Strangely, I seem to recall that Cameron promised a referendum on EU membership by the end of 2017 if he got a majority. I expect him to deliver or there will be big trouble. The debate about the TV debates was more interesting than the actual events. As the incumbent, Cameron had nothing to gain by giving Miliband an equal platform. Hopefully there will be no sterile debates in 2020 and we know that Cameron will not be there as the incumbent because he says that he is only doing two terms. I do not have five seconds for the anti-UKIP folk who brand them racist because they only do so to divert the attention away from the fact that none of the other parties are going to do anything to return to controlled immigration. Getting out of the failing socialist super state is the only way to achieve it. Miliband tried and failed to sell that lame privatisation idea. At the moment about six per cent of NHS services are provided by the private sector, up from about four per cent under Labour. Myself, I am quite happy for the private sector to provide NHS services with three caveats: (1) the service is still free at the point of use; (2) the provider is not making an extortionate profit (cap them); and (3) it is costing no more than if the services were internal to the NHS. I know somebody that is going to a private health care provider in a couple of weeks for a CAT scan because the NHS could not fit him in.
I do not think that many people south of the border will be too bothered about petty squabbling between the various factions of the SNP. What may be more of a concern is that with Cameron having such a slim majority (technically 5), he might have as much trouble keeping his backbenchers in order as John Major (majority 21) had between 1992 and 1997. That led to a Labour landslide in 1997...
Labour shot themselves in the foot five years ago when Len McCluskey and his mates were allowed to select the leader. At the Labour conference, Labour’s MPs voted for David Miliband, a centre ground Blairite. Labour’s non-union affiliated paid-up members also voted for David Miliband. Not wanting another Blair (3 election wins), the unions then looked at the candidates and used their block vote (as the Party’s paymasters) to give the job to the most left-wing candidate that was standing, Ed Miliband. When they have finished contemplating their navels, they will realise that the only place that a left of centre party is going to get elected is Scotland – Labour’s original heartland. Unfortunately for Labour, the SNP are further to the left than them so the Scots voted for their pseudo anti-austerity “progressive” policies just like Greece voted for Syriza. ‘Middle England’ votes centre or slightly to the right and you need their votes to govern. Labour’s election campaign bears a striking resemblance to Newcastle United’s form. Hopefully they did not borrow the campaign funds from Wonga... Cameron will be at the Cup Final in his West Ham shirt.
The biggest problem for the Lib Dems was that they had so many marginals that they gained in 2010 because of the student vote. The students all switched to the Greens in 2015 so the Lib Dem marginals went back to the parties they had originally deposed. As UKIP only won one seat (one that they had obtained from a Tory defector), they did affect some seats by taking votes off Labour and Conservatives that caused them to change hands; most notably Esther McVey losing on the Wirral where five thousand UKIP votes taken mostly off her let the Labour candidate in. There appears to be an obvious ignorance of the way that wages are related to supply and demand. Whilst you have a limitless supply of cheap labour from Eastern Europe, you do not need to increase wages and that keeps your operating costs down. Once that open door is closed, the availability of labour is restricted and that creates competition for what is available and the only way to win that competition is to offer better terms (i.e. higher wages) to your unskilled labour. The bad news for those at the bottom in low skill low wage jobs is that their situation is never going to improve whilst our economy is growing and most of the rest of the EU is failing.
The “random poll on 1000 people in the street” is not how the opinion polls were conducted in the previous weeks. The fact that they were inaccurate because they showed the two main parties neck and neck up until polling day is unfortunate and the pollsters will doubtless be sifting through their data to find the errors in their sampling. The reason that the Broadcasters’ Exit Poll was pretty accurate in comparison (Tories 316, Labour 239, Lib Dems 10) was because this is focussed on about a hundred key constituencies and the data is analysed compared to voting patterns/results at previous elections. The suspicion was that the unknown in this election – the UKIP vote – was why the Tory majority was not shown up immediately that the polls closed.
[Q"rudebwoy, post: 7911220, member: 1024040"]A lot of people are ashamed to admit voting Tory -that would explain the under estimate[/QUOTE] I think you will find it is more reflective of the state of socialism- I mean defacing a war memorial and the under lying anger they have that pprevents some from admitting who they vote for. A bit like the new and my for Paisley who wanted to nut people who voted no in the referendum. Not to mention union intimidation.
You been drinking again gasboy? What have a few individuals have to do with a fact that 6% of voters didn't want to admit they voted Tory?
Very simplistic way of looking at it so I gave you a simplistic answer. Sorry I didnt spell check it for you. Maybe if your socialist union hadnt voted in their puppet then labour may have had a credible leader who didnt encourage voters to look elsewhere.
Just out of interest does anyone know the usually voter turn out for a general election? This time it was 66% which seems really low. Its only just over half of the people abvailable to vote have voted which seems a bit poor so I was just wondering if that's normal
Surely people that would not admit to being Tory would not have admitted to being Tory last time, therefore negating the effect of those that when asked said “no comment”. I think that it is more likely that the people doing the statistics overestimated the UKIP vote in some Conservative constituencies and the UKIP vote did not materialise and they kept the seats. Also, history tells us that Labour voters are the most complacent and do not bother to show up and put a cross in the box. It was 65 per cent in 2010. That was why we at the ‘None Of The Above’ Party knew that we would get 35 per cent of the vote. We did badly in Scotland because turnout was up 9 per cent there this time – presumably mostly new SNP voters.
Bit of a sad state to see idiots rioting in London because they didn't get what they wanted. The thing I'd like to wager is there'd be a fair few amongst them didn't even use their democratic right to vote
indeed smokey, if you also factor in the estimated three million who are not registered to vote , then that means only 6 out of ten adults voted, and of them only one in five voted tory .........its a mess, but then this system was designed to give minority govt big mandate--i see the tories are doing some more boundary trimming to furhter enhance their chances.....
I don't think the Tories did the boundary changes. Anyway it's needed. As someone pointed out on Friday there are constituencies that don't justify a member and others that justify two.
This argument really doesn't hold water Rudey; Conservatives 11,334,920 votes Labour 9,347,326 votes SNP 1,454,436 votes Lib Dem 2,415,888 votes UKIP 3,881,129 votes So any way you wish to twist things the party the British voter voted for got elected. The only disgrace is that less than 1.5million sweatys got 56 MP's for the odious Nicola Sturgeon into power while 3.8m UKIP votes is worth only one seat and 2.4m Lib Dem votes is worth only 8 seats! If you want "reform" that is where we should be looking but whichever way people want to play with the numbers the new PM was voted in by a "significant" majority! I would love to see a referendum for English Independence ;-)
Registering to vote is not rocket science; there will be just as many of all persuasions not registered so this is a vacuous argument. I get notification every year from my local council about registering to vote so even Labour voters in my loony-left Labour constituency must get them. If people are too brain dead to register, their vote is irrelevant. Whilst it is true that the proposed boundary changes do favour the Conservatives at the moment (whilst cutting the number of members of Parliament by 50, benefiting all tax payers), that can be changed by the electorate actually showing up and voting in said constituencies.
Not registering is a sign of disengagement, various reasons can be at work, but it affects the homeless, the unstable, people with mental health issues, along with debt avoidance, transient populations, all natural conservatives no doubt! Any case, the system delivers a majority with a fifth of the vote -banana republics and one party states would be envious, but not any one else.........
To register to vote where I live is put your name on a form and put the postage paid form in a mailbox. If you are too brain dead to do that, you are too brain dead to vote. Obviously if you are homeless or transient you do not receive a form. If you have mental health issues you hopefully live with somebody that can return the form for you. The arguments you are making are all relevant to an extremely small proportion of the electorate that are not going to affect the result of a national election. Stop digging the hole – it is already too deep to get out of!!!
