Politics – General Election 2015 – A Three Party Coalition?
General Election 2015 Could It Really be A Three Party Coalition? The New Statesman was showing that given the polls at the end of February the two main parties would win 271 seats in the general election. Tories down by 36 seats Labour up by 13. They were also showing the SNP up by 50 to 56, the Liberal Democrats down to 25 seats from 57. I imagine that Nick Clegg is not reading the papers at the moment, or for the last year or two come to that. For a majority a party needs 326 seats. We are back into coalition territory, again, unless either Miliband or Cameron wants to try to run a minority government. Using the New Statesman’s projections what coalitions could evolve? The SNP has said that it would not enter into a coalition with Cameron. It would be suicidal for them to say anything else before the general election. Even after the general election they could not get into bed with the Tories. That leaves the way open to a SNP and Labour coalition. Except that they would still not have enough seats. They would only get to 327, 9 short. UKIP may have a higher percentage of the votes cast than the Liberal Democrats but the first past the post system guarantees that, unless something extreme happens, they will end up with just 4 or 5 seats. They could influence the outcome though as most of their votes would come from the Tories, those that do not come from thr BNP. that is. Where the Liberal Democrats are fighting the Tories in second place in 2010 the UKIP vote could sink the Tories. The way the vote splits on the left could determine whether Labour wins a few seats. Seats such as Plymouth Sutton, Bristol West (a constituency dear to me heart), and Hove could well be decided by the tactical voting of Green and Lib Dem supporters. There are some Tories that see the DUP in Northern Ireland being able to support them after the general election. The trouble is they may well get just the 8 seats. The Tories and Labour then need someone else to support them in a coalition. Who will be the first one to call Nick? That assumes that Nick will still be the leader of the Liberal Democrats, of course and hat is not guaranteed. Have the Liberal Democrats got the appetite to be in another coalition after the bruising experience of this one? God, I love politics, bring on the general election!
Politics – General Election 2015 Tory Tax Promises
Tory Tax promises – Too Good to be true? You Bet! Dave Cameron has said that he would pass a law to say that it is illegal to raise Income Tax, National Insurance, or VAT for the next 5 years. The Tory party would pass that law within the first 100 days of a Tory majority government. That sounds great, but. Last election he said that he had no plans to raise VAT, guess what he did as soon as his feet were under the desk? Raise VAT. But a law, that sounds like a real Tory promise. So, if he is not going to raise those taxes and manage to reduce the deficit how could he go about it? What about all the taxes he has not mentioned? These 3 taxes account for something like 65% of the Government’s income so not being able to raise them means one of 2 things. Either the taxes not mentioned, business taxes and rates for example, are in the firing line or Welfare spending is going to be decimated. To a large extent we know that The Tory Party has the Welfare budget in its sights. £12bn of undisclosed cuts has to mean more misery for the least well off. Without the prospect of tax rises those cuts can only be worse than feared. Remember that Danny Alexander said only yesterday that the Liberal Democrats stopped The Tory party from making swinging cuts to child benefit in the last parliament. (Alexander actually said “slash” which is an English slang term for urinating. Pissing on the Poor is what a lot of people think that The Tory party has already done.) Beyond the headline The Tory party has made an interesting statement. If we need a law to make them keep their promises then does that mean that all the other Tory pledges are not really pledges? How much of what they say can we trust? Another interesting, well to me anyway, facet is that for the first time The Tory party is limiting the scope of the Chancellor’s power to raise and vary taxes. They have never done that before, and with good reason. Imagine an economic downturn. What can the Chancellor do? Without repealing that no tax rise law, he would have one hand tied behind his back. It would have to be a crisis for them to repeal the law, so his options would be reduced to cutting local government funding or hitting the poorest, again. Then again, The Tory party would not baulk at that, so that’s OK then.
Politics – General Election 2015 – The Tory Strategy
What are the polls telling us about the Tory Campaign Strategy? The Tory party has always had a slick and efficient campaign team. Once in gear it sets off and usually steam rollers over everything in its path. At the start of the campaign the word was that the Tory party expected the machine to work again with them taking a lead in the last week or two. So far that has not happened. The last BBC Poll of Polls that I have seen still puts the Tory party on 34% and the Labour party on 33%. As there is a 3% margin of error that means they are still neck and neck. What is going on? The Tory campaign started with the slogan “ A brighter future a more secure future”. When launching their manifesto the Tory leader David Cameron used the word “secure” innumerable times. The thought was that by using the words “secure” and “security” that repetition would implant the thought that the Tory party is solid and dependable, trustworthy, whereas Labour isn’t. However, that strand of the campaign seems to have withered on the vine. Then there were the remarkably personal attacks on Miliband. Michael Fallon was widely condemned for his “backstabber” attack. On 9th April Sky News broke details of a Tory dossier urging everyone to attack Miliband. The trouble is, the attacks did not work. People saw the attacks and saw Miliband stand up to them. Miliband’s stock rose as a result. Another campaign strand fell by the way side. In 2010 the Tory strategy was to link leadership and the economy. It brought them success. This time round they have forfeited leadership. How can you talk about leadership if you are scared to turn up to the debates? Cameron did not want to give Miliband the opportunity to look like a PM in waiting. Denying him a stage on equal footing may have been legitimate, why make your opponent look good? The trouble is that Cameron just looked scared to debate Miliband. The next strategy is the “vote for my party to stop another party working with a third party after May 7” strategy. That is a hard strategy to get over to the public. As the third choice strategy it also has little time to build in the public mind. It also has a ring of negative campaigning about it which may turn people off. All they seem to have heard for most of this campaign is the Tory party being negative. Voters tend to like good reasons to vote for people, rather than negative reasons why not to vote for someone else. There have been some spectacular, one off own goals. Even Theresa May, would be next Tory leader, has been guilty. To say that a SNP backed Labour government would be “Worst crisis since the abdication” seems well over the top and was much derided. Over all, the Tory campaign has slid from one gaff to another, from one failed strategy to another. What must be worrying Labour is that they still can not get away from this substandard Tory party in the Polls.
Politics – General Election 2015 – The Leaders’ Debates, Now We Know Why Cameron Was Scared
General Election 2015 – Cameron Was Right to be Scared David Cameron and Ed Milliband were interviewed this week on the same night by Paxman. On the night the studio audience said that Cameron had won. However, a strange thing has happened in the couple of days since. The viewing public has decided that Milliband won! For months the two main parties have been neck and neck, each on about 34%. The Sunday Times commissioned a poll by YouGov. It showed that the Labour party is now 4% ahead of Cameron’s Tories! There are more facets to the poll, and none of them make good reading for Cameron. While he is still ahead in the who would make the better Prime Minister stakes, Milliband is coming up. More worrying for Cameron is that when asked who is most in touch with real people, Cameron is not second behind Milliband. Cameron is third behind both Milliband and Farage! Milliband is seen as more trustworthy, genuine and in touch than Cameron. Of course, one poll does not mean that the general election 2015 is decided. At present it suggests that Labour would get 314 seats, the Tories 251, SNP 48, and the Lib Dems 16. Not an overall majority, but enough to start working with to construct a government. Anything could happen, including votes for the SNP handing the government to Cameron. Thinking about the polling. It seems that those questioned were people who actually watched the programmes. What you have to ask is what their voting patterns have been in the past. For example, if they were all Tory voters you would tend to think that they would favour Cameron and the reverse if they were all Labour voters. AS far as I can tell the sampling was balanced, more or less. What really matters is what the wider public get from the coverage. The first day after the interviews the coverage was all positive for Cameron, the following days less so. Certainly, the coverage today, Sunday, is quite dreadful for Cameron. Even the Tory supporters are getting in on the act. Writing for “The Conservative Woman” blog Beatrice Timpson is scathing about Cameron’s preformance. Read it here. Not a happy woman.
Politics – General Election 2015 – The Polls
The latest General Election polls I saw 2 polls in the papers yesterday. The Observer Con 34%, Lab 35%, Lib Dem 6%, UKIP 14%, Greens 6%. YouGov Con 34%, Lab 34%, Lib Dem 8%, UKIP 14%, Greens 5% So the pattern of The Conservatives and Labour being neck and neck remains. Since 2011 Labour has been ahead in the polls, but never very far ahead. What does it actually mean for the result of the general election? The traditional wisdom was that with both the main parties on 35% Labour would win a majority. The trouble is that the traditional wisdom does not hold. Labour’s vote in Scotland has collapsed, some heartland constituencies have seen a 25% swing to the SNP. The Tories are challenged by UKIP, which has picked up most of the votes that would have gone to the BNP. There are other factors to consider, even in 2012 The Telegraph was arguing that the Tories could not win a majority. One of the reason being that the Tories attract less than 20% of the ethnic minority vote. As they move out of Labour heartlands they take their votes with them diluting the traditional Tory vote. What else is going on as we move towards the general election 2015? Look at the Liberal Democrats. Their vote has collapsed so where will it go? In the past Liberal Democrats have looked to the left to ward off the Tories. Well, that did not work, all Clegg did was to rush into bed with Cameron. That does not persuade Lib Dem supporters to return to the fold, they fear that he might do it again. Those that voted Labour last time will stick with Labour. Those that voted Lib Dem last time have had their fingers burned, many will not do it again. They are also, as group, very likely to vote for soemone. They will vote Labour. Some Tories are saying that they need an 11% lead in the polls to win a majority. That is too high but they certainly need a bigger lead than Labour does to win a majority at the next general election. The truth is that unless there a significant shift we are heading for Labour being the biggest party at the next general election, but without a majority. So, a coalition. Maybe not. Cameron, wanting to hold on to power, would probably try to run a minority government if the Tories were the biggest party or could argue that they won the popula vote. Not an impossible scenario. A difficult trick as their only natural supporters would the rabid UKIP mob. Labour could try running a minority government without a formal coalition. They would look for support from the SNP and the Liberal Democrats on a case by case basis. Who said that the general election 2015 is boring?
Politics – The Save Dave Cameron Plan – General election 2015
The Sunday Times Says That Senior Tories Want to Save Dave Cameron. The story runs that despite all the public pronouncements about winning the General election outright a plan is being hatched to save Dave Cameron should he not win the general election. In spite of a somewhat lack luster performance by Miliband so far the Tories are worried. So they should be with the polls close and them no where near the sort of popular support that would guarantee a victory. Anything other than a straight forward Tory majority would be bad news for Dave Cameron. He “won” last time against a hugely unpopular Prime Minister but still had to form a coalition to become Prime Minister. Not to win out right this time against a weak leader of the opposition is unthinkable, if he wants to survive as the leader of the Tory party, and he does. Desperately. George Osborne told his MPs that they would all be re-elected, but they do not believe him. Apparently one minister is ready to call for Dave Cameron to fall on his sword if he does not win. The knives are not out, but they are being sharpened. There are mutterings that Dave Cameron and his cronies should be planning to win, not planning and escape route to save their jobs. However, Dave Cameron has a crafty wheeze up his sleeve. Should he lead the largest party, but without a majority, it seems as if he will try form a government without a coalition. The thinking is that there will be about 20 ministerial and government posts available to hand out after the general election in 2015. Those belong to the Liberal Democrats at the moment. 20 posts would make for a lot of goodwill from power hungry Tory MPs. The other scenario has Labour as the largest party. A coalition with the Liberal Democrats would be fragile. This time round they would drive a harder bargain. They would not be so naive. Dave Cameron would say to his MPs that to ditch him then would be foolish. A new, untested leader would be a mistake in those circumstances. Dave Cameron is the one with the big problem. Perhaps the biggest problem for him is that the loyalty of his friends is not guaranteed. The Tory party is a ruthless party.
Politics – general election 2015 – UKIP Backs the Tories
Politics – UKIP Backs the Tories on Deficit Plans Vote UKIP and get the Tories seems to be the message. Recent polls suggest that no one (of a sane mind) thinks that UKIP is anything more than a 12 month wonder. Just as the polls suggest that most people see UKIP as a temporary refuge for their votes (very few people see them as existing in 10 years time according to BBc polling) UKIP says that the Tories’ plans on deficit reduction after the next general election 2015 are something that they will back. The message is clear. Vote UKIP and if there is not an over all Tory majority they will support Cameron – assuming that he would survive the kicking that he would get if the Tories do not get if he did not get a majority. (That is a kicking from his “honorable friends”). The men in grey suits resemble Brutus. The arithmetic of a hung House of Commons is fascinating, at least to me, that the Tories could be supported by UKIP that has gained a lot of support from the failing (thank god) BNP is understandable. They are the same really, but where Nick Clegg would be selling his soul, this time, is more interesting. If he survives a vote meltdown will he support the toxic Tory Party or the lamentable Labour Party? My feeling is that he will do anything – remember his dumping of his pledge about student fees – to secure a tenuous grip on power. The only vaguely interesting question is which way he will jump. His party would want to go to the left but his preference may well be to hitch his wagon to any party that would allow him to have a nice job title “Deputy Prime Minister” or “The one that is ignored by the Prime Minister”. I started writing this concerned about the fecklessness of UKIP and ended up talking the fecklessness of Nick Clegg. Why are they the same?
POLITICS – General Election 2015 When is a Tory Cut not a Cut?
Tory Education Promise Not What it Seems Who would have thought that politicians would say one thing and mean another? On Sunday Nicky Morgan, who ‘replaced’ Michael Gove as Education Secretary said that spending on education would be ring fenced should the Tory party win the general election 2015. Actually, she said that education spending in schools would be ring fenced. Not education spending as a whole, just the spending on schools. That leaves the way open for cuts to pre-school and higher education spending. Yesterday Cameron ‘clarified’ what the Tory pledge means. It seems that spending (only on schools, remember) would be protected only to the extent of “flat cash” per pupil spending. In other words as inflation goes up the spending would not. That is a cut. Mr Cameron said this would mean “difficult decisions”. Now, there is an euphemism if there ever was one, he means that education will be clobbered, but only after we have been so stupid as to re-elect him. He went on to say that the government had demonstrated that with greater efficiency “more could be achieved with less”. That Euphemism means that Cameron cuts the budget and those of goodwill takes up the slack, the big society and all that. You know the sort of thing, we threaten to close the local library, you volunteer to work in it for free. Labour’s shadow Education Secretary, Tristram Hunt, said that Tory claims to protect funding were “unravelling” and represented a “real-terms cut”. Mr Hunt went on to say; “The truth is that you can’t protect schools when you have plans to take spending as a share of GDP back to levels not seen since the 1930s.” I have not done the sums, and have no reason to believe Hunt’s at face value but I see where he is coming from. The Tory party has a philosophy built on the belief that the ‘state’ should be as small as possible. That is why they voted against the NHS when the Labour party brought it in. They are only being true to their core beliefs. The Tory party may say “we will protect the Welfare State” what they really mean is “screw you, if you do not have enough money to buy health insurance or pay school fees from their friends.” The Liberal Democrat’s schools minister was typically scathing and harsh. He said that Cameron’s financial commitment was “unbelievably weak”. Believe me, for a Lib Dem THAT is being very harsh. In a hard hitting, incisive, analysis he said that the Tory commitments would mean a real term cut for schools and deep cuts in spending on pre-school and post 16 education. Talking about school standards Cameron said that the Tory party “won’t tolerate failure”, they would raise achievement in 3,500 schools rated “requires improvement” by Ofsted. All this with a real term cut over the next 5 years. A good trick if you could do it, but then they can’t and they don’t care. Not only because the Tory party does not believe in the State helping those of us who can not pay school fees, but because it is impossible to raise standards and to cut resources at the same time. Cameron went on, he said that the Tory party “won’t tolerate failure” schools that are rated as requiring improvement would have new leaderships imposed on them. They would have to be taken over by academy sponsors. Big and good academies would take over small and failing academies. Failing schools would sack their headmasters, he did not mention public flogging but surely that can not be long in coming. For her part Nicky Morgan did not say that the Tory party would automatically sack the heads “Where a school doesn’t have the capacity to improve itself, and many do, or where they don’t have a plan that is going to lead to that school being rated good or outstanding, then one of the answers might be to get new leadership in.” Sounds like sacking the heads of failing schools to me. Cameron said “No-one wants their child to go to a failing school and no-one wants to them to go to a coasting school either, Just enough is not good enough. That means no more sink schools and no more ‘bog standard” he went on to say “Our aim is this: the best start in life for every child, wherever they’re from – no excuses.” Good for Cameron, the best for all children, especially if they can afford to pay fees.
Politics – The Leaders’ Debates (2)
An unlikely trio try to gang up on Cameron about the Leaders’ Debates As I posted a few days ago David Cameron has found a wheeze which he hopes will scupper the Leaders’ Debates. He does not want them, as no sitting PM would, as it gives the opposition party leaders to share a platform with him and to look prime ministerial (whatever that means). Some of us doubt if Milliband, Clegg or Farage could ever look like a prime minister in waiting. The other reason Cameron wants to avoid the Leaders’ Debates is that he knows that he will get a kicking from Farage tempting even more Tory voters to defect to UKIP. The reason Cameron has cited for his reluctance is that it would be unfair for some minor parties to be represented, he mentioned UKIP and the Liberal Democrats and not the Green Party. The Milliband, Clegg Farage axis has written to Cameron saying that they want to go ahead with the Leaders’ Debates even without him. They wrote identical letters that said; “I believe it would be a major setback to our democratic processes if these debates were not repeated in 2015 because of one politician’s unwillingness to participate.” They went on to say: “It would be unacceptable if the political self-interest of one party leader were to deny the public the opportunity to see their leaders debate in public. “Therefore, if you are unwilling to reconsider, the three party leaders who have committed to participate will ask the broadcasters to press ahead with the debates and provide an empty podium should you have a last-minute change of heart. “These debates are not the property of the politicians and I do not believe the public will accept lightly the prospect of any politician seeking to block them.” So what now? My feeling is that Cameron will appear, with or without the Greens. He is already being attacked as being scared of the Leaders’ Debates. He can not afford to be seen as running away from Farage. More interesting is what the broadcasters would do if he sticks his heals in and refuses to appear. Would they really go ahead with the Leaders’ Debates (lite)? They would be very reluctant but it would be fun to see the empty podium. How much damage would that do to Cameron’s image and would the broadcasters hand such a coup to the terrible trio? Does anyone remember when Roy Hattersley refused to appear on Have I got News For You and was replaced by a tub of lard? What could they substitute for The Boy David?
Politics – Cameron Declares War on the Unions
Cameron Wants to “Curb” Union Ability to Strike Cameron, playing to his core constituency (that is the one that lives in the 1950s), has pledged that, should he be PM after May this year, he will curb the power of unions to paralyse important public services. Under his plan any strike proposal for health, transport, fir or educational services would need the backing of 40% of union members. At the moment all the union needs to call a strike is a simple majority of those that vote. Cameron has also said that there would need to be a minimum of a 50% turn out in a strike ballot. Cameron would also end a ban on using agency staff to cover for striking workers. He would also impose a three-month time limit after a ballot for action to take place and curbs on picketing. For some inexplicable reason union leaders think that this is an affront on democracy. If 50% of the workers take part in a ballot then 80% of them would have to vote “yes”. What could be fairer? If the purpose was to truly reflect the members’ feelings then why would the government veto any attempt to introduce secure online voting? This is one measure that would increase participation in ballots. The reason is that this is not about fairness. It is about Cameron playing to his constituency and about curbing union power. It is about being able to skew negotiations between the government and the unions. It is about reducing the unions’ ability to negotiate on a level playing field. Something that Cameron sees as being necessary if he is going to push through the eye watering cuts to public services that he wants in the next 5 years. I think that Cameron is onto something here. It is only right that there should be a minimum level of support for anyone who can influence the core public services. After all, this is being proposed by a popularly elected government, except it isn’t. Cameron was elected with less than 40% of the popular vote. In fact, only 15 Tory MPs out of 303 secured the level of support that Cameron is demanding of the unions. Cameron had no shame in forming a government in 2010 with less than 40% support from the electorate. Let’s face it The Boy David has no shame.
Phil’s British Heart Foundation Donation – you know it makes sense
