Tag Archives: UKIP

The best result for May would be two Labour victories

There are two parliamentary by elections in the UK tomorrow both caused by the resignation of the sitting Labour MP. One is the marginal Copeland (2015 majority 2,564) and one the safer Stoke on Trent Central (2015 majority 5,179). But the pressure is all on Labour. With their ghastly poll ratings there is at least a chance of a Conservative gain in Copeland which would be the first time a governing party has gained a seat in a by election since Mitcham and Morden in 1982* and the first time from the main opposition party since Brighouse and Spenbourgh in 1960. Stoke on Trent Central might appear safer but it was a heavily pro Brexit voting area last year and Labour in their infinite (lack of) wisdom have picked a pro remain candidate and UKIP are throwing the kitchen sink (and new leader Paul Nuttal) at this seat. One defeat for Labour would be bad. Two would be catastrophic. 

In theory the Conservatives should be laughing at this. But in my opinion the best result for Prime Minister Theresa May would be two Labour holds. The reason for this is that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is not popular with voters and is not regarded as a potential Prime Minister by either the public or most of his own party. He is the Conservatives main electoral asset. If Labour win both by elections – especially if they win by increased majorities – Corbyn’s leadership is strengthened. Conversely if they lose one or both by elections the pressure on Corbyn will mount and he might resign or be forced out. Labour might then be led by a competent leader and the Conservatives will face a real fight in the next election. 

Plus if UKIP win the Stoke by election that party – which has been a shambles since the last election and had three leaders last year! – might mount a comeback. The Conservatives won’t want that as UKIP could attract pro Brexit Conservatives who are unhappy with the Government- in the same way as the Lib Dems are a protest for pro remain Conservatives. Theresa May does not want a UKIP revival. 

There are two by elections in history that a Conservative Government lost but the party benefited from the loss. One was Darlington in March 1983. This like Copeland was a marginal Labour seat. Labour like now had an unpopular leader in Michael Foot. The month before Labour had suffered a humiliating defeat to the SDP-Liberal Alliance in Bermondsey suffering a swing of 44.2 per cent – still a record by election swing and the pressure was on Foot. The Australian Labor Party had changed its leader just before a General Election in February 1983 and unexpectedly won that country’s General Election. People in the UK Labour Party thought a change of leadership might enable them to do the same thing. So the Darlington by election was vital. “In effect the contest became a referendum Michael Root’s leadership” (David Butler and Dennis Kavanagh “The British General Election of 1983” page 60). As it turned out Labour won with an increased majority preserving Michael Foot’s leadership. But it was a hollow victory. Ossie O’Brien the victor was an MP for less than three months. He lost his seat back to the Conservatives in the June 1983 election which the Conservatives win with a huge 144 seat majority. But had Labour lost the Darlington by election who knows? Foot might have been replaced, and Labour might have emulated their Australian counterparts and won the election. As the book on the 1983 election put it (page 43) “Darlington stayed Labour but the Conservatives were not sorry since Michael Foot was secured in office”.

Another by election that was a good defeat for the Conservatives was the Eastleigh by election of 2013. The Conservatives hoped to win the seat from their struggling Lib Dem coalition partners but Mike Thornton held the seat for the Lib Dems. But this benefited the Conservatives as like Darlington in 1983 it kept an unpopular leader – in this case Nick Clegg – in office. It also kept the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition in power. Had the Conservatives win the by election Clegg could have been toppled a more left leaning leader like Vince Cable could have been elected and the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition could have collapsed. That would have produced either a two year lame duck minority Conservative Government at best or at worst an early General Election which judging by the polls Labour would have won. Also if UKIP had won Eastleigh the UKIP surge of 2013 could have been even greater and had there been a General Election in 2013 UKIP could have gained votes and seats from the Conservatives. As it turned out Clegg survived the Coalition lasted two more years the Lib Dems got decimated in 2015 when the Conservatives win an unexpected majority. 

The precedents of 1983 and2013 suggest that if there is an unpopular leader the other party can benefit if that leader remains in office until the next General Election. It might very well be in Theresa May’s best interest for Labour to win in Copeland and Stoke tomorrow and let Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership limp on to its probable diasterous end in 2020 – If he lasts that long. 

*The 1982 Mitcham and Morden by election was a complicated affair. It was a Labour seat in 1979 but its MP Bruce Douglas-Mann defected to the SDP in 1982 and resigned to fight a by election under his new party banner (like Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless did in 2014). But unlike those two he was unsuccessful and the seat was gained by the Conservatives. Whether it should as a Conservative gain from Labour or the SDP is debatable but it is the last occasion a UK governing party gained a seat at a by election. 

Time to say goodbye

So a week to go before the UK votes on whether or not to stay in the European Union (EU). In a previous post (“If Lucha Underground Wants to Grow it Must Get Rid of Intergender Matches”) you might remember I mentioned I was against the UK staying in the EU and said I would explain why in a future post. Well the time is now….

First of all I would say it is NOT because of anti immigration feelings. I was against the UK being in the EU long before immigration became an issue in the UK. The reason I am against the EU is simple and it came during a TV interview in the BBC’s 1992 General Election coverage.

On the day after this election – the first one I took an interest in though I was too young to vote – the BBC were interviewing a couple of Labour supporting trade unionists. Now by this time it was clear that the Conservative Party had won and the interviewer asked the trade unionists if they would use European law to try and thwart the Conservative Government’s policies. The trade unionists said yes. That annoyed me. I felt that the trade unionists were not accepting the vote of the British people and if Europe could stop the UK Government from implementing its policies what was the point in voting (I should stress that if it had been Conservative politicians trying to thwart a Labour Government via Europe I would have felt the same way).

Two examples of the EU meddling in UK affairs. In 1973 when we joined what is now the EU the UK Government imposed 17.5% Value Added Tax (VAT) on tampons since they were “luxury items”. In effect it was a tax on women since only women used tampons and they had no choice – it was an essential part of their lives. It seems a ridiculous tax but it was the 1970s and that was a very sexist decade in the UK. Quite rightly Prime Minister David Cameron thought that the “tampon tax” was a ridiculous sexist tax that should not exist in 2016 and it has been abolished. But Cameron could not abolish the tax without the backing of all the other 27 EU countries. He got their backing but should he have had to grovel to the EU anyway? No. It was none of the EU’s business and they should have had nothing to do with it. It should have been the UK Parliament that decided to get rid of the “tampon tax”.

Same with another abominable tax that is still with us because of the EU. In 1993 the Conservative Government imposed VAT on domestic fuel at 8% (a bid in 1994 to raise the rate to 17.5% was defeated).The Labour opposition was against VAT on fuel so when Tony Blair was swept to power in the 1997 landslide you would think it would be bye bye VAT on fuel. But no. Blair only cut the rate to 5%. He did not abolish it. Why not? He could not. Once the Conservative Government had imposed VAT on fuel it could only be reduced to 5% it could not be abolished… because of EU rules. Again it is ridiculous. It should be up to the UK Parliament to decide tax – not the EU. EU law needs to be secondary to UK law but while we are in the EU that cannot happen.

While my main reason is sovereignty another problem is that the EU is totally contemptuous of democracy. Countries including Denmark, France and Ireland have voted against EU treaties in the past. Did the EU accept the verdict of these countries voters? No. The countries were asked to vote again and voted in favour the second time they were asked. But what if they had voted against the treaties again? Would they have been forced to vote again and again until the EU got the result they wanted?

I also think we should never have joined the EU in the first place. The Prime Minister when we joined – Edward Heath – was an egomaniac and us joining the EU was his personal vanity project. When we joined in 1973 he celebrated with the “Fanfare For Europe” which was a waste of £350000 of taxpayers money spent on concerts, art exhibitions and even a football game at Wembley which attracted only 36,000 fans. Seventy five per cent of people thought the Fanfare should not take place (“Dominic Sandbrook, “State of Emergency, The Way We Were : Britain 1970-74, pages 171-72). It should be said that Heath’s Conservative Party had been pro Europe since the 1950s but French President Charles de Gaulle had vetoed Britain joining. I suspect with the British Empire breaking up Conservative politicians were deluding themselves that Britain could rule Europe which was tripe. I also suspect that if Heath had allowed us a referendum in say 1972 (as Ireland, Denmark and Norway had) we would have rejected membership as Norway did. Norway have still not joined the EU and seem to have survived! When Heath lost power in February 1974 the new Labour Government gave us a referendum (1975) which I still think only went in favour of Europe because the UK economy was a mess at the time with inflation reaching 26 per cent!  Since the UK people have never embraced the EU it would be in Europe’s best interest to lose at best an apathetic and at worst a hostile member.

Another reason to leave the EU is that I think eventually the EU will collapse. It is not only the UK that is hostile to the EU other members are becoming more hostile. Hardly surprising when you think what austerity forced on Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain to keep the fantasy currency the Euro alive has done to those countries with horrific poverty and youth unemployment the result. Plus history has shown that all artificial unions collapse – the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, our own British Empire and the Soviet Union being examples. The EU will collapse. It might take 20, 30, 40 years but it will. Smart people get off the ship before it sinks! We have a chance to do it!

Another problem with the EU is that it is just too big. It expanded into Eastern Europe when the ex members of the Soviet bloc joined it which means the countries in it have less and less in common and it became less effective. The EU should have stuck to the founding clique of six and added just Spain and Portugal when those two countries got democratised. Groups are more effective when they are small. A bizarre but apt analogy is with the New World Order (NWO) in wrestling which started with a small clique of members ballooned out of control by having far too many members and eventually collapsed in a heap. Just like in my opinion the EU will.

If we vote “Leave” on June 23rd we will take control of our country. The UK people will decide immigration policy. If we vote for a pro immigration Labour Party and it goes wrong it will be our fault not the immigrants. It will shut UKIP up as they will have no foreigners to blame for our problems.  Also there is a big wide world outside Europe that is becoming more important (China, Japan, India to name but three countries) and we can build relationships  with them outside the EU. Add to that the fact that the EU is like FIFA arrogant corrupt and unreformable and that we should never have joined in the first place and it becomes clear the best choice is to leave.

Finally I would stress that I am not stupid enough to say everything will be perfect if we leave but I think we must take control of – and responsibility for – our country. Being out of the EU might actually get rid of some of the racism/xenophobia in  the UK since we could not blame the EU for our problems like we do now. To quote the 1997 hit by Andrea Bocelli and Sarah Brightman it is “Time to Say Goodbye” to the EU.  

If Lucha Underground wants to grow it must get rid of intergender matches

In case any one is interested I’m also on Twitter (@bainalan05). And last Wednesday this is what someone said about me on Twitter:

“This guy is the biggest idiot on Twitter!”

“What an idiot!”

Both tweets were by Thomas Barnes (@ThomasTheRef). So what on earth had I said to annoy him?. Here is the tweet that so annoyed him :

“If it were up to me #LuchaUnderground would be shut down for promoting #domesticabuse.”

For those who don’t know (which will be 99% of the UK population for reasons I will explain) Lucha Underground is a weekly TV wrestling show which is shown on the ElRey network in the US – but does not have a UK TV deal (which is why 99% of the UK population won’t know about it). It is based on Mexican Lucha Libre wrestling and has attracted former WWE stars Ray Mysterio, Chavo Guerro and John Morrison. It has attracted a cult following in the US probably as a “protest vote” against the current WWE product which a lot of people see as stale.

So far so harmless. So why do I want it shut down, and why do I say it promotes domestic abuse? Simple. Lucha Underground uniquely among TV wrestling shows has regular intergender matches. That means men and women fight each other either in singles matches or in their trios (three man tag) matches. The people who run Lucha Underground boast they are ahead of the curve when it comes to intergender matches and they even  boasted to WWE officials about how forward thinking the intergender matches are. But they are not. Men (even pretending to) hit women is not suitable entertainment for a TV audience in a civilised country. It might have been in the 1970s (when UK films like “Get Carter” and even James Bond films “Diamonds Are Forever” and “The Man With The Golden Gun” included man on woman violence) but it isn’t now. So far from being “forward thinking” they are going back to the 1970s.

As I wrote on Twitter I would shut it down unless it agrees to stop intergender matches. (I wrote in previous post “Why Rousey v Mayweather must never happen”) how the US authorities could get intergender matches banned. But what I will do now is to explain why it is in the best interests of Lucha Underground to ban intergender matches.

Lucha Underground reminds me of both Extreme Championship Wrestling (ECW) and the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). ECW was an alternative wrestling promotion to WWE and WCW which existed from 1993-2001. UKIP I’ve wrote about in other posts. The similarities between ECW and Lucha Underground are obvious. Both took advantage of the unpopularity of established wrestling Promotions at the time (WCW and WWE in 1993, WWE now). And both tried to popularise a novel style of wrestling (hardcore wrestling with ECW intergender matches with Lucha Underground). ECW won a cult following but it soon suffered from the ” plateau effect” where only a minority of wrestling fans wanted to watch hardcore wrestling which caused it’s audience to plateau at a low level. The hardcore matches repelled as many as they attracted.

UKIP is similar in UK politics. Far more people agree with their policy of getting the UK out of the EU than would vote for UKIP.
I want the UK out of the EU (I’ll explain why in a future post) but have never voted UKIP. Why? Because Nigel Farage their leader has vile policies like banning people with HIV from entering the UK and too many of his party members make fools of themselves with racist and sexist remarks. As a result at last year’s election UKIP suffered from the “plateau effect”. Apart from Douglas Carswell’s personal vote in Clacton UKIP did not get more than 33.8% of the vote in any constituency last year. And in the UK’s first past the post electoral system 33.8% of the vote nearly always does not win you a seat. If Farage had moderated his rhetoric and his members had behaved themselves UKIP might have done better than nearly 4 million votes and one seat.

And this is where the analogy with Lucha Underground comes in. I am convinced that intergender matches split wrestling fans down the middle and totally repel non wrestling fans. In effect Lucha Underground is alienating half of its potential audience which is not clever. Since (apart from the intergender matches) I have read nothing but good things about Lucha Underground from anyone not called Jim Cornette I would like to watch it and make up my own mind. But I will not watch male v female violence – even acted. So they have lost me. And how many other people?

It will also cost them if they want to grow – as any business must. Plenty of cable networks in the US (like Spike TV that used to show Raw) are VERY anti male on female violence. Wrestling writer Dave Meltzer has said that “a lot of potential TV partners either would turn on Lucha Underground because of the intergender matches or would do so if pitched the show”. In other words intergender matches are costing them fans and perhaps a future TV deal.

David Bixenspan (February 3rd 2016) wrote that ” if it’s a legitimate hurdle to Lucha Underground’s business interests, then it’s probably best to abandon the gimmick”. I would say it is definitely best to abandon intergender matches. If they do not I am convinced that they will suffer from the same “plateau effect” that ECW and UKIP did. Wrestling has a small audience to begin with. If you limit your already small potential audience you are committing suicide. If Lucha Underground want to grow (and I assume they do) intergender matches must go.

This could be a crunch week for Corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn has been leader of the Labour Party for less than three months but already the Party is in total chaos and this week could be the most critical so far. There is already talk of Labour MPs wanting rid of him and that could grow this week.

Today he finally succumbed to demands from his own Shadow Cabinet for Labour MPs to be given a free vote – that is to be allowed to make up their own minds rather than have to vote the way the leader tells them to – on the question of whether or not the UK should bomb the Islamic State (IS) in Syria. Prime Minister David Cameron has called a vote in the UK parliament for Wednesday. It was clear that Corbyn would not be able to make his MPs toe the line and that a big number would vote against their leader. To stop the party from falling apart he had to allow the free vote.

To my mind Corbyn is right to oppose air strikes – which will not defeat IS will only kill/injure innocent people and make the UK even more of a terror target – but he was wrong not to allow a free vote. This is an issue of individual conscience. MPs should be able to make up their minds on this serious issue without having to toe a party line (this should also apply to Conservative MPs). But at least David Cameron has taken a position and stuck to it. Not only has Corbyn taken the wrong position he did not even stick to it – making him both wrong and weak – a fatal combination.

But it sums up the whole problem of Corbyn’s leadership – the vast majority of Labour MPs NEVER wanted him as their leader. And their fears have been confirmed. The problem with Corbyn is not his domestic policy – there is a chance that his anti austerity policies could be accepted by the time of the 2020 UK General Election – but two other factors. His defence and foreign policies will not be accepted by the UK public who already perceive him as being utterly incapable of defending the country or responding to a crisis. It does not help that he put a nuclear disarmer Ken Livingstone in co charge of the review of Labour’s defence policy – over the head of defence spokesperson Maria Eagle – which looks to critics like Corbyn is prejudging the review and has alarmed the majority of his MPs.

But the main problem with Corbyn is not his left wing policies but the fact that the man is totally out of his depth and has been promoted way beyond his ability. In 32 years as an MP he was never more than an obscure backbencher. No one cared what he did. Whether he sung the National Anthem or bowed to the UK Queen didn’t matter but when you become leader of one of the UK’s two big parties – and thus a candidate for Prime Minister – everything you do is scrutinised and you get attacked to trivial things. Former Opposition leaders Michael Foot and William Hague got ridiculed for wearing a donkey jacket and a baseball cap respectively. Unfair? Yes. But that is the UK Press for you. Plus the fact that Corbyn rebelled against Labour leaders over 500 times and therefore can hardly force his authority on his rebellious MPs.

And he is not popular with the public. The latest polls give him a satisfaction rating of minus 12. Usually new leaders get a honeymoon period with the UK public but this has not happened here. And Corbyn’s first electoral test is on Thursday with a by-election in Oldham West and Royton which should be a walk in the park for Labour. Firstly it has a majority of 14,738 or 34.17 per cent. Secondly the late MP Michael Meacher was a Corbyn supporter which suggests that this constituency should accept Corbyn’s views. Yet Labour insiders reckon at best they will win this seat narrowly and at worst suffer a humiliating loss to UKIP. In a seat like this defeat would be a disaster and shivers would go down the spines of Labour MPs.

Perhaps a humiliating loss to UKIP might be the best thing that could happen to Labour as it would make them realise that Corbyn is toxic and has no chance in 2020. But not only would they need to overthrow Corbyn but they would have to bypass their own members. For unbelievably Labour members who elected Corbyn still think he is doing a good job. So they would need to nominate one candidate who could then be elected unopposed – as Conservative MPs did in 2003 after they overthrew Iain Duncan Smith. Dan Jarvis – who has only been an MP since 2011 and is thus untainted by the Blair/Brown Governments – would be a good candidate.

This matters because the UK needs an electable Opposition which we don’t have. It is important because if there is not a good Opposition the Government gets complacent. The Conservative Government has its problems just now. A threatened strike by junior doctors(now suspended), Chancellor George Osborne’s humiliating defeat and subsequent U-turn on tax credit cuts and a bullying story involving former Party Chairman Grant Shapps.

Plenty for a competent Opposition to get their teeth into. But we don’t have a competent Opposition. For the sake of the country – and even the Conservative Party – we need one. And soon.

Some thoughts on the 2015 election

Well no one expected that result did they? Every poll in the UK General Election predicted a hung parliament. As it turned out we got a single party majority – albeit a small one of 11 for the Conservative Party – even more astonishing as it is only the second time the party of the incumbent Prime Minister has increased its number of seats after a full term in office since 1959 (also 1983). So what happens next? Here are some issues and questions that came out of the election.

1. Will the Conservatives behave themselves? The last two Governments with small majorities (1974-79 and 1992-97) ran into problems with rebellions from their own MPs and lost their majorities to by election defeats and defections. The 1992-97 Major government (the last majority Conservative government) was a shambles with the Tory right holding Major to ransom. Will they have learnt their lesson? The funny thing is Cameron’s majority is now smaller (10) than the one the previous coalition had (76). Will it last the full five years?

2. Labour are in a horrid dilemma. Iain MacWhirter in his book “Road to Referendum” said that “Scotland thinks likes Denmark and England thinks like the USA”. Labour lost in England because they were perceived as being too left wing whereas in Scotland they lost because they weren’t left wing enough. Whoever succeeds Ed Miliband has almost an impossible circle to square.

3. The union is in danger again. How on earth can you force Denmark (Scotland) to accept the USA (England’s) policies? You can’t. You also can’t force England to accept Scotland’s policies. I suspect it was the SNP threatening to force a Labour government on a Conservative voting England that drove enough English voters into the arms of the Conservatives to give them a majority. The only solution is either Boris Johnson’s idea of federalism or give the Scottish Parliament a veto on Conservative laws. If Cameron forces austerity on Scotland there will be a second independence referendum – and very soon.

4. Coalitions have no future in the UK. The decimation of the Liberal Democrats – down to 8 MPs compared to 57 – proves that the British people do not want coalitions. Coalitions mean broken promises and the UK people hate politicians who break their promises  but if you are in a coalition you have to break your promises. Disraeli said that “England does not love coalitions”  and what happened to the Lib Dems proves that. A consequence of the Lib Dem massacre is that no small party in the future will join a coalition because they now know they will get decimated.

5. UKIP could fade away. Nigel Farage failed to win Thanet South and promptly resigned*. The problem for UKIP is they are going to get what they want – an in/out referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union (EU). If the UK votes to pull out of the EU UKIP have got what they wanted and I suspect the party will split as that is the only issue UKIP members have in common. If the UK votes to stay in the EU they might get the membership boost the SNP got after the Scottish referendum but I doubt it. I wouldn’t be surprisesd if UKIP don’t exist in 2020 with their one MP Douglas Carswell – a maverick – standing in (and probably winning) Clacton as an independent.

6. But the Green Party won’t. The Green Party trebled their vote despite having an unimpressive leader in Natalie Bennett. if she has the sense to resign and make way for their one MP Caroline Lucas – whose Brighton Pavilion seat is now safe with a majority of over 7,000 – they could well get the anti establishment anti Tory vote. With the Lib Dems in meltdown and UKIP without the charismatic Farage the opportunity for the Greens is great as their environmental message could appeal to both fed up Conservative and Labour voters (for example current Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith used to be editor of the Ecologist magazine). I wouldn’t be surprised if during this parliament the greens go up in the polls and that Lucas might gain a colleague in parliament as they could win safe Conservative seats in by elections (as the Lib Dems used to do)

One thing is certain. The next five years will be crucial for the UK. The future of the UK in Europe – plus the future of the UK itself – could very well be decided during this period. It could be the most crucial Parliament the UK has seen since the October 1974-79 one – the last parliament  both with a European referendum and a single party majority smaller than this one (3). By 2020 the UK could out of the EU. It might even cease to exist. Once the euphoria of his win has died down David Cameron has a series of huge tasks.

*Events have overtook me. Nigel Farage is still leader of UKIP after the party turned down his resignation.

So what on earth will happen on May 7th?

As anyone who reads me will know I quite like making predictions. Some good (the 2014 World Series and the cricket World Cup for example) and some bad (too many to mention). But today I’m attempting my hardest task. To call Thursday’s UK General Election which is the most unpredictable since 1974.

I wasn’t even sure how to do it. I thought of predicting all 650 seats in the UK but most of them are safe (ie one party is a certainty to win) so it would have been boring to read – and boring to write. I thought of just predicting the marginal (the UK equivalent of “swing states” in the US) seats. Sky News has even produced a list of marginals for its “In The Margins” series but not all the 150 seats in that list are marginal. For some reason best known to Sky the list includes safe seats like Aylesbury (Conservative majority 12,648) but not Keighley (Conservative majority 2,940) a seat that has changed sides seven times since 1959. So Sky’s list is flawed.

What I decided to do is do a prediction range for each party – predicting the minimum and maximum number of seats I think each party will win. The range is actually very narrow. Since the war the conservatives have never fallen below 165 and Labour have never fallen below 209. But before I make the predictions for those who don’t know UK politics (or don’t remember) the 2010 election produced the following result:

Conservative 306 seats, Labour 258, Liberal Democrats 57, Scottish National Party (SNP) 6, Plaid Cyrmu 3, Green Party 1, Speaker 1 and Northern Ireland 18* (the UK parties don’t stand there) I should also say a party needs 326 seats** for a majority.

So here is the prediction and I’ll start with the two main parties:

Conservative: 275-295 (that means in my opinion they won’t win less than 275 or more than 295)

Labour: 280-300

As you can see that means it is not certain who will be the biggest party but I would give the edge to Labour because the UK constituency boundaries favour Labour as their seats are in cities thus smaller than the Conservatives and need less votes to win them. It is possible (like February 1974) that Labour will get more seats than the Conservatives but less votes. All the polls suggest a swing to Labour of 2-4 per cent which means Labour should gain seats from the Conservatives as most Con-Lab seats go with the swing. Only 32 Con-Lab seats went against the swing in 2010. I do think the Conservatives might gain a couple from Labour against the swing – Hampstead and Kilburn (majority 42) and Southampton Itchen (majority 192) are two possibilities. But it is clear Labour will make gains from the Conservatives.

But this election isn’t as simple as that. The result will be decided by what happens to the small parties – the Lib Dems , SNP, the Greens, Plaid Cyrmu  and the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). And they are very hard to predict. But I’ll try.

Lib Dems: 20-30. It shows how ghastly the Lib Dem poll ratings are (down from 23% in 2010 to 10% if they are lucky) that some people will be amazed that I think they won’t fall below 20 and might get 30. But the Lib Dems are hard to “dig out” of a seat – especially if they have a sitting MP. They will struggle in three scenarios. Where a sitting MP is retiring (ie Berwick upon Tweed) where there is a large student population – like party leader Nick Clegg’s Sheffield Hallam seat – and in Scotland which has not forgiven them  for joining with the Conservatives in coalition after 2010. So I reckon they will hold seats they should lose like Wells (majority 800) which is not a university seat and where the MP was first elected in 2010 but lose safer seats like Bristol West (majority 11,366) which has the university in it. It will be bad for the Lib Dems – but not as bad as people fear.

SNP: 20-30: This goes against the polls that think the SNP could win 50 seats or even all 59 in Scotland but I doubt that. There are signs of a backlash against the SNP with unionists thinking of voting for the party best placed to beat them in different seats. Plus the fact that in most Scottish seats the SNP are a  long way behind (for example the closest Labour-SNP seat is Ochil and Perthshire South (majority 5,197) and it would not take much of a “switch back” to save quite a lot of seats) The SNP will make gains. But I’ll be surprised if they get more than 30 seats.

UKIP: 1-5. I wrote about UKIP back in October  and nothing has happened to make me change my opinion they will get votes but not many seats. Douglas Carswell their first MP will hold Clacton but that might be all they get. Their other MP Mark Reckless could lose his Rochester seat back to the Conservatives and party leader Nigel Farage is a toss up to win Thanet South. Polls say they could win Thurrock, Castle Point (their best bet) Cambourne and Redruth, Great Grimsby and maybe even Rotherham but I’ll be surprised if they win more than 3 and they won’t win more than 5.

Plaid Cymru 2-4. Could gain Ynys Mon (Anglesey in English –  majority 2,461 ) from Labour or lose Arfon (majority 1,455) to them but I reckon they will hold their three seats and gain none.

Green Party: 1-2. Fairly easy to predict. Former leader Caroline Lucas has been a good MP and should hold Brighton Pavillion. They are targeting two Lib Dem seats – Norwich South and Bristol West. They might gain the Norwich  seat which needs a 7.3% swing to go but won’t gain the Bristol one.

Respect: 1-2. Didn’t win a seat in 2010 but gained Bradford West – with George Galloway the MP – in a 2012 by election. Galloway should hold it and they have a slim chance of gaining Birmingham Hall Green (majority 3,799) from Labour.

As you can see my prediction (as almost everybody’s is) is for another hung parliament. But this time I don’t think we will get a coalition but a minority government (that is where one party rules but other party/parties agree not to bring the government down). And since most MPs outside of the big three are more pro Labour (as I wrote before) it is possible that Labour leader Ed Miliband could form a government even if Prime Minister David Cameron has the biggest single party. In that scenario I reckon (like 1974) there will be another election before this year is out (October?) as Labour try to become at least the biggest party and gain legitimacy. In that situation I think the SNP, Greens and UKIP would all lose votes and Labour might even get  a majority.

One thing is certain. it will be a tense nervous night and it could very well be a case as in 2010 of “A  long Night with no winner” (as the “British General Election of 2010” put it)

*Four seats changed hands in by elections between 2010 and 2015 so the current total is Conservative 303 seats, Labour 258, Lib Dem 57, SNP  6, Plaid Cyrmu 3, UKIP 2, Green Party 1,Respect 1, Speaker 1 and Northern Ireland 18
**But as Sinn Fein’s 5 MPs don’t turn up in practice the number of seats needed for a majority is 323.

If Clegg goes Cameron could go with him

One interesting feature of UK General Elections is that even the most famous politicians in the UK have to get re elected in their own constituencies. David Cameron for example is not the Prime Minister – he is the humble Conservative candidate for Witney. Likewise the man who wants to replace him as Prime Minister – Labour leader Ed Miliband – is just the Labour candidate for Doncaster North. And if either lose their seat they cannot be Prime Minister as you have to be an MP to be Prime Minister. Now I should say that Witney and Doncaster North are safe seats for their parties and the chances of either man losing are nil.

However famous names can and do lose at elections. One example was Patrick Gordon Walker who lost Smethwick (see previous post) in the 1964 election which eventually cost him the job of Foreign Secretary. But the most famous slaughter of big names came in Labour’s 1997 landslide where 7 out of 22 MPs who were in the Conservative Cabinet lost their seats including the most infamous defeat in UK politics.

In 1997 Michael Portillo was the most hated politician in the country – called a “bastard” by his own party’s Prime Minister John Major. And Labour hated him too!   Still he was defending a majority of over 15,000 in Enfield Southgate so he was expected to win – and then become leader of his party after their election defeat. But  Labour took Southgate on a huge swing of 17.4 % (the UK swing to Labour in 1997 was 10 %). It was such a memorable event it became known as the “Portillo Moment*” and briefly coined a UK catchphrase “Were you up for Portillo**?” But that result only affected the leadership of the Conservative Party – not the result of the election. There is just the possibility of a “Portillo Moment” in this year’s election – and this could decide who goes to Number 10 Downing Street on May 8th.

The man in question is the leader of the Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems for short) and the UK’s Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. Like Portillo he is defending a majority of over 15,000 in his seat – Sheffield Hallam. Like Portillo he should be safe. But like Portillo he is hated in the UK. This is partly because a lot of Lib Dems hate the Conservatives and didn’t want the party to go into coalition with them. But his real mistake was to say during the 2010 campaign that he would oppose an increase in tuition fees for students in England and Wales – and then he voted for an increase once he was in government. As the Lib Dems had campaigned for the student vote in 2010 on the issue of not raising them they felt betrayed. I don’t think many students will vote for the party this time. And unfortunately for Clegg his constituency includes Sheffield Hallam university! A poll earlier this year in the seat suggested he was behind Labour and just ahead of the Conservatives. He might even finish third.

But this matters more than just wither or not Clegg holds the seat. If Clegg does lose the seat it could cost his boss David Cameron his job of Prime Minister. This is because it looks like no one party will get a majority and who becomes Prime Minister will depend on who can do deals with smaller parties. Most people think that the current  coalition was built on the chemistry between Clegg and Cameron. As I wrote above the majority of the Lib Dems are hostile to the Conservatives and a new leader – which the party would need if Clegg loses – is likely to want to either deal with Labour or go back into opposition.

This could cause real trouble for David Cameron. if the Lib Dems won’t deal with him who will? A look at the other parties who had MPs in the last Parliament is not encouraging for him.

Scottish National Party (SNP) – had 6 MPs in the last parliament. Their constitution bans deals with the Conservatives.

Plaid Cyrmu – 3 MPs – won’t back a Conservative government that the people of Wales reject. The Conservatives have never won a general election in Wales

United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) – 2 MPs –  might go with the Conservatives but would take Cameron to the right where he does not want to go. Also unlikely to win many seats and might lose the two they have.

Green Party – 1 MP – Caroline Lucas who said in 2010 she would not vote for a Conservative government. One suspects if the party wins more seats those MPs would agree with their former leader.

Respect – 1 MP – George Galloway who got kicked out of Labour for opposing the Iraq war. There is no way he would back the Conservatives.

Then there are the Northern Ireland parties:

Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) – 8 MPs – Cameron’s best hope. But they would want rid of the bedroom tax and more spending for Northern Ireland which Cameron would oppose.

Sinn Fein  – 5 MPs – who don’t take their seats so can be discounted. Wouldn’t deal with the Conservatives anyway.

Social Democratic and Labour Party – 3MPs – A sister party of Labour. Enough said

Alliance Party – 1 MP – A sister party of the Lib Dems but the MP – Naomi Long – did not back the coalition or take the Lib Dem whip.

It is clear form the list above that the parties outside the “big three” are more likely to back Labour than the Conservatives. That means Cameron’s only hope of remaining Prime Minister is to do a “Coalition version 2” with the Lib Dems. But if Clegg is defeated the chances of that happening are at best greatly reduced and at worse gone. With this in mind of the 650 seats in this election Sheffield Hallam is the most important. It could on its own decide David Cameron’s fate. It could very well be that if Nick Clegg loses his seat that David Cameron’s chance of remaining at 10  Downing Street go with him.

* There is even a UK band called The Portillo Moment.

**This means were you awake/did you see Portillo’s defeat live on TV? The result was declared at 3.01am and the result of the election was already known so a lot of viewers would have gone to bed. If you are interested I was up for Portillo.