Josh

Election Prediction

I was going to write a long and detailed post about why you should not vote Lib Dem, but I got distracted by decorations and in the end I really can't be bothered.

So instead a prediction.  I have followed the polls quite closely, but there is only so much they can tell you.

UNS will be of no use this time round.  It is barely passable in a 2-party election, it is even worse in a 3-party election, it is completely rubbish when there is a transition between a two and a three party election.

For what it is worth the final poll results are: (with Conservative leads)  Con/Lab/Lib

Populus:  37/28/27       +9

ComRes: 37/28/28       +9

ICM: 36/28/26              +8

YouGov: 35/28/28         +7

Opinium: 35/27/26        +8

Angus Reid: 36/24/29    +7

Harris: 35/29/27             +6

TNS BMRB: 33/27/29     +4

I would ignore the last 3.  They seem close but they have not been consistent over the past month or have methodical faults, such as internet polling producing much higher Lib Dem numbers.

The YouGov poll was huge:  6483!  Populus was pretty large too:  2500.

I get most of my polling stuff from ukpollingreport.co.uk A fantastic resource for all things political data related.

But how this translates into seats is a completely different thing.  It all depends on the marginals and how things have been affected by the Lib Dem unexpected increase in popularity.  Lib Dems will probably take votes from Labour in Labour strongholds, making more places competitive for the Conservatives.  On the other hand Con/Lib marginals may not be as winnable.  It all depends.....

I think the Conservatives will come out of it well.  I think the increased number of seats they are going to be competitive in outweigh the number lost due to the Lib Dem increase.  Before the increase it was almost certainly going to be a Hung Parliament, however it is now up in the air.  Marginal Polling data supports this.

So, a prediction.

Conservatives 300-310 seats.   I would hope for more, but this is probably where it will land.

Lib Dems less than 100, probably in the 80 - 90 range (not a bad result for them). Maybe slightly higher.

Labour in the low 200s.  210 or there abouts.  Depends on how they do in Scotland and Wales and how many safe seats they loose by surprise.  They could do significantly better just based on the way the vote eventually lands in their safer seats.

I also expect an increased number of 'others' .  The greens are competitive in 3 seats, so may get one.  I do not expect the BNP to get a seat.  UKIP might do, hopefully the speakers.  Then there are the national parties that will probably make increases too.

I expect a working Conservative minority government, though a majority is still entirely possible.

I do not expect a Lab/Lib coalition.

I do expect a new Labour Leader within 3 months, probably a lot less.  However if it is a working Conservative minority Brown may well try and stay on, hoping for an economic collapse in a few months.

I expect David Milliband to be the next elected Labour leader.   (there will be a place-holder while party elections are held).  I expect this even if Ed Balls somehow does keep his seat, Mandelson is just too powerful.  For a fantastic article on how we all need Mandelson's help right not see here.

I would really like for Balls to loose his seat.

Whatever party wins, or forms the next government I expect the celebrations to be very short lived.  There will be hge cuts.  It will be noticeable.  It needs to be done and it will be done, there is no choice.  I expect the next government to be extremely unpopular.  The Lib Dems have the most to gain from this for next time around.

The Sun on the Election

Not entirely safe for work / public PC viewing.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/election2010/2959490/Save-these-girls-brfrom-dole-queue.html

The Page 3 girls view on the election.

Lib Dem frontbencher Featherstone was cheered by women's rights activists when she declared she would "love to take on Page 3".

But our Poppy said: "The basis of Lockean thought is his theory of the Contract of Government, under which all political power is a trust for the benefit of the people.

"His thinking underpins our ideas of national identity and society. Please don't let those who seek to ban our beauty win. Vote to save Page 3!"

Election Results

Things I want to happen in this election:

• Conservatives to get an overall majority
• For the Conservatives to get 250 - 349 seats
• Antony Calvert to beat Ed Balls in Morely and Outwood
• UKIP to win a seat
• Greens to not win a seat
• Lib-Dems to get less than 3 ministers, or more than none.

These are all the things I have money on.

Immigration

A touchy subject with a lot of people.  I come from the Midlands (ish).  Where there is a large amount of unskilled migration from Eastern Europe.  A large amount of the work back home is seasonal or in the factories.  I have worked in both, and a large part of the workforce is now Eastern European.

Now, on principle I have no problem with that.  I like freedom of movement.  However a lot of people are very resentful.

Now, I am watching Gordon Browns Interview with Jeremy Paxman.  I am half way through at the moment.  But with the kerfuffle of the other day (more on that soon) , immigration was quickly mentioned.

Some relevant questions asked by Paxman, and exchanges between the two:

JP: "Since 1997 how many foreign people have come to live in this country"  - Quite a valid question in my mind, something that should be kept track of and monitored closely.

GB:  1 million from the EU coming here but 1 million British people going to live in Europe.

JP: 4,927,00 entering with 2,925,000 staying.

GB: We are party of the EU, and we have lower proportion of migrants than Autralia, the US or Canada.  This is a mobile world and we have to accept that.

JP:  "Where in your 1997, 2001 or 2005 manifestos  did you say this change was going to happen"

- Again very valid.  Regardless of if you agree with the policy a lot of people are extraordinarily angry that they were not even consulted.  It just happened.  Something that completely changes the country has been put in place and no one was consulted.  One of the main reasons there is such an anti EU feeling in this country.-

GB: We are part of the EU it is inevitable.

At another point:

GB mentions that the jobs of care assistants, chefs, teachers and a few other skilled workers that should not be allowed to work in the UK because there are plenty of them here already without work.

Paxman then produces the list of skilled workers that are allowed to enter the country under current rules, and care assistants, teachers and chefs are on that list.  Not making a judgement on the list either way, just the contradiction being made.

Brown then goes on to say that they are allowed in at the moment, but will not be under a Labour government.  Which then obviously leads Paxman to ask, if it is so important why have you not done it yet.  [Something I am surprised that has not come up all that often.  If you think something is important why has ti taken you 13 years to get around to it.]

I get fed up with politicians not answering questions.  And Brown is the worst at it.  People have legitimate concerns over immigration, and they feel that they have been ignored for the past 10+ years.  Why on earth do you think the BNP exists now?  If immigration were lower, more targeted, or people at least felt consulted and that they had a choice in what was happening to their country then radical parties would not be as prominent and all this resentment would be a lot lower.

All of this really is not helped by the current Prime Minister of this country insulting a little old lady, who reminds me a lot of my Mum, for raising genuine concerns that even I have, speaking as a person who is in favour of the EU.

I also dislike the discussion of the points system. It is basically irrelevant with membership of the EU.  And mentioning the Australians every time is trying to get people to link our border system in their minds to the very restrictive controls they have in Australia where they are no part of a union that has unrestricted access.

My point of view.  We were stupid to allow instantaneous freedom of movement within Europe.  Other countries within the EU had a gradual process of allowing it, why did we not?  This was a terrible mistake.  Then I am angry at politicians for attacking each other over immigration when all of them are far from telling the whole truth.

There should have been some sort of referendum on the whole thing.  Or something.  Some sort of public discussion.  Every part of EU membership has been forced through with widespread public resentment, with only the latest things being the Lisbon Treaty and the high EU officals recently.  (Whose election behind closed doors I absolutely despise.  I am represented by an EU president and foreign minister that I have never had any say in electing.)

This is not the way to go about getting people to like and accept Europe.  And it drives me insane that a good idea, something that is needed so desperately, and could be a wonderful thing to open up trade and stop wars, is being destroyed by the political class and nothing has changed about this in 20 years.

Europe

I like the EU as a concept.  if you don't let me ask you this..... When was the last major war in Europe?  There have been problems here and there but for the first time in a long time there has not been a major war in Europe in over 60 years.  I think that is fantastic, and the EU should be there for that reason alone.

As for the political state of the EU, I am not too fond of it in it's current form.  The budget has never been balanced, there was a story a year or so ago than any MEP wanting to view the audit of the budget has to sign a non-disclosure document first.  Then it leaked, and you understood why they forced the non-disclosure on everyone.

Countries like France have too much power.  Huge amounts of the EU budget goes towards subsidising French farmers, everything done in Brussels has to be photocopied and sent to Strasbourg.  If there were to be an EU language determined does anyone have any doubt that the French would try and insist French should be in there somewhere.  Whereas it should probably be joint English and German.  German is the most popular first language, but 51% of the population of Europe speaks English.

I also blame UK politicians.  They either force through things on Europe with disregard for public opinion or pander to the public to score political points.  I think there should have been a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, simply because one was promised.  I would have voted for it, but I still wanted the political parties to live up to the expectations they have set themselves.

Then there was a very stupid speech made by Gordon Brown not too long after he became PM, in which he promised "British Jobs for British Workers".  Which is illegal.  Part of belonging to the EU is that you cannot discriminate against citizens of other member countries.  If someone German or French or Polish were denied a job because they were not British the employer would be breaking the law.

There have been 2.12 million 'New Jobs' created in the UK since 1997 and 81% of them have gone to non-UK employees.  Now, as a whole I do not have too much of a problem with this.  I think there should be more controls and I think it was a big mistake to allow instantaneous freedom of movement in the EU, but I think the bigger mistake is politicians promising things that cannot be delivered.

It makes people distrustful.  "I was told British Jobs for British Workers, but there are loads of Polish people round here, must be the fault of the EU" seems to be the general feeling back home (Lincolnshire).

This is still happening in the current election.  GB talks about a points system to decide to let people in or not being used to lower immigration, which cannot be applied to EU immigration and would have very little effect.    DC wants a cap on immigration and a points system, but again this cannot be applied to EU migrants.  NC wants to limit mobility within the UK (which is a nice idea but far too many problems and would create more problems than it would solve - More on problems with the Lib-Dems next week) but again cannot be applied to the EU.

And while 40 years ago most of the migration came from the Empire, nowdays it comes from Europe.

And while I like open borders, I like the fact that I could go get a job in Zurich or Rome and no one would be able to stop me, I loath the politicians who have created all of the problems associated by this mostly though trying to score cheap political points.  All parties are effected by this, no single person is responsible, for the last 30 years Europe has been one big cock up after another, and what could have been a fantastic union of old enemies working together to find a place in the world has turned into an untrusted, unliked, unwanted bureaucratic mess.

Debate

So, the first ever prime ministerial televised debates are tonight, and I am expecting them to be quite exciting.  They should have been done long ago, and while I am not fond of the prime minister becoming more and more presidential this is one side effect that I am completely okay with.

It took so long because someone was always going to come off worse.  However in this case it was a bit backwards.  Normally it is the person ahead in the polls that refuses to debate, this time it was the guy who is probably going to voted out anyway.    If you watch PMQs regularly you will know that Gordon Brown has regularly refused to take part in this sort of debate.  And while I do not hold that against him, I do find it a bit unusual.

In 1992 John Major refused a debate, because he was ahead and went on to win, then in 1997 he asked for one when he was behind and Tony Blair went on to win.  However this time it is backwards, David Cameron was ahead (much more so than he is at the moment) continually asked for them and Gordon Brown refused.  Even in January of this year, when everyone with a pulse knew the election was going to be May 6th, he still refuses when invited by SKY, because, among other reasons,  he did not know when the election was going to be.

I pass no judgement on this, I just find it a bit odd, and a pattern that seems to repeat itself (see the Ex-General Secretary of the Labour Party for more info).  And overall I am very surprised that they are actually happening.

Today ITV are hosting a debate on Domestic Affairs, then next week it is SKY on International Affairs, then finally the week after that it is the  BBC on Economic Affairs.

So, overall I expect them all to come out of it quite well.  There will have been huge amounts of preparation on all sides.  I expect Nick Clegg to come off the best, simply by being there.  If David Cameron does his job properly he will do fantastically, and as for Gordon Brown, despite most peoples opinion of him,  he is very clever, he is articulate, however his demeanour and style has never really been suited to TV.

I expect the debates to get very dirty, a lot of insults, a lot of references back to pre 1997 conditions by Gordon Brown and all in all I expect very little to be changed by the debate.  Maybe a small rise by the Lib Dems in the Sunday polls.

There is so much contempt from hard core Labour supporters to ever consider switching to the Conservatives, and the majority of Conservative supporters blame Gordon Brown personally for all the problems of the last 13 years.  So I would be very surprised if tonight ended up changing much.

Gordon Brown has the problem that he has been running things for the past decade, he is too closely linked to every single problem in that time.  David Cameron has the problem of his accent and his background.

Also he is not William Hague or Boris.