State of the parties as 2015 General Election looms.

[Beef Oven!]

There are only two people here who keep banging on about 'political correctness'; the others are simply responding . If there weren't any responses then I assume PG Tippy would give up, as he doesn't seem interested in anything else, & BO would restrict himself to UKIP, which would be bad enough.

Actually you are wrong. I've tried to stick to the title of the thread - State of the parties as 2015 General Election looms, but others want to talk about the UKIP. This happens all the time.

Can we stick to the OP, please. At least for a while.

[P. G. Tipps]

There are only two people here who keep banging on about 'political correctness'; the others are simply responding . If there weren't any responses then I assume PG Tippy would give up, as he doesn't seem interested in anything else, & BO would restrict himself to UKIP, which would be bad enough.

Carry on Flossie! Give us the benefit of your knowledge of the state of the parties as the 2015 election approaches. The royal 'we' are all eyes!!

[P. G. Tipps]

l had a colleague who took an amused, detached view of political discussion except to say that one 'side' of the Great Divide seemed to be clever but wrong and the other was stupid but right. I won't say which was which - in his opinion.

Doesn't sound that logical to me. If one is right he/she can hardly be described as 'stupid' and, by the same token, how can one be wrong and described as 'clever' ?

Was your colleague a Liberal Democrat, by any chance...?

[french frank]

Doesn't sound that logical to me. If one is right he/she can hardly be described as 'stupid' and, by the same token, how can one be wrong and described as 'clever' ?

I think the reference was to the standard of discussion. Criminals can be very clever, but they are still criminals.

[ahinton]

Actually you are wrong. I've tried to stick to the title of the thread - State of the parties as 2015 General Election looms, but others want to talk about the UKIP. This happens all the time.

Then are you not all correct (you and those others, that is)? Unless I've either missed something and/or there's been some fundamental change very recently that has escaped my notice, UKIP is one of those parties and so people have as much right to discuss it and its possible impact (if any) upon the forthcoming election results as they have to discuss any other UK parties in the run-up to next May's election and without departing from the thread topic by so doing - and, in any case, you are not only one of those who's talked about UKIP but the only one (I think) who has indicated probable preparedness to vote for it, the only obvious problem with which being that, in order to do so, you'd need to be registered in a constituency where one of the 12 candidates that UKIP currently expects to field will stand (so perhaps that's the only or main reason for your caveat "probably", although you may correct me if I'm wrong about that, of course).

[Flosshilde]

Actually you are wrong. I've tried to stick to the title of the thread - State of the parties as 2015 General Election looms, but others want to talk about the UKIP. This happens all the time.

Can we stick to the OP, please. At least for a while.

a) I didn't say that you were the only person talking about UKIP; and

b) as ahinton says, UKIP is a political party & will, according to its statements, be participating in the 2015 General Election, so discussion of UKIP is relevant to the OP.

So actually you are wrong. And you have been one of the posters persisting in raising 'political correctness'.

[Flosshilde]

Carry on Flossie! Give us the benefit of your knowledge of the state of the parties as the 2015 election approaches. The royal 'we' are all eyes!!

I have, some way back. Pay attention.

[P. G. Tipps]

I think the SNP is the only party than can be described as in a 'good state' for the 2015 election as it is well run, attracting new members and remains relatively united. UKIP has lot to do to reach a similar standard, imo., and won't attract the centre ground which is essential for long-term success.

The likeliest outcome at present is a Labour/SNP Coalition, but you know what the man said about a week and politics!

[MrGongGong]

but you know what the man said

Who is this "man" of whom you speak?

[french frank]

The priority for all parties is to hold on to the seats they already have - and those will tend to be the seats where they have a reasonable party organisation and resources. UKIP's disadvantage is that even where they now have MPs, the Conservatives will have a better organisation, money, distribution network &c. In most of the seats that they might hope to gain they will have very little by way of organisation, and few people who know what to do. So in this respect, the 'old' parties will be generally better placed.

If UKIP don't win many seats (and the situation in 1983 for the Alliance supports this - lots of votes but few seats) then the old parties will retain many more than nation-wide opinion polls might suggest. Each constituency will be different (something opinion polls don't register). Where, for example, the Lib Dems have held a seat for years, they stand a good chance of retaining it. If they won a seat in the last two or three elections, it may well revert to the last party which held it.

The Greens have shown that they have learned lessons from Liberal targeting strategy, and will be able to pour their helpers into the seats where they feel they have a chance. But they still start from a low base and can't be expected to win many seats. The eventual make-up of parliament is anyone's guess.

All in all, there may well be less change than people expect, but given that last time it was a hung parliament there's enough in the melting pot to sway things in several different ways. And I'm not sure that it will be the 'state of the parties' at the moment that is the deciding factor.

[Beef Oven!]

Healthy Timeline

[jean]

I did not expect to see UKIP coming up with any sensible policies at all, but |I must say their intention to get rid of the evil that is PFI impresses me somewhat.

(However, it should be noted that the Green Party also opposes PFI.)

[amateur51]

I did not expect to see UKIP coming up with any sensible policies at all, but |I must say their intention to get rid of the evil that is PFI impresses me somewhat.

(However, it should be noted that the Green Party also opposes PFI.)

Does either Party reveal the process of getting rid of PFI and how it would be funded otherwise?

Or is it aspirational?

[Beef Oven!]

I did not expect to see UKIP coming up with any sensible policies at all, but |I must say their intention to get rid of the evil that is PFI impresses me somewhat.

(However, it should be noted that the Green Party also opposes PFI.)

PFIs have done so much damage, most people don't even realise. Many DGHs have found it impossible to get out of deficit, no matter what turnaround plans and cost improvement plans they implement, due to structural debt caused by some outrageously irresponsible PFI programmes.

[jean]

Does either Party reveal the process of getting rid of PFI and how it would be funded otherwise?

You borrow the money directly (as was done before PFI was dreamed up) instead of paying someone else enormous sums to borrow it on your behalf.

All PFI achieves is to make it look as though you haven't borrowed at all.

I can never forgive Gordon Brown for the disaster that is PFI.