Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

Will 2015 election break tribal voting habits ?

30th Mar 2015
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

People historically tended to vote on tribal lines . They identified with a movement or ideology . But that about this time round with the 2015 election ?

The battleground as I see is primarily on the state of the nation's finances and the chance to review our EU membership . In my opinion the NHS is a red herring because no party is going to abolish it but it desperately needs modernising 

So it is really down to a measured and considered reading of the alternative paths offered

Can the head really break the grip of the heart at the ballot box ? 

Are your entrenched voting intentions possibly changing because of this ?

Tags:

You might also be interested in

Replies (20)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By ShirleyM
31st Mar 2015 08:51

Some people will always vote for the same party

It's usually either the lazy, who can't be bothered to think it through, or the arrogant, because voting for a different party would mean admitting they may have made a wrong choice in the past, or may be making the wrong choice now. Maybe it is misguided loyalty that keeps them voting the same way, every time. 

Why do people always vote for the same party regardless of the current situation? The state of the country, and the way it looks after it's citizens varies massively from party to party, and from year to year within the same parties.

The problem with politics, is that the trust has gone. Really gone! Nobody believes them because they make false promises that they know could never be achieved, they don't speak honestly, and won't give a straight (and honest) answer to a straight question. How then are we supposed to make a wise choice? We are forced to make a choice based on half truths and in some cases, outright lies.

The problem doesn't lie with the voters, it lies with the politicians and until they start behaving honestly and decently then we will always have the biggest liars and cheats in power, because they won't hesitate to make false promises if it gets them votes.

Reminder: ''No ifs. No buts.

That's a promise we made to the British people. And it's a promise we are keeping.'

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
31st Mar 2015 10:40

No deals with the SNP …

The real issue here is the ‘hung’ state of the electorate and whether any party is willing to gain a majority by doing a deal with the oppotunistic SNP

Just to recap the SNP are the political party that wished to break-up the Union only a few months ago – so to give them any power over rUK in this election would be an absolute disgrace

Furthermore, if this did occur there may well be a rUK ‘uprising’ and possibly a demand for a referendum on whether Scotland should actually remain part of the Union – then see how they fare with their much vaunted oil revenues & wild valuations on going it alone

Frankly rUK should not have made nearly so much effort to keep them in the Union at the time and we should just have let them go their own way. It was always going to be on the cards that they would keep coming back & sniping until they obtained an ever more unequal share of funding from rUK and now they are at it again

Just chuck them out of rUK so that they are on their own & cannot keep making demands for rUK to underwrite them. After all they are not really interested in rUK as a whole except as a 'cash cow' so why should rUK be involved with them

‘.. The Scottish nationalists will exploit their power over a future Labour government by demanding billions in extra spending and the diversion of resources north of the border, Alex Salmond has declared ..’

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4390324.ece?shareToken=5990c2b84b2176ef49e70b0d3665c251

 

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
31st Mar 2015 11:12

That really p*ssed me off, JC

The political leaders came together (that is admirable, and not what I am complaining about) and decided to give Scotland more powers AND keep the Barnett formula, without any consultation with the electorate. They knew that everyone was unhappy about extra powers being given to the EU without the electorate having a say, but merrily proceeded to do the same again, with Scotland.

I do not trust any SNP MP's to refrain from voting on issues that do not affect Scotland, but I do trust them to 'stiff' the rest of the UK in favour of Scotland.

Giving the SNP some powers in the UK government would be political suicide.

EDIT: and if the SNP demand another referendum, let them have one, but make them fund it too. They may be more realistic if it's their own money being gambled and squandered.

Thanks (0)
Norman Younger
By Norman Younger
31st Mar 2015 12:03

SNP and voting

Turkeys voting for xmas - if we let the SNP into the government . The trouble is that it is an outcome not an intention when casting a ballot 

How many people who want to vote Labour will not do so because of the SNP risk ?  

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
31st Mar 2015 15:47

Electoral boundaries …

Taking and extreme example to compare the value of one person’s vote against another’s

The Isle of Wight has around 104,000 of voters whereas the Western Isles (Scotland’s North West Coast) has 21,000 voters

Therefore voters in the Western Isles have 5 times more weight & influence than those in the Isle of Wight

(on this basis alone Scotlands MP's in Westminster should be reduced by 4 members) - now factor that approach over all Scottish MP's & we get fewer

Furthermore, the average number of voters within Scotland’s electoral boundaries are approximately 1/5 th fewer than within rUK electoral boundaries. Probably worth remembering if the rUK's unelected SNP every gain any power as a result of the forthcoming election – unelected south of the border but possibly in power over rUK

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Knight Rider
31st Mar 2015 18:51

Vision
The lack of any clear differentiation between the parties and their failure to set out any clear vision has caused a surge to Ukip and the greens and more abstentions. Policy announcements are not thought through and have to be hastily revised. Our politicians need to up their game or no one deserves to win.

Thanks (0)
Norman Younger
By Norman Younger
01st Apr 2015 16:46

Differentiation

I think today's news that 100 business leaders are supporting Dave over Ed , is the start of clear water between the parties on a fundamental matter affecting our prosperity

I also suspect that the focus on business will marginalise the likes of Ukip and the Greens , the former becasue they have no policy and the latter because they are playing at politics thru the lens of greenwash 

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
01st Apr 2015 17:56

So what? How many votes will they have (bought & paid for)?

Large business has had tax cuts, and the influx of immigrants has driven wages down (so bigger profits but lower tax), so I'm not surprised that large business loves DC.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Knight Rider
01st Apr 2015 18:04

Tribal

Business leaders supporting Dave is also likely to encourage some to vote for Ed unless the case for capitalism is reiterated again. Even Mrs T couldn't slay the socialist red dragon and now its more extreme close relative the green dragon is garnering support with its far left agenda.

Trade Unions supporting Labour will encourage more tribal voting! 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
02nd Apr 2015 07:55

Zero Hours Contracts Bill 2014-15 …

So far as one understands matters the issue of zero hour contracts is already in the process of being addressed in the current Parliament by the Zero Hours Contracts Bill 2014-15

However, the 2014-15 session of parliament has prorogued and this Bill will make no further progress

Prorogation of a Parliament results in the termination of a session. Parliament then stands prorogued until the opening of the next session. Like the summoning and dissolution of Parliament, prorogation is a prerogative act of the Crown, taken on the advice of the Prime Minister

The principal effect of ending a session by prorogation is to terminate business. Members are released from their parliamentary duties until Parliament is next summoned. All unfinished business is dropped from or “dies” on the Order Paper and all committees lose their power to transact business

Therefore, it would seem that addressing zero hour contracts is not a new idea and was actually in process through the current Parliament prior to everything being halted for the election. In this respect it is rather ‘smoke & mirrors’ to make it an election issue when the only reason the current bill was halted in the first place was because of the election

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2014-15/zerohourscontracts.html

Thanks (0)
Norman Younger
By Norman Younger
02nd Apr 2015 11:16

Zero hours

One suspects that "zero hours" is the new phrase on the block.

I don't know how long such contracts have been around but with an estimated 2% of workers on them it makes one wonder why it is taking up so much space . Out of that 2% surely at least of them must be happy with the arrangements. The only irksome part of the contracts , exclusivity, is being addressed .

So is this Ed's way of saying that Labour is the party of the workers without cosying up to the unions ? Or prhaps it is his veiled message that markets cannot be trusted to do their job fairly ?

I have never made use of such contracts but I know how some of my staff relished the flexibility of being able to work "as and when" . I was regularly tinkering with the hours of one or two of them , which alloed more leisure and study time to further their careers.

So basically a red herring from a red politician

 

Thanks (0)
Locutus of Borg
By Locutus
04th Apr 2015 23:09

Will much get done in the next fixed term parliament?

The current numbers for the 5 largest parties in Parliament is: -

Conservative302Labour256Liberal Democrat56Democratic Unionist8Scottish National6

Although UKIP and the Greens have sizeable shares of the overall vote, I doubt whether this will translate to many MPs.  Plaid Cymru only have 3 MPs and given that they polling 4th in Wales, they will be lucky to hold on to all of them.

The number of Democratic Unionist MPs (who are generally Conservative leaning) probably won't change much.

Labour will probably end up gaining a few seats overall - gaining lots in England, but losing lots in Scotland,  The Conservatives probably won't be far behind Labour.  The SNP will be the third largest with around 50 seats.  I wouldn't be surprised if the LibDem MPs halve in number.

Labour and the SNP won't have a formal coalition, as it would be political suicide for both parties.  It also appears the SNP will veto anything that doesn't appeal to their own narrow interests.

It makes you wonder whether Labour and the Conservatives will end up co-operating on several issues.  Repeal of fixed-term parliaments?

Thanks (0)
Replying to bettybobbymeggie:
Norman Younger
By Norman Younger
05th Apr 2015 21:55

Labour and Conservatives
A government of national unity ?

So who is the common enemy ?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
06th Apr 2015 09:41

National unity …

Probably lets out any party that:

Tried to split up the Union 6 months agoHas an avowed intention of re-directing huge amounts of additional tax receipts towards their own area to the exclusion of rUKHas a declared intention of breaking-up the Union as quickly as possible

Meanwhile has far more seats that they really should have because of electoral boundaries – so have excessive influence on rUK

Ring any bells regarding a 'common ememy' to the Union!

When are rUK to be given a referendum on this matter?

Thanks (0)
Norman Younger
By Norman Younger
06th Apr 2015 17:40

Unity and The Union
SNP cannot thetefore claim mandate to join a UK coalition. It would be an.indefensible position and an oxymoron.
But would Labour turn down such an offer ?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
07th Apr 2015 16:25

Wasn’t long before SNP started making demands …

Once could almost have laid odds on the fact that the SNP would raise their demands as soon as they got whiff of power - to the detriment of rUK

So it has proven – Sturgeon pledges to block pension age rise

‘.. The SNP would use its power in the next parliament to oppose any attempt to increase the state pension age, arguing that this disadvantaged Scots

The Scottish National party would use its power in the next parliament to oppose any attempt to increase the state pension age, arguing that this disadvantaged Scots, who have a lower life expectancy than the English.

Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish first minister, said the disparity meant that Scots would “lose out” under the plans agreed by the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

The state pension age is set to increase to 66 between November 2018 and October 2020, and 67 between 2034 and 2036. Further legislation is needed to raise it to 68 and beyond.

Scots have the lowest life expectancies at birth in the UK. Men can expect to live to 76.8 years, 2.1 years below the national average, while for women the projection is 80.9 years, 1.8 years lower than the national average. The lowest is in Glasgow, where the average for men is only 73 years.

The first minister suggested that a future Westminster government might even have to simply exempt Scotland from the changes ..’

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4403886.ece?shareToken=136e5d62a919c74cd486876d2fe7a183

A referendum by rUK cannot come soon enough before we are all bled dry

Thanks (0)
Norman Younger
By Norman Younger
07th Apr 2015 17:34

Sturgeon proves her lack of negotiating prowess

SNP behaving like they are power brokers. A serious player keeps their cards close until it is time to show the deck.

Who do the SNP think they are ? I will be surprised if this doesn't go against them . Think Darien.......

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Knight Rider
07th Apr 2015 20:03

Referendum

Before we get carried away with talk of an English referendum it is important to remember most Scots don't support the SNP. Scots living outside Scotland were even denied a vote on independence.

Surely it cannot be too difficult for politicians to devise a scheme whereby Scottish and Welsh MPs do not vote on matters that have been devolved to their respective Parliaments?

Who do the SNP think they are to vote on matters which have no bearing on their constituents? 

The Scots (though not all of them) seem to have been given a choice between DevoMax and independence. Perhaps it is time for a referendum on DevoMax, DevoLite and full member of the Union? 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
08th Apr 2015 09:53

SNP may seek authority for another referendum …

Gets better & better every day with the SNP

@Knight Rider – DevoMax should certainly never be offered because all it will result in is every bill for the future being picked up by rUK – no wonder it was the preferred route for Mr Salmond, after all the whole of Scotland would then effectively be ‘on welfare’ with rUK underwriting everything

Agreed about many from Scotland being badly treated & short changed but that is what politicians do to skew the democratic process in their favour – same as with lowering the voting age or in the case of the UK a few years ago having an ‘open door’ policy on immigration because a particular sector is perceived to vote a certain way

And now the whole thing becomes even more interesting

‘.. Nicola Sturgeon last night signalled that the SNP may seek authority for another referendum on independence as early as next year when she took on the other Scottish party leaders in their first televised debate

The first minister refused to rule out putting the policy in her manifesto for the 2016 Holyrood election — despite her previous claims that last September’s vote was a “once-in-a-generation” event. She has said that a generation could be defined as 15 years ..’

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/scotland/article4404979.ece

rUK now has the prospect of the SNP having a say in the forthcoming election but potentially seeking another referendum shortly afterwards

Therefore the SNP could ultimately influence an election and leave the rUK with a lasting legacy when the SNP have absolutely no intention of remaining part of the Union – absolute disgrace

The sooner they have no influence on rUK the better - quite apart from damage to sterling, the overall stockmarket & business generally brought about by continued uncertainty

Kick them out of the Union once and for all and have some stability

Thanks (0)
Norman Younger
By Norman Younger
08th Apr 2015 17:53

SNP and voting
Perhaps time to call their bluff and let them know there will be no deals after the election , with any party.

This woman fancies herself more of a tinpot dictator than Alex Salmond

Thanks (0)