Well, that's rather interesting. I had wondered myself, after hearing Nick Clegg's speech to a previous Lib-Dem party conference, that "the thieves would fall out" as the expression goes. It sounded like Clegg doesn't like being DEPUTY prime minister very much; but realizes that he cannot maintain any influence in the government, unless hitched to one or the other parties. His exact words were, if I remember correctly, "we are not here to prop up the two-party system, we are here to BRING IT DOWN!" I wonder how much give and take there REALLY is in H.M. Government between the two coalition "partners". If you can call them that...from what it sounds like and from what you guys have told me. Do the Tories dominate the "partnership" at the expense of the LDP?

UKIP that's UK IndependENT party? or IndepenDENCE party? (Like, to leave the EU?)

As far as in my country, my prediction is that, whatever any of you may say about obstruction or lazy Congresses, the same thing may happen in the United States 2014 midterms. The Senate will become (just barely) Republican and the House will stay pretty much the way it is (also Republican). I think the current numbers are 54 D/45 R in the Senate; 199 D/233 R in the House. I do not imagine the Republican majority in the House changing much at all, but I do expect the Senate, whose members (usually) represent a larger number of constituents than their counterparts in the House of Representatives, to tip just barely into Republican hands.

Sassenach wrote:The Tories can still win, but right now it is looking unlikely. What we don't know of course is how the unravelling of the Lib Dems will play out in practice. In theory it ought to help Labour since most of those who abandon the LDs are likely to switch across to voting Labour instead, but it may not necessarily work that way. For starters, there are quite a few seats which are Con/Lib marginals, so it's quite possible that the Tories will win a lot of seats from the LDs, possibly more than Labour do.

Most Lib Dem Seats had the Tories as runners up in 2010. However, there are only 56 LD seats and some of them are not marginal. And the suggestion from polling (such as that by Lord Ashcroft) is that incumbebt Lib Dems are likely to buck the national trend, particularly when the main opposition is Tory. The latest Electoral Calculus prediction, based on uniform swing, sees the Lib Dems lose 38 seats, the Tories gaining 21. But this is more than offset by a loss of 70 seats by the Conservatives to Labour.

There's also the effect it may have on tactical voting. Traditionally the Labour and Lib Dem vote has been pretty much interchangeable in marginal seats, they'd vote for whichever had the best chance of keeping the Tories out. Will that still happen ? It seems doubtful at this point.

I think actually this kind of tactical voting is more likely than in 2010 (when the Lib Dem surge led to big leaps in some places where the Lib Dems had no hope), and particularly in Con-Lab marginals where last time people saw that they voted LD got a Tory MP and Labour are still the main challenger.

In fact weirdly, we may even see Labour or Lib Dem supporters voting tactically for the Tories in certain seats where there's the risk of UKIP getting elected. This has already happened in the recent Newark byelection.

Byelections are rarely great guides to the next GE. Turnouts are low, swings can be accentuated, insurgents benefit from an anti-government or anti-politics wave, local factors can have an effect, and the machines of entire national parties can come into effect (or choose not to). It may be that in some places people vote Tory if they feel UKIP could win, but I yhink it less likely, and more of a factor for Tory 'safe' seats than ones they want to gain - which is what needs to happen if they are to get a majority.

Actually I think the biggest unknown is the extent to which UKIP will maintain and grow support over the next 9 months and who benefits most from any 'unwind' if voters switch back to their previous preference. UKIP has taken more from the Tories than Labour overall, but in yhe last year or so it has been more even, and perhaps a bit more from Labour. If UKIP and tge Tories do any kind of deal, it could see a chunk of votes going back to Labour, offsetting any advantage from suh a deal. If UKIP is seen as letting Labour in, I would expect a chunk of voters to tactically vote Tory to keep Labour out.

Such unpredictability also suggest no party is likely to get a majority. If polls narrow much more and if the Lib Dems hold out, that would be very likely.

But yeah, as it stands Labour look set to win the election by default, despite having done nothing to deserve it.

Not sour grapes I hope?

The reality is that oppositions seldom 'win' elections (deservedly or not), but that governments lose them.

JimHackerMP wrote:Well, that's rather interesting. I had wondered myself, after hearing Nick Clegg's speech to a previous Lib-Dem party conference, that "the thieves would fall out" as the expression goes. It sounded like Clegg doesn't like being DEPUTY prime minister very much; but realizes that he cannot maintain any influence in the government, unless hitched to one or the other parties. His exact words were, if I remember correctly, "we are not here to prop up the two-party system, we are here to BRING IT DOWN!" I wonder how much give and take there REALLY is in H.M. Government between the two coalition "partners". If you can call them that...from what it sounds like and from what you guys have told me. Do the Tories dominate the "partnership" at the expense of the LDP?

Yes, they do. The Lib Dems have not visibly exploited the fact that they hold the balance of power, frankly.

UKIP that's UK IndependENT party? or IndepenDENCE party? (Like, to leave the EU?)

The latter, and yes. Also they want to limit legal immigration quite heavily. Their other policies are less well known (and the deny that their 2010 manifesto is relevant).

As far as in my country, my prediction is that, whatever any of you may say about obstruction or lazy Congresses, the same thing may happen in the United States 2014 midterms. The Senate will become (just barely) Republican and the House will stay pretty much the way it is (also Republican). I think the current numbers are 54 D/45 R in the Senate; 199 D/233 R in the House. I do not imagine the Republican majority in the House changing much at all, but I do expect the Senate, whose members (usually) represent a larger number of constituents than their counterparts in the House of Representatives, to tip just barely into Republican hands.

The US political scene is more predictable and you have two main parties that jostle around the 48% mark for support. Which is why it's far easier for Nate Smith to predict your elections than ours (he has not got a great track record in the UK so far)

Not sour grapes I hope?

Not really. I don't have any great enthusiasm for the current government by any means, although I do think they've done some very important things which I'd like to be given a chance to bed down through another term, notably in the education field (although Cameron seems to backing away from those reforms already, which is a great shame). Ultimately though I don't want to see another Labour government so soon after the last one. The current labour leadership don't seem to have learned any of the lessons from the previous debacle and Ed Miliband is the least convincing party leader I can remember, with the possible exception of Iain Duncan-Smith. Labour doesn't deserve another stint in government just yet.

Of course, the other intangible we haven't yet mentioned is the Scottish referendum. A Yes vote changes everything.

Sassenach wrote:

Not sour grapes I hope?

Not really.

I forgot the winky-smiley thing

I don't have any great enthusiasm for the current government by any means, although I do think they've done some very important things which I'd like to be given a chance to bed down through another term, notably in the education field (although Cameron seems to backing away from those reforms already, which is a great shame).

For my part, I think the education and health reforms are incredibly damaging. The changes to the curriculum are too far, schools are essentially being put under centralised control with Academies, and budgets are being hacked. In my area, schools are oversubscribed and there are not allowed to be any new ones created, so we are looking at portacabins again, which is what I had to put up with in the 1980s.

Ultimately though I don't want to see another Labour government so soon after the last one. The current labour leadership don't seem to have learned any of the lessons from the previous debacle and Ed Miliband is the least convincing party leader I can remember, with the possible exception of Iain Duncan-Smith. Labour doesn't deserve another stint in government just yet.

Well, the last 30 years are unusual, in that we had two long governments. I think the leadership (being quite different from many of the Blair ministers if you look at who has left over the years) have learnt, but opposition is not an easy place to demonstrate how you rule. Miliband is, I think, vastly underestimated. I'm not completely sold that we have what it takes to win and have a decent first term, and I don't agree all of the policies and positions, but to me they are vastly preferable to a Conservative government that will probably end up hopelessly riven over Europe again.

And if it's not Labour, and not the Conservatives, who can it be? The Lib Dems have no credibility, UKIP may make a beachhead of MPs, but are not going to be that large in 2015.

Of course, the other intangible we haven't yet mentioned is the Scottish referendum. A Yes vote changes everything.

Indeed. It is not necessarily the great rescue that Tory supporters hope it is, though.

For my part, I think the education and health reforms are incredibly damaging. The changes to the curriculum are too far, schools are essentially being put under centralised control with Academies, and budgets are being hacked. In my area, schools are oversubscribed and there are not allowed to be any new ones created, so we are looking at portacabins again, which is what I had to put up with in the 1980s.

I think 'The Blob' needed to be tackled and there needed to be more of a focus on academic rigour for all and less of the soft bigotry of low expectations that seems to have crept into the thinking of our educational establishment. The free schools will ultimately prove to be a success I think, although I'll admit I do have concerns about the number of them that are faith based.

The welfare reforms (cuts) needed to happen too. Pretty much everybody I know supports them, including, or perhaps especially, Labour voters. I live in Sheffield so most people I know vote Labour as it happens, but they all agree with the reforms. It'll be hard to reverse them again.

Miliband is, I think, vastly underestimated.

I think people have got his measure to be honest. There's a hint of the Francois Hollande about him, and I suspect any Miliband government will prove to be about as popular after a year or two. Labour need a more substantial figure at the helm. Granted, there weren't really a lot of options 4 years ago.

And if it's not Labour, and not the Conservatives, who can it be? The Lib Dems have no credibility, UKIP may make a beachhead of MPs, but are not going to be that large in 2015.

I think the Tories are the best of a bad bunch right now. Ideally it would be a Tory government with a different PM, but that ship has probably sailed. Although...

Indeed. It is not necessarily the great rescue that Tory supporters hope it is, though.

This is true, but I wasn't just talking about the electoral arithmetic. A Scottish Yes vote would be a political earthquake with enormous ramifications that can't be easily foreseen. One thing I think would be very likely is that it would place enormous pressure on Cameron to resign. It was his choice to gamble all on a straight yes/no to independence with no devo max option. If the result ends up being full independence then cameron will be the man largely responsible for the breakup of the Union. If that's not a resigning matter then I struggle to think what is. If Cameron is forced out then all bets are off. Anything could happen at that point.

sass

A Scottish Yes vote would be a political earthquake with enormous ramifications that can't be easily foreseen.

Unlikely though isn't it?

"The Blob"? Sheesh!

I know of a free school. It is now closed. It was not faith based, but it was set up by idiots. Idiots funded with taxpayers money to appropriate a building that was supposed to have another use. Idiots who had already run a school into closure.

I agree that something needed to change in the curriculum, but the recent reform goes too far the other way and promotes mindless recall of 'facts' over teaching people how to think.

On welfare, the bill was high because of recession. Much of the 'savings' are because the recession is over, not because of government reforms - and as yet we have not seen the full impact of those reforms. Some are indeed fine (and Labour will likely keep them, so don't fret). Some are less so - the 'bedroom tax' has a lot of unintended consequences and does not allow for local housing conditions.

I'm not sold on the need for a 'great leader' We've had those here (Blair, Thatcher), and those who've tried to be like that and failed miserably (Brown and by the look of it Cameron). Major was not as bad as he looked, when you consider what he had to inherit. And Labour's "Left" is nothing like as strong as the PS in France is.

I agree that a lost referendum will look bad for Cameron. I don't think the 'No' campaign has been run very well, and they were complacent for the past year with a solid lead in the polling. I hope that Scotland votes No after all, because they will not get the sunshine and puppies that Salmond is promising them if they do.

And I was referring to the overall piece. No Scotland would effectively reduce the Labour seat lead by about 20, making it harder (but not impossible) for them to get a majority. But there are other impacts - one is on what any negotiations would do. The other is this crazy idea to add another year to Parliament (which I would assume would make the government look scared to go to the polls in May). I think it would also boost UKIP.

An alternative PM to Cameron? Who? Gove is too divisive. May looked good until the last few weeks (her TPIMs look pretty weak in the face of ISIS returnees, the eBorders cancellation cost loads, net immigration went up sharply despite promises it would be less than half what it is now). Do you have someone else in mind as an alternative?

rickyp wrote:sass

A Scottish Yes vote would be a political earthquake with enormous ramifications that can't be easily foreseen.

Unlikely though isn't it?

A few weeks ago I would agree with you. But the polls are narrowing and the 'Yes' campaign has momentum and passion. It will be close (and that means that whatever the result there will be some fallout).

I also want a leader who isn't a Great Leader. I think we should at least try four years under a more or less caretaker government. Someone like George Washington or Gerald Ford: passive leadership.

Well United States presidential elections are a little complicated to predict. You have to go state by state (and then the weird way they have of voting for President in Nebraska and Maine...but that's only 9 EV between the two of them so who cares), and get the electoral college number.

But for members of the House of Representatives it's a little easier, and probably not too dissimilar from predicting elections in the House of Commons, though like you said, we've only got two major parties, here. Just go into each of the 435 congressional districts (seven of which are whole states because of their low population) and find out what the people want and who they perceive is going to give it to them.

The Senate would be a little more complicated; as the population varies, and only (approximately, give or take) 1/3 of the 100 seats in the Senate are up for grabs at once. Why the decided on one-third, but then gave each state TWO senators is beyond me. As an aside, there's also nothing there that says the division into three classes could not have allowed for both senators in a particular state to be up for grabs at once ("pick two") every six years. (There is also nothing that says the states must be divided into single-member congressional districts either: for the first few elections, several states actually DIDNT elect their reps from congressional districts but all together on a "statewide general ticket"...I think PA was one of them, too). So a constitutional amendment would not be needed to change that. Though I hesitate to think how Californians, who are lazy voters anyway, even for Americans, would vote on a ballot stating "choose no more than fifty-three".....

But I digress....

I have a question: doesn't anybody think that's an awful lot of power for the Cabinet to have? More or less total control over the bills that get onto the floor of the House of Commons, more or less veto power over anything like that that they don't like...what weapons do the "backbenchers" or non-government [but still Majority] MP's have to check the awesome authority of Her Majesty's Government in cabinet?

I'm not sold on the need for a 'great leader'

Sure, but it is necessary to have a competent leader who can command the respect of the people. Ed Miliband is a laughing stock. Were it not for the fact that both of the other major parties are led by insubstantial career politicians with very limited appeal then Labour would be doomed next year. Labour should have gone for Alistair Darling in my opinion. He's low key and a little bit boring but if he were leader now it's likely that Labour would be miles ahead in the polls. He didn't stand of course, and there were reasons for that, but it was an opportunity squandered.

No Scotland would effectively reduce the Labour seat lead by about 20, making it harder (but not impossible) for them to get a majority.

There are 43 Labour MPs in Scotland and 1 Tory. Losing those MPs would make a huge difference to the arithmetic. When you say that it reduces the Labour lead by about 20 you're referring to the overall majority that they'd be projected to have over all of the other parties. What's more important is their lead over the Tories really. Without Scotland in 2010 we'd currently see a Tory majority in Westminster of about 20 seats.

But yes, Labour could of course still win a majority in England. Tony Blair managed it three times after all, so it's by no means impossible. I'd suggest that it would be difficult for a Labour party run by Ed Miliband to do it though. Take out the socialist ballast provided by the Scottish MPs and the Blairites would be emboldened. England leans more to the right and Labour would need to tack back in that direction to consistently win majorities here. They're likely to need a new leader for that.

An alternative PM to Cameron? Who? Gove is too divisive. May looked good until the last few weeks (her TPIMs look pretty weak in the face of ISIS returnees, the eBorders cancellation cost loads, net immigration went up sharply despite promises it would be less than half what it is now). Do you have someone else in mind as an alternative?

Theresa May hasn't really been damaged too badly by recent events. Most voters probably aren't even aware of the stories you cited, which in any case are not really her fault. She's the only Home Secretary in about 20 years who has managed to not only survive the gig but emerge with her reputation enhanced. You'd probably have to rate her as one of the front runners, although in truth she doesn't really do it for me.

I'd like to see the Tories go back to the man they should have picked in the first place. David Davis was always a much stronger candidate than Cameron, and his brand of straight talking conservatism has more appeal to working class voters. He'd put an end to the UKIP threat in pretty short order I reckon. But then I would say that...

Well, maybe you would. I can't think of many of my former bosses who I'd want to see as PM, though.

But don't you think his reputation might have a bit of 'flake' in it, from that time he resigned his seat to fight a byelection he was guaranteed to win, especially when the Lib Dems declined to stand a candidate?

He certainly has his faults, but I do at least know that he's competent.

I think the 'flake' thing is a misreading of the situation. My take is that he hated working for the Cameroons and wanted to make a break from the shadow cabinet in a way that would set him up as a viable alternative leader. His resignation established his bona fides as a principled politician who could appeal to a different demographic through his civil liberties stance. Had Cameron failed to win the last election he'd have been in prime position to win the resulting leadership contest. It was a gamble that didn't really pay off for him, but I don't think it makes him a flake really.

So he just cynically wasted taxpayers' money on a byelection for his own career?

There's an element of that, yeah. I'm sure the principle mattered a great deal to him as well, but I don't doubt that there was an element of cynicism in it.

Wasting taxpayers money for the benefit of their own careers is what politicians do.