Jump to content

Featured Replies

Tyron hit the nail on the head

 

The majority of the 10% who currently vote UKIP will vote conservative at the next election

 

No right wing person would want a labour government and a vote on election day for UKIP is effectively a vote for labour

 

I predict UKIP won't get a single MP and no more than about 4% of the vote

That hinges on:

 

a) UKIP's vote being traditionally Tory

b) Right wing UKIPers having a modicum of common sense

 

The former is decidedly questionable. Many people currently supporting UKIP are doing it on the "well the rest of them are all the same" argument so they're not going anywhere. And I doubt enough of the latter camp will hold their noses and vote Tory for Cameron to get back in.

  • Replies 576
  • Views 68.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That hinges on:

 

a) UKIP's vote being traditionally Tory

b) Right wing UKIPers having a modicum of common sense

 

The former is decidedly questionable. Many people currently supporting UKIP are doing it on the "well the rest of them are all the same" argument so they're not going anywhere. And I doubt enough of the latter camp will hold their noses and vote Tory for Cameron to get back in.

 

I have more in common with the views of UKIP than I do the tory party but i would never dream of voting for them in a general election as it is a wasted vote as they won't form a government in my lifetime, the party is a joke, good policies but all about 1 man

 

Every person i know who voted UKIP in the local elections (many members of my conservative club) said they will return to the fold on election day

Good god, you change your views on the vote share every bloody day...

 

For one, I don't see UKIP getting less than 6%, not after the few years they've had.

 

Secondly, a government getting ANY increase in their share of the vote is almost totally unprecedented. I don't rule it out totally - the Lib Dem collapse means it's more likely to happen than it would've been in the past - but even then there's no way on earth it's going to be an increase of as much as 6%.

 

Third, an increase for Labour of just 6% implies that some of the Lib Dem gains they've made (which have never had Labour lower than 37/38 consistently for the last three years) will no longer be going to Labour. If that was the case, the Lib Dems would not be getting just 12%, because those aren't votes that would be going to the Conservatives.

 

The Conservatives will not be getting above 40% any time soon.

I think 2015 will be around

 

42% Tory

35% Labour

12% Lib Dem

11% Others

 

The only way the Conservatives are touching 40% is if turnout falls off a cliff, because there's no way they're picking up more votes in real numbers than they did in 2010. You really shouldn't underestimate how hated the Tories still are outside of the south. The only way they're going to pick up extra marginal seats in northern England and Wales (obviously everyone knows Scotland is completely off the radar for them no matter what) is if loads of Labour supporters stay at home * which would mean the Tories sneak wins by default even with less votes than last time.

 

 

* though I do think Labour supporters staying at home is a definite possibility, since the Labour leadership can't seem to stop getting in their own way and making unforced errors. The latest example being them planning to screw over the north by ditching the HS2 railway line just to get "fiscal credibility", which imo shows there's still too many southerners and Londoners dominating their thought processes. I also read somewhere that Labour were thinking about having a policy of having a higher minimum wage in the south than in the north, which would be SUICIDE politically.)

Edited by Danny

Good god, you change your views on the vote share every bloody day...

 

For one, I don't see UKIP getting less than 6%, not after the few years they've had.

 

Secondly, a government getting ANY increase in their share of the vote is almost totally unprecedented. I don't rule it out totally - the Lib Dem collapse means it's more likely to happen than it would've been in the past - but even then there's no way on earth it's going to be an increase of as much as 6%.

 

Third, an increase for Labour of just 6% implies that some of the Lib Dem gains they've made (which have never had Labour lower than 37/38 consistently for the last three years) will no longer be going to Labour. If that was the case, the Lib Dems would not be getting just 12%, because those aren't votes that would be going to the Conservatives.

 

The Conservatives will not be getting above 40% any time soon.

 

I can see the Lib Dem defection vote being pretty split through the middle hence why i gave Tory's and Labour an extra 6% and changed Lib Dems from 23% to 11%

 

Students and people who like Vince Cable etc who defect from Lib Dems will likely vote Labour but there are quite a few Lib Dems particularly older/elderly people who are quite right wing too so can see defections to the tories

The only way the Conservatives are touching 40% is if turnout falls off a cliff, because there's no way they're picking up more votes in real numbers than they did in 2010. You really shouldn't underestimate how hated the Tories still are outside of the south. The only way they're going to pick up extra marginal seats in northern England and Wales (obviously everyone knows Scotland is completely off the radar for them no matter what) is if loads of Labour supporters stay at home * which would mean the Tories sneak wins by default even with less votes than last time.

* though I do think Labour supporters staying at home is a definite possibility, since the Labour leadership can't seem to stop getting in their own way and making unforced errors. The latest example being them planning to screw over the north by ditching the HS2 railway line just to get "fiscal credibility", which imo shows there's still too many southerners and Londoners dominating their thought processes. I also read somewhere that Labour were thinking about having a policy of having a higher minimum wage in the south than in the north, which would be SUICIDE politically.)

 

I dont think the minimum wage being higher in SE would be too damaging

 

Public sector workers overwhelmingly vote labour and public sector workers get a 'london weighting allowance' without any complaint from other public sector workers

I dont think the minimum wage being higher in SE would be too damaging

 

Public sector workers overwhelmingly vote labour and public sector workers get a 'london weighting allowance' without any complaint from other public sector workers

 

But it would be about the signal it sends out. Northerners are VERY sensitive about politicians giving special treatment to the south (and that goes generally for private- and public-sector workers in the north) and having a higher minimum wage for southerners, no matter how much sense it makes on paper, would confirm many northerners' worst suspicions, that Labour has abandoned the people it's supposed to stand for. It would be the 10p tax all over again.

But it would be about the signal it sends out. Northerners are VERY sensitive about politicians giving special treatment to the south (and that goes generally for private- and public-sector workers in the north) and having a higher minimum wage for southerners, no matter how much sense it makes on paper, would confirm many northerners' worst suspicions, that Labour has abandoned the people it's supposed to stand for. It would be the 10p tax all over again.

 

I think they would bite the bullet, committed labour supporters wouldn't vote tory so the alternative would be stay at home and don't bother voting

I can see the Lib Dem defection vote being pretty split through the middle hence why i gave Tory's and Labour an extra 6% and changed Lib Dems from 23% to 11%

 

Students and people who like Vince Cable etc who defect from Lib Dems will likely vote Labour but there are quite a few Lib Dems particularly older/elderly people who are quite right wing too so can see defections to the tories

On what basis do you see the Lib Dem defection vote being split through the middle? Pretty much any polling on the Lib Dem vote has found that it's a Lab:Con 2:1 split at best for Lib Dems leaving, if not a 3:1 split. Just because there are two types of Lib Dem doesn't mean it'd split equally.

* though I do think Labour supporters staying at home is a definite possibility, since the Labour leadership can't seem to stop getting in their own way and making unforced errors. The latest example being them planning to screw over the north by ditching the HS2 railway line just to get "fiscal credibility", which imo shows there's still too many southerners and Londoners dominating their thought processes. I also read somewhere that Labour were thinking about having a policy of having a higher minimum wage in the south than in the north, which would be SUICIDE politically.)

HS2's an interesting one. Although the big council leaders in places like Manchester and Birmingham are in favour, I don't think northern opinion on HS2 is that overwhelmingly behind it. Certainly not by quite so much as to make much of a difference to votes.

 

(For the record, I'm agnostic on it. I see the appeal of it, but I also see the appeal of having £50bn extra to chuck about in a budget and the argument that a railway line which cuts journey times by half an hour for the incredibly affluent who can afford to travel on it isn't the best way to spend that money.)

On what basis do you see the Lib Dem defection vote being split through the middle? Pretty much any polling on the Lib Dem vote has found that it's a Lab:Con 2:1 split at best for Lib Dems leaving, if not a 3:1 split. Just because there are two types of Lib Dem doesn't mean it'd split equally.

 

(Un)educated guess, time will tell

HS2's an interesting one. Although the big council leaders in places like Manchester and Birmingham are in favour, I don't think northern opinion on HS2 is that overwhelmingly behind it. Certainly not by quite so much as to make much of a difference to votes.

 

(For the record, I'm agnostic on it. I see the appeal of it, but I also see the appeal of having £50bn extra to chuck about in a budget and the argument that a railway line which cuts journey times by half an hour for the incredibly affluent who can afford to travel on it isn't the best way to spend that money.)

 

Am against HS2

 

Expensive vanity project, someone in Manchester doing business in London could just get a plane, 40min flight and probably cheaper than HS2 fares will be

 

Far better spending the money on tax cuts etc

At the moment Labour are still backing HS2. Their main criticism (and rightly so) is the size of the contingency. The current estimate is £28bn but then there is a £14bn (i.e. 50%) contingency. They are promising to make every effort to reduce that which seems a sensible attitude to take.

 

There is a good case to be made for a regional minimum wage although it would throw up anomalies as it would have to be based on the place of work rather than the employee's home address. However, what Labour are looking at is for different minimum wages in different sectors. There used to be a number of wages councils which set a mini9mum wage for their sector but Thatcher abolished them. The Low Pay Commission (which sets the minimum wage) calculates its figure based on what is affordable rather than how much somebody needs to live, a method which is perfectly compatible with a sector by sector approach.

Am against HS2

 

Expensive vanity project, someone in Manchester doing business in London could just get a plane, 40min flight and probably cheaper than HS2 fares will be

 

Far better spending the money on tax cuts etc

Which is one very good reason for supporting HS2. The carbon footprint of a flight from Manchester to London is ridiculously high making it a thoroughly irresponsible way to travel. With suitable fast alternatives it would be a lot easier for the government to tax aviation fuel at lest for internal flights. Airlines currently pay no fuel duty which amounts to a massive subsidy for airlines.

HS2's an interesting one. Although the big council leaders in places like Manchester and Birmingham are in favour, I don't think northern opinion on HS2 is that overwhelmingly behind it. Certainly not by quite so much as to make much of a difference to votes.

 

(For the record, I'm agnostic on it. I see the appeal of it, but I also see the appeal of having £50bn extra to chuck about in a budget and the argument that a railway line which cuts journey times by half an hour for the incredibly affluent who can afford to travel on it isn't the best way to spend that money.)

 

I didn't mean HS2 in itself would cost Labour votes... I doubt most northerners even know what it is at this point. I meant more that it's a worrying sign of where their decision-making is -- northern concerns didn't even seem to factor in to their calculations, because they seemingly thought the only thing that mattered was the southern/London-centric "fiscal credibility" thing. And if they don't start actually consulting more northerners when deciding policy then I'm worried it COULD lead to policies which WOULD be noticed by and disapproved of by northerners, and proposing a higher minimum wage for the south would be definitely be one of those.

Which is one very good reason for supporting HS2. The carbon footprint of a flight from Manchester to London is ridiculously high making it a thoroughly irresponsible way to travel. With suitable fast alternatives it would be a lot easier for the government to tax aviation fuel at lest for internal flights. Airlines currently pay no fuel duty which amounts to a massive subsidy for airlines.

 

Technology in aviation is changing fast

 

The A380 and Dreamliner etc are incredibly environmentally friendly, especially the Dreamliner, ok it will take a decade or 2 for domestic flights to be the same but aviation is moving in the right direction

Technology in aviation is changing fast

 

The A380 and Dreamliner etc are incredibly environmentally friendly, especially the Dreamliner, ok it will take a decade or 2 for domestic flights to be the same but aviation is moving in the right direction

Absolute nonsense. There is still no such thing as an environmentally friendly commercial aircraft.

Domestic short haul flights tend to be too empty to be environmentally friendly. The only way you're not just as well getting the train is if your doing one of the small internal flights within Scotland (Big City <-> Isolated Island) or on the well travelled Glasgow/Edinburgh <-> London Route. South of the border and the train doesn't really take long enough to justify flying.

 

The only problem is it can be cheaper to fly than get the train.

Absolute nonsense. There is still no such thing as an environmentally friendly commercial aircraft.

 

I have never been on a Dreamliner but have been on an A380 27 times, when you are on a A380 it is so quiet you barely know you are on it, compare that with the noisy 747's

 

Given the quietness of the plane I would be surprised if it is not a lot more environmentally friendly than the average plane

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.