PDA

View Full Version : Who will win 2015 general election?



StalinsBitch
07-09-2014, 09:25 PM
My guess is a Labour minority government. Anyone willing to state otherwise?

ColdPieWarmBeer
07-09-2014, 09:29 PM
That username!

Tories Lite Labour, unfortunately.

HatfieldClaret
07-09-2014, 10:04 PM
Will be odd if Labour get a majority following a Yes vote in Scotland..

When Scotland get their independence the Labour majority may disappear and we would then have to have another general election

1959_60
07-09-2014, 10:07 PM
There may not be a General Election next year if Scotland vote Yes.

If there is a Yes vote then Scotland will leave the union in March 2016. Pointless and wasteful electing a Parliament to run for just 9 months.

If Scotland does vote Yes it will be very interesting. Common sense says that the Tories would walk it...but...

Cameron would be targeted by the opposition as the man on whose watch the Union was broken up.

They may well take a hammering from Ukip. In this case there could be a lot of possible scenarios for forming a new coalition. Tory/Ukip...Lib/Lab.

It could go many ways.

hampsteadclaret
07-09-2014, 10:10 PM
There will be a by-election in Clacton, Essex fairly soon [mid October?] caused by the defection of Tory MP Douglas Carswell to Ukip.

All available evidence at this point suggests that Ukip will win the by-election by a street. The experts think that if this happens, there is the prospect of many [usual] Conservative voters then switching to vote Ukip in the General Election next year...other Tory MPs could yet defect.

Watch this space.

HatfieldClaret
07-09-2014, 10:19 PM
Is it not law that the maximum term of government is 5 years ? It can't be extended...

wherewasi
07-09-2014, 10:19 PM
Unfortunately, I think the electorate will bottle it and believe the promises of the Labour party, reversing the economic gains, giving everybody in the public sector unaffordable wages and pensions and putting back any chance of the sort of reforms of the 'education' sector that is run exclusively for the benefit of teachers. The West Lothian question becomes more of a question regardless and part of any genuine settlement of more powers to Scotland (if there is a 'No') by anyone other than Labour would be the removal of their MPs right to vote in, well, in just about anything. Same would apply to NI and Wales of course for equity.

That would leave (as an example) current voting on some major issues (the split would depend on what issue as the Scottish, Welsh and NI legislatures have/would have different powers):

Conservative Party 296
Labour Party 191
Liberal Democrats 42

hampsteadclaret
07-09-2014, 10:30 PM
post 7..
Perhaps you could explain very clearly what you mean by this statement..

'education' sector that is run exclusively for the benefit of teachers'...what exactly does that mean?

One obvious observation is that if the education sector is run 'exclusively' for teachers, this means that this sector is not operating at all, in any way, in the interests of millions of children...this seems a ludicrous thing to say.

gogogadgetlegs
07-09-2014, 10:30 PM
Real Madrid

LoveCurryPies
07-09-2014, 10:36 PM
If Ed Miliband is still in charge...a Conservative / UKip coalition. No point voting LibDem.

HatfieldClaret
07-09-2014, 10:39 PM
Lib Dems will get slaughtered and left with a handful of seats.

Coalition with the tories and University fees...

UKIP will get more seats that Lib Dems, god forbid...

wherewasi
07-09-2014, 10:41 PM
I could start a counter-semantic claim that it's just as well I put inverted commas around the word 'education'. But I won't; I'll confess to hyperbole. I'll stand by the underlying point, though.

hampsteadclaret
07-09-2014, 10:52 PM
I asked you to explain the statement.

- you have failed completely to explain it.

Any chance this time..?

wherewasi
07-09-2014, 10:57 PM
I just said the statement was hyperbole. What else did you want?

hampsteadclaret
07-09-2014, 11:05 PM
I know what hype means.

- so the sentence I asked you to explain [twice] is just some made up nonsense, devoid of relevance or truth...it doesn't mean anything at all does it?

Well done keep on posting.

wherewasi
07-09-2014, 11:09 PM
No; the extrapolation to an extreme is hyperbole. The opinion that has been over-extended is as nonsensical or otherwise as you choose to believe it to be.

I won't debate this one with you - sorry. Nothing you'll say on this forum will reverse my opinion based on what I've seen myself. Your opinion on the topic, whatever that opinion is, is doubtless equally informed by your experience and unlikely to change based on my recounting mine.

hampsteadclaret
07-09-2014, 11:22 PM
'I won't debate this one with you'..

Yes I can see that.

You've been here long enough to know that if you go in for unsubstantiated, incorrect 'bag of wind' statements, that you cannot defend when asked to, you will soon get ignored on here.

Just sayin'

wherewasi
07-09-2014, 11:24 PM
Well, you're doing an awful lot of 'not ignoring' for someone intent on 'ignoring'.

dsr
08-09-2014, 12:37 AM
As a presumably politically aware person, hampstead, you have surely worked out that what he means is that the teachers are given undue consideration at the expense of the children in today's education system. The most obvious case in point to my mind being the difficulty of employing teachers that the unions don't like, and the difficulty of getting rid of teachers that aren't very good.

mdd2
08-09-2014, 05:29 AM
We really are heading towards unchartered waters and may even need a broad coalition if Scotland leave the Union given the chaos it will cause them and us according to most I have read. The problem as i see it is a No vote will not end the Jocks desire which is sizeable to leave and Salmond may come back for more and reduce the voting age to 15 then 14 until he wins.
If god forbid UKip who as far as I can see have no idea of economics win or hold the balance of power then we will be in deep do do with the potential economic problems of two divorces.

BobS_2014
08-09-2014, 08:26 AM
Interestingly, and potentially quite ironically, I believe that the poll yesterday which has caused so much panic actually shows "No" at 57% in the 16-17 year old age group who have been enfranchised especially for this vote. It could be that Scots teenagers are more sensible and level-headed than their parents who seem determined to give the Westminster parties a bloody nose (without apparently realising the enormity and implications of what they are doing) - and actually save the Union!

Caernarfon_Claret
08-09-2014, 08:27 AM
Score draw

All I know is that the man mentioned in the link below is likely to be my MP again this time next year. - view external link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hywel_Williams)

Jamb0MackemClaret
08-09-2014, 08:35 AM
"reversing the economic gains"

Erm, what economic gains? The economy is only now back to the same sort of position Labour left it in, despite the unprecedented cuts the coalition have forced through in the last four years... Keep buying the Tory lies though.

The referendum is going to have a massive effect on next year's election. I would have expected a small Labour majority or even a minority government or Labour-led coalition, but if Scotland votes for yes, all bets are off. And even if no wins by a small amount, I don't see Salmond giving up and the independence issue won't just go away.

Scottish independence would decimate Labour's vote, but could Cameron survive the break-up of the union? I'm not sure he could and the right-wing press is also reporting the vultures are circling. Hampstead is also right that a Ukip win in Clacton will see even more pressure on Cameron as the Tory right considers defection. Cameron is probably lucky there are no obvious replacements for him un

LancasterClaret
08-09-2014, 08:38 AM
Wouldn't that be a great couple of years?

No Scotland and a UKIP led coalition.

Thank God though that Labour have just the man in charge to stop that happening...oh wait

paulnightingale
08-09-2014, 08:44 AM
i cant believe anybody with just half a brain unless on benefits would ever think of voting for labour again so soon after the debacle they left the country in ...people have v v short memories...

Jamb0MackemClaret
08-09-2014, 08:49 AM
People still think the *global* recession was Labour's fault? Bloody hell. Do folk not read? Like, at all?

LancasterClaret
08-09-2014, 08:54 AM
Not their fault Jambo, but not handled as well as it could be.

For me, announcing contracts that we couldn't afford to British firms in marginal seats in the run up to the election convinced me that voting Labour is a recipe for disaster.

nil_desperandum
08-09-2014, 09:02 AM
"Cameron is probably lucky there are no obvious replacements for him until Boris Johnson finds himself a seat."
Why is that relevant at all?
Boris could stand against Cameron in a fortnight's time couldn't he?
Leader of the Tory party doesn't have to be an MP does he? (e.g. Alec Douglas - Home), or have the rules been changed?

celts
08-09-2014, 09:11 AM
"Cameron would be targeted by the opposition as the man on whose watch the Union was broken up."

This is a moot point. If the Scots vote AYE then Cameron will be booted out by the Tories.

celts
08-09-2014, 09:18 AM
I Think the next UK government will only be intrim because no matter the result of the Scottish referendum, there has to be a new constitutional settlement inside the UK.

There'll certainly be calls for a plebiscite in Northern Ireland on a united Ireland referendum, and for devolved powers to London, Wales and the English regions.

The opportunity here for a party to build a consensus is huge, I'm just surprised it's taken the best part of three years for them to realise it.

Jamb0MackemClaret
08-09-2014, 09:20 AM
Arguable point really LC, just as you can argue the Tories could have managed the recovery better. The US recovery has been a lot faster, which is because their government went for investment over cuts, broadly speaking.

NottsClaret
08-09-2014, 09:24 AM
If the Scots leave - and I'm not arsed either way - then it won't necessarily mean a Tory government for decades down here just as there won't be a Socialist Scotland.

All the parties will move slightly to the right in England and to the left north of the border to suit their electorates. Then after a few years it'll settle back into the usual squabbles over tiny differences.

Does anyone know for definite what happens to our parliament / election is there's a 'yes' vote?

JohnMcGreal
08-09-2014, 09:30 AM
If the Scots leave - and I'm not arsed either way - then it won't necessarily mean a Tory government for decades down here just as there won't be a Socialist Scotland.

We've already had decades of Tory governments.

All the parties will move slightly to the right in England

If that's even possible, that's pretty terrifying.

NottsClaret
08-09-2014, 09:36 AM
I was trying to take any partisanship out of my post, John. I do try not to see the whole world through left/right blinkers. Sometimes the tories will get things right, sometimes Labour.

It was just an opinion on what may happen. In fact Salmond will probably be the first casualty of a 'yes' vote once all the hype is over and the blame for all their ills shifts from Westminster to him.

celts
08-09-2014, 09:38 AM
The UK recovery is very hollow, the main problem is the amount of debt, government and personal, which in total is estimated to reach circa 900% of GDP. See below.

This means that interest rates are going to stay low and house and rent prices will stay high, this means people won't have the cash to spend, unless they put it on the plastic and add to the debt.

The other issue is that the recovery in the EU has stalled, and as the EU are our main trading partners then this is bad news for sales.

In short, for all the austerity and posturing, the debt can't be paid. By any of the parties. We might be able to keep up repayments while interest rates are so low, but as soon as they start to rise to normal levels then we're in the klarts. - view external link (http://moneyweek.com/the-end-of-britain-where-we-get-our-figures/)

JohnMcGreal
08-09-2014, 09:41 AM
Fair enough Notts.

Salmond may not last, but an independent Scotland isn't dependent on him. He is simply the man trying to take them there. They will have plenty of spats and debates as an independent country, and they will elect people from across the political spectrum.

LancasterClaret
08-09-2014, 09:52 AM
Oh agreed Jambo, but the US is a completely different economy to ours.

I'm like Notts, sometimes the Cons, sometimes the Libs, sometimes the Lab all get it right. Not often enough for the good of the country though.

OdihamClaret
08-09-2014, 10:15 AM
I suppose, whilst not a card carrying conservative, I could be described as a left wing, "One Nation" conservative - personal heroes being Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine. Many in business will have a similar political colour.

After 18th Sept, I guess "One Nation" in the geographic sense will be outdated.

Given that business hates uncertainty, the last thing the rUK would need is a two front cessation fight (Scotland and EU). The Scotland cessation argument will continue for years after March 2016.

If conservative MPs continue to drag the political balance ever more to the right with an EU exit agenda, I and many other "One Nation", conservative with small "c", pro business, pro prosperity (for all)voters will hold their noses and vote Labour - even more so post "Yes" in Scotland.

May 2015 narrow Labour majority or Lib Lab coalition. May 2016 (Post official separation following "Yes" in Scotland) solid Labour majority as labour becomes more like a Social Democrat party after cons

LoveCurryPies
08-09-2014, 11:43 AM
News of a second Royal baby will create a feel good factor with a handful of voters and that might just swing the vote.

Amazing coincidence / timing?

roseylee
08-09-2014, 12:08 PM
by the time the 2015 election comes along.

the scots will still be in the union, when push comes to shove too many will bottle it at the last minute and decide not to vote for independence.

the lib dems will be wiped off the map and left with only a handful of seats, after the coalition fiasco with the tories, and failing to fulfill many of their promises after they took power.

many of the tories will defect to ukip, who will hold the balance of power in many areas of the country, and cameron will be hung out to dry,

labour who are not true labour anymore, by any stretch of the imagination, and are no more than a watered down version of the tories will probably win the next election, with something like a 30 - 40 seat majority.

wembley64
08-09-2014, 12:15 PM
...

if voting changed anything, they'd abolish it

ken livingstone

OneNilWade
08-09-2014, 12:20 PM
I find it amazing that after the historic success of UKIP in May that staunch Lib/Lab/Cons
are still not taking them seriously if Scotland vote yes its goodnight Vienna for Labour and even if its a no their stubborn stance on migration and the EU will cripple them, and as for the Cons the trust level's are at an all time low so that only leaves poor Nick Clegg and that spell's it out...therefore i can see there being no majority with a possibility of a Con/Ukip coalition but without Cameron..

nil_desperandum
08-09-2014, 12:29 PM
Do many people really think that UKip will win many if any seats in a general election, (as opposed to the odd by-election)?
They may have a significant impact on the outcome of the 2015 election, but I can't see them winning many seats outright, (simply based on the maths).

roseylee
08-09-2014, 12:38 PM
ukip wont win many seats at the next election, but they will have a significant impact on how people vote now in many areas of the country.

after the the economy, immigration and been in europe have become big issues in this country, and that will determine how a lot of people vote.

Jamb0MackemClaret
08-09-2014, 01:29 PM
Unless the Tories and Ukip have some sort of pact where they don't challenge each other (very unlikely), the right's vote will be severely split and Ukip won't win more than half a dozen seats. If the Tories decided to plan ahead for a Tory/Ukip coalition with their selections that might be more dangerous, but I can't see Cameron going for that. He probably thinks he can get a majority, even though he can't.

LancasterClaret
08-09-2014, 01:48 PM
Remember that UKIP are also taking Labour voters as well.

Claret_in_Lowestoft
08-09-2014, 05:45 PM
DSR-

re: post #19

I've been teaching since 2001 and (1) I've never been in an interview where there has been a union rep there to give a thumbs up/down on my appointment- they have NO input on staff recruitment and (2) it has never been EASIER to get rid of "teachers that aren't very good". I could get rid of ANY member of staff in a school within no more than 13 weeks (a full school term) and not be breaking the law in any way, shape or form. You may be surprised to hear that it was Labour rather than the Conservatives who made this possible...

hampsteadclaret
08-09-2014, 05:50 PM
While that is true Lancaster, everything I've ever read on this says that Ukip takes votes mainly from the party which is furthest to the right.
Makes sense to me.

Ukip will not win many seats in the General Election ( I think they intend to target about 10-20 seats which they see as potentially winnable). They will though do lots of damage in maybe (?) 300 constituencies, taking votes from everyone, particularly the Conservatives.

Who will win it?
Dont know.
I think a coalition of some sort is likely though.

hampsteadclaret
08-09-2014, 06:01 PM
You are right C in L about that post by dsr.

Why he would want to support the earlier post by wherewasi, with the grossly stupid statement in it is beyond me.

The offending early post grated with me because in my own school we have just had wonderful record GCSE and A level results which are off the scale, so the comment about schools being run exclusively FOR TEACHERS was barmy in the extreme.

Teacher bashing is common on here, C in L...it barely ever stops. I ignore most of it concluding that the critics are usually school failures, now bitter about their position in life.

For the record, I think that there are some poor teachers out there (as in all occupations) and after due process has been gone through, they should be removed.

ightenhillclaret
08-09-2014, 06:08 PM
I wouldn't worry about it Hampstead - he probably reads and believes the Daily Mail.

LancasterClaret
08-09-2014, 06:10 PM
Hampstead, I agree that they pose more of a risk to the Conservatives, but plenty of Labour voters will be swayed by their anti-europe/anti-immigrant platform.

taio
08-09-2014, 06:16 PM
Difficult to predict. I can't see any party winning an overall majority, so another coalition of some sort. The Tories could get severely hit by UKIP, but they are a real threat to Labour too albeit to a lesser degree - the local elections, plenty of news articles and research evidence supports that.

wherewasi
08-09-2014, 10:17 PM
I will bite, hampstead claret if only to give you some facts (although I realise that makes me rather reactionary and 'old school'). I squeezed through with 3 As at 'A' level (that would be back when only 9% of A levels were Grade A as opposed to the 26% currently achieved by the three times more numerate and literate school leavers I stumble across regularly) and went to a good university before making a career that has, by and large, been what I've wanted and, whatever it's been, good or bad, has been of my own making.

So; you can put your fatuous, smug, self-satisfied theory away, Sir.

nil_desperandum
08-09-2014, 10:27 PM
A very impressive CV wherewasi. You are clearly highly intelligent and articulate, so why the earlier bizarre post about teachers?
And I must add that, (IMO), education will be a very minor issue at the next election, so I'm not really sure how it found its way onto this thread.

wherewasi
08-09-2014, 10:38 PM
nd - thanks for the compliment but it's nothing to do with me - it's just the way I'm wired.

As regards your question; because I care. I care that the current generation (who are going to find it much harder than I have against much more difficult global competition) are being taught so very little of value by such poor teaching in an education paradigm and system that is hopelessly lost. And because that makes me angry.

oldcolner
09-09-2014, 06:46 AM
If Scotland votes Yes there is talk of no election in 2015 as labour could win with Scottish MPs leaving in 2016,

dsr
09-09-2014, 08:59 AM
So are you saying, Claret-in-Lowestoft, that if a headteacher wants to appoint an extremely good teacher who hasn't got a PGCE. that he can? Good. Things have clearly changed, because I thought the unions would have been kicking off about that.

This power to get rid of teachers who aren't very good - is it used much?

nil_desperandum
09-09-2014, 10:47 AM
"So are you saying, Claret-in-Lowestoft, that if a headteacher wants to appoint an extremely good teacher who hasn't got a PGCE. that he can?"
A PGCE has always been only one route into the teaching profession. It's certainly never been a requirement.
And the answer to your question - in any case - is yes.
By implication your teacher must have already worked somewhere else without a PGCE to prove that they are "an extremely good teacher".
Did you mean "potentially an extremely good teacher".?
I would also mention a growing and rather worrying trend to employ teachers who are not qualified since they are cheaper. There are many "teachers" now who are paid hourly and not for holidays etc. That's fine in ts own way, but you can't then expect them to organise sporting activities,run music or drama clubs etc, and tutor pupils etc. in their lunch breaks, Saturday mornings etc.

culmclaret
09-09-2014, 11:05 AM
The Unions have very little say over what happens in the education system. Ofsted is the main influence. Successive education policies have under-achieved largely because they have focused on improving school processes. As a result schools are better lead, organised and managed, and, by-and-large, teaching is better. What we have given less thought to is the raw material. Children and young people are free agents, who ultimately need some kind of intrinsic motivation to get the best out of their education. They spend around 19% of their waking hours in school. For much of the other 81% they are in an environment which does not promote the rewards of working hard at learning: in fact quite the opposite. Student achievement is better in many Asian countries not because their schools are any better, but because their culture is different. In particular, a higher proportion of parents put a high value on education. This is a common problem in the Anglophone world, where the 'pane

wherewasi
09-09-2014, 11:33 AM
I don't disagree with some of what you say, but I think deeper analysis of some of the underlying issues can distract attention from the very real failings of the education system itself.

"For much of the other 81% they are in an environment which does not promote the rewards of working hard at learning"

That assumes that the 19% does. The bread and circuses (thank you - that's my something learnt for today) approach is never more evident than in schools; in fact school is the very crucible in which that mindset is forged since a fear of demanding the most out of each pupil (whatever their indivdual 'most' might be) results in a dumbing-down to the lowest common denominator.

"As a result schools are better lead, organised and managed, and, by-and-large, teaching is better."

That would be opinion, not fact. That there is certainly more emphasis on the superficial management and process elements of education; I think it would be hard to disagree.

"Nor for that matter is re-introdu

culmclaret
09-09-2014, 12:05 PM
In support of my argument, I will try to confine myself to measures which have an element of objectivity (even though I would question the absolute validity of PISA tables or, indeed, Ofsted).

As far as international comparisons go, we don't do too badly when compared with the major English speaking countries. Presumably that means that USA, Canada and Australia for instance have also got their approaches to pedagogy and the curriculum horribly wrong. Despite all the hand wringing, we also don't do too badly when compared with European countries with the exception of Scandanavia (and Poland). Education failure in this country is attributed by the Woodhead/Gove tendency to something called the Blob, ie the educational establishment, which is peopled by self-serving lefty liberal types. All I can say is that this Blob must have a pretty impressive international reach, although China, Singapore, South Korea and the Nordic countries are obviously no-go areas.

As for the quality of sc

nil_desperandum
09-09-2014, 01:09 PM
"As regards your question; because I care. I care that the current generation (who are going to find it much harder than I have against much more difficult global competition) are being taught so very little of value by such poor teaching in an education paradigm and system that is hopelessly lost. And because that makes me angry."

Ok - (wherewasi).
First - some context. I have taught for the best part of 40 years, (in 4 distinctively different types of school), and am now semi-retired and part-time, (hence I have time to write this).
Others have already replied to your post with some good points, (not all of which I agree with), but to which I would add:

I agree with your criticism of today's education system, but I can tell you from the inside, and from experience, that you are completely wrong to attach the blame to teachers. Unlike when I started, teachers nowadays have very little influence on what is taught and how it is taught. Most policy comes straight from Westminster / DOE

wherewasi
09-09-2014, 01:30 PM
Thanks for the points n_d.

I said I wan't going to debate and I won't. You, or others, can take that as validation of your views and my capitulation in the face of the arguments if you see fit.

PS: I did, in expanding, say in my last post that it is "poor teaching in an education paradigm and system that is hopelessly lost" and not simply "teachers". However, that's not to say I agree with your view of why the system is broken.

nil_desperandum
09-09-2014, 01:57 PM
"I said I wan't going to debate and I won't. You, or others, can take that as validation of your views and my capitulation in the face of the arguments if you see fit."

I would never assume that by withdrawing from a debate someone had capitulated. Open and honest debate is important, and in most debates there is no absolute black and white. I am quite happy to conceded grey areas.
However, I do think you should explain why the system is so broken. You say that the system is "hopelessly lost", and not "simply teachers". I have explained what I believe to be the fundamental source of our education system's problems and the betrayal of our future generation. If you don't agree, then surely you have time to put a different view? You surely can't be of the opinion that the DOE and successive Education Ministers have steered British education in a positive direction? As in most fields of life the problem starts at the top.

culmclaret
09-09-2014, 02:53 PM
Education has always been going to hell in a handcart ( I recently came across a speech of my great great grandfather, a Conservative candidate in the 1906 Burnley municipal election, decrying the deleterious impacts of the most recent education reforms) largely because what is valued, or indeed useful, in education changes from one generation to the next. 100 years ago neat handwriting was seen as *****ly important. Today it might, as a by-product, improve fine motor skills, but you'd be hard pressed to say that it is an essential attribute.

Two things don't change: most teachers want to improve the lives of their students and most do a good job.

hampsteadclaret
09-09-2014, 06:29 PM
Well said n_d in posts 62 and 64..really well written posts, and a person with all that experience is worth listening to, I would say.