Poll: General election voting round 5 (final one)

[McPhee]

How would I know what new data he got that inspired him to change his mind it's not like I watch the trews or his other product.

I believe he changed his mind because sometimes you've got to work with what you have. Are Ed Miliband's Labour ideal? No. But they're along the right lines, and they have a shot at winning. That's the point. He's saying to people that instead of not voting, or voting for candidates that have no hope of winning a seat, vote Labour.

It's just unfortunate he didn't come to that conclusion before registration closed, as no doubt many of the people receptive to him bought in to his "don't vote" mantra.

 

[Phreaky]

You do if you don't have the numbers to form government. Remember last time?

You don't need a coalition, or even a majority to form a government. You just need enough goodwill from enough parties not to pass a no confidence vote against you. Labour can, and probably will, go into power with a minority of about 270 seats.

 

[D.P.]

But Labour won't have the numbers to win government without a coalition. So how can you say they don't need to make any deal with the SNP?

Because, simply they don't need a deal with the SNP. I don't understand your confusion. To become the controlling party merely requires you to pass the Queen's speech, which requires at most 323 yes votes (but the number can be lower is opposition abstain or fail to show up, e.g. stuck in traffic, sick).

As long as more candidates votes for Labour than for the Tories that will see Milliband become PM. The SNP are part of that vote, will have 49-54 votes, and their options are:
1) Vote yes to labour and block the Tories, something which Sturgeon has stated time and tome again is their ultimate goal.
2) Abstain form voting, effectively letting the Tories get in power, see 1.
3) Strike some deal with the Tories, see 1.


There is no guarantee 2 or 3 wont happen (extremely remote), but for the purposes of this discussion option 1 will see labour get in power without any deal what so ever having been made between labour and the SNP, just a common hatred for the Tories.

 

[Jono8]

I believe he changed his mind because sometimes you've got to work with what you have. Are Ed Miliband's Labour ideal? No. But they're along the right lines, and they have a shot at winning. That's the point. He's saying to people that instead of not voting, or voting for candidates that have no hope of winning a seat, vote Labour.

It's just unfortunate he didn't come to that conclusion before registration closed, as no doubt many of the people receptive to him bought in to his "don't vote" mantra.

Rubbish. He has gone from stating that all politicians are liars, to being swooned into supporting one of the two biggest parties in this country:

Brand:
"I have never voted. Like most people I am utterly disenchanted by politics. Like most people I regard politicians as frauds and liars and the current political system as nothing more than a bureaucratic means for furthering the augmentation and advantages of economic elites."

New Labour have been branded (ha..) Tory-lite many many times so why are they suddenly Brands go to party?

 

[D.P.]

Rubbish. He has gone from stating that all politicians are liars, to being swooned into supporting one of the two biggest parties in this country:

Brand:
"I have never voted. Like most people I am utterly disenchanted by politics. Like most people I regard politicians as frauds and liars and the current political system as nothing more than a bureaucratic means for furthering the augmentation and advantages of economic elites."

He is just trying to be tactical though. As much as he hates Labour he hates the Tories even more so getting people to vote labour is a minor improvement in his eyes.

 

[spudbynight]

You don't need a coalition, or even a majority to form a government. You just need enough goodwill from enough parties not to pass a no confidence vote against you. Labour can, and probably will, go into power with a minority of about 270 seats.

That would only be after a vote of no confidence in Cameron's government.

 

[Jono8]

He is just trying to be tactical though. As much as he hates Labour he hates the Tories even more so getting people to vote labour is a minor improvement in his eyes.

Brand:

"I don’t vote because to me it seems like a tacit act of compliance; I know, I know my grandparents fought in two world wars (and one World Cup) so that I’d have the right to vote. Well, they were conned. As far as I’m concerned there is nothing to vote for. I feel it is a far more potent political act to completely renounce the current paradigm than to participate in even the most trivial and tokenistic manner, by obediently X-ing a little box."

What has happened to all that?

He is an utter ball-bag of the highest degree.

He has essentially gone back on everything he claimed to believe in when it comes to politics.

He has always been a hypocritical **** in my eyes and this is just further proof that he is an attention grabbing media whore who lacks any real conviction in what he says.

 

[bam0]

That would only be after a vote of no confidence in Cameron's government.

That depends, if he knows he can't command a majority what's the point trying to form a government? He can just as easily go to the Queen and have her ask Miliband to form one.

 

[D.P.]

That would only be after a vote of no confidence in Cameron's government.

?? Cameron most likely wont be in government after the election beyond a few days to sort out the next government.

The Tories don't get to stay in perpetuity just because it is a hung parliament.
They have to go to the palace and vote, that will most likely be Labour.

 

[n111ck]

Oh, well, if The Sun says that they've done nothing illegal or unethical then it must be true. I wonder how many former News of the World journalists work at The Sun now?

It sounds like the barrister investigating is a member of the Labour party. Still, he's a QC and hardly an ambulance chaser looking for their 15 minutes.

Was it £20m wasted on those recent trials of Sun reporters?

 

[scorza]

Brand:

"I don’t vote because to me it seems like a tacit act of compliance; I know, I know my grandparents fought in two world wars (and one World Cup) so that I’d have the right to vote. Well, they were conned. As far as I’m concerned there is nothing to vote for. I feel it is a far more potent political act to completely renounce the current paradigm than to participate in even the most trivial and tokenistic manner, by obediently X-ing a little box."

What has happened to all that?

He is an utter ball-bag of the highest degree.

He has essentially gone back on everything he claimed to believe in when it comes to politics.

He has always been a hypocritical **** in my eyes and this is just further proof that he is an attention grabbing media whore who lacks any real conviction in what he says.

Ed has basically convinced him of the errors of his ways, he should be applauded for that. While all Cowardly Cameron could do was dismiss him, and his followers as a joke. Despite the Tory smears, I think Ed has shown himself to be a pretty heavyweight operator.

 

[scorza]

You do if you don't have the numbers to form government. Remember last time?

No offence, but I think I know how my own country's electoral system works tyvm.

 

[Sasahara]

The page you linked to doesn't back up your statements, and you know who else spent more than they took in? Pretty much every previous government, and at similar or higher levels.

"After a short period of budget surplus (due to spending restraint) in the late 1990s, the UK experienced a budget deficit of 2-3% of GDP between 2002-2007.

By historical standards, this is relatively low. It still met the Maastricht criteria of keeping budget deficits to less than 3% of GDP."

Being as you like that site, take a look at this page http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/7568/debt/government-debt-under-labour-1997-2010/
and read the commentary at the bottom. Two things that come up quite often that are really irritating; A government budget is nothing like a household budget. While the UK has control over its own central bank it couldn't ever become like Greece.

Unfortunately they increased spending based on a unprecedented massively overheated economy, so while in % terms is looks ok, it wasn't and not comparable with any other government term, due to the far greater tax revenue it is based on.

Any criteria based on just % terms can be flawed, that includes Maastricht.

Most of the spending created spending commitments for every subsequent year, aka increasing pay for public sector workers. PFI schemes which I think isn't even included in the figures.

So unfortunately when you hit a -7.2% recession you basically screwed.
That % figure is the highest since the war, but what's even worse it's a % reduction based on the biggest economy the UK ever had in the last 100 years, if not ever. (It hard to fairly compare current economy with ones over 100 years as population and cost of living are so different)


I'm not sure why you needed to add in the final paragraph, you making assumptions I don't know that, or that it had any relevance to what I had posted?

 

[scorza]

That would only be after a vote of no confidence in Cameron's government.

That's not the case - there's no rule that says the largest party gets first go at forming a government. I don't think either leader will want to tell the Queen they have enough support to form a government only for their Queen's Speech to not be passed by parliament - that'd count as an utter humiliation.

 

[delta0]

Brand endorses labour. That's the end of them then.

 

[delta0]

The incumbent gets the first go. The default position is to support the largest party. Conservatives have both advantages.

 

[JAzz]

Holy crap - has Ed Miliband just changed the game? Russell Brand is now urging his supporters to vote Labour: http://www.theguardian.com/politics...knife-edge-ken-clarke-warns-chaos-second-vote

That whole thing was a set up from day one. Miliband convincing a non voter who is popular among youngsters to change his mind and vote for Labour. Bloody hell, who are they trying to fool?

 

[MrMoonX]

The incumbent gets the first go. The default position is to support the largest party. Conservatives have both advantages.

That's not true the cabinet manual says that negotiations are "freestyle", the incumbent stays until another party commands confidence of the commons but there is no one going first

Explained here:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-onto-power-coalition-majority-lib-dem-tories

 

[koolpc]

All as bad as each other. Put all their names in a hat and pick one randomly. Whoever you pick it doesnt matter as they are all cut from the same cloth!

 

[muon]

The most likely outcome at 33% is a Labour minority government.

Would the SNP really undermine a labour minority government? I don't think they can. They have been adamant about getting the tories out.

Of course other coalitions could take it out of their hands. 66% chance something else happens. Con/LD or Lab/LD coalition for example. Conservative minority/majority is still on the cards as well.

Spoiler