UK DUers: I would like to hear your predictions on the UK election outcome.

[Nye Bevan]

I was trying to get up to speed today; the situation seems to be very complex with the UKIP and the SNP in the mix and all manner of possible coalition governments being discussed. It would be great if anyone on the scene would like to provide a quick prediction of what kind of government will be in place after the election. Thanks in advance.

[LeftishBrit]

1. About the only thing that's almost certain..

is that we will have a hung (not to mention, born-to-be-hung!) parliament again.

I think the odds are slightly in favour of a Labour minority government, if only because the SNP are more likely to support them than the Tories. But I could be engaging in wishful thinking.

[Nye Bevan]

2. Thanks. Would the SNP enter into a formal coalition with Labour,

as in Miliband PM with Salmand his deputy?

[LeftishBrit]

3. Improbable, but stranger things have happened

[Ironing Man]

4. probably not... but you never know.

almost certainly not.

the shine has rather rubbed off the idea of coalition government, not to mention that the SNP and Labour have some spectacularly mutually incompatable philosophies, let alone policies. what is much more likely to happen, whether a Labour or Conservative government is formed, is that they would govern as a minority government, with support from other, smaller, parties on what is called 'confidence and supply' - which means they will support the budget/autumn statement each year, and vote for the government in confidence votes, but everything else is on a case-by-case basis, probably with quite a bit of disagreement.

to be blunt, if Miliband accepts SNP support in order to form a government he's a fool - he'll be PM, but because of the things the SNP will want in return (more money for Scotland effectively), and the very limited amount of money he'll have to rub together, all he'll achieve is to massively offend the Labour voting heartlands of Northern England by taking badly-needed money from them and giving it to the already better off Scottish Government.

which will go down like cold sick.

in terms of predicting the result, its probably - imv - worth ditching the idea that there's going to be a general election in May, and understanding that there'll instead be 650 by-elections in May. there won't be national swings, it will all be seat-by-seat stuff, with UKIP taking votes from the tories in one constituancy, from Labour in another, and the Greens taking LibDem votes in one seat and Labour votes in another. its going to be a mess, but the 'headline' might well be that for every Labour gain from the Tories or LibDems in England and Wales, they'll lose a seat to the SNP in Scotland.

i'm just about ready to put 50p on a conservative minority government with confidence and supply from half the LibDems that remain (though i don't think they'll implode like some do..), the 2 or 3 UKIP MP's, and the DUP from NI. quite how they'll square those disperate political forces is a matter for conjecture, but Labour face similar, and even worse problems with the SNP, SDLP, LibDems and Greens.

[Nye Bevan]

5. Thanks for your detailed explanation.

How will it work, after the election? Will the Queen invite whichever leader has the most seats to try to form a government? Or does Cameron get to try first as sitting PM?

[Ironing Man]

7. hmmmm.....

my understanding is that - in the most likely event - Cameron will inform the Queen that he has lost the numbers required to form a majority government, but that there is not a clear winner and that negotiations will start on all sides to find a government, any government. she will ask him to remain as PM until a clear plan emerges that will have the support of 50%+1 in the commons, and he will do so.

it won't be a case of anyone getting first go, rather that the Tories will talk to the LD's, UKIP, the DUP etc.. to try to get the numbers, and Labour will do something similar. now, theoretically the Queen will ask whoever can produce 50%+1 first to form a government, but she would be mindful of the issue of legitimacy, in that she would probably prefer (and would communicate such to Cameron and Miliband) not appoint a government made up of every random odd and sod in some 'grand coalition' of everyone who isn't a tory (or Labour) that in some way tries to get around a very large percentage of the popular vote.

a good example of this is the 2010 GE, where everyone-but-the-Tories got more seats than the Tories, but the Tories (nationally) recieved more individual votes than any other party, and everyone involved (including Labour) accepted that any government not involving the Tories would lack legitimacy. Labour initially flirted with the idea of a rainbow coalition to get it into power, but half-heartedly, and eventually dismissed it on grounds of legitimacy and that such a government would be chaotic.

now, its possible that we'll actually end up with a Lab-Tory coalition - they aren't millions of miles from each other on enough issues to make a joint government possible (if a little uncomfortable), and both parties are aware of the political/electoral dangers of prostituting themselves to the smaller parties in order to contrive a government where twenty tails wag one dog. the process will probably also have two strands - one where the political parties, with support from the permanent civil service, attempt to thrash out their respective deals, and another where the senior political and constitutional Privy Councillors, along with the Queen, decide the parameters and rules of the game.

the Privy Council will be quick - there are no chairs in the PC meetings, and 89yo women who've had 14 Prime Ministers do not like to be kept standing around by politicians who like the sound of their own voice. brevity comes before Godliness...

[Nye Bevan]

8. Fascinating.

A Labour-Tory coalition? Wow.

Thanks again.

[LeftishBrit]

9. Can't imagine a Lab-Tory coalition to be honest...

David Cameron and David Blunkett - perhaps. But Nadine Dorries and Bill Cash with John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn, or even Ed Miliband with Iain Duncan-Smith - not a serious possibility. Under very improbable circumstances, I could just about imagine a Grand Coalition of practically everybody; but not just between Labour and Tories. Most Labour and most Tories are too different.

[Ironing Man]

10. i know what you mean re: Lab-Tory coalition...

what you say is true - however, it depends on the price the smaller, 'kingmaker' parties are driving for in return for support.

if the SNP really demands not just no replacement for Trident, but the removal of Trident from Scotland (£10/15/20 billion to relocate to Devonport...), or the Greens require the decomissioning of all the nuclear power stations in one parliamerntary term and doubling of the duty on deisel, or UKIP demand not just an immediate referendum on EU membership, but government support for an 'out' vote, then the two main parties could be stuck with each other, not because they like each other, but because they dislike the others more.

Lab and Tories - well, the leaderships - could probably agree a deficit reduction programme, they could agree a foreign policy/defence programme, they could agree an NHS programme (both seem enthusiastic about the combining of health and social care with devolution down to LA level), and Tristram Hunt and Nikki Morgan could agree an education programme in 45 minutes over tea and biscuits.

Nadine Dorries, Bill Cash and John McDonnall don't run either party, neither are any of them in the running to become ministers, and nor do they have much support wiithin their own parties, particularly if what they advocate is being in opposition for another 5 years.

[LeftishBrit]

11. I don't think they could agree on the NHS...

Last edited Thu Mar 12, 2015, 02:04 AM - Edit history (1)

Hunt et al want to sell it off; Labour (unless you count Alan Milburn!) don't. Foreign policy - perhaps; that is where Labour MPs tend to veer furthest right. Deficit reduction - no; the Tories are far keener to balance the books on the backs of the poor. As for Education: from all I can gather, Nicky Morgan is just a figurehead, and Michael Gove is said to still rule behind the scenes to a large extent, and I don't think he could agree an education programme with anyone but Nick Gibb.

Even if they don't become Ministers, MPs can prevent governments doing much by digging their heels in; and I think this would happen. In any case, it's not just the Cashes and McDonnells not getting on: mainstream Labourites, i.e. anyone to the left of Blair, would have a hard job collaborating with the likes of Iain Duncan-Smith, his evil sidekick Lord Freud, Grant Shapps or Eric Pickles.

[Ironing Man]

12. depends...

there are some Tories who couldn't handle dilution, but frankly none of them are as important as the PM and Chancellor, and if you believe that Cameron and Osbourne wouldn't throw Gove (who, of course, they did..), Pickles or Hunt under a bus in order to remain in government then you aren't as cynical as you ought to be.

5 people matter in the Tory party - Cameron and Osbourne, and their rivals May, Hammond and Boris. neither Cameron nor Osbourne are free market ideologues on the NHS, nor is May or Boris, and while Hammond probably is he's got the political sense to know that its not an argument he's going to win. Cameron is not going to stand firm on free schools or NHS privatisation (neither of which are his gut policies) if it means he cements his place as the shortest serving conservative PM in history.

Ashcroft reckons that both parties will end up on around 250 seats each, 80 or so short of a majority. either could attempt a rainbow coalition and spend the next 5 years needing every single MP to vote for absolutely everything, or they could form a grand coalition with 500 seats, and each have an awkward squad of 75 who voted against everything and still get their programe through.

i'm not suggestting either would be keen on such an arrangement, rather that they would find it better than the alternative - which is embarrassing, sell-out chaos or sitting on the opposition benches.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. A slight correction to those numbers

I don't think it's realistic that both big parties could end up with only 250 seats each. We have 650 MPs in total; 18 from Northern Ireland, and 59 from Scotland. Even if the SNP sweep Scotland, and we say they get 49, and Plaid Cymru get 3 in Wales, that's 580 left. If UKIP got 8, Greens and/or Independent (Wyre Forest again?) 2, we're at 570, and the Lib Dems are surely going to lose seats compared to last time. Say they do better than expectations, and get 40. That's 530, not 500, for Labour and Tories to divide up.

Realistically, you can probably take another 20 seats off the total of the above mentioned parties, in which case that's about 275 seats each for Labour and Tories (Ashcroft has them even at 272 - see the link in #6). It does mean the size of 'awkward squad' they'd be able to withstand would be different.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. We had a prediction thread at the start of February

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10887424

Since then, I've become less optimistic that Labour will be the largest party - the SNP vote intention in Scotland seems to be holding up well.

As Ironing Man says, the 'swing' models are not very much use this time; Lord Ashcroft (rich Tory wanker) has been paying for a series of per-constituency polls, in the interesting ones. His latest findings, and an attempt to apply a swing in Scotland:

My polling has found the Tories ahead in ten seats currently held by the Liberal Democrats. But I have also found Labour ahead in ten current Lib Dem seats – so no net advantage to either party there.
...
The Magic Number of forty-six, plus the total of Labour losses to the SNP – divided by two – is the number of Conservative seats Labour must gain to have the same number of seats in the House of Commons. (We have to divide by two to avoid double counting, because each Conservative loss is also a Labour gain).
...
But if the swing to the SNP reached 22% across the board, Labour could lose 36 seats to the SNP.
...
And of the 59 Conservative-held seats I have polled in which Labour are the principal challengers, I have found Labour ahead in……forty-one. That – and this is not a forecast – would give Labour and the Conservatives 272 seats each in the House of Commons.

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/03/campaign-state-play-plus-latest-marginals/#more-7639

Other sites that can be useful:
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html (if you fancy constructing a complicated swing model)
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/ (for all the latest polls)
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/ (aimed at people trying to work out bets - well thought of for general predictions)

[Jeneral2885]

14. Coalition Government the 2nd

Labour-SNP or Labour with minority parties (excluding SNP). No negotiation over Trident (unfortunately) and Cabinet will be mostly Labour-led, with only Coalition partners in small departments like DCMS.

[Ironing Man]

15. no chance...

after the lesson (false lesson in my view, but...) of the LibDems in coalition, i don't see any minor party getting into a coalition without a very long list of demands being met.

the SNP doesn't need coalition, or even a Lab government - it has, and will have, as much tax-raising powers as it likes, and more tory the next government the better as far as its concerned. it wins both ways, the harsher the budget cuts applied by Westminster the more the SNP can say 'look at the eeeeeviiiillllll Enggglleeeesh and their eeeeeeviiiiillll ways, better off out and on our own', but the Tories are also, along with the LD's, the most ideologically attached to the concept of Devo-Max for Scotland, whereas Labour are incredibly hostile.

the tories take the view, conveniently for the SNP, that if Scotland wants x, y, or z social policy or welfare policy then it should pay for it. they believe it on both ideological grounds and tactically, in that up until the mid-60's Scotland returned more Tory MP's than Labour, SNP and Lib's combined - they feel that if Scotland had to pay for the things that apparently make Scotland more left wing in direct taxation, and in contrast to its southern neighbours, then the Scottish electorates choices might be rather different.

whether they are correct or not is a matter for debate.

[Bosonic]

16. Two sites

Both predict no clear majority.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/uk-general-election-predictions/

http://www.betfairpredicts.com/

So probably a Labour/SNP/LibDem chimera.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. Interesting - the fivethirtyeight page attempts seat-by-seat predictions

which gives me some input for my vote - I fear the Tory is a cert for Winchester, and so, rather than the 2nd place Lib Dem, I am contemplating a 'deposit saver' vote for Labour or Greens. Their prediction has a 15% Tory lead over the Lib Dems, Labour at 9.7% and Greens at 4.4%. Which might get me to vote Green.

On the other hand, I also see electoralcalculus now has predictions for each seat, and they also give the ward-by-ward numbers that make that up. And that means I can use my judgement to think if they've got that right ... still unsure how I'll vote.

[Spider Jerusalem]

18. My prediction:

Hung Parliament, Labour the largest party, result, Labour minority government with a confidence and supply agreement with SNP. (Other outcomes, Cameron out as Tory leader, and Boris, who's being parachuted into a safe seat, in...if not immediately then before the next general election.)