mmmm, some would argue some parties here in the USA have been very successful pandering to the low-information voter.
You wouldn't call 2010 a win (yes I know it was a hung parliament) but they got the most seats and their ruling the roost right now with the LD being their lapdogs.
True but I think 2010 was a de facto win. Kinda sad that they couldn't get a outright majority in 2010 huh.
Well, I've spent the past 40+ years, (essentially, my entire adult life), in the Labour party so, not from my perspective, no But I do agree in some respects, the British system isn't really designed to end up as a coalition. It probably works best if someone wins.
As I think I mentioned, it depends on how split the tories become due to UKIP... that's the question. What might happen is that they split 50/50, (or 60/40 or whatever), and a sizeable lump breaks off the tory party, (in voting terms I mean, even if they're still basically tories), leaving the tories with only about 30% or a bit more. If that hits them, particularly in the marginal constituencies, that could mean Labour needing only about 35% to win the election. Don't forget, in the tories wins back in the 80's, with HUGE electoral wins in terms of parliamentary seats, the tories only ever won just over 40% of the vote. With that factor and the differences in specific marginal seats, it's hard to know what's going to happen. I think the tories guaranteed EU vote is a clever ploy in some respects but, obviously, it means they then have to actually HAVE a vote and there are dangers in that, not least that the same arguments that businesses are using about the Scotland referendum, (that they're all going to bugger off), will be used in that and some of them might do it BEFORE the vote rather than after. Certainly, if I ram a multi-national business, I'd think twice about investing in Britain atm.
You need 326 seats for a majority, although with 5 Sinn Fein MPs not attending it's effectively 323. That means Labour need to gain 65 seats for an effective majority of 1. They'll take at least 10 from the Lib Dems without trying due to returning voters, so they have to target around 55 Tory seats. There are 60 Conservative seats where a 5% direct swing to Labour will see them take it. Lord Ashcroft's poling in the marginals has consistently shown a far bigger swing to Labour than in the national polls, and the Corby by election saw a 12% swing (slightly ahead of the polling). Even if that halves that would see Labour with a small majority. Labour are highly unlikely to poll under 35% nationally. Their polling has been pretty consistent with returning Lib Dem voters and I would expect, as a rule, anyone who voted for them in 2010 to continue to support them. That figure would likely leave Cameron needing something approaching 40% to win. The Tories key is to get votes back from UKIP. They're benefitting from some Lib Dem votes from last time, but they need to get some of the others back. The problem is that UKIP voters, along with Lib Dem voters returning to Labour, are consistently polling as the least likely group to change their vote. Of course, this is an over simplification which doesn't factor in any local issues but I would expect (based on current polling) Labour to be the largest party, although maybe without an overall majority. If they're a couple of seats short of majority I would expect them to work with Plaid and the SNP (assuming a No vote to independence) to form a government, although maybe not as a Coalition, with further devolution as the incentive. Only if they need more seats than the nationalists can offer will they turn to the Lib Dems, unless there's a change in leadership.
Also, let's be honest, if anything the nationalists, (both Scottish and Welsh), are MORE socialist than a lot of the 'new labour' MP's. Frankly, apart from the nationalist matter, they'll be MORE than happy to support their ideas.
Yes, they're much better fits for Labour than the Lib Dems under Clegg/Alexander/Laws. The SNP have moved a long way from being the Tartan Tories. The only issue will be if they would have enough seats to make a difference in such a scenario. I can see the SNP gaining some, but Plaid may struggle if Labour recover. Much will depend on whether the Lib Dem leadership retain their seats. Electoral Calculus has Alexander losing to the SNP (which doesn't even factor in that it's Alexander standing) and Ashcroft's recent polling in Sheffield Hallam has it as a three way marginal. I can't really see Clegg losing, but the Lib Dems without him and Alexander would be much more palateable partners for Labour.
I'm hoping Miliband insists that any deal would involve the lib/dems ditching Clegg using the same excuse... sorry... 'reason' that Clegg gave about Brown... that he was too electorally unattractive to remain in his position.
Off topic but I just watched the film one night in Turin which chronicled the England World Cup run in 1990 focusing on robson and gazza in particular. A really good film. To see how far the England national team has fallen on and off the pitch compared to those days is surprising.
Well, yes and no... If you remember we were pretty poor in the euros in '92 and didn't even qualify for the WC '94 but that didn't stop us getting to the semis, (again!), in '96. The truth is, when we've had a decent manager we've usually given a reasonable account of ourselves as we've always had some good players. The problem has been that we've had rather ordinary managers for a long time now because the FA prefer to have yes-men and sycophants. I think if we had decent managers and left them to get on with it we'd probably have a similar mix of results, i.e. some good, some not so good. To be clear, that's not the same as saying we'd win anything but then, we didn't win then either.
You are right the team did miss the 94 WC but England had a really good stretch IMO between 1996-2006 other then the euro 2000 debacle. I feel though the fans following or players loyalty to England isn't is as passionate now as it was then or during the 9os. I felt 1990 made people proud to support the NT that it unified the nation that's how the film gave the impression of. Maybe that is an inaccurate view from an outsider. Also I thought it was interesting that the Union Jack was flown at England games in 1990 but now it's only the flag of st.george.
As said above, England were poor in 92, and woeful in 88. They were also pretty poor in the group stage in 1990 as well. And while back then was certainly the era of the likes of John Sadler in The Sun tipping England to win based on not really having a clue about football outside England, there was absolutely none of the media circus surrounding England that you get these days back then. When the news reported on England in news bulletins, it wasn't about the prospects of the England team, it was about the prospect of crowd trouble. It was a media obsession. Cue three dramatic play-off round games though and the nation caught "cup fever", something completely unknown for a generation, and suddenly those news reports started covering the "novelty" of football fans being people who were excited about football, not by people who got excited about throwing chairs across an Italian piazza. The semi-final made football "fashionable" in England. Something it hadn't been for a very long time.
correct, I wouldn't, because it wasn't. like Liverpool, they haven't won since the backpass rule came in
You can try to dress it up however you want to if it makes you feel better but the government is a coalition, the Tories didn't win the last election. At some point you are just going to have to accept it as fact.
IOW nobody won and two parties had to make an agreement to form a government. If they hadn't somebody COULD have tried to form a minority government and have votes on individual measures as they arose, (with the consequence they could lose a vote of confidence at any point and be thrown out of power), or have ANOTHER general election and see if anyone won that. Like this one... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_general_election,_1974_(October) The United Kingdom general election of October 1974 took place on 10 October 1974 to elect 635 members to the British House of Commons. It was the second general election of that year and resulted in the Labour Party led by Harold Wilson, winning by a tiny majority of 3 seats. The election of February that year had produced an unexpected hung parliament. Coalition talks between the Conservatives and the Liberals failed, allowing Labour leader Harold Wilson to form a minority government.
They should have gone for a confidence and supply agreement but wanted to get their bums on ministerial car seats.