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 – 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 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 – The Leaders’ Debates, Cameron says “No”
Cameron stands up for Democracy and The Greens, Really? David Cameron has said that he will not take part in the Leaders’ Debates unless The Greens are included. Making a stand for democracy. After all, The Greens out polled the Liberal Democrats at the last European elections. As he said; he could not see how “some minor parties like the Liberal Democrats and UKIP” could take part in the leaders’ debates, but not the Greens. A fair point, even if referring to his partners in crime as a minor party is pretty disrespectful. But is Cameron really sticking up for democracy? Do not believe it. He does not want to be on the same platform as the other leaders. To do so would enable them to demonstrate how statesmanlike they are. Cameron does not want to give them that potential hand up. He is also afraid that Farage will look to score points off him and will score some hits. Cameron knows that his party is the one that is most at risk from UKIP. His fear is that the debate could become a launch pad for UKIP at his expense. Expect to see more “he’s running scared tweets from Farage”. For once he is right. That a Prime Minister does not to take part in Leaders’ Debates is nothing new. They have always been resisted and Brown’s fate in the last lot will weigh heavily in the memory. There is, however, another part to this story. If they do happen (and they will) Cameron wants to share the pain with Clegg and Milliband. He knows that the Conservatory Party is safe from The Greens, but Labour and The Liberal Democrats are not. Cameron’s thinking is that no one who is thinking of voting Tory would ever swap from them to The Greens. The slogan vote blue and get green last time was a transparent attempt at a nod towards conservationists but the reality has been what we all knew that it would be. However Cameron would love to see voters moving from The Liberal Democrats and Labour to The Greens. There is no place for altruism in politics for Cameron (or any of the others to be fair). The debates will happen, but Cameron will be seen to be dragged screaming and crying into the studio.
Phil’s British Heart Foundation Donation – you know it makes sense
