General Election 2015 - Thoughts/Predictions/Results

[londiscape]

I see the point you're making, but presently they have more seats than UKIP.

I don't think they do at the moment - UKIP have two seats: Douglas Carswell (Clacton) and Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood), whereas the Green Party has one: Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion).

Or are you including the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament? In which case I believe they both each have one NI MLA, but the Greens have two MSPs while UKIP have none (this of course ignores that the Greens in England & Wales, Scotland and NI are separate parties).

Either way, I can't see a valid, non partisan reason to exclude the Greens from the TV debates.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

I think the real reason why Cameron wants the Greens is so he can split the Labour vote. He did say all parties with a MP should be included but he obvisiously doesn't want SF and DUP or Respect to be included. Why didn't he kick up a fuss at the last debate?
He's worried he'll lose without a split on the left as the Lib Dems have said they would rather join up with Labour if they have anyone left and UKIPs leader has even said "I'll do a deal with the devil if it got me what I wanted" so Farrage doesn't care who he joins with.

The way I would have the debates is to have all parties with at least one MP having a debate for each nation.
So a Scottish debate with SNP, LibDem, Labour and Tory.
A Welsh, with Plaid Cymru, LibDem, Labour and Tory.
A Northern Irish debate with Sin Fein, DUP, Alliance.
In England the Greens, UKIP, Respect, Labour, Tory and Lib Dem.

That way no one sees the unelectoral nation specific MPs of other areas. Why would a SNP viewing in Englamd be worth showing?
Why would showing UKIP in Scotland be worth showing after Farrage called all Scots "thugs"?

 

[yorksrob]

I don't think they do at the moment - UKIP have two seats: Douglas Carswell (Clacton) and Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood), whereas the Green Party has one: Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion).

Or are you including the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament? In which case I believe they both each have one NI MLA, but the Greens have two MSPs while UKIP have none (this of course ignores that the Greens in England & Wales, Scotland and NI are separate parties).

Either way, I can't see a valid, non partisan reason to exclude the Greens from the TV debates.

No, you're correct. I'd forgotten about their recent gains. However, I agree that they're both deserving of representation in the debates.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think the real reason why Cameron wants the Greens is so he can split the Labour vote. H

Actually I think he's more concerned with splitting his own support by placing himself along side Farage. Nigel Farage is very charismatic and David Cameron is, well, less so shall we say? I suspect that he's concerned if he puts himself along side Farage there might be a considerable number of Tory supporters who'll turn around and say 'huh that Mr Farage sounds like he knows what he's about I think I'll vote for him and his party'.

That the Greens might poach some Labour votes would be a nice bonus but I think he's got bigger concerns about his own base than trying to hurt Labour's.

 

[Oswyntail]

... I think he's got bigger concerns about his own base than trying to hurt Labour's.

Any PM is more vulnerable in such debates than other leaders. They have their record over five years, which usually has some good, some bad. The other leaders can a) concentrate on the bad bits, and pretend everything was a failure but also b) promise la-la land and lies. They have nothing so tangible as a record to talk about. And, as Labour have been showing with their campaign on the NHS, shout a lie loud enough and people will believe it while anyone contradicting it looks evasive.
IMHO, the debates will be as irrelevant as they actually were last time.

 

[yorksrob]

OFCOM seem to have really managed to balls this one up. Perhaps they were too busy investigating spurious complaints against "Sorry, I Haven't a Clue"

 

[Greenback]

Actually I think he's more concerned with splitting his own support by placing himself along side Farage. Nigel Farage is very charismatic and David Cameron is, well, less so shall we say? I suspect that he's concerned if he puts himself along side Farage there might be a considerable number of Tory supporters who'll turn around and say 'huh that Mr Farage sounds like he knows what he's about I think I'll vote for him and his party'.

That the Greens might poach some Labour votes would be a nice bonus but I think he's got bigger concerns about his own base than trying to hurt Labour's.

I think you're right. David Cameron is concerned about being compared unfavourably with Nigel Farage in a live debate. Even if the Greens are invited to appear, I expect he will find another excuse to withdraw, maybe even going so far as to insisting that Sinn Fein appear too!

I think that the Tories are more at risk from losing votes to UKIP than Labour are from the Greens.

 

[muddythefish]

Cameron is already coming up with more excuses, including the timing of the debate, which were mentioned on Andrew Neill's programme last night. Apparently, Tory election strategists have told him to avoid the debate at all costs.

Broadcasters are considering going ahead with the debate with an empty chair to represent Cameron and the Conservatives, reminscient of Have I Got News For You's tub of lard to represent Roy Hattersley many years ago.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think Cameron is finding excuses to avoid the debate, but he does make a very valid point about the Greens.

Before the two recent defections they had a MP and UKIP didn't (and that seat was more genuinely won), and if recent press releases are to be believed they have more members than UKIP. The fact that UKIP are invited and the Greens are not is nothing short of a disgrace. But then when you get the likes of Nick Robinson, the BBC's resident Thatcher Fanboi ex-Conservative Party university president Political Editor, sucking up to Farage it's hardly a surprise. The BBC's coverage of UKIP has been embarrassing for a good couple of years now, the only time you'll ever hear a tiny amount of dissent is on the Today programme. We've seen so much of UKIP on Question Time and other BBC TV politics programmes they may as well rename the channel BBC Farage.

If you invite UKIP- a minority party that will be a General Election irrelevance- you should invite Green too.

That said, I think Cameron has more to fear from Farage than Miliband does from either Farage or Bennett, and that's why he's trying to get out of the big debate. Farage will make him look stupid in his core right-wing constituencies. Although I still genuinely do not see Tory supporters defecting to UKIP except in the most extreme cases, because the Tories are right: a vote for Farage puts Miliband in number ten.

 

[LateThanNever]

I think you're right. David Cameron is concerned about being compared unfavourably with Nigel Farage in a live debate. Even if the Greens are invited to appear, I expect he will find another excuse to withdraw, maybe even going so far as to insisting that Sinn Fein appear too!

I think that the Tories are more at risk from losing votes to UKIP than Labour are from the Greens.

That's probably right. Particularly as the Tories were telling Scotland the UK is better together but they are now perhaps telling the UK that the EU is better apart (well unless the EU do as they say).
All in all it's going to be a difficult choice; with Labour seemingly lacking radical thought, the Tories so split you don't know what you'd end up getting, UKIP making most of their policies up as they go along, the Greens a bit of an unknown quantity (and not covering themselves in glory in Brighton & Hove) and Lib Dems also made dubious by their support of the Tories. (Although actually I think they have made the current government much better.)
In the end I'm not sure a leader's debate matters much. We don't elect leaders, the parties do. Might it not be better if we all concentrated on electing a good local MP rather than obsessing about leaders on the telly?

 

[Greenback]

I do agree that the Greens should be there if UKIP are there, but I don't think that Cameron is doing this on a point of principle at all.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

The evidence that UKIP are far right is that the members afe more often dis-enfranchised Tories unhappy with their party.
Also a great many members have openly said racist, sexist, nationalistic and class comments. Geoffy Bloom who was my areas MEP for example.

They are pretending to be left/right and centre to fool voters that support the Labour, Conservative or LibDems to vote for them.

Some policies they had suggested, but have changed as all their policies do have included a Flat Tax rate. Where Lord Sugar would pay the same as me. They also once proposed £150bn in new navy ships. Proposed a HS4 now they are against HS2.

Everything they say is always made to be just that one member's mistaken comments if it offends.

Lets not forget the Nazi party tried to play the Nationalist and Socialist voters. And they mis-used referendums countless times to get what they wanted.

The problem lies with the main parties and their inability to have any backbone and come out with some policies rather than just continue with 'more of the same'. Some of the UKIP party members may sound like that sour old bloke who brays his bigoted views down the pub but he is saying what he feels rather than ultra careful 'professional' politicians who skirt round the awkward questions and bleat out platitudes and condescending bull****. A lot of people have had enough of that and want some kind of change, any change and that is borne out by the number of former labour voters supporting UKIP. You aren't going to change that view by giving them labels like fascist or loonies or otherwise. The root cause of the disaffection has to be tackled not the response to it.

 

[Masboroughlad]

Always voted Labour until 2010. Regrettably voted Lib Dems then. Never again.

Swaying between Labour and Green now. Could go either way. Was erring towards Green but wavering back to Labour...

It's just Ed. He isn't PM material.

I want to vote Labour I think, but he has to go! They need to replace him now. Or lose the election, he steps down cos he has to and we have to wait another 5 years.

As much as I am finding the pre-election crap annoying, it is also mildly interesting.....

 

[Batman]

I think Labour will finish about 25 seats ahead of the Tories, but short of an overall majority. They'll have a tough time governing as a minority government. The Lib Dems will be down to about 30 seats. They're been attacked on 3 sides by Labour, the Tories and the SNP in different parts of the country. They'll only hold onto seats where their MP's have a strong local following.

The Greens will just about hang onto their seat in Brighton and I think UKIP will only win one seat in Clacton. The Welsh Nationalists will hols all their current seats. I don't know enough about Northern Ireland politics to be able to comment on that.

The most likely outcome will be Labour forming a minority government with informal support from the Lib Dems on important votes such as the budget and the Queens speech. This will give the Lib Dems more wriggle room on other issues than if there were in a formal coalition.

 

[Manchester77]

The Greens will just about hang onto their seat in Brighton

Really? With Caroline Lucas polling 10% ahead of Labour she'll more than 'just about' hang on!!

 

[Oswyntail]

... I don't think that Cameron is doing this on a point of principle at all.

You may be right, but could you explain why you think that.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

I don't think they do at the moment - UKIP have two seats: Douglas Carswell (Clacton) and Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood), whereas the Green Party has one: Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion).

Or are you including the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament? In which case I believe they both each have one NI MLA, but the Greens have two MSPs while UKIP have none (this of course ignores that the Greens in England & Wales, Scotland and NI are separate parties).

Either way, I can't see a valid, non partisan reason to exclude the Greens from the TV debates.

However odious UKIP may be they deserve more seats than the Liberal Democrats. A party that harboured a predatory paedophile rapist deserves far less support than one with a few bigmouth bigots. A negative thought maybe but the one thing I do hope happens is that the LIb-Dems get wiped off the political map at the next election. The media have been far too kind to them.

 

[Greenback]

You may be right, but could you explain why you think that.

I thought it had already been said by other posters that David Cameron doesn't want to share the stage with UKIP for fear of coming off badly in comparison with Nigel Farage, and he is using the Greens issue as an excuse to be seen as principled rather than cowardly in not appearing.

I agree that if UKIP are invited then the Greens should be, but I don't think he's all that concerned about fairness. At best the Greens will dilute the impact of any UKIP/Conservative disagreements, but I think he'd be happier not to take part at all.

 

[infobleep]

Has anyone actually come out and said whether it's legal to rub the debates without Cameron. Surely the BBC Trust / BBC watchdog and any other BBC organisation must know that answer. Also surely Ofcom must know the answer for ITV and Sky.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I actually want more of the same, as in Conservative and Lib Dem coalition. I actually wanted it last time and people said to me it would never happen. They were wrong. However I think next time we may get a UKIP Conservative coalition and I don't want that. Nor do I want am outright Conservative majority, although that would be preferable to UKIP coalition.

That's not to say the current government have go it all right. Never should have sold off Royal Mail, especially the Postal Address File.

The cabinet office has recently given money to an organisation trying to create a free database of addresses. If they'd not sold off the Postal Address File and made the National Land and Property Address gazetteer open source, wouldn't need another option. An option which is inferior because it relies on people to submit addresses. You can't go out and survey addresses easily because mostly there's nothing on the ground which tells you how things are divided inside a building.

Despite that bad sale though, I still want them back in power.

 

[dcsprior]

However odious UKIP may be they deserve more seats than the Liberal Democrats. A party that harboured a predatory paedophile rapist deserves far less support than one with a few bigmouth bigots. A negative thought maybe but the one thing I do hope happens is that the LIb-Dems get wiped off the political map at the next election. The media have been far too kind to them.

Surely the most important thing about any party is their policies and core beliefs? One of things which defines UKIP is that it is an anti-immigration party - that's going beyond "a few bigmouth bigots"

I am no fan of the Lib Dems, but if I was listing reasons to dislike them, the cover-up of something which happened in the 1970s and 1980s (where the original perpetrator died in 2010 and anyone who was involved in any cover-up which may have happened no longer likely to be in much of an active role) is unlikely to be near the top of the list.

I find that the Lib Dem's problems are best summarised in this quote by Tony Blair (someone else I'm no fan of):

they fought the 2010 election on a platform quite significantly to the left of the Labour party and ended up in a Conservative government with a platform that is significantly to the right of Labour.​

 

[Oswyntail]

I thought it had already been said by other posters that David Cameron doesn't want to share the stage with UKIP for fear of coming off badly in comparison with Nigel Farage, and he is using the Greens issue as an excuse to be seen as principled rather than cowardly in not appearing.

I agree that if UKIP are invited then the Greens should be, but I don't think he's all that concerned about fairness. At best the Greens will dilute the impact of any UKIP/Conservative disagreements, but I think he'd be happier not to take part at all.

All you are saying, though, is effectively repeating your assertion that it is not a matter of principle. You haven't answered my question as to why you think that.

...

they fought the 2010 election on a platform quite significantly to the left of the Labour party and ended up in a Conservative government with a platform that is significantly to the right of Labour.​

I do think the old left/right cliche should be put out to rest. It lends itself to facile non-analysis like this, and helps no one. There is so much overlap between the policies of the major parties that we need someone to point out the differences clearly, rather than label them "left" or "right".

 

[WatcherZero]

I thought it had already been said by other posters that David Cameron doesn't want to share the stage with UKIP for fear of coming off badly in comparison with Nigel Farage, and he is using the Greens issue as an excuse to be seen as principled rather than cowardly in not appearing.

I agree that if UKIP are invited then the Greens should be, but I don't think he's all that concerned about fairness. At best the Greens will dilute the impact of any UKIP/Conservative disagreements, but I think he'd be happier not to take part at all.

Greens aren't really fighting too hard on the issue because their leaders Australian and only moved to the UK in her 30's, doesn't play well during an argument on immigration when she starts up in her strong aussie accent, never mind her economic credibility after she said poor people in the UK were worse off than those in India because at least in India everyone else is poor.

I don't think the networks will crack on the issue because it opens the floodgate and Ofcom has already ruled they made the right decision, if Greens are included (English and Welsh only party) why not SNP, if SNP are included why not Plaid, if Plaids included why not Northern Ireland parties? I expect Cameron will crack at the last minute when told they will leave an empty chair for him in debates.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't think the networks will crack on the issue because it opens the floodgate and Ofcom has already ruled they made the right decision, if Greens are included (English and Welsh only party) why not SNP, if SNP are included why not Plaid, if Plaids included why not Northern Ireland parties? I expect Cameron will crack at the last minute when told they will leave an empty chair for him in debates.

In that case, I don't really see how they can justify including UKIP.

 

[Greenback]

All you are saying, though, is effectively repeating your assertion that it is not a matter of principle. You haven't answered my question as to why you think that.

I don't know how to answer it, then, as it's only an opinion, hence the use of the word 'think'!

The best I can do is to say that the scenario that Cameron doesn't want to go head to head with Farage is a reasonable one, and that it's also reasonable to see a connection between that and his refusal to do the live TV debates unless the Greens are also invited.

As I say, there are clear advantages to Cameron in taking this stand. he looks principled, and he either avoids a comparison with Farage or the presence of the Greens allows any effect to be diluted, as he can then point to differences between Labour and the Green parties much as others will do for the Conservatives and UKIP.

Were it to be the LD, Labour, Conservatives and UKIP, I suspect that a lot of the focus on the debates will be on Cameron v Farage. This is pretty much inevitable given the rise of UKIP in the last few years, and the fact that MP's have defected from one to another.

I don;t there is anything remarkable in thinking that a politician, and the current PM, would like to present themselves in the most advantageous manner that they can.

 

[yorksrob]

I suppose that just because someone argues for something out of self interest, it doesn't necessarily make them wrong.

 

[Oswyntail]

I don't know how to answer it, then, as it's only an opinion, hence the use of the word 'think'!.....

Thanks. I am quite intrigued by how politicians are perceived these days, as there is a lot more scepticism than there was, say, thirty years back. Some of this is deserved, but, in this case, as you imply, I can see no real evidence whether or not this is a matter of principle.
There is, actually, case for not having the incumbent party involved. It is too easy for opposition parties to attack an administration, but much more difficult for them to put forward their own approach. Neither Labour nor UKIP are making much of a fist of it.

 

[Greenback]

It's easier to attack an incumbent administration, but they need to have the chance to defend themselves and their performance once in government. If Brown hadn't been in the debates in 2010 I suspect that the other parties would have been unhappy at not having a chance to take him and his party to task. Although, having said that, I;m not really a fan of these live debates int he first place. Too much of it seems to be about style rather than substance.

I also think it's quite natural to be more sceptic these days. It seems that politicians and the political parties have become more cynical themselves by the use of sound bites, spin doctors, and by seeming to be increasingly detached form the real world of the people they are supposed to represent.

There isn't going to be any evidence of what Cameron thinks or believes. Everything that is spoken by any party leader is more likely to be something that their advisers think will increase their popularity and garner extra votes than something they actually hold dear as a belief as part of a set of principles. And even if that's the wrong way to see things, it's the general perception of politicians and their parties now in my view.

Most people I speak to day to day are extremely cynical of politics.The constant sniping and blaming 'the other side' for everything rather than explaining how their policies are the best way of doing things, are getting too much to bear. I know the media is partly to blame, but what I want is substance, and I think that many others agree. Nothing I've heard so far has persuaded me to change my mind about who I'll be voting for, which I think is a bit of a shame, but there just isn't enough detailed information coming out to do so.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Surely the most important thing about any party is their policies and core beliefs? One of things which defines UKIP is that it is an anti-immigration party - that's going beyond "a few bigmouth bigots"

.[/I][/INDENT]

Of course, but at least they practically admit it - the rest of the parties just tell you what they think you want to hear and then do something else. At least with UKIP they tell you they are odious and therefore you know not to vote for them (or do so if you wish).
Saying no one knew about Smith within the Liberal Party is akin to saying no one knew about Saville at the BBC. He was only allowed to get away with what he did on such a scale because of his position as a Liberal MP. it would be interesting to know how many are still with the party and would you trust someone involved in covering up Smith's activities to be worthy of any public office ever again ? Maybe it is a case of guilt by association - but if I was a member of a political party found guilty of covering up the rape of children by one of it's MPs then I would leave that party. It is the shame of that party for which it has never been truly punished.

 

[Greenback]

Of course, but at least they practically admit it - the rest of the parties just tell you what they think you want to hear and then do something else.

I think that's quite a good summary of how many people see things. I know plenty of people who don't like UKIP policies all that much, but they see Farage as a breath of fresh air on the political scene, just because he is different to all the manufactured leaders.

 

[Busaholic]

Has anyone actually come out and said whether it's legal to rub the debates without Cameron. Surely the BBC Trust / BBC watchdog and any other BBC organisation must know that answer. Also surely Ofcom must know the answer for ITV and Sky.
[SIZE="1".

Adam Boulton of Sky News occasionally gets interviewed by Andrew Neil on his BBC TV political show (they're obviously old buddies) and he said last night that ITV, who are apparently the 'lead' organisation on this, have been advised that it would be perfectly in order to run the debates without Cameron, as long as he'd been given every opportunity to take part. Now, legality and political expediency are not perfect bedfellows, and I could see the BBC agonising about it forever if that was the decision, and I suspect the High Court and ,possibly, then the Supreme Court could be brought into play.