Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Election result sealed already? Feel free to tell me how ignorant and naive I'm being.
It really does depend on that.
It's an absolute dream to spin negatively.
Anything else that happens in 2015 will be a bonus.
Far more frightening prospect is a ConUKIP coalition.
If they're the third biggest party (very possible) and there's no majority, it's pretty inevitable, no?
Can't imagine who's going to be voting lib dem in 2015. How can they possibly claim to stand for anything anymore? They're done.
Not going to be much of coalition between them and a Tory party who is also going to be taking an electoral hit.
are always the bookmakers. And they all currently have UKIP either level with or ahead of the lib dems.
Lots can happen in the next 18 months. Definitely don't think a UKIP coalition is out of the question.
The bookmakers is an interesting one, because they are in it not to get accurate odds of what may happen, but to make money. The sort of old blokes who spunk their pants over UKIP are quite likely to be mug punters who would be enticed by odds like that.
Whilst it's likely that UKIP could get the third biggest national share of votes in the next election, I highly doubt that they will beat the Lib Dems # of Parliamentary seats- Many incumbent Lib Dem MP's have very very good local reputations, and whilst I think there will be a loss of seats for them in Lib dem/Labour marginals, I highly doubt that they will lose many seats in tory/Lib-dem marginals.
This is also fairly telling.
for UKIP involvement in Government.
But yeah, it's clearly not considered remotely likely.
1) Those are the odds of that party having the most seats. For both Lib Dems and UKIP they're so slim that it doesn't really matter how they're priced up. The bookies won't be wasting their time worrying about the exact prices on outsiders in a small market.
2) The weight of money has a far bigger effect on the odds on a market like this than on most other markets - sick 50 quid on UKIP with SportingBet and you'll almost certainly see their odds drop soon after. It's also why the bookies were pricing up a Tory majority at 1/5 for several months around March 2010 when the polls were suggesting a hung parliament was more likely.
The geographical spread of their support base is far too wide under our winner takes all electoral system.
Boston and Skegness, if Farage stood there, for example. Nothing more though.
but I can see Farage extracting policy agreements from the Tories in return for not campaigning in key marginals if they do well in the next mid-terms (is that the European elections?).
I can see UKIP coming first in those, which if polling hasn't improved for the Conservatives by then will no doubt spook a lot of the Tory base again.
I'd have thought a further regression towards 'core' Conservatism would be more likely as a reaction than any kind of pact given Tory leadership's complete disdain for UKIP though.
The Tory press created the support for UKIP, and if they pose any significant danger to a Tory majority at a general election they'll move to cut that support down quite quickly as they want to spend most of the campaign on hatchet jobs on Labour and Miliband.
I can see the papers and the more loony Tory MPs leaning on Farage et al until they back off from running in key Conservative v Labour marginals.
Thought this when I heard some people saying that UKIP's popularity was good for Labour. But they're only taking Tory votes away, making a coalition possible. Imagine the Conservatives being the lesser evil.
I really can't see that happening at the moment. Have to admit Miliband has nailed the Conference season. Cameron's speech today, despite the comments that the content had been decided months ago, was wholly a reaction to Miliband's speech. For the first time, the Opposition are driving the narrative.
Your post is entirely correct, but by 2015 the electorate will go against the polls in an act of `better the devil you know than the devil you don't` change of heart voting.
Pretty convinced this is going to happen. At least if this doesn't happen I'll be pleasantly surprised.
And I can certainly see shy-tories swinging it in the polling booth, especially if the government throw in things like a rail fare freeze or a fuel-duty cut in a pre-election budget.
They'll put in some UKIP appeasing stuff. May even talk about repealing the smoking ban or something out of desperation. Should be enough to get the right-wing floaters onside
Conservatives by a hung parliament slight majority, with Clegg bending over himself to carry on the coalition and get 10 years of being in power to get them over the line. Don't care what the polling suggests - this is the order of things.
Wouldn't be surprised at a Labour minority Government, but can't see Cameron retaining and building on his vote base, to stay in Government. That said, 18 months is a long way away.
won't have Ed in Number 10 in a month of Sundays. Cameron's pretty chummy with them all.
The hatchet jobbery has already started from the Mail this week. But, at least it shows that they've started to shit it about Ed's potential to win big at the booth. They wouldn't be doing that if they knew the election was in the bag.
They always do. Then claim they influenced it.
They would have done David though...
That said, there is a solid argument that the influence of print media has declined significantly since the 2010 election.
Although it's all about Mail Online these days isn't it? Few pics of Ed looking a bit tubby on holiday down the wall of shame would cause a 2% swing on its own.
That would appeal to the Sun more? Genuine question.
3. Has more blood on his hands over Iraq
More right wing
Less likely to be in favour of press/market regulation
That sort of thing.
I know a lot of fans of ad hominem attacks don't like Owen Jones, but I thought that this was pretty spot on, and I can't see any reason to disagree with what it says: http://owenjonesramblings.tumblr.com/post/62811986074/be-prepared-the-right-are-preparing-all-out-war
(i like Owen Jones a lot)
Comes across really well when interviewed - comes across a bit studenty and rhetorical in print sometimes. Which is odd. Generally he's a force for good though, he's young, raw and is a rare case of being a socialistic journalist who hasn't come from a background of privilege. He's much needed in all of these regards.
Didn't think much of his book, but then again he's what... 27 or something? He's incredibly articulate and learned for his age.
But yes, both you and he are correct.
This is all speculation based upon nothing other than a sense of pessimism and what I've learnt in 20+ years of observing politics. Not claiming otherwise in the slightest.
What you would have learnt from the last 20 years plus essentially undermines what you're saying.
last 20 years and come to the conclusion that a ConDem Coalition is the only possible outcome of the next election.
are INHERENTLY relevant in the outcome of this one. We're in unique economic territory here. Difficult to layer other results onto this.
Also, I don't think it's the only possible outcome. I think it's the most probable outcome - which is an opinion I am making with forceful language owing to my own sense of deflatedness on the issue.
If I'm wrong, please dig up this thread in 18 months and I'll treat you to a steak dinner. If I'm right, please don't return the favour for I won't have an appetite.
1992 was the last time a deeply unpopular Tory government went into an election, having taken the country into and then (barely) out of a recession, trailing by a very narrow amount in the opinion polls to a Labour leader hated by the press.
thus winning the undying affection of even the hardiest teenage Marxist
= Call Me Dave swept back into Number 10 with biggest electoral landslide since WWII.
And neither do their parents.
I think the country as a whole is on the right of things when it comes to immigration. That could be crucial.
It's all ruthless business decisions. Which is just as bad really.
It's so short-termist that it'll end up costing the country more.
who've had no power at all come to power and want to make as many changes as possible before they lose it again. Because I think they're set for another long spell in opposition when they leave office again.
It's like they're playing out a fantasy or something.
comes from Blair's assertion that his biggest mistake was being to slow to do what he wanted off the bat in 97 when his mandate was at it's strongest.
Unfortunately, they seem to have made the mistake of interpreting that as "we should throw all our ideas at the wall at once to see what sticks" - hence the number of times something's been announced only to be delayed, withdrawn or quietly forgotten.
I'm wondering if that's part of the reason that they seem so short on new ideas this conference season and it's not just that Labour have got them on the run a bit.
They didn't even have a majority! Had they been been more moderate in their first term, they probably would have got a decent majority in 2015 and been able to do what they're doing now with a bit of a cushion. As it is, it's been a really weird spectacle.
(which I wholly recommend to anyone with an interest in Politics), and it really rams home how hard this Government blow their policy announcements.
buy a book that's not only by McBride, but that also had Iain Dale as editor.
If it's any help, McBride's proceeds from individual book sales got to charity.
They're all ok.
If their parents are from low-level jobs with no property ownership then, yep, cannon fodder to go loose on.
if it came hand in hand with serious and joined up investment in education and training, so they really could make the claim that it's an effort to improve the lot of young people in this country. But that would be opposite land where this wasn't simply something to concentrate even more power into the hands of employers, where the Tories gave the slightest shit about the underlying causes of youth unemployment, where "tough love" bullshit didn't actually work as an election slogan.
Seriously, how the fuck have we got into a system where politicians get elected on the basis of promising less?
is there not some human rights type minimum government provision that would mean this wasn't possible? Or can the government literally provide no support?
Probably in preparation for phase 2 of their policy-making.
It is an extraordinary policy idea. A 24-year-old with no job and no family support will basically have what options? Jesus. Maybe they're hoping a whole generation of young people will commit suicide and the unemployment stats will go down as a result?
over half have children (204,500 of 385,000).
What does a 23 year-old who's just been made redundant do - move back to their parents' house where the job prospects are worse? What does a student who was hoping to use university to escape their unemployment black-hole hometown do - move back with his parents until they're 25?
of moving back in with their parents. That's actually a 'best case scenario' for most unemployed 18-25 year olds with this policy.
I honestly think we're looking at a huge number of young people being forced onto the streets and homeless shelters. What else are they going to do? There aren't enough jobs.
cos otherwise it makes no sense. They're probably bringing back workhouses.
43% not being opposed is mentally high, to me. Fucking hell.
the figures themselves are even more confusing: http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/x67cmfrax0/YG-Archive-Fabian-Society-Housing-benefit-results-121115.pdf
Either favouring it or not having an opinion.
The full figures are in that second link.
35% support it.
That is awful to think about.
Haven't clicked the link, dunno if that's covered, but 57% against doesn't neccessarily mean 43%
you'd really have to be a massive cunt to vote for this lot
saw the headline on this and assumed that the loss of benefits and JSA was contingent on some criteria. Not just straight up? Jesus.
some bold action
plans to help young people into employment or education.
is surely the only people who will be in favour of it will be people rich enough that they'll never need to claim benefits, or who don't know anyone under 25 who is either unemployed or likely to be at some point. Given the state of the job market, that's got to be about 15% of the populus at best.
Am I being naive? It seems like pretty much everyone will have a personal reason to oppose this. There must be some kind of political reasoning behind it - I just can't figure it out.
presumably because it's pretty difficult to spin positively?
Even though the general public are, amazingly, further to the right on welfare than this government are... I do genuinely think there's a limit to how much the public can withstand a general ideological pummelling of the young and needy. This comes pretty close to that line.
blah blah, 2bn saved from welfare payments
blah blah, land of hope, nation of aspiration
they'd make the state pension means tested. I'd lvoe to see the right wing press and the middle england voters shit the bed at that one.
is because even though he himself draws a state pension, he is heavily in favour of it becoming means tested even though it'll mean he has less money. He's in favour of means testing all pensioner benefits too and increasing them for those who live on pension credit/have to work to top pensions up.
If only everyone were like my Dad.
It's almost as if he can see what everyone is thinking.
as kik uses on his threads here.
indie points to at the end of his speeches
"Not sure it's anything worth getting worked up over, tbh."
even in safe seats.
And you presume Cameron's counting on a five year term minimum...that's at least £10billion ALL-IN.
presumably they'll be paying tax and NI if they *are* working?
That definitely sounds like a deal that won't make anyone want to start burning cars in the street
how many people here (assuming the majority of us are relatively priveleged graduates from stable homes....) have never claimed any sort of benefit and had to rely on it for some period of time, whether long or short?
Tried to at 22 when I lost my first job but I hadn't paid enough NI so wasn't allowed.
drastic measures are necessary, but they are not necessarily taking the right drastic measures to the correct degree.
When I was under 25, I was homeless a few times, but this was no particular hardship, it was at a time I could best bear it.
However 53% of those under 25 in this bracket have dependant children, so this is definately a worry, plus what about those who are not in the best of health, plus what about those who are vulnerable etc etc.
Of course letting people squat would make a lot of the problems go away. Regulating the housing market would also help, but they cant do that because any fragile slender hopes of their showing recovery will only stay the course if housing prices stay artificially very much higher then they should.
Obviously the other major problem with the 'earn or learn' ultimatum, is it is only reasonable if there are a glut of jobs, unfortunately the gov are relying on their supporters being totally oblivious of the the lack of jobs.
They need to make bold unpopular drastic steps, but these are unfeeling unthinking callous uncaring steps, in other words they are behaving how a tory government should behave....i.e. sort yourselves off
The people "but if you withdraw all these benefits why do we pay tax to you, we wont pay tax"
The gov "you will pay tax or we will lock you up, until you lose your job then your out on your own all jobless, and homeless how do you like them apples? Ha Ha Ha, we've successfully divided the people and now your on your own, suckers! you should have seen that coming and got rich by any means possible whilst you could"
indeed, the decisions he should be making should be the ones that are unpopular with Dave's mates in Big Business Corporation Land® rather than punishing the poor, sick and young
they would be the socialists or the liberals (pre Clegg).
160k of them "get" (i.e. their landlord gets) housing benefit each week. The dirty spongers with their life of leisure.
About 13% of housing benefit claimants claim JSA, there are about 150k single male/female claimants under 25, whose landlords get about £86 a week. So there are maybe, absolute worst case, est. 20k 'life-dolers' coming out of school to live a life of luxury on £56 a week JSA in their 'free' house. Or as they'll be known in future, "unpaid Tesco staff".
Out of a million plus NEETS. So they're fucking over the vulnerable and making it harder for those who do go through education and then struggle to find work in a barren youth employment economy, without even making a dent in the problem they're highlighting.
for being so true blue tory :D
"So they're fucking over (..........) without even making a dent in the problem they're highlighting"
You can drag & drop the consequences of pretty much all of their policies thus far into that sentence, fuckers.
(see http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jun/25/david-cameron-sweeping-welfare-reforms )
absolutely horrified to see it come back. utter snakes.
^See - there's LOADS of options.