dem because I like PR and in this election I think share of the vote will matter - if the Lib Dems come second in that, but are still a poor third in seats then I can't see how our system can survive. On the other hand if I don't vote Labour the Tories might get in with Joanne Cash as MP 326 :bleeding: :weep:
Labour propose Alternative Vote which is roughly what we have in London's Mayoral elections. But I think that's its problem. To me it seems far better for that sort of election than national legislative elections.
Incidentally on the vote predicting I think it's even more difficult (ignoring the Lib Dem surge, Labour collapse etc) because of how anti-incumbent the mood in this country is. Regardless, given the number of MPs not standing for re-election, we'll have less old MPs than after any election since 1945. But I think that mood plus the expenses scandal could, with effective local campaigning lead to results that right now seem more or less unimaginable.
For example a friend of mine's from Salisbury and he thinks that it could go Lib Dem - Salisbury is as old-school Tory as you get. His parents are both staunch Tories but they're voting Liberal because the former MP (he's standing down) had some very dodgy expenses, but then there are local reasons like the Tory candidate isn't from Salisbury, said he didn't feel the need to campaign in the villages around the city because they're 'safe' (the Lib Dem's been doing hustings in all of them) and the local Tory council built a new council building that was massively over-budget and late.
It would still be nothing short of a miracle if the Tories lost Salisbury but I think there are all sorts of local dynamics going on that we don't know about. Any MP with even remotely dodgy expenses will get slammed for them and the mood in the country is incredibly anti-incumbent, regardless of party. I think that makes any predictions very, very difficult because safe Labour or Tory seats could face real challenges from nowhere.
I'm really not getting the multiple seat thing.
I'd be perfectly happy with just AV.
Quote from: Tyr on May 02, 2010, 08:16:24 AM
I'm really not getting the multiple seat thing.
I'd be perfectly happy with just AV.
It's pretty simple. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Transferable_Vote#Counting_the_votes).
Quote from: Palisadoes on May 02, 2010, 08:24:05 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 02, 2010, 08:16:24 AM
I'm really not getting the multiple seat thing.
I'd be perfectly happy with just AV.
It's pretty simple. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Transferable_Vote#Counting_the_votes).
I know the theory.
I don't get how it would work with the UK system. I like having local MPs, we need more onus on them representing their constituency, not less.
Quote from: Tyr on May 02, 2010, 08:26:43 AM
I know the theory.
I don't get how it would work with the UK system. I like having local MPs, we need more onus on them representing their constituency, not less.
You still have constituency MPs. Each constituency has multiple seats, and so you have 2 or more people representing your constituency. The one which you most align with (the one you voted for?) would be the one you choose to write to about an issue (or you could write to them both/all).
You can also vote for a candidate. The seats are awarded by party, with the individual candidate out of that party who got the most votes getting the first seat for that party. This is the method I believe the Liberal Democrats want implemented (and the policy I personally most agree with of theirs).
Personally, I think the whole "MPs represent their constituency" concept is broken and dysfunctional. MPs are not there to represent their particular town or parish - they should be acting in the interest of the entire country, not just the shithole they come from. You have local government to take care of local issues.
The MPs who "represent their constituency" usually end up forcing the central government to engage in various dubious and wasteful public projects (through earmarks etc.) that are not in the interest of the general public and constitute a waste of public money.
Quote from: Martinus on May 02, 2010, 09:22:45 AM
Personally, I think the whole "MPs represent their constituency" concept is broken and dysfunctional. MPs are not there to represent their particular town or parish - they should be acting in the interest of the entire country, not just the shithole they come from. You have local government to take care of local issues.
Well what we mean by MPs representing their community is that someone in their constituency has a problem, say, to do with their application for child tax credits. The MP can then write to the minister or raise it in Parliament and get a response.
But there is a criticism that a lot of MPs have that basically they're not social workers and a lot of thing they're asked about are really local government issues (like bin collection days and so on). All the MP can really do is write to the council/minister but they'll get listened to more than a normal person.
Personally I think it's actually quite important to have a link to the national legislature. To know who you write to if you oppose a certain government policy for example, or to be able to go their surgery to talk about problems within your constituency. But I do think that increasingly people seem to think that their MP is the conduit for their opinions, which they're not. You can and should try and shape their views and votes on certain things but you elected an MP as a representative, not to represent your constituency's views.
QuoteThe MPs who "represent their constituency" usually end up forcing the central government to engage in various dubious and wasteful public projects (through earmarks etc.) that are not in the interest of the general public and constitute a waste of public money.
This isn't the case in the UK. We don't, to the best of my knowledge, have earmarks. It's unheard of for MPs to play a significant role in drafting or amending the budget (the government presents it, their MPs support it, it gets Royal Assent). Our MPs have really very, very little influence. And there's no patronage or anything like that that an MP can use.
Edit: Incidentally MPs are there to represent their town or parish, not the nation. You are the MP for Erewash and though you partake in national politics part of that is to raise issues specific to your own constituency, that's entirely what the system's there for - not least because we have very, very centralised politics. The Local Council has some powers over certain things but they get most of their funding from central government; education, health, policing, justice and so on are decided from the centre. So are some planning decisions. Central government matters a lot for local communities.
Agree, Sheilbh. I think Marti is just engaging in projection: he thinks every country is like Poland, and so he sees Polish problems in Britain even though Britain's system is completely different.
Marti, the solution to the problem Poland has is to make the seats national, and just apportion them by proportional representation in a national vote. I think this might be a good idea for the US senate as well. Party already plays such a key role in politics, might as well make it explicit.
Quote from: Palisadoes on May 02, 2010, 08:47:43 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 02, 2010, 08:26:43 AM
I know the theory.
I don't get how it would work with the UK system. I like having local MPs, we need more onus on them representing their constituency, not less.
You still have constituency MPs. Each constituency has multiple seats, and so you have 2 or more people representing your constituency. The one which you most align with (the one you voted for?) would be the one you choose to write to about an issue (or you could write to them both/all).
You can also vote for a candidate. The seats are awarded by party, with the individual candidate out of that party who got the most votes getting the first seat for that party. This is the method I believe the Liberal Democrats want implemented (and the policy I personally most agree with of theirs).
The constituancies though would have to be quite a bit bigger if you've multiple seats in them.
This decreases local representation on its own to begin with but also impacts upon small communities which is already an annoyance. In my area its a common moan from people in the small villages that the major population settlements get all sorts of special treatment as the politicians get more bang for their buck campaigning there.
Quote from: Tyr on May 02, 2010, 10:24:10 AM
The constituancies though would have to be quite a bit bigger if you've multiple seats in them.
This decreases local representation on its own to begin with but also impacts upon small communities which is already an annoyance. In my area its a common moan from people in the small villages that the major population settlements get all sorts of special treatment as the politicians get more bang for their buck campaigning there.
To be fair we already have very, very small constituencies compared to most other countries. I think in the UK it averages at one MP to 70-90 000 constituents.
Quote from: Tyr on May 02, 2010, 10:24:10 AMThe constituancies though would have to be quite a bit bigger if you've multiple seats in them.
Yeah, constituencies would need to be bigger. I don't really see that as much of an issue, however.
QuoteThis decreases local representation on its own to begin with but also impacts upon small communities which is already an annoyance. In my area its a common moan from people in the small villages that the major population settlements get all sorts of special treatment as the politicians get more bang for their buck campaigning there.
I agree it isn't as locally representative, but it's enough for me. Yeah, constituencies might be three times larger, but they're also being represented by 3 times as many people, so I don't really mind.
I live in quite a rural constituency too (Kettering), and I don't think that the villages get it that bad. Their roads are better than a lot of the roads in the town centre, for instance. The main issues they have is stuff like afforable housing, transportation links, small businesses, etc. and these can add up and get a reaction if enough villages are expressing the same views to their local MP. I guess it really depends on the balance of urban and rural populations in each constituency - ideally there would be either an equally mixed urban/rural constituency, completely rural constituency or a completely urban constituency.
Quote from: Palisadoes on May 02, 2010, 11:04:32 AM
I live in quite a rural constituency too (Kettering), and I don't think that the villages get it that bad.
Whoa!!!! :o
I'm that close to another Languishite? I'm a Desborough man, same constituency and only a few miles from you.
---------------------
As for "affordable" housing, I've never quite understood our government's need for "one person, one house" given the slow rate of population growth in our country, even allowing for immigration. And if they must build "affordable" housing, then they need to build flats, not what they are lumbering the county with.
---------------------
My election prediction was in the other thread. Small Tory majority leading to a three year maximum parliament. The Lib-Dems not making the gains they expect, either.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 02, 2010, 08:08:29 AMOn the other hand if I don't vote Labour the Tories might get in with Joanne Cash as MP 326 :bleeding: :weep:
Which is why the LibDems won't get anywhere near the votes they need to shame the tories and labour into actually changing the voting system.
Quote from: Agelastus on May 02, 2010, 04:58:42 PM
Quote from: Palisadoes on May 02, 2010, 11:04:32 AM
I live in quite a rural constituency too (Kettering), and I don't think that the villages get it that bad.
Whoa!!!! :o
I'm that close to another Languishite? I'm a Desborough man, same constituency and only a few miles from you.
Haha! That is weird! I used to live in Desborough when I was younger (until 7 or 8 I think?). Hereford close, off of Westmorland drive near the outskirts.
QuoteAs for "affordable" housing, I've never quite understood our government's need for "one person, one house" given the slow rate of population growth in our country, even allowing for immigration. And if they must build "affordable" housing, then they need to build flats, not what they are lumbering the county with.
Well the problem is that housing is often not affordable when two people are living and earning in the same house. Also, renting is a problem, since people pay practically the same as a mortgage yet they don't get any asset at the end of it. It's much better off to own, though given the prices of houses it's even harder to do.
QuoteMy election prediction was in the other thread. Small Tory majority leading to a three year maximum parliament. The Lib-Dems not making the gains they expect, either.
Apparently the Labour support is strengthening in Scotland, which means constituencies in England and Wales are becoming more susceptible to going over to Lib Dem or Tory. I also don't think the Liberal Democrats will make the gains they expect from the polls, and think the Tories could get a tiny majority. The Lib Dem surge would've largely come from former Labour voters, and I think a lot of the middle class Lib Dem voters will go over to the Tories given the Lib Dem tax plans.
Quote from: Palisadoes on May 02, 2010, 05:21:20 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on May 02, 2010, 04:58:42 PM
Quote from: Palisadoes on May 02, 2010, 11:04:32 AM
I live in quite a rural constituency too (Kettering), and I don't think that the villages get it that bad.
Whoa!!!! :o
I'm that close to another Languishite? I'm a Desborough man, same constituency and only a few miles from you.
Haha! That is weird! I used to live in Desborough when I was younger (until 7 or 8 I think?). Hereford close, off of Westmorland drive near the outskirts.
Breakley's and Furlong for me, both off of Dunkirk Avenue.
As for housing, what gets me is the "We need 1.5 million more houses" refrain...followed by a report saying the UK has 700000 empty houses...and rising.
In the modern era, having actual MPs is generally a waste, since people vote by party and the party's resources are required to pay for modern media coverage.
It would make more sense to just eliminate the legislature and grant absolute dictatorial power to the leader of the party who carries a majority of ridings. In a coalition situation, you can have leaders grant each other their proxy for votes.
The thing with the abandoned houses thing is that it's cheaper to renovate them too. However, they often tend to be structurally unsound or in undesirable areas, meaning little to no profit would be made from renovation, plus they are general shitholes that aren't worth the hassle and could be torn down with a lot less hassle.
Quote from: Neil on May 02, 2010, 06:32:16 PM
In the modern era, having actual MPs is generally a waste, since people vote by party and the party's resources are required to pay for modern media coverage.
The modern media coverage isn't true over here. Party's are given a certain number of election broadcasts based on their performance in past elections, similarly during an election the broadcast media have to report on all parties with a certain level of support and in some way give a fair hearing (I'm not sure how it actually works). In the UK party funds are needed for very modern things like teams of campaign twitterers and campaign jets and very old fashioned things leaflets, posters, battle-buses and so on. In fact I think the parties are only allowed to spend £30 000 in any constituency, so the maximum a party can spend is around £19 million. But I don't think any party's ever had enough money to do that :lol:
I think in 2005 the entire election spending, from all parties, was around £40 million.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 02, 2010, 06:41:50 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 02, 2010, 06:32:16 PM
In the modern era, having actual MPs is generally a waste, since people vote by party and the party's resources are required to pay for modern media coverage.
The modern media coverage isn't true over here. Party's are given a certain number of election broadcasts based on their performance in past elections, similarly during an election the broadcast media have to report on all parties with a certain level of support and in some way give a fair hearing (I'm not sure how it actually works). In the UK party funds are needed for very modern things like teams of campaign twitterers and campaign jets and very old fashioned things leaflets, posters, battle-buses and so on. In fact I think the parties are only allowed to spend £30 000 in any constituency, so the maximum a party can spend is around £19 million. But I don't think any party's ever had enough money to do that :lol:
I think in 2005 the entire election spending, from all parties, was around £40 million.
Wow, weak sauce.
Corzine spent like $60 million of his own money in his New Jersey Senate race.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 02, 2010, 06:41:50 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 02, 2010, 06:32:16 PM
In the modern era, having actual MPs is generally a waste, since people vote by party and the party's resources are required to pay for modern media coverage.
The modern media coverage isn't true over here. Party's are given a certain number of election broadcasts based on their performance in past elections, similarly during an election the broadcast media have to report on all parties with a certain level of support and in some way give a fair hearing (I'm not sure how it actually works). In the UK party funds are needed for very modern things like teams of campaign twitterers and campaign jets and very old fashioned things leaflets, posters, battle-buses and so on. In fact I think the parties are only allowed to spend £30 000 in any constituency, so the maximum a party can spend is around £19 million. But I don't think any party's ever had enough money to do that :lol:
I think in 2005 the entire election spending, from all parties, was around £40 million.
That's interesting. My theory is that the nature of the UK (a very small, heavily-populated country), make it possible for candidates to campaign from the hustings, something that doesn't exist in North America.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 02, 2010, 06:51:28 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 02, 2010, 06:41:50 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 02, 2010, 06:32:16 PM
In the modern era, having actual MPs is generally a waste, since people vote by party and the party's resources are required to pay for modern media coverage.
The modern media coverage isn't true over here. Party's are given a certain number of election broadcasts based on their performance in past elections, similarly during an election the broadcast media have to report on all parties with a certain level of support and in some way give a fair hearing (I'm not sure how it actually works). In the UK party funds are needed for very modern things like teams of campaign twitterers and campaign jets and very old fashioned things leaflets, posters, battle-buses and so on. In fact I think the parties are only allowed to spend £30 000 in any constituency, so the maximum a party can spend is around £19 million. But I don't think any party's ever had enough money to do that :lol:
I think in 2005 the entire election spending, from all parties, was around £40 million.
Wow, weak sauce.
Corzine spent like $60 million of his own money in his New Jersey Senate race.
In the UK political ads on TV are banned (iirc) but the parties do get Party Political Broadcasts, or prime time infomercials, during the campaign season. How much of that $60M did Corzine spend on TV?
Quote from: Viking on May 02, 2010, 06:56:06 PM
In the UK political ads on TV are banned (iirc) but the parties do get Party Political Broadcasts, or prime time infomercials, during the campaign season. How much of that $60M did Corzine spend on TV?
I think that's the big difference, though Neil is right that in constituencies hustings are quite important.
The best thing about the Party Political Broadcasts is that most parties are far too poor to have anyone with TV or advertising experience involved. So you get some truly extraordinary pieces. My favourite this time round has been the Christian Party of Wales which featured a crowd of people placing giant crosses on hills like some faith beacon system.
But an election or two ago there was a truly superb UKIP one that featured a giant purple octopus with the EU flag on its head crawling out of the Thames and smashing up Parliament :lol:
I predict the Conservatives will win quite a few seats, but not enough for a majority government. They'll form a coalition government with the LibDems, with Nick as deputy PM and Cameron as PM.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 05, 2011, 02:41:38 PM
I predict the Conservatives will win quite a few seats, but not enough for a majority government. They'll form a coalition government with the LibDems, with Nick as deputy PM and Cameron as PM.
You're bonkers.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 05, 2011, 02:41:38 PM
I predict the Conservatives will win quite a few seats, but not enough for a majority government. They'll form a coalition government with the LibDems, with Nick as deputy PM and Cameron as PM.
Unpossible, the noble Clegg and Cable would never agree to form a coalition with tuition fee raising tories!!!!1111111oneoneoneoeneoneoen
In other news, Holland will win the WC, Mubarak and Ben Ali will successfully start reforms to democratic institutions, Silvio will not be accused of cavorting with underage tunisian hookers, the SD will not join the swedish parliament and Ireland will beat England at cricket.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 05, 2011, 02:41:38 PM
I predict the Conservatives will win quite a few seats, but not enough for a majority government. They'll form a coalition government with the LibDems, with Nick as deputy PM and Cameron as PM.
Unpossible!