2015 General Election

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I'm impressed Eldo you would know such minutiae of our system, I doubt I'd do as well on historical US governments, but yes it was.
There were also coalition government during the WW2 but it tends to be counted seperately due to the unique circumstances.

Thanks Petty. My education focused on US politics, but I took a couple classes on comparative politics and I've tried to stay up to date on countries that I have a particular interest in. Being something of an Anglophile, the UK is probably the one I know the most about after the US.

Although my memories of the 70's devolution stuff is vague and from a kids perspective it did not seem to have the mass support the SNP have enjoyed since they came to power in the Scottish Parliament.

Yeah, I think devolution was a make-or-break moment for regional parties. They could actually win substantial percentages of seats and finally had the opportunity to engage in governing activities instead of just agitating for greater rights. It could have gone wrong but the SNP has clearly been very successful at this.

It makes the SNP very hard to categorize using the traditional left/right dichotomy.

I do wonder that if Scotland eventually becomes independent, whether the SNP will be able to survive in its current form. Independence would probably kill off the Tory Party in Scotland entirely, but I would expect a new, more Scotland-oriented conservative party to form in relatively short form. That would probably peel support away mainly from the SNP. And without the unifying mission of independence it might fragment completely, like the Irish nationalist movement did after independence. But on the other hand, there is precedent for pro-independence parties remaining more or less intact for decades, such as the INC and ANC in India and South Africa, respectively.

Right there is the issue Eldo- it is, and it isnt. For the purposes of voting at Westminster Scotland is just another UK region, and there you are quite right. But the voting region happens to be the same size and shape as the country Scotland, and the country has its own devolved Parliament. And it depends how you view the UK- as one unit made up of seperate regions, or as seperate countries joined in an agreement.
In Scotland it tends to be viewed as the latter these days not the former.

That's kind of why I feel like the devolution model as we know it is unsustainable and think a federal model would be better. Scotland is both a region and a country, and the varying (and rapidly changing) levels of devolution across the UK lead to a confused constitutional situation. Although I also find the massive centralization of power in the UK really weird and think it would be good to give more power to local levels of government (though obviously not in the same league as the powers devolved to the constituent countries).

Also the response from large sections of the English media tot he SNP rise- that a Westminster government relying on Scottish votes is illegitimate because people in England would not have voted for it, makes a mockery of the English stance on the Union previously when the 'regions' of the electorate in Scotland got Tory government they never voted for and were told thats how the Union works- lump it.
If when for the first time in my life a part of that might be reversed, and Scotland might hold a balance of power, we are told its illegitimate then its unlikely Scots are going to view ourselves as just a voting region. It will be seen as a denial of Scottish votes and the Scottish democratic voice.

I agree that the attitude in England towards Scotland and the SNP is at best unhelpful and at worst betrays the opinion that the Union is really just for England's benefit and prestige. But at the same time, I do feel that with the direction devolution is going, there should be an English Parliament. Not having one implies that the Westminster parliament is (and always ways) there for England's sake, which is contrary to the whole idea of equal union. I am annoyed by the victim mentality from some English nationalists though, which completely ignores the context in which the devolved assemblies/parliaments were created and tries to suggest that the SNP, Plaid, or whoever are secretly pulling the strings of the UK.

I wold go further than that and say it would be suicide for the Union. The idea Labour and Tory could join together to prevent the democratic voice of one part of the UK from being heard (assuming the polls are roughly right)- especially after all the rhetoric of the referendum campaign from Unionists - is crazy. I don't see how the Union could survive that.
If they do go down that route of anything to block the SNP then they really are in the dark over the mood here.

I would expect that shutting the SNP out is likely to increase the SNP's support. It also insulates them from criticism if anything bad happens to the economy or whatever in the next five years: the SNP can (rightfully) argue that they never even had a chance to be responsible for it. Like I said above, I do find the resentment against the SNP to kinda gross given the tradition inequities within UK politics, but I do understand that someone who is invested in the future of the UK would be extremely nervous about having separatist parties in government and I don't think they'd have to be a chauvinist or a bigot to feel that way.

I agree that the attitude in England towards Scotland and the SNP is at best unhelpful and at worst betrays the opinion that the Union is really just for England's benefit and prestige. But at the same time, I do feel that with the direction devolution is going, there should be an English Parliament. Not having one implies that the Westminster parliament is (and always ways) there for England's sake, which is contrary to the whole idea of equal union. I am annoyed by the victim mentality from some English nationalists though, which completely ignores the context in which the devolved assemblies/parliaments were created and tries to suggest that the SNP, Plaid, or whoever are secretly pulling the strings of the UK.

I actually object to that analysis, if anything the SNP have fed on the victim mentality of the Scots and stirred up rabid nationalism. What the English most object to is not democratic devolved Scottish parliament but the separatist mentality of 'us against them', on a small Island made up of people with only a ludicrous invisible border between us. Most English were pretty shocked at the nastiness and anger stirred up over the referendum and wanted us to remain united NOT divided by some career politicians with a chip on their shoulder. Most Scottish people have more in common with English people from Manchester and Newcastle than they do with the Edinborough elite, I think its pathetic to parcel up a small island into nationalist enclaves, its as mad as Palestine and Israel.

The SNP ultimately had little to do with the creation of the devolved parliament (that was Labour).  I think the devolved parliament was a good step towards rectifying a historic imbalance of power that privileged England at the expense of the other countries of the UK (especially London and the home counties; I'm aware that England is not a monolithic whole).  I wasn't referring to anyone on here when I said "victim mentality", but I have argued with people elsewhere who feel that the devolved parliaments have victimized England by depriving it of a say in politics.  This ignores the historic imbalance of power which is the reason why the devolved parliaments were created in the first place.  As I said before, I don't think the current devolution system is sustainable and the West Lothian question is certainly a defect if democracy is the goal, but that's a side-effect of an attempt at balancing power more evenly, not a sinister plot to hurt England (not that you or anyone else on here said it was).

For as much as there is a British identity -- and there absolutely is one -- it has never completely supplanted the English, Scottish, and Welsh identities.  Wales is in a weird spot due to not having had a separate legal existence from England for 500 years, but Scotland has been culturally, religiously, and to some extent linguistically distinct for the entire history of the Union.  These divisions predate the SNP by centuries.  This doesn't mean that Scottish independence is automatically right or inevitable.  But the difference between Scotland and the north of England is that, while both may feel aggrieved at Westminster, Scotland is already a nation and can claim both a moral and a legal right to self-determination if enough people feel things have gotten bad enough. One could argue that Scotland and England are not distinct nations anymore but merely two regions of the larger British nation, but even if that's the case, both Scotland and England still have many more characteristics of nations than they do of typical sub-national regions.

I think the divisions are cosmetic. its easy for career politicians to whip up nationalism, when nationalism is really a conservative inward looking reactionary force for evil. It can never bode well for a people to set themselves apart from a neighbour nation on the basis of a few cosmetic differences. what happened hundreds of years ago should not be dragged into the mix, otherwise you go down the road Ireland and Bosnia went down with brother killing brother. Devolution of regions is one thing because that is all about geographical distances and diffusion of power over a larger area. Breaking up the Uk is quite another thing and it stinks.

The SNP I vote for, and the one those others I know who vote SNP vote for, is not reactionary or a force for evil, nor does it seek to set Scots against English-England are our neighbours and our largest export market. Its about political power and where it lies and who exercises it, and whether for Scotland that power is better exercised at Westminster or at Holyrood.
And the sort of government it seeks to create is social democratic and friendly to immigrants, English or otherwise. I dont see it as dangerous in the sense of the style of nationalism you characterise. Its not of that type, the driving force of its supporters is not coming from that starting point. Its not about creating division its about creating equals.

Well thats my civic duty done- my vote is cast.

Anyone care to make any predictions?

Im going for a Tory win but not enough to form a majority. Labour 2nd, with the potential to form a government with others. SNP 3rd but with fewer than predicted seats: I'm sticking with my estimate of between 20-30 seats. Lib Dems a poor fourth. I predict UKIP will greatly increase their share of the vote but it wont translate into seats because of the fptp system.


Anyone else care to take a stab at the outcome?

I wont even be thinking of who could possibly be in, They are all a load of W*****S & my poor old life will be dragged thru the shat whoever gets in. Im not rich enough for anyone to suck up to, Important enough to bribe,corrupt enough to make deals or stupid enough for my taxes to be fiddled out of oblivion. Where do I come on the grand scale of things ? ........ About as high up as an ants fart.

what you said. Torys with a couple of seats more than labour

I worry that the Ashcroft polls are too good to be true. I would love to follow the election results all night long like I did last time (I have very fond memories of doing so while chatting with UK friends on MSN Messenger), but I close at work tonight. Fortunately that means I should be back by 9:30-10:00 my time (2:30-3:00 AM GMT) so I should be around for a lot of the results. I'm glad Dimbleby is coming back.

Taiwanese animators are at it again!

get a load of this one!          preferably not near lunchtime.

I did vote in the end

Mrs Figg wrote:get a load of this one!          preferably not near lunchtime.  

Great fun Figgy ( I watched it on an empty stomach )

malickfan wrote:I did vote in the end

Glad to hear you did, Malick.

'Glad to hear you die'- Eldo



Well the results coverage starts soon, poor old Dimbelby is on till 7am!

Anyone staying up for the results as they come in?

BBC exit poll results-

Con 316
Labour 239
SNP 58
Lib Dem 10
Plaid Cymru 4
UKIP 2
Greens 2

Anyone staying up for the results as they come in?....................Petty

Like hell I am Elections depress me, its never good news. IL learn my fate tomorrow

Well I'll be up being a politics junkie- and I have to see how that SNP vote turns out as I cant believe that exit poll figure- there are only 59 seats in Scotland.

Interestingly if Scotland had voted Labour like usual it still would not have made a difference. Labou still wouldn't have enough.

I'll be up until 1 or 2 my time probably. I want to see the results for Thanet South.

Holy shit at those exit poll numbers. Conservatives did way better than I expected either party to (if accurate) and the SNP dominated.

"Treating the exit poll with HUGE caution. I am hoping for a good night but I think 58 seats is unlikely'- Nicola Sturgeon


Paddy Ashdown former leader of the Lib Dems says he will eat his hat live on air if the BBC exit poll turns out to be accurate.


Eldo Thanet South will be interesting.

I'm hoping for Prophet Zebadiah to win.

Still in shock at the exit poll though. If true, every pre-election pollster needs to join Ashdown at the hat feast.

You Gov's exit poll is quite different.

Conservatives: 284 seats

Labour: 263

Lib Dems: 31

SNP: 48

UKIP: 2

Plaid Cymru: 3

Greens: 1

Something is amiss- the polls for months have shown a dead heat. Either they were all wrong or the exit poll is wrong.

Wouldn't take much of a shift- if the SNP get 10 or 15 less that votes that would go to Labour most likely. And if the Lib Dems do better than predicted then thats most likely at the Tory expense. It could all turn out quite different yet.

That Yougov poll seems more realistic to me.

First vote in Sunderland South- Labour heartland and safe seat, and they increased their majority slightly.
UKIP did well coming second, Lib Dems collapsed.