Likely Result 2015 Uk Election

What would the likely result of the UK general election have been without the postponement of the Tory Government’s proposed boundary changes?

As others have pointed out, the question is based on a false assumption. But let’s turn it round and say what would the likely result have been if there had been time to implement the changes.Firstly, again as others have pointed out, the government would not have set the boundaries in detail. This is done by a neutral commission.However, there were two main features to the changes, and while it is impossible to say for sure, I would argue that each of these would have benefited the Tories by a few seats. Although given the single-member district plurality (FPTP) electoral system, there is always a big random element and a high degree of volatility, the most likely scenario I suggest would have been a small Tory majority instead of them being a few seats short of a majority.Since their vote was only 42%, you can tell why they are so keen on this electoral system that they are intending to impose it on mayoral and police commissioner elections as well. Reportedly also to London Assembly elections, although that doesn’t actually appear in the manifesto.The two main features of the changes arereducing the number of seats from 650 to 600, which would tend to increase the volatility of the system, making parliamentary majorities more likely on smaller plurality votes, thus most likely benefiting, by an amount that is hard to calculate, the single party with the plurality vote (the Tories this time).where practicable, making constituencies (districts) equal in number of registered voters instead of population. Since Tory supporters tend to move around less, and hence to be and to stay registered, and also to have fewer non-voting dependents, so this would benefit the Tories by a small amount.

What would have been the result of the 2015 UK general election if Cameron had not promised an EU referendum?

It’s unlikely that the overall result would have been drastically different, for various reasons.The Conservatives were perceived by the UK public as having managed the economy well since the crash of 2007. Labour had lost a lot of support since 2005, and the Conservatives were able to successfully sell the idea that Labour’s mismanagement of the economy had caused the crash.Nearly all of the polls failed to predict the result of the 2015 election. This was put down to the “shy Tory” theory (people not wanting to admit who they voted for) and a massive drop in support for the Liberal Democrats, who had controversially joined with the Conservatives in a coalition.Lastly, the Conservatives campaigned on the idea that Labour and the SNP might form a coalition, an idea that successfully managed to spook the general public.It is possible that had David Cameron not promised a referendum, UKIP would have seen a rise in support (Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP, actually encouraged UKIP supporters to vote Tory if they wanted an EU referendum to happen). Yet the UK’s voting system means that vote share is often massively different from the number of seats gained (making it much harder for smaller parties to win seats) so it is unlikely they would have seen huge success in any event. For reference, UKIP ended up getting 12.6% of the total vote share at the 2015 election, but only won a single seat.As it stands, I imagine the Conservatives would still have emerged as the largest party, regardless of whether they won a majority or not.

How likely is a "grand coalition" as the result of the UK 2015 general election?

Fascinating premise!Firstly, the only circumstances I can imagine in which Con and Lab would enter a formal coalition is in the case of an all-out war or natural disaster which threatened the very existence of the country. However, it isn't all that far-fetched to imagine a looser arrangement in which one provided confidence and supply to the other.This might possibly come about if Labour could be convinced that allowing the SNP to influence their policies was too damaging.  I'm not sure the current Labour leadership has the vision to see it that way, but let's imagine that they did. There could also be a situation in a more distant future where the Conservatives were offered a coalition with UKIP and sought an alternative for the same reason.A Con/Lab government would be a tense and turgid affair. Every bill would be debated in private and at great length in order to agree the concessions required to get the votes in. If it were to survive the first twelve months, ideologues and extremists from both parties would be marginalised and an entirely new type of politics would be required. Those at the fringes of both parties would probably break away, either to join UKIP (Con) or to form a new left-wing party (Lab) and those that remained would be forced to become part of a centrist consensus in a neo-Blairite stylee.The more I think about it the more I like it. It's not terribly realistic but it's better than any of the alternatives we're currently faced with, as another Con/LibDem coalition looks unlikely.

How will the 2015 UK election results impact the UK's future participation in the EU?

I don't think Cameron really gets the EU. His tactic seem to go in with a confrontational attitude. He gets on his high horse with some great demand about something or other which gets soundly destroyed when he actually meets the other Europeans and he has to return to the UK with his tail between his legs. See for instance Reform EU or Britain quits - George Osborne lays down ultimatum. This sort of thing does not go down well with Europe at all.The biggest example of this was the EU Surcharge. Cameron went in with demand for a big reduction in the our bill. He got defeated on this and it was only with some cleaver spin on a minor concession the Osborne managed to negotiate that allowed Cameron's face to be saved. EU surcharge: George Osborne 'used accounting trick to claim cut in Brussels bill'Cameron does not seem to be a team player which is what successful EU participation really needs. This will mean we see a continued strained relationship with Europe.The first big fight will be over plans to drop the European Convention on Human Rights all EU members are signatories to this act. It may well be a condition on our membership. I would expect a big fight back from other nations over this, there may well be a legal challenge over this. Solidarity over this is very important for the EU if the UK gets a concession on this it opens the door to over countries with dodgier records to also draft their own charters. Then we have the 2017 referendum. I suspect they will go through with it, they will get a lot of stick from backbenchers on the right if they don't. (An interesting possibility is that a vote for holding a referendum could be lost. The majority is slim, Labour, SNP and LD will vote against, it would only take a small rebellion (<10) from tories who are scared of the consequences to defeat a vote). Assuming we do hold a referendum this will worry business for the next two years with negative economic consequences. I suspect the actual referendum will be lost, but who can say. Cameron will try to use this to gain concessions and get comprehensively ignored. If the referendum fails it may enhance the anti-EU parties just like the Scottish referendum did. If it succeed then every thing changes, Scotland leaves, business loose contracts and our international clout drops.

What do you think the result of the next UK general election will be?

Theresa May, a well known advocate of remaining in the EU, is exposed to have been plotting all along to make Brexit impossible, colluding with the EU, and resulting in no deal. A second referendum votes to remain in the EU by a majority of two to one.Her government resigns, as she says “back me or sack me”.She is returned to office as a conquering hero by a landslide, the public having decided that they are not much interested in an unreconstructed Marxist who has spent 40 years advocating leaving the EU and shows no sign of changing his mind.The Tories, triumphant, win the next four elections in a row while Labour tries and quite probably fails to become a moderate, centrist party with some vague appeal to the electorate once more.

Was the 2015 UK general election rigged?

The fatal assumption that you made in your question is that David Cameron was sufficiently unpopular as to prevent him from winning a free election.David Cameron, yes, was unpopular with many working-class voters (traditional Labour territory), younger voters (who were more likely to be vocal on social media) and with the media. This meant that, especially on the internet, because Labour voters tended to shout the loudest, an illusion was created that Labour was winning. There has been extensive analysis done after the election which shows that opinion polls over-represented Labour voters and that many people did not want to admit to being Conservative — the so-called Shy Tory factor.What it comes down to is that the people who are most likely to vote Conservative (middle-class, older voters) are also much less vocal than younger, more energetic Labour voters, which is why people thought that Cameron was much less popular than he was.To address your point about rigging directly: The Electoral Commission, set up in 2000, observes and regulates all British elections very strictly. Beyond that, the ballot boxes cannot be opened from when voting begins until they are opened at the count, and there are observers from each party at polling stations to ensure this does not happen. At the vote count itself, the counting hall is filled with observers, candidates, police officers, journalists, and TV cameras, all of whom are watching the counters to avoid any funny business. The vote totals are verified repeatedly and then announced after all the candidates have had the chance to object. It is not possible, in practice, therefore, for the outcome of elections to be fixed in advance.

What are your predictions for the UK general elections in May 2015?

Right now: Conservatives win but not a majority,  Blue needs Yellow again, and must seek out a very weakened Liberal  Democrat party, and perhaps other parties, to hold a government. I'm going to hold out some small chance of a Labour-SNP government but (and admittedly, this is New Jersey guy looking at UK politics - really dangerous)  it doesn't feel like it right now, because of this: Less than 2/3rd of Labour voters think their leader would make a better prime minster than David Cameron. (And if they don't love 'im...) This is a huge obstacle to overcome and definitely questions whether a better leader could have sealed the deal and swung the election.    This to me indicates the party is in trouble when they are under severe attack.  (I'm thinking of the 1992 election, where attack ads and press spiked up Major just enough to close  )  Still UK voters vote party and not leader and issues are with Labour.  Labour has spiked up a bit after the autumn statement of the Chancellor and the threat of more cuts.   I'll admit to a chance of an election where, despite everyone hating the new Prime Minster, they have a new Prime Minister.  It can only happen in my opinion from a Labour-SNP forge.  And it could because SNP will deal with Labour if they have to.  Liberal Democrats will find their party punished for having sided with the government that most of their voters didn't think they were voting for.  They surged in 2010 and many of their seats were won in tight races.  That being said, Lib Dems are still doing well in areas where they are in battle with Tories, which is more of their seats.   They may not lose any seats to Tories.   Why would they?  David Cameron gave the Yellows the greatest cover ever. they are the heroes of Torydom   This to me suggests Blue may need Yellow.    It will be a really annoying second coalition, and each will start to hate the other.  Tories really want the win outright.  A lot of Lib-Dem will hate being joined with the Tories again. But they'll do it, to stay in a relevant position.  Info on Lib-Dem seats facing Tories Will Labour or the Tories benefit most from the Lib Dem collapse?