UK General Election 2015

[Juubi Karakuchi]

Cameron has announced that he's bringing the EU referendum forward to 2016, or at least that he's trying to. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... referendum

This is worrying, but on the other hand interesting. Cameron is between a rock and a hard place over this issue; the Europhobe Tories want out at any cost, while the pro-business tendency want to stay in. There had been musings in the press about a possible schism over this issue for several months now, and with only a five or six seat majority they are extremely vulnerable. It is entirely likely that Cameron is trying to use the same old tricks; promise something big, then extract a concession from the EU and use that as a pretext to go back on said promise. The obvious problem is that the Europhobes are getting sick of it, and are increasingly willing to cause trouble.

[Vendetta]

The earlier he can do the referendum the less he has to put up with his backbenchers. Either they get their way and we're out or they get put back in their box for the next 40 years by an in vote.

If they're constantly agitating for the referendum to happen though they can hold basically any other legislation to ransom because the majority is so small.

[Darth Tanner]

Yes holding it early is to his advantage, it limits the opportunity for his party to rip itself in two whilst it forces Labour to appoint a new leader sooner rather than later and also to take a side on the issue, they are hardly united on Europe and rubbing their nose in their refusal to allow a referendum will further weaken their support.

I really hope we don't leave the EU, I expect Cameron will achieve some small promises of reform from Merkel and then the referendum will be sufficiently in favour to close the issue for the next generation or so. We always stand the risk of the rabid anti Europe factions galvanising public support though, but it strikes me as unlikely - especially once some large business/banks start planning to leave.

It would be beneficial if Greece is decided one way or the other before we vote, if they are going to leave the EU it changes everything on the UK potentially leaving.

or is the UKIP's leadership roster really that thin?

Quite possibly, it is a party that revolves around him - without him it could pretty much disband as he is the only reason it is so successful for a minor party.

[Hillary]

Yes holding it early is to his advantage, it limits the opportunity for his party to rip itself in two whilst it forces Labour to appoint a new leader sooner rather than later and also to take a side on the issue, they are hardly united on Europe and rubbing their nose in their refusal to allow a referendum will further weaken their support.

I think that's right. There's highly unlikely to be a major media outlet that will support our exit from the EU. The 4 main political party leaderships (if not all the MPs) all support our membership. The biggest risk is a very low turnout - but the press will whip up a storm if this is looking likely.

As you say, Cameron will eek some small concessions out of the EU which will be presented as something much bigger.

That's what I'm hoping anyway.

[Darth Tanner]

There's highly unlikely to be a major media outlet that will support our exit from the EU.

Indeed, the danger will be the years of 'incompetent EU rules' media coverage that we have had will overwrite any surge of pro EU media coverage in the run up to an election... I'm also not sure the likes of the Sun/Express might risk it and go for a leave campaingn... not sure what way Murdoch flows on the EU in general.

Austria fucking off with their legal challenge over Hinkley would help too.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Hmm, and now I start to see the inevitable "demonstrations" that politicians don't live in "the real world." The first one is a Facebook share offering a breakdown of monthly income and costs that show you can't live on that money. Except (and this is regardless of the politics involved) it's very dishonest, because the post uses a UK average monthly salary as a baseline (with no source for the quoted figure, £1300) but uses figures based on London averages to work out monthly costs for rent, utilities etc.

This is dishonest because every job I've ever looked at in London pays a reasonable amount mroe than a comparable job elsewhere precisely because London is more expensive to live in (many national companies will quote salaries for "Inner London," "Outer London" and "Elsewhere in the UK").

Now, fine, you want to make some political point. But at least be honest with the fucking numbers!

[Welf]

While I support the rights of protesters and the right to conduct peaceful protests (and only peaceful protesters), I personally find it in poor taste, even undemocratic, to protest the result of a legitimate election. Sometimes you loose an election. That's part of democracy.

They are democratically elected by a majority of 36% of the population under a specific set of rules that favours certain types of parties. If that ain't legitimate, I don't know.

[Darth Tanner]

They are democratically elected by a majority of 36% of the population under a specific set of rules that favours certain types of parties. If that ain't legitimate, I don't know.

Thats the way the system works, if you disagree with it vote for the many parties proposing reform. The main party proposing reform lost nearly all its seats this election from lack of popular support. Violent protest and defiling war memorials is hardly going to make these people look like anything but scum.

[Dartzap]

Beeb#

Chancellor George Osborne has said that he will deliver a new Budget on 8 July.

He claimed it would have "a laser-like focus" on raising productivity and living standards.

He said he was making the unusual move of having a second Budget in one year in order to "deliver on the commitments we have made to working people".
Labour said the chancellor would have to set out "who is going to pay" for what it called "uncosted promises" in the election campaign.

Speaking outside 11 Downing Street, the chancellor gave a broad outline of his plans for the forthcoming Budget but refused to be drawn on the details, including the Conservatives' planned £12bn of welfare cuts.

'Deliver commitments'

"I don't want to wait to deliver on the commitments we have made to working people," he said.

"It will continue with the balanced plan we have to deal with our debts, invest in our health service and reform welfare to make work pay.

"But there will also be a laser-like focus on making our economy more productive so we raise living standards across our country.

"We're going to put Britain into good shape for the long term."

The last Budget was held on 18 March and included tax cuts for first-time house buyers.

Writing in the Sun, Mr Osborne admitted it was "unusual" to have two Budgets in the same year, but he wanted to turn "promises made in the election into a reality".

Oh joy.

[Bedlam]

Yeah, not to keen on this, it looks awfully like the March Budget was the one to win the election with and now the July one is the one they'll actually put through.

[bilateralrope]

Now this is a bit odd:

Election candidate who got no votes demands recount because he picked himself

14 HOURS AGO MAY 16, 2015 5:15PM

AN embarrassed candidate who got no votes at the UK’s local elections is demanding a recount — because he knows he should have at least one.
Paul Dennis, who stood for the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition in Rainham North, Kent, insisted the result was wrong because he had “definitely” voted for himself.
Mr Dennis, a train conductor, said his wife and father had pledged their support too, The Mirror reported.
The 45-year-old was left humiliated when the room burst into laughter after his result was read out at the Medway Council elections on May 7.
He said this week that the result was “obviously wrong”, and that he had been approached by people who said they voted for him.
“I was gutted to be honest,” he told the newspaper. “It was a bit humiliating, especially at work.”
There were 8464 votes cast in the ward, with two Conservative candidates elected, and just 13 voting slips rejected as void.
TUSC spokesman Chas Berry said: “We think it’s impossible for him to get zero votes. He lives in the ward, as do several members of his family.
“You think, if that was wrong, what else was wrong? The council have some serious questions to answer.”

He knows that he voted for himself, but he somehow got zero votes. That is a worrying result.

[Zaune]

I can see his point, but bear in mind we count our votes the old-fashioned way by hand; it's most likely to be human error.

[Captain Seafort]

Or he fucked up and his vote ended up as one of the 13 rejects.

[jwl]

Or he fucked up and his vote ended up as one of the 13 rejects.

I was thinking that. It still needs a recount, though. You need 10 people from the constituency to nominate you to stand, so if they all voted that means 11 out of the 13 rejects were all TUSC ones.

Although really, why didn't he send representatives to check the vote counting like every other party? If he did, and the people counting missed votes from his party, they would have seen it.

[Zaune]

Although really, why didn't he send representatives to check the vote counting like every other party? If he did, and the people counting missed votes from his party, they would have seen it.

Considering how tiny this party appears to be I expect they simply didn't have the personnel.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Or he fucked up and his vote ended up as one of the 13 rejects.

I was thinking that. It still needs a recount, though. You need 10 people from the constituency to nominate you to stand, so if they all voted that means 11 out of the 13 rejects were all TUSC ones.

The cynical part of me (and the part that dislikes train drivers, trade unionists and socialists) is thinking "nomination does not equal voting for." You're supposed to vote for them sure, but there is the possibility that every was just trying to be nice to the guy, and hoping that enough other people voted for him that it wouldn't be noticeable that they didn't.

In fact, I know have a mental image of the guy telling his wife and family "I could do a much better job than this lot!" and the family, tired of hearing it say "go ahead and fucking stand for Parliament then" not expecting him to actually do it.

[bilateralrope]

He said this week that the result was “obviously wrong”, and that he had been approached by people who said they voted for him.

He has talked to people who said that they did vote for him. He knows he voted for himself. So he should have some votes for him.


While I expect that it was just human error, it should be enough for a recount. If the recount fails to locate the votes for him, what is likely to happen next ?

[Eternal_Freedom]

He said this week that the result was “obviously wrong”, and that he had been approached by people who said they voted for him.

He has talked to people who said that they did vote for him. He knows he voted for himself. So he should have some votes for him.

Again, them saying they voted for him doesn't mean they definitely did.

Please note I'm just playing a very cynical Devil's Advocate here. The most likely explanation is a combination - those who said they would vote for him did not, and those that did (and possibly himself) somehow spoiled their ballots and were disqualified, and there was a small error in the counting.

While it is a matter of concern, it's not a "omg this blows everything wide open" kind of result, it's the kind of minor cockup you expect when counting 30+ million votes by hand.

[Crazedwraith]

Sucks to be him. I can't imagine a recount would turn up anything more than a few votes for him though. Not enough to swing the result or even get his deposit back. Just save some face.

[bilateralrope]

A recount would also confirm that this was just human error. It would rule out anything dodgy happening during the vote count.

[Bedlam]

I wonder if anyone has ever done a study on if small parties suffer worst from human error in votes? If say 80% of the count is for one or two major parties I'd guess it would be quite easy for a counter to get fixated on just the major parties sticking all the forms to them or would the few different votes be more likely to stick out in their mind?