Most likely result of the general election in 2015?

First topic message reminder :

Looking at the current state of UK politics what do you all think is the most likely outcome of the next General Election?
 
Personally I think Labour will win but not with a out right majority (as it currently stands at least).
 
I had a quick look and couldn't see another thread like this but if there is my apologies.

True indeed Redflag IMHO.

Memo to the right: if Labour is as rubbish as you say, why aren’t the Tories streets ahead?

From an article by Helen Lewis:-

Reading the papers recently has felt like stepping into an alternate universe. ‘Red Ed’ is a loser, leading a party of no-hopers. The election of a Labour government would be a “catastrophe”, says the head of Boots, a billionaire who declines to name any specific policies he dislikes. ‘The Mail’ gets a splash out of the former M&S chief Stuart Rose having a pop, without finding space to mention that he is a Tory peer. ‘The Mail on Sunday’ unveils, with a theatrical flourish, the revelation that Ed Miliband and Ed Balls could have prevented the financial crisis but chose instead to divulge this red-hot information only to the Mayor of Doncaster, before setting fire to a carpet.

It is an awkward fact that despite having far less money than the Tories and with far fewer friends in the press, Labour is still neck and neck with its rivals in most opinion polls. The Conservatives show no sign of the surge they need to get a majority. They didn’t manage one last time, against a worn-out, three-term government and an unloved prime minister. They seem unlikely to manage it this time, against another unpopular leader and with the economy now recovering. In the words of Cameron in September: “After that Labour conference, if we, the Conservative Party, cannot defeat that complete shower of an opposition, we don’t deserve to be in politics.” You said it, David. So why aren’t you winning?

For the whole article:-
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/memo-right-if-labour-rubbish-you-say-why-aren-t-tories-streets-ahead

This is of course correct Ivan, However, my fear lies with the Scots as a vote for SNP looks likely to assist the Tories.
Seems to me the Scots have suddenly realised that the love of their country increasingly warrants independance.
Once they get their teeth into something, not a lot can stop them. This IMO is definately the fly in the ointment for Labour.

The only thing the SNP have done for me Mel is make me hate Scotland, so my wish is that Ed & the Labour party take plenty of seats from the Tories so he can tell Salmond to EFF OFF he does not need there help within Gov't that would "SICKEN his HAPPINESS" good and proper. I am hoping for a Labour gov't so I can get one of the Labour MPs help me get a council house in England some where but before I leave Scotland I would give my story to one of the left ewing papers so businesses know what there in for with an SNP gov't.

I am going down to Sheffield on the 4th of March Mel to help Oliver Coppard win his seat in Hallam (Cleggys seat) I intend to tell the people of Hallam the WHOLE TRUTH about the Tories & Lib-Dems and that Clegg would jump back into bed with the Tories at the first opportunity all Davy boy would have to do is crook his little finger and Cleggy would go running.

I will ask the rest of you to do what you can for your Labour MP, if you have got a Tory MP you will have a Labour candidate so do what you can for him/her, let us show the Tories they may have Millions of £s to fight this general election but its votes that will win this election.

Hello Red,
As you live in Scotland and must know a number of Scots. What is the general
feeling that you get about how they will vote, or is it difficult to tell at this stage?

Hi Mel I am ashamed to say that the Scots have allowed the SNP to pull the wool over there eyes, thanks to this Tory gov't with all there cuts Every time they are pulled up for the state of the Scottish NHS the Tories are to blame and it is brought up if we had voted Yes last September we would not be in this state, at the moment Jim Murphy is doing all he can to bring back the Labour voters how that will work I do not know but I hope he manages to show the Scots what a shower of Tories the SNP are only wrapped up in the Saltire flag.

Hello Red,

It seems to me i'ts gone too far now. Not enough time left. Once the die hard Scots have got the bit between their teeth, i'm afraid to say that's it. If we end up with these bastards again, I shall blame the brainwashed Scots.

It hardly needs saying that the Tory Party has few friends in Scotland. On the axiom that "My enemy's enemy is my friend", that must contain some kind of bonus for all other parties who are not The Conservatives.

Redflag wrote:Hi Mel I am ashamed to say that the Scots have allowed the SNP to pull the wool over there eyes, thanks to this Tory gov't with all there cuts   Every time they are pulled up for the state of the Scottish NHS the Tories are to blame and it is brought up if we had voted Yes last September we would not be in this state, at the moment Jim Murphy is doing all he can to bring back the Labour voters how that will work I do not know but I hope he manages to show the Scots what a shower of Tories the SNP are only wrapped up in the Saltire flag.

labor betrayed the Scottish, can you not see this?

ghost whistler wrote:labor betrayed the Scottish, can you not see this?

Do you by chance happen to be a SNP voter ?? if you are your not doing so well trying to convince me to vote SNP, I have suffered under the Scottish NHS being run by the SNP and there other flaws are coming out slowly but surely.

I know why you say that Labour betrayed the Scottish people because they did not want Scots to vote yes in the Independence Referendum, I could say the same thing about the SNP and the Greens if we had of voted yes in September the Tories would have the last laugh at Scotland,  with the state of the price of Oil and the redundacies in the oil & gas industry Labour was spot on to advise Scots to vote NO.

The only thing they had in there white paper the only tax cut within that paper was a Corporation tax cut of 3p for big business which would have led for a race to the bottom between the rest of the UK & Scotland.   there was no extra money for the working man/women, and would not answer questions about HOW Scotland would pay its way it was shut up and believe us we know best, this is why 55% of Scots voted No, I have seen the tactics the SNP used when I went to listen to why I should vote NO, they behaved like Hooligans and did all in there power to stop the meeting from going on.   One hooligan got into the meeting with the only intension of stopping the audience from hearing what the NO campaign had to say he was removed by the stewards.

The only impression the SNP have left me with is they are nothing more than Tories wrapped up in the Saltire flag "NO THANKS"

Nicola Sturgeon doesn’t sound like a Tory to me, and she’s made it clear that she wants the SNP to have nothing to do with the Tories at Westminster. My impression is that she wants an independent Tory-free Scotland to be like the Scandinavian social democracies, but I have to admit that I haven’t studied the SNP closely, and I do have a natural aversion for any kind of nationalism.

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t546-is-nationalism-evil

I’ve come across this “Labour betrayed the Scottish” narrative many times on Twitter, but I don’t understand it. I was in Germany for the week or so before the Indy referendum, so I may have missed some of the details. I know that Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories are all pro-union parties and were therefore bound to be on the same side in the referendum. I also know that the Tories have been toxic in Scotland ever since Thatcher broke her 1979 promise to give the Scots “a better form of devolution” if they voted no in the referendum of that year. When the poll tax was imposed in Scotland a year before the rest of Britain had it, Tory fortunes north of the border plummeted even further.

I gather that because of the hatred of the Tories in Scotland, Alistair Darling and, in the last days before the poll, Gordon Brown, were the front runners in the successful ‘Better Together’ campaign and that a ‘vow’ was made. When I returned to the UK, I learned that early on the morning after the referendum, Cameron had provocatively announced his EVEL plans, which would reduce Scottish MPs to second class status and hasten the break-up of the UK if implemented. This was then followed by a surge of anti-Labour hysteria in Scotland and claims of a ‘betrayal’. As Labour isn’t in power at this point in time, I can’t see how it has broken any promises which Darling and Brown made to the Scots, as it hasn’t yet had a chance to implement them, but perhaps someone can enlighten me?

It seems at least "likely" that Ed Miliband will be the next Prime Minister, albeit perhaps at the head of a minority government, in which case the SNP (or even the despised Yellow Liberals) could be the shapers of future policy.

We are indeed living in interesting times.

Interesting times indeed.

I thought this made some sense.


retsiLdivaD recklessfox 24 Sep 2014 09:37 0
Guardian
1
The only problem with the trap is that no-one can govern. The Tories will most likely not get a majority, UKIP and LibDem will either get no MPs at all or so few that it won't matter, and the regionals cannot vote on English matters.

The tories are to clever by half, if Miliband fails to secure a majority in England, labour can simply refuse to form a government.The current government would have to continue, or the torries would have to set up a minority government and all of the foreign affairs, defense, education etc would be controlled by labour (who would have the majority in the overall UK parliament) It would vote down any government bill it did not like, and vote in lots of private member bills, forcing the tory government to do its biding. They could,for instance, nationalize the railways, unless that had already been devolved to Scotland... Under current Parliament rules, the government couldn't even resign and call new elections.
On England only bills, the tories would get their way, so austerity would continue, but that would happen anyway (see Ed Balls' promises), and now they can blame the tory government.
certainly not ideal but, from a party political viewpoint, not the worst deal in the world.

Ivan wrote--" As Labour isn’t in power at this point in time, I can’t see how it has broken any promises which Darling and Brown made to the Scots"

Such a difficult question to answer. Of course the Scottish media/press may well have something to do with this situation along with Tory propaganda.

What GW is talking about Mel is because Labour supported the NO vote in the Independence referendum in September very petty don't you think ??

Very petty Red.

I thiought Robert the Bruce was Dead!!!

Silly bloody lot. "Fogive them, for they know not what they do."

Really? Petty?

They side with the Tories on so many issues and are ideologically a hair's breadth apart from them.

I think some of you are blind to this.

Mel wrote:

Ivan wrote--" As Labour isn’t in power at this point in time, I can’t see how it has broken any promises which Darling and Brown made to the Scots"

Such a difficult question to answer. Of course the Scottish media/press may well have something to do with this situation along with Tory propaganda.

...In Scotland? Seriously?

ghost whistler wrote:-
They side with the Tories on so many issues and are ideologically a hair's breadth apart from them.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. However to say that Labour and the filthy Tories are "ideolically a hairs breadth apart", you just can't be serious.
Yes there are some issues that they agree upon, as they do with the SNP Party. You seem to hate any party that is against the "yes" vote.

Another ill informed Scot it seems. What about all your other lot who voted "no", is their ideology also close to the Tories then in that case?

Mel wrote:

ghost whistler wrote:-
They side with the Tories on so many issues and are ideologically a hair's breadth apart from them.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. However to say that Labour and the filthy Tories are "ideolically a hairs breadth apart", you just can't be serious.

What are the differences then?

It was Labour that brought in the WCA that now tortures the sick.
They continued the disastrous PFI scheme that has broken the back of the NHS and left it ripe for the Tories to plunder, and it's true to say they brought in privatisation as well even if the Tories have exacerbated the problem.

Labour is not what it was. They are now another free market embracing pro-capitalist pro-corporate party of the elite. The only differences are superficial. Do they plan to end benefit sanctions? Do they plan to repeal not just the Bedroom Tax but the Work PRogramme, Workfare (which they support), and the ongoing car crash that is Universal Credit?

Why are they dismissing and silencing their own councillors if they speak out against austerity policies?

Ghost--You are judging Labour without thought or examination as to why all the things you have referred to
had come about. In any case, we are now not talking New Labour are we not?
Another angle is better the labour beast if you like, than the evil dirty Tories. You really have to choose, there is no other party strong enough to get anywhere near winning a General election. So think seriously about voting for for the SNP instead of Labour and you may well end up with the Tories again. Is that what you want I ask?

"Why are they dismissing and silencing their own councillors if they speak out against austerity policies?"
you ask. Because they have to apease those voters who have been brainwashed by Tory press/media day in day out about benefit claimants and the so called "work shy". Labour will not introduce such severe and cruel measures, I can assure you.

ghost whistler wrote:-
It was Labour that brought in the WCA that now tortures the sick.

Until 1995, entitlement to what was then called invalidity benefit was usually determined by a claimant’s GP. The Tory Peter Lilley changed the name to incapacity benefit and introduced work capability assessments. In 2007, Labour changed incapacity benefit to employment and support allowance.

Since 1995, anyone claiming that benefit has been required to attend a medical examination occasionally to prove that they are still unfit for work. But it was Iain Duncan Smith who introduced the ridiculous computer-based fifteen-point scale which “tortures the sick” and which has made it much more difficult for genuine claimants to get their benefit.

What are the differences then?

“The ideological differences between the parties are greater than for decades.“ (George Eaton)

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/01/labour-and-tories-aren-t-same-so-why-do-voters-still-think-they-are

“Osborne has set out policies that place the Tories and Labour the furthest apart they have been for 20 years.” (Allister Heath)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11129545/Allister-Heath-Clear-blue-water-opens-up-between-Osborne-and-Labour-on-economy.html

Mel wrote:Ghost--You are judging Labour without thought or examination as to why all the things you have referred to
had come about. In any case, we are now not talking New Labour are we not?
Another angle is better the labour beast if you like, than the evil dirty Tories. You really have to choose, there is no other party strong enough to get anywhere near winning a General election. So think seriously about voting for for the SNP instead of Labour and you may well end up with the Tories again. Is that what you want I ask?

"Why are they dismissing and silencing their own councillors if they speak out against austerity policies?"
you ask. Because they have to apease those voters who have been brainwashed by Tory press/media day in day out about benefit claimants and the so called "work shy". Labour will not introduce such severe and cruel measures, I can assure you.

I've already addressed the general election issue previously.

I am judging labour on their own actions. If my analysis is wrong then explain how. I've asked already for you to explain the differences, you have not done so.

So now your response when I explain that Labour is kicking out and oppressing its own councillors (i'm not referring to MP's) is that Labour is bound, somehow, to do this? How so? Under what law or rule? Why can they not support their own ideology - because the ideology of the modern labour party is that of austerity.

Labour will not introduce such cruel measures? It already has! They brought in the WCA. They created ESA. They changed the rules regarding sanctions so that, when an adviser decides the claimant isn't doing what they think they should (whether or not that's actually true), that claimant' smoney is immediately stopped pending an appeal - while that claimant still has to sign on. In otherwords guilt is the presumption. Labour introduced the disastrous Flexible New Deal which was the forerunner for the disastrous Work Programme we have today. They also stand for the closure of the ILF. How can you assure me? What form does this assurance take? Do you have a sworn signed pledge from Mr Miliband? he buys into the same striver/skiver rhetoric as the Tories ffs!

All we have heard from Rachel Reeves is more of the same 'we'll be tough on welfare'. It's the tail wagging the dog. That the Tories are worse is no excuse.

What about the disgusting vile turd Robin Wales, LABOUR mayor of Newham who has made hell for the Fous E15 mums. Single parents who dare standing up to this filth. Do you support him and those like him? If not, then why does Ed? Read this simpering piece of crap and then give me your assurances. Here are some choice quotes:

"Where a Labour Mayor and council are doing so many great things to help get local people back into work."

"The next Labour government will have less money to spend."

"We would put a limit on how long anyone who can work, can stay unemployed, without getting and taking a job."

"And because it is a compulsory jobs guarantee, young people will have an obligation to take a job after a year or lose their benefits." (a scheme that is basically workfare).

"And it is one of the reasons why Labour has said we would support a cap on overall benefits."

Labour are weak willed (with too few notable exceptions) and I don't even think they want power.

Ivan wrote:

ghost whistler wrote:-
It was Labour that brought in the WCA that now tortures the sick.

Until 1995, entitlement to what was then called invalidity benefit was usually determined by a claimant’s GP. The Tory Peter Lilley changed the name to incapacity benefit and introduced work capability assessments. In 2007, Labour changed incapacity benefit to employment and support allowance.

Since 1995, anyone claiming that benefit has been required to attend a medical examination occasionally to prove that they are still unfit for work. But it was Iain Duncan Smith who introduced the ridiculous computer-based fifteen-point scale which “tortures the sick” and which has made it much more difficult for genuine claimants to get their benefit.

Wrong: the WCA was introduced under Labour.

David Freud, now a lord in a tory government, a former failed merchant banker was brought in by Labour under the disgusting pig James Purnell. Forget him have you?

Ivan wrote:

What are the differences then?

“The ideological differences between the parties are greater than for decades.“ (George Eaton)

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/01/labour-and-tories-aren-t-same-so-why-do-voters-still-think-they-are

“Osborne has set out policies that place the Tories and Labour the furthest apart they have been for 20 years.” (Allister Heath)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11129545/Allister-Heath-Clear-blue-water-opens-up-between-Osborne-and-Labour-on-economy.html

So what are those differences?

Me, I'm a bit thick.
I don't understand politics.
I just understand ethics (nearly)
I want to live in a moral world and I think maybe under a Labour government things are likely to be a bit more moral - even if not perfect
I DON'T want to be a politician, so I'm sort of dependent on politicians to do the fine tuning
As far as I'm concerned the job of an opposition party is to get elected - it's not to oppose.
If I didn't think Miliband was doing his best to get elected, or to be in a dominant position after the General Election I'd be upset - but actually, given the crappy hand he's been dealt I think he's doing OK.
I still don't want to be a politician - so I'm going to trust him.
Anyone who doesn't I guess is free to stand for Parliament and show us all how it should be done.
Them as can, do - them as can't should maybe just get behind them as can

ghost whistler wrote:Really? Petty?

They side with the Tories on so many issues and are ideologically a hair's breadth apart from them.

I think some of you are blind to this.

The only blind one is yourself GW, blind ato the flaws & faults of the SNP they have done a great job on you with there brain washing that is how Hitler got his following and we all know how that ended. If you take a look at what the Tories have done to the people of the UK over the last 5 years (nearly), then look at the 13 years of a Labour gov't they did not hurt the working man/women in the way the Tories have "THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE" between Labour and the Tories, I think there is similarities between the Tories & SNP because they both do not care what there constituents want its what the both parties want.

ghost whistler wrote:-
So what are those differences?

"Most in Westminster agree that the ideological distance between the two parties is now greater than at any time since 1992 and possibly earlier. Labour would restore the 50p rate, introduce a mansion tax, roll back privatisation, maintain Britain’s membership of the EU and impose spending cuts of about £7bn. The Tories would avoid tax increases on the wealthy, extend privatisation, stage a referendum on whether to leave the EU and impose cuts of about £33bn.

When Britons go to the polls on 7 May, they will be offered two vastly different conceptions of the country’s future. The irony is that ever fewer recognise this."

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/01/labour-and-tories-aren-t-same-so-why-do-voters-still-think-they-are

ghost whistler wrote:-
"So what are those differences?"

The difference is-- this is not NEW LABOUR but A NEW LABOUR. Simple!!!

boatlady wrote:
I still don't want to be a politician - so I'm going to trust him.
Anyone who doesn't I guess is free to stand for Parliament and show us all how it should be done.
Them as can, do - them as can't should maybe just get behind them as can

With all respect, I think you are being naive about this. You are free to believe and vote as you wish, but be aware of who you are voting and what they really intend. It is one thing to oust this vile tory government, but it's another if it leads to more of the same.

Unfortunately people are not free to stand for Parliament. The system doesn't work that way, at the very least you will need a lot of money. Why do you think the Tories have so much power?

Redflag wrote:

ghost whistler wrote:Really? Petty?

They side with the Tories on so many issues and are ideologically a hair's breadth apart from them.

I think some of you are blind to this.

The only blind one is yourself GW, blind ato the flaws & faults of the SNP they have done a great job on you with there brain washing that is how Hitler got his following and we all know how that ended. If you take a look at what the Tories have done to the people of the UK over the last 5 years (nearly), then look at the 13 years of a Labour gov't they did not hurt the working man/women in the way the Tories have "THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE" between Labour and the Tories, I think there is similarities between the Tories & SNP because they both do not care what there constituents want its what the both parties want.

"if you take a look at what the tories have done"

And you really think I haven't?

All you have done is completely ignore everything I have said.

Ivan wrote:

ghost whistler wrote:-
So what are those differences?

"Most in Westminster agree that the ideological distance between the two parties is now greater than at any time since 1992 and possibly earlier. Labour would restore the 50p rate, introduce a mansion tax, roll back privatisation, maintain Britain’s membership of the EU and impose spending cuts of about £7bn. The Tories would avoid tax increases on the wealthy, extend privatisation, stage a referendum on whether to leave the EU and impose cuts of about £33bn.

When Britons go to the polls on 7 May, they will be offered two vastly different conceptions of the country’s future. The irony is that ever fewer recognise this."

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/01/labour-and-tories-aren-t-same-so-why-do-voters-still-think-they-are

YOu are quoting propaganda. You are not quoting actual policies, never mind that policy pledges mean nothing. What does 'roll back privatisation mean"? What will they roll back: will they renationalise the utitlies, the mail, everything in the NHS etc?

And imposing spending cuts is different from teh Tories how? Jesus! Are you seriously telling me that's the difference? MORE cuts?

What goes around, comes around.

Five years ago when there was an MSN discussion board, the section concerning British politics was full of polemic similar to the above, mainly berating the Labour Government of the time for doing little to reverse Thatcherist legislation that privatised everything in sight alongside emasculation of the Trade Unions.

The reason was, and still is, the enormous cost of paying compensation to those who invested in things that were completely legal under a previous administration.

A lot of current investment in London property originated in a foreign Country where such niceties can be disregarded.

Unfortunately people are not free to stand for Parliament. The system doesn't work that way, at the very least you will need a lot of money. Why do you think the Tories have so much power?

True - however, for those who feel strongly about political issues, political activism doesn't have to be expensive - and could lead to getting the nomination for your favoured party - this is what occurred for our local candidate - who is not wealthy and is having to work to support herself while campaigning.

In the end, the country will be run by those who bother to turn up - if you don't think the Labour party is going the right way about things, maybe you need to get in there and tell them to do different.

boatlady wrote:Unfortunately people are not free to stand for Parliament. The system doesn't work that way, at the very least you will need a lot of money. Why do you think the Tories have so much power?

True - however, for those who feel strongly about political issues, political activism doesn't have to be expensive - and could lead to getting the nomination for your favoured party - this is what occurred for our local candidate - who is not wealthy and is having to work to support herself while campaigning.

In the end, the country will be run by those who bother to turn up - if you don't think the Labour party is going the right way about things, maybe you need to get in there and tell them to do different.

They aren't going to do different. If they don't listen to their own members like John McDonnell or Jeremy Corbyn they aren't going to listen to anyone else. Labour is finished.

"Labour is finished." you say Ghost. If this is so and you feel that "there is no difference between Labour policies and Tories", my question to you is, who are you going to vote for at the election and morever, what chance of winning does it have?

It seems to me that your only hope is for your chosen party, if you have one that is, is to possibly form a Coalition with Labour. Will that satisfy you?

oftenwrong wrote:What goes around, comes around.

Five years ago when there was an MSN discussion board, the section concerning British politics was full of polemic similar to the above, mainly berating the Labour Government of the time for doing little to reverse Thatcherist legislation that privatised everything in sight alongside emasculation of the Trade Unions.

The reason was, and still is, the enormous cost of paying compensation to those who invested in things that were completely legal under a previous administration.

A lot of current investment in London property originated in a foreign Country where such niceties can be disregarded.

Which really is nonsense.

Mel wrote:"Labour is finished." you say Ghost. If this is so and you feel that "there is no difference between Labour policies and Tories", my question to you is, who are you going to vote for at the election and morever, what chance of winning does it have?

It seems to me that your only hope is for your chosen party, if you have one that is, is to possibly form a Coalition with Labour. Will that satisfy you?

I will probably vote green. I live in a tory/lib dem area. None but either of those two will win. Labour hasn't a chance so i will vote with my cosncience knowing that the system is completely and utterly broken. Labour doesn't support a change in our democracy either.

Ghost, I live in a Tory Stronghold and am in the same situation as you here in England. Therefore I shall vote for any party other than Tory. Not that it will do much good, although UKIP has emerged as looking as though they may hit the Tory numbers somewhat.

Mel wrote:"Labour is finished." you say Ghost. If this is so and you feel that "there is no difference between Labour policies and Tories", my question to you is, who are you going to vote for at the election and morever, what chance of winning does it have?

It seems to me that your only hope is for your chosen party, if you have one that is, is to possibly form a Coalition with Labour. Will that satisfy you?

GW is a Tory voter Mel the thing I would like to pass on to the majority of this forum is ; DO NOT FEED THIS TROLL he/she knows Labour will win the May general election and like Davy boy will not enjoy been known as the "ONE TERM FIRM"