The problem is he loves gay marriage .... not The promise (doh)

backbench tories want to move to the right to stop the bleeding to ukip. front bench doesn't want to move to the right because it will give up more of the middle and ex lib dems voter. probably a large train of thought that in a general election ukip will not do so well at all.

agreed that he's luck 'red ed' is labour leader.

UKIP has triumphed because for many decades people haven't been given a choice. All the major parties were pro-European and thought they could buy off the euro-sceptics by repeated promises of referendum, whilst knowing that, as all the main parties were pro- Europe, one would never take place.

It took a new party to offer an alternative. I don't agree with anything UKIP stands for, but it is clear that a large % of people want a referendum and a stricter immigration policy. If democracy means anything, it means listening to the people.

The main parties should hold a referendum now, or on same day as next general election. This will shoot UKIP'S fox and get him out of the hen house hopefully. I fear that UKIP will survive post any referendum, but they will not reach the high watermark of yesterday again once a referendum is held.

With regard to Ed Milliband, he may not be greatest labour leader, but no other leader has had to contend with an upstart party taking 17% of vote from a standing start. Those kind of figures are going to affect every party's figures. Labour are ahead in polls including projected vote share based on yesterday's results. The party is on course to be 4 short of an overall majority. If we have genuinely moved into four party politics, then majorities for any party are going to be more and more uncommon.

it's not going to be a four party system.

and no referendum for me.

Why no referendum SD?

The AV referendum was such a farce, and the amount of not just ignorance but misinformation widely accepted with these things is crazy. If there would be procedures in favour of disseminating relatively correct information it would be one thing, but as it is i'm sceptical..

That probably sounds a bit anti-democratic, but, at least english democracy is in theory on my side. Why have a referendum? Parliament is supposed to be sovereign, and parliament is not actually there to do just what the people want, MP's are supposed to be elected and trusted to do what they themselves think is best, not necessarily what those who elected them would want them to do.

Parliament is there to do as the people want, otherwise why have any election? It is right and proper that parties formulate manifestos and put those manifestos to the people to decide. Once elected the MPs have to be trusted to carry out those manifestos and also to make decisions on a day to day basis. But the whole thing only works if the government is the legitimate representation of the people. In the case of Europe, the people feel they haven't had a choice, hence a new party which seeks to represent them has formed and will put its manifesto forward. The other parties now have a clear choice, either absorb some of the policies of that new party, notably by holding a referendum, or accept that at present 17% of voters can be ignored.

There are occasions where it is correct to ignore such a large body of the electorate. But the major parties have to then try to win a majority without them. Such a large body of opinion can only be ignored if you feel they have no justification for their views. In this case, whilst all the major parties are pro-euro, hey also recognise that at some point a referendum is inevitable. Much better to have it now and lance the boil.

I agree that AV referendum was a bit farcical, but would you sooner of the great and good imposed AV without seeking our explicit consent? When big constitutional changes are sought which will affect all parties into the future, those changes need legitimacy and a direct mandate from the electorate.

What was farcical about AV? The choice was clear and the people expressed their view that they rather like the elegant simplicity of first past the post. The only thing remotely farcical was the belief, held so strongly by some, that another result was possible.

UKIP are part protest vote and part single issue party (and when I say party, I do of course mean person. Without Nigel they are essentially nothing). When the election comes their share of the vote will be in single figures. After the referendum next parliament they will shrink to irrelevance.

They have served a very good and useful purpose, but that purpose will soon come to an end.

The point is that the people should choose who rules over them, but representatives in the uk were always meant to go by the own judgement - study the history or parliament, democracy, uk theory etc. and you'll see that. We do need better parties, but referendums actually go against why we are representative democracy.
Also, I maintain UKIP will not do so well in a general election.

I never consented to first past the post so doesn't make a difference, and most changes to the uk constitution are done without the electorate. the important thing is that any house of commons sitting can change anything.

@oct, i was out on election day that year, and the amount of shit you would hear from people is crazy. av is a ridiculously simple system. i agree that it was silly for any to anticipate a different result, but the information about it was nonsensical.

what purpose has ukip served? labour should (not in a moral sense, but in the same way liverpool should beat newcastle) win without promising a referendum.

Octavious - 'After the referendum next parliament they will shrink to irrelevance' do you actually believe there will be a referendum in the next parliament? As things stand the Tories will grant a referendum IF they win an outright majority - chances of this are slim. Labour and lib-Dems are promising referendum only if there is a further transfer of powers - unlikely in next parliament by Ed Milliband's own admission. Many people feel the only way to get a referendum is to support parties that are 100% pro referendum. They know that even if they win no MPs that a big % of support applies pressure on the other parties to change policy.

@Soc

You always hear crazy shit. You only have to listen to Nigee's political commentary to realize how many ridiculously wrong notions even reasonably intelligent people can get in their heads. But on the whole most people who cared enough to vote had a decent idea of what they were voting for, and they made the right choice at the end of the day.

UKIP have done many good things. They have stabilised the Tories by removing the more destructive anti European elements from the party. They have attacked Labour in their safe seats where Tories have too much of a stigma to get serious support. They have ensured that the Conservatives will hold a referendum which will finally give the EU democratic legitimacy in the eyes of the public. They have forced matters such as immigration, that mainstream parties tend to hide from, to be seriously debated.

Many good things.

the right choice?! we can debate av another time i guess....

ukip has done nothing! come this time next year there will be disappointment, and they will fade into obscurity for a bit again...

The Tories will hold the referendum if they win outright (which I believe is likely) and there is no chance they could enter a coalition with the Lib Dems without it as a condition. I rather suspect the Libs will enjoy being on the winning side of a referendum for a change and will agree to it without much fuss

the lib dems wouldn't agree to the referendum, the tories won't get a majority. labour majority.
if there was a hung parliament (i don't think there will be), lib dems and labour to join.

Octavious - so the Tories couldn't get an outright majority when fighting Gordon Brown during one of the worst recessions in living memory and prior to UKIP'S rise, but you think an outright majority is 'likely' next time around? I don't doubt that you may be sincere in this belief, but I think you are wholly mistaken. I'm not saying this as a left leaning supporter who would prefer a labour government, I just think the reality of our voting system, with its bias in favour of labour at the moment, means that a Tory majority government is really unlikely. Perhaps Scottish independence would help the Tories in the future, but independence wouldn't happen before the next Election.

oh, i agree, scottish independence leads to a tory swing of power, but right now, labour even when not doing well are relatively strong.

SD - you are quite right to point out the relative nature of strength in politics. There was a time when parties needed 45% + of those who voted to achieve a majority. It is possible that labour could form a majority with just over 31% of those who vote. In fact if turnout is 60% we could end up with a labour majority achieved with around 18% of the electorate. Scary really.

in 2005 tony blair won with 35% of the vote and a turnout of about 60%, and still have a majority of what 66 seats? could easily see ed miliband in these times replicating that feat with the same turnout and a few less votes.

i'm a labour fan (well out of the big three, fan is a strong word), but labour do have an ingrained advantage. just look at 2010, tories got over 36% of the vote and couldn't get a majority at all.

labour whilst weak is relatively strong.

Agreed SD - the bias in the system we have which could/should have been remedied by the coalition following through with boundary changes means that the Tories would need a whooping 11% lead to be able to form a majority government. This is one reason I think this Tory government is really unlikely to achieve an outright majority at the next election. Indeed labour could still have a majority whilst coming second in percentage terms.

I was really surprised when the boundary changes didn't get through, I thought the conservatives would have made it a big condition of the coalition, and given up on other things in exchange. If scotland stays in the UK they will regret it for a while.

Nice to analyse these things honestly even if the pragmatist in me wants to ignore the things that help my desired outcome.

I don't think Labour will come second in percentage, but it will be uncomfortably close...

The libDems tied boundary changes to lords reform. When lords reform failed so did boundary changes. At the time I thought libdems were on the wrong side of this argument. If they believed in boundary change, they should have voted for it. I understand that they also wanted lords reform, but if they couldn't get both, they should have taken one. Politics is the art of the possible, lords reform can wait until they are in government with labour who are more likely to want lords reform. We've waited hundreds of years for lords reform another few years wouldn't have hurt.

I actually think the Lib Dems were fairly smart in that, because now if the conservatives try to blame the boundaries there's an easy response that they had the option to change them, but didn't want to because they didn't want to make the House of Lords more democratic.

A conservative majority is almost certainly not going to happen in 2015.

Ukip didn't actually do that well this time around - they had a 6% lower vote than a year ago, and gained about the same number of council seats as a year ago, despite there being twice as many council seats being elected and this election being held at the same time as a European one.

UKIP only did worse in % because of London. One of their spokespeople said that the problem with London is that the voters are Young, Cultured and Educated. Hardly UKIP heartlands...

I mean in terms of their PNS, rather than actual vote count, so the London effect isn't a thing so much.

Octo - can you not recall your comments when I told you UKIP were going to give the Tories a good kicking.
Now Osborne is coming out and saying he respects Farage, he wasn't saying that before the election.If he really respects Farage then it tells you what an arse he is.
It's sad desperate stuff from the Tories..... panic !!

@ Nigs

Saying you respect leaders of other parties is sad and pathetic? I'm not sure you know what those words mean, or you're being extremely foolish. Moral in the Conservatives is high. The economy is getting back on track with almost perfect timing, Labour are failing to make the sort of gains they need, Ed Miliband hasn't been sacked, and neither has Cleggy. Things are about as good as we dared hope! There is no panic.

@ Octo - aren't you the man that told me that UKIP were an irrelevance, now you are defending the hypocrisy of the Conservative hierarchy when they come out in support of the bigot stealing Tory votes.
Of course Farage is a public school boy city trader so no reason for the Tories not to love him.
I love the arrogance in which you dismiss the loss of 231 councillors and 11 councils, I hope you still have that arrogant smirk after you have heard the European Election results.The reason why Farage is stealing votes off of the Tories hand over fist is exactly because of attitudes like yours.
I know the Conservative Party doesn't do humility with any style but I feel you are completely in denial of the facts, if you continue in this vain then Farage will continue to split your party, there are none so blind as those that cannot see.
What's the party line, "nobody panic, UKIP will be gone next year".
The reason why I enjoyed being Tories in elections so much because they always had this misplaced belief that they were somehow better/superior than the rest but pride goes before a fall my friend.
If you don't learn that in 2014 I will remind you in 2015, oh how we'll laugh :-)

beating Tories not being Tories