Jump to content
270soft Forum

DuncanC

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

DuncanC last won the day on October 31 2011

DuncanC had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About DuncanC

  • Rank
    Pleb
  1. That's half right. Without examining the vote share more carefully I can't be sure, but I suspect two things also played a significant part: 1) The SNP policy to encourage their voters to use both votes for SNP candidates. Given that a successful constituency vote effectively cancels the list vote out other parties had tended to work on the assumption people would use their list vote for a different party and campaigned on that basis, whereas the high list vote for the SNP was essential for their taking a majority overall (the cancelling out effect being a major reason people has suggested such a thing was effectively impossible under the Scottish Parliament electoral system). 2) The collapse of the LibDem vote in light of the coalition (and possibly especially of the controversy over higher education funding). It's the kind of thing which often depends upon the local circumstances but in many parts of Scotland (as I said, I'd have to look at the figures more closely, but for evidence of this check out the Glasgow East by-election result) LibDem voters are more likely to switch to the SNP than either of the other major parties, so if the LibDem vote drops significantly as it did you'd expect other things being equal the votes of the SNP to go up.
  2. Sounds like fun. If you were wanting to be realistic, I figure a date of around 2020 would make more sense, as you'd have to have left enough time for: 1) An Independence referendum 2) A monarchy referendum (at the moment, the SNP say they wouldn't expect to ditch the Monarchy in light of a pro-independence vote. Could leave it in place and have it as an issue in the campaign, I guess). 3) The possible break-up and realignment of the Scottish political parties. I would say 'you ought to have Ruth Davidson in it' but in light of the Tory leadership election I guess that's a lot more obvious now than had I said it back in March. Likewise if you are setting it further in the future e.g. Jo Swinson becomes a more plausible candidate than Charles Kennedy.
  3. DuncanC

    Scenario Request

    These are not at all inconsistent. In fact, given the Falklands war occurred in 1982 if you were looking for an explanation as to why the polling figures for 1983 had dropped from 1981 the Falklands War would seem a rather compelling candidate explanation even absent the details. I could seek out some external opinions to quote if you like but suffice it to say it's not an uncommon view that /had/ the Falklands War not occured, the 1981 figures might have gone all the way to 1983. It wasn't supposed to be a claim about what actually occured in 1983, but rather that if Lawrence wished to make a counterfactual scenario in which the Liberal-SDP Alliance were in with a chance of winning outright the obvious setting would seem to be a Falkland-War-free 1983. True, but as anyone who has played as the Liberals in any of these scenarios is now aware if they weren't before, a three way split, given the lack of overall geographical concentration of the Liberal vote, leaves them with around 100 seats. In order to win a majority outright you'd have to be talking about polling something in the region of mid-40s to 50, which 87 polling never got anywhere close to. In fact the only polls that have come anywhere near were those in 1981 and those of the immediate post-debate spike in 2010 (and we all know how solid that turned out to be). The best thing to do (and something which if a PMF editor is ever created, it should be able to do, is to put the extant riding/constituency data into a database and apply a universal swing to it (whatever swing is required to give enough LD MPs for a majority); that would give you a realistic looking result to input.
  4. Would it not be easier (for you, if nothing else) to upload it to some sort of free file storage site such as rapidshare rather than emailing it?
  5. DuncanC

    Scenario Request

    Actually the more likely scenario would be an alternate 1987 in which the Alliance won in 1983. Why? The famous "go back to your constituencies and prepare for government" speech was made in 1981 in response to soaring to 50% in the polls. It's not implausible this might have held until the election, with the Alliance drawing the support of moderate Labour supporters alienated by foot and economic reformers who felt Thatcher's union busting (crisis capitalism avant la lettre) was too severe and denationalisation was being forced through too quickly. Galtieri's invasion of the Falklands however, with Thatcher's swift and decisive response, caused support for the Tories to surge. It might not look like it to see the final result but there's good reason to think that if the Falklands war had not happened the Alliance might have won in 1983. No such possibility (in my opinion) exists for 1987 election so if you were wanting a plausibly alternate history election you should be thinking in terms of a 1987 election in which the Alliance won in 83. I might see about making one, but I'd be more interested in making a non-Falklands 1983.
  6. This discussion has gone off the rails. The issue isn't (or shouldn't be) what Pollwonk happens to think about climate change, but rather what is 'left wing' in the context of British Politics. In the UK only the far, far, fringe nutter right ('Lord' Monckton springs to mind, but I don't believe it's even the official position of UKIP) deny that climate change has a manmade source; the debate is over what should be done about it with right vs left a matter of legal vs market solutions (so in the UK 'cap and trade' is actually a centre or centre-right policy. Certainly when the Orange Book (a book of policy proposals for making the LibDems more market-liberal to which many of the current party highheidyins contributed (Nick Clegg, David Laws, Chris Huhne etc) was published the focus on Emissions Trading schemes being a market based solution was treated as being a sign of a drift to the right. Similarly there are disagreements which mirror the debate on nuclear weapons (worth having included BTW, as a low priority issue) with multilateralists butting heads with unilateralists. Pollwonk - You might be correct as regards the alignment question in the US but you clearly don't understand British politics (even the vocabulary is off; we don't have 'social security entitlements' we have the welfare state and benefits. Trivial distinctions perhaps but rhetorical packaging is significant. We, like you have an inheritance tax, but we call it an 'inheritance tax' rather than a 'death tax' or 'an estate tax').
×
×
  • Create New...