UK General Election 2010

[Daniel]

Perhaps it's just me but I'm starting to get the feeling that the Tories aren't going to win this election as easily as was first thought.

IIRC the Lib Dems were saying the other day that they wouldn't form a coallition with the tories if they're just going to slash govt spending straight away and now Dave is blaming Gordon for the BA strikes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8591337.stm

It just seems to me that the Tories were cruising to victory not that long ago and now Dave is doing everything he can to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[driveace]

The BIG problem here is that we are in so much DEBT,that really all the polititions are unhappy about taking it on,as it will be a very rough ride,After 13 years of Labour,the sleeze,the lies,the expenses scandel,the "Cab for hire",etc the strikes on BA and the railways,the unions who are Labours biggest donators ,now see Labour as a weak party.The sooner they go the better,BUT hard times lie ahead!!!!
He may be privately educated,but so are many big company bosses,but at least he needs a chance,we have tried the "Others" far too long ,and we need a change now!

[Mark in Oshawa]

The BIG problem here is that we are in so much DEBT,that really all the polititions are unhappy about taking it on,as it will be a very rough ride,After 13 years of Labour,the sleeze,the lies,the expenses scandel,the "Cab for hire",etc the strikes on BA and the railways,the unions who are Labours biggest donators ,now see Labour as a weak party.The sooner they go the better,BUT hard times lie ahead!!!!
He may be privately educated,but so are many big company bosses,but at least he needs a chance,we have tried the "Others" far too long ,and we need a change now!

AS an outsider, I can say that Cameron has played this all wrong and it proves he has poor political instincts. He has mirrored Labour on a few policies such as the global warming theories and carbon taxes. He has proven to be to the left of traditional Tory policy on national security (again my view I suppose from a far) and it is hard listening to him to not believe this is the same party that gave the world Margaret Thatcher. THAT is the problem. If you run with a platform simliar to your rivals, how can anyone really take you seriously, and how can the base of your party be really enthusiastic about supporting your leadership.

David Cameron is a bit of a buffoon in my opinion. He isn't anything but someone dragging the party to the center when 13 years of Labour rule has migrated its political compass towards the center. There is little difference in the eyes of voters and in the end, you end up satisfying no one.

I have seen enough of this guy on our news over here to know I wouldn't vote for him.....and I am the sort of modreately right of center small "c" conservative he would need to win an election as a Conservative leader. When The Canadian Tories were led by these "red" Tories, the Libreal party mopped the floor with them in election after election. We had 16 years of Pierre Trudeau's socialistic libreal notions because the idiots in the leadership of the Canadian Tories refused to push their policy right far enough to get some spacing from the leftish/center leaders that were in charge. You HAVE to give the voters a choice....

[BDunnell]

We had 16 years of Pierre Trudeau's socialistic libreal notions because the idiots in the leadership of the Canadian Tories refused to push their policy right far enough to get some spacing from the leftish/center leaders that were in charge. You HAVE to give the voters a choice....

You forget that our Conservative Party tried exactly that under the leadership of first William Hague, then Iain Duncan Smith, and finally Michael Howard. Yes, all of those individuals were, in their own ways, deeply unappealing characters as far as the electorate was concerned (yes, I know IDS never led the party into a general election, but his lack of popularity was obvious), but on each occasion the push to the right proved disastrous, as the Tories' general election disasters in 2001 and 2005 proved. So in a sense they have done exactly what the public seemed to want. In fact, 'seemed to want' sounds a bit weak. 'Clearly wanted' is better.

[Mark in Oshawa]

You forget that our Conservative Party tried exactly that under the leadership of first William Hague, then Iain Duncan Smith, and finally Michael Howard. Yes, all of those individuals were, in their own ways, deeply unappealing characters as far as the electorate was concerned (yes, I know IDS never led the party into a general election, but his lack of popularity was obvious), but on each occasion the push to the right proved disastrous, as the Tories' general election disasters in 2001 and 2005 proved. So in a sense they have done exactly what the public seemed to want. In fact, 'seemed to want' sounds a bit weak. 'Clearly wanted' is better.

So if you move the same positions Labour has, this will work? I am not so sure....leadership is a factor and platform both have to mesh. I would suggest in the other 3 leaders, the platform wasn't quite what the voters may have wanted in your opinion, but a strong leader who can campaign effectively can sell what the others cannot. None of those 3 I suggest was good at selling their leadership.

[Dave B]

A few months ago it looked like a certain tory victory, all Cameron had to do was keep his mouth shut. But every time his flappy jaw opens and gibberish comes flooding out it reminds the public exactly why they should never be back in power.

Rarely has an incumbent government been so unpopular, yet you look at the chief opposition and realise that it actually could be a lot worse. Cameron likes to adapt the Obama rhetoric about a "time for change", but unlike America there's no sweeping movement behind the opposition. Far from being a vote for change, a Conservative government would mean more of the same, only worse.

[Mark in Oshawa]

A few months ago it looked like a certain tory victory, all Cameron had to do was keep his mouth shut. But every time his flappy jaw opens and gibberish comes flooding out it reminds the public exactly why they should never be back in power.

Rarely has an incumbent government been so unpopular, yet you look at the chief opposition and realise that it actually could be a lot worse. Cameron likes to adapt the Obama rhetoric about a "time for change", but unlike America there's no sweeping movement behind the opposition. Far from being a vote for change, a Conservative government would mean more of the same, only worse.

From Afar that was my opinion. The Tories are running with almost the same sort of platform as the current government. Yet Ben Tells me that the Tories must not move to the right...go figure...

[Dave B]

With the Conservatives moving more to the centre, many of their traditional voters have abandoned them to support UKIP or the BNP. They're both undesirable parties in their own ways (unless you're a racist with no desire to see the economy recover) but they've positioned themselves as right-but-not-too-far-right wing parties that the Thatcherite / Tebbitist generation and mindset can feel comfortable with.

Thus the traditional Tory support is now diluted three ways, with UKIP and the BNP attracting a significant minority. It's scary that anybody could vote for these lunatics, but if it helps keep Cameron out of Number 10 then I'll tolerate it.

[Mark in Oshawa]

With the Conservatives moving more to the centre, many of their traditional voters have abandoned them to support UKIP or the BNP. They're both undesirable parties in their own ways (unless you're a racist with no desire to see the economy recover) but they've positioned themselves as right-but-not-too-far-right wing parties that the Thatcherite / Tebbitist generation and mindset can feel comfortable with.

Thus the traditional Tory support is now diluted three ways, with UKIP and the BNP attracting a significant minority. It's scary that anybody could vote for these lunatics, but if it helps keep Cameron out of Number 10 then I'll tolerate it.

I would suggest there is an element to what you are saying that I can agree with EXCEPT those votes are not real serious in the long term. People who say they might go for UKIP or the BNP in a poll may even vote that way if the local candidate isn't a total loon, but it is vote parking until Cameron is dumped as leader of the Tories. We saw it here in Canada when the Conservative movement imploded.

The fact is the UK for the most part is a two party state ( only two parties are taken really seriously) and the rest are fringe parties with little hope of power, and just a general hope to make some points. Since the Two parties are running for the same mushy middle squishy voters, the reality is no one is happy. I would argue that in many ways McCain's effort to slide the GOP to the center cost him any chance of victory (although after Dubya, I don't think an act of God would have helped McCain).

The reality is most democratic nations have maybe 2 parties that can win, and a host of fringe parties. The fringe parties are parking spaces often for the voters dissatisfied with the leader of the party they most identify with but they certainly wont vote for the other guy. Just like The Perot movement ensured Clinton won two elections, I suggest UKIP and BNP might be doing the same thing to this dingbat Cameron....

[BeansBeansBeans]

It is clear that the election is not going to be the foregone conclusion we all though it would be just a few months ago.

The threat of a Cameron government will certainly see me voting labour, though I live in a safe labour seat so my vote won't make that big a difference.

[MrJan]

The Tories have gone into this election with the main goal of showing what a bad job Labour have done rather than what the Conservatives can do to make it right. I know that is essentially the aim of politics but people have grown tired of it. I think that they've made too much of an effort to concentrate on tearing down the oppo and are beginning to realise that it might not work. I don't usually bother voting (don't want any of them in power really) but might go Labour this year just to try and stop Dave getting in.

[Mark]

It is clear that the election is not going to be the foregone conclusion we all though it would be just a few months ago.


Indeed, even after polling day, it may well not be entirely clear who will form the next government!

[christophulus]

It's almost as though the Tories don't want to win the election this time around, that seems to be the only explanation for why they've suddenly cocked up so dramatically.

So who do I vote for, as a first time voter?

Labour? No thanks, another five years of that and the country will be bankrupt, and I'll probably emigrate. I can't name one positive thing they've done in the past thirteen years, and this is speaking as someone who's graduating from uni this year with no real job prospects.

Dave and his Tories? Just a Labour clone - come up with some actual policies and maybe I'll come around, but it's a bit late now. (As an aside, maybe it's because I'm too young to remember Thatcher but I don't understand the hatred of Tories, as far as history lessons go they got the country back on a firm financial footing and got re-elected three times didn't they?)

Anything else will be a "protest" vote - i.e. a waste of time. It's certainly not an easy choice.

[EuroTroll]

Maybe the Tories should run with Boris Johnson instead?

I'd love to see that happen and see the result because he's such an anomaly in politics.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Maybe the Tories should run with Boris Johnson instead?

I'd love to see that happen and see the result, because he's such an anomaly in politics.

I like Boris Johnson but I dislike his politics and therefore wouldn't vote for him. I think he'd probably do quite well though on his personality alone.

[Mark]

I like Boris Johnson but I dislike his politics and therefore wouldn't vote for him. I think he'd probably do quite well though on his personality alone.

I do think Labours policies are reasonable ones. Labours main issue is with their leader, James Brown. He just doesn't have the charisma of the likes of Blair or Cameron.

They were saying on the news that they are going to wheel out Tony Blair for the election campaign, a risky strategy.

[MrJan]

Labour? No thanks, another five years of that and the country will be bankrupt, and I'll probably emigrate.

The 'credit-crunch' was a cyclical drop in the economy that happens as a matter of course. While Labour made a few odd decisions I don't think that the Tories would have handled it much better. The media also made it sound a lot worse than it actually was and panicked a lot of people which didn't help at all.

I also graduated from Uni with no reall job prospects, largely because employers in most industries would rather employ someone with A-levels and 2 years of job experience than someone with a degree. Too many people think that getting a degree is a good idea (I know that I did), in truth it isn't much use to anyone outside of medicine or law.

[Mark]

The 'credit-crunch' was a cyclical drop in the economy that happens as a matter of course. .

They were talking about that on the radio this morning too. How to prevent this happening again. And the interviewee said that you can't. It *will* happen again, the trick is to be able to spot it, and do something about it quickly.

The analogy he used is that we should have an effective fire brigade who can put out the fire in one room before it spreads to the rest of the house, and not let the entire thing burn down like we've just done.

[MrJan]

I do think Labours policies are reasonable ones. Labours main issue is with their leader, James Brown. He just doesn't have the charisma of the likes of Blair or Cameron.

I think that may start to work for him though, I know several people who feel sorry for him and think that he has been unfairly treated. I for one think that the public would feel different towards him if he was lucky enough to have been in power during a boom period.

[Mark]

I think that may start to work for him though, I know several people who feel sorry for him and think that he has been unfairly treated. I for one think that the public would feel different towards him if he was lucky enough to have been in power during a boom period.

That's unlikely to happen. We're going to be recovering from the credit crunch for at least the lifetime of the next parliament. I wouldn't find it surprising if Brown won this election, but the next one too?

[MrJan]

The analogy he used is that we should have an effective fire brigade who can put out the fire in one room before it spreads to the rest of the house, and not let the entire thing burn down like we've just done.

Has it burned down though? I'm still working, my brother and dad are still working. Some companies used it as an excuse to cut costs but on the whole I think that the media has made it sound a lot worse than it really was.

Also if people weren't so worried about spending then we would have been through this much quicker, sadly the newspapers told everyone that there was a recession and people stopped buying.

[MrJan]

That's unlikely to happen. We're going to be recovering from the credit crunch for at least the lifetime of the next parliament. I wouldn't find it surprising if Brown won this election, but the next one too?

No chance!! Merely a hypothetical scenario though, had Brown been in power at the beginning of Labour's tenure he would have looked like a much better leader. People don't tend to make allowances for that though.

[Mark]

Has it burned down though? I'm still working, my brother and dad are still working. Some companies used it as an excuse to cut costs but on the whole I think that the media has made it sound a lot worse than it really was.
.

Well, he was mostly referring to the banking sector. Which pretty much did implode during the crisis, or at least would have done if the government didn't step in.

The argument is that the regulation and structure of the banks should be in such a way as to allow investment banks to go out of business without the government needing to step in and without it having too much effect on the wider economy.

[Dave B]

Labours main issue is with their leader, James Brown.
I was about to pull you up on that one but remembered just in time that his name actually is James Gordon Brown! So long as he never, ever, feels like being a sex machine.... :s


They were saying on the news that they are going to wheel out Tony Blair for the election campaign, a risky strategy.
Probably about as wise as the Tories bringing out Norman Tebbit - assuming they can drag him away from assaulting Chinese children (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8529927.stm)!

Yes, anyway, this recession is terrible on paper but in reality I think the effects are far less dramatic than the media would have us believe. Having it rammed down our throats every time we buy a paper or turn on the news has, to a large extent, exaggerated the problem. And it's not as if the UK was alone - it was largely a worldwide phenomenon.

[MrJan]

...sex machine...


...assaulting Chinese children (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8529927.stm)!...


...rammed down our throats...

I hope that these things aren't linked :eek:

[RS]

Has it burned down though? I'm still working, my brother and dad are still working. Some companies used it as an excuse to cut costs but on the whole I think that the media has made it sound a lot worse than it really was.

Also if people weren't so worried about spending then we would have been through this much quicker, sadly the newspapers told everyone that there was a recession and people stopped buying.

Exactly! Personally speaking I wouldn't say this recession has affected me, and I say that as a small business owner.. and in fact the low interest rates of the last couple of years have actually been a welcome bonus.

Statistically this recession may have been longer and deeper than some past ones, but I think some of the action that the government has taken has helped to not make it's effects too severe especially compared to some previous ones.

Anyone who thinks the Tories would have isolated us from this recession had they been in power or that they are better at running the economy must have their heads in the sand - didn't the last 2 Tory PMs preside over recessions too?

Suffice to say I won't be voting for Dave 'Broken Britain™' Cameron or his silly little catchphrases.

[MJW]

webcameron the new name for Dave TV?

[ArrowsFA1]

webcameron the new name for Dave TV?
Dave (http://uktv.co.uk/dave/homepage/sid/5002). The home of witty comedy banter :p

[BDunnell]

So if you move the same positions Labour has, this will work? I am not so sure....leadership is a factor and platform both have to mesh. I would suggest in the other 3 leaders, the platform wasn't quite what the voters may have wanted in your opinion, but a strong leader who can campaign effectively can sell what the others cannot. None of those 3 I suggest was good at selling their leadership.

They weren't, certainly, but the fact remains that the policies didn't chime with enough voters either. Therefore, the progression towards the centre is inevitable.

[Rollo]

The 'credit-crunch' was a cyclical drop in the economy that happens as a matter of course. While Labour made a few odd decisions I don't think that the Tories would have handled it much better. The media also made it sound a lot worse than it actually was and panicked a lot of people which didn't help at all.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-pledges-to-punish-bankers-1128207.html

At the height of the financial crisis, Cameron made whinings that he intended to lock bankers up, but also said that he would intend to do nothing about fixing the regulative framework which allowed them to operate in the first place.
This would have been probably unpopular with the subscribers to the Tory party no doubt.

There's nothing like alienating your own financial base is there?

[Malbec]

So if you move the same positions Labour has, this will work? I am not so sure....leadership is a factor and platform both have to mesh. I would suggest in the other 3 leaders, the platform wasn't quite what the voters may have wanted in your opinion, but a strong leader who can campaign effectively can sell what the others cannot. None of those 3 I suggest was good at selling their leadership.

You forget Mark that Labour moved into traditional Tory territory, particularly the area occupied by the left wing of the Tory party and hasn't really left it since. David Cameron is effectively returning the Tory party to where it belonged before the anti-European right wing extremist part of the Tory party hijacked it in the later Thatcher years. Cameron is far closer in position to the likes of Ted Heath and earlier Conservative politicians.

As Ben has pointed out going to the right wing fringe hurt the Tories more, their rabidly anti-immigration policies at the time which often bordered on direct racism may have attracted the Daily Mail brigade but lost the support of many business leaders and had them ostracised by urban young professionals, traditional Tory voters.

The main reason why Labour and the Tories don't differ too much in policy though is because both are going to be handcuffed regardless of philosophy by the need to ruthlessly slash public spending. The only thing they can do is convince the public that they will do it in a nicer way than the other (whatever that means).

[Daniel]

The 'credit-crunch' was a cyclical drop in the economy that happens as a matter of course. While Labour made a few odd decisions I don't think that the Tories would have handled it much better. The media also made it sound a lot worse than it actually was and panicked a lot of people which didn't help at all.

I also graduated from Uni with no reall job prospects, largely because employers in most industries would rather employ someone with A-levels and 2 years of job experience than someone with a degree. Too many people think that getting a degree is a good idea (I know that I did), in truth it isn't much use to anyone outside of medicine or law.

Couldn't agree more. I dropped out of uni and found that the practical experience gained in my time outside of uni has been more beneficial than degrees have been for the people I went to UNi with.

[Daniel]

I think that may start to work for him though, I know several people who feel sorry for him and think that he has been unfairly treated. I for one think that the public would feel different towards him if he was lucky enough to have been in power during a boom period.

He certainly has been treated unfairly IMHO. UP until 2007 everyone was making lots of money, driving nice cars and buying nice houses and if we apply Tory logic this was all down to one man, Gordon Brown.

[Rollo]

The truth is that in opposition you don't actually have to come up with any real policy, because in practice it's not going to be enacted until you regain government.
Of course Tory logic would apply everything down to one man, Gordon Brown, because that way, you don't have to attack policy or even suggest anything yourself. All the Tories need to do on the run up to the next election, is prove why Labour isn't fit for government.

In Westminster parliaments, political parties tend not to win government. Governments tend to be voted out on the whole.

[Daniel]

The truth is that in opposition you don't actually have to come up with any real policy, because in practice it's not going to be enacted until you regain government.
Of course Tory logic would apply everything down to one man, Gordon Brown, because that way, you don't have to attack policy or even suggest anything yourself. All the Tories need to do on the run up to the next election, is prove why Labour isn't fit for government.

In Westminster parliaments, political parties tend not to win government. Governments tend to be voted out on the whole.
Rather true. But I think this election might just be different.

[Dave B]

They were saying on the news that they are going to wheel out Tony Blair for the election campaign, a risky strategy.
He's currently speaking live on the news (from IMML's old neck of the woods ;) )

[Malbec]

Has it burned down though? I'm still working, my brother and dad are still working. Some companies used it as an excuse to cut costs but on the whole I think that the media has made it sound a lot worse than it really was.

Also if people weren't so worried about spending then we would have been through this much quicker, sadly the newspapers told everyone that there was a recession and people stopped buying.

We've been saved by government spending, whether its through shoring up the banking sector or cutting VAT and conjuring up a subsidy for the car industry. Problem is that the government cannot afford to continue spending as it has done given that tax income has fallen through the floor.

When the government does compensate by cutting spending and raising taxes then we're in danger of a bigger hit than from the initial credit crunch.

Think about it, a 10% spending cut in just one government branch like the NHS will result in a hit to the economy roughly equivalent or greater than a large British company going down, and unlike companies that will affect every county in Britain equally.

Globally I think the greatest problem facing the economy is what happens when governments reduce spending to cut deficits. Most economies are dependent on that since the governments are the only people still spending. It could easily tip us into a second and harder recession.

[Daniel]

I take issue with the inclusion of the scrappage scheme.

For instance with our 500 we paid £1200 or so of VAT and the government only put 1k in. Now of course others bought cheaper cars but others also bought more expensive cars. I'd be very surprised if the scrappage scheme really cost the govt all that much. The Fiat dealer we bought our car from had to hire people to cope with the extra demand as well....

[Rollo]

For instance with our 500 we paid £1200 or so of VAT and the government only put 1k in. Now of course others bought cheaper cars but others also bought more expensive cars. I'd be very surprised if the scrappage scheme really cost the govt all that much. The Fiat dealer we bought our car from had to hire people to cope with the extra demand as well....

If the government collects more than the £1000 in VAT then is it actually money ahead? Would these purchases have happened in the scheme wasn't in place?
If VAT stands at 15% then I figure that the government turns a profit on every car sold under the scheme if it sells for £7601 and above including VAT.

What is the average cost of a new car? £10,000? The government stumped up £300m for the scheme which equates to a "subsidy" on 300,000 cars.

At the old rate of 15% the cost base of a car ex-VAT is £8695.65 leaving £1304 in VAT or £304 in effective profit for the government per car under the scheme. If you then multiply that £304 by the 300,000 cars you get a tidy profit for the government of £91.2 million on the scrappage scheme, that's not even including the increase in VAT on cars to 17.5% at Jan 1st.

[Daniel]

Of course some of these purchases would have gone ahead but if we went on the sales in 2008 and how the economy was then I suspect a lot of purchases only happened because of scrappage.

[Malbec]

I take issue with the inclusion of the scrappage scheme.

For instance with our 500 we paid £1200 or so of VAT and the government only put 1k in. Now of course others bought cheaper cars but others also bought more expensive cars. I'd be very surprised if the scrappage scheme really cost the govt all that much. The Fiat dealer we bought our car from had to hire people to cope with the extra demand as well....

I agree that in theory the government shouldn't lose much if any money off each car bought through the scrappage system, but that also assumes that every single car bought through that scheme wouldn't have been sold otherwise.

Also the government did give out loads of soft loans to car companies that needed it to tide them over. In addition, globally Britain is I think unique in that they got the car companies to pay into the scrappage scheme themselves.

Even with the scrappage schemes going on car sales in most markets bar China are not as high as they were pre-crunch. How would they be when the schemes are withdrawn?

[Daniel]

I agree that in theory the government shouldn't lose much if any money off each car bought through the scrappage system, but that also assumes that every single car bought through that scheme wouldn't have been sold otherwise.

Also the government did give out loads of soft loans to car companies that needed it to tide them over. In addition, globally Britain is I think unique in that they got the car companies to pay into the scrappage scheme themselves.

Even with the scrappage schemes going on car sales in most markets bar China are not as high as they were pre-crunch. How would they be when the schemes are withdrawn?
These are the exact reasons why I tend to disagree with those who say scrappage is an economic failure.

If not for scrappage it's a certainty that a lot of dealers would have gone to the wall and the knock on effect of that would not have been good at all.

[Malbec]

These are the exact reasons why I tend to disagree with those who say scrappage is an economic failure.

If not for scrappage it's a certainty that a lot of dealers would have gone to the wall and the knock on effect of that would not have been good at all.

Its not the dealers we should have been worried about, its the supply tier that keeps the British car industry alive that we should protect. Thats what the scrappage system was there for, and yes it was utterly necessary. It can't last forever though...

[Mark in Oshawa]

You forget Mark that Labour moved into traditional Tory territory, particularly the area occupied by the left wing of the Tory party and hasn't really left it since. David Cameron is effectively returning the Tory party to where it belonged before the anti-European right wing extremist part of the Tory party hijacked it in the later Thatcher years. Cameron is far closer in position to the likes of Ted Heath and earlier Conservative politicians.

As Ben has pointed out going to the right wing fringe hurt the Tories more, their rabidly anti-immigration policies at the time which often bordered on direct racism may have attracted the Daily Mail brigade but lost the support of many business leaders and had them ostracised by urban young professionals, traditional Tory voters.

The main reason why Labour and the Tories don't differ too much in policy though is because both are going to be handcuffed regardless of philosophy by the need to ruthlessly slash public spending. The only thing they can do is convince the public that they will do it in a nicer way than the other (whatever that means).

Well I can remember how Heath's policies didn't do much to get the UK on a better economic plan than what Labour did. I don't doubt Labour has gone to the right, they had to. I think they were just out on a limb before Blair showed up.

I don't know enough about my British history to say 100% for sure where the Tories were in the last 40 years, but the fact is Thatcher stayed in power through 3 elections? Majority governments too. I realize the Falklands war saved her bacon in the first term she had, but she was a leader and a strong one. Love her or hate her, she stood for something. Not one Tory Leader in my adult life has stood out for me based on what we see over here in the international news.

Tony Blair won with great style because he STOOD for something and was a LEADER. Strong leadership will sell a platform, weak or uncharsimatic leaders wont. Where the platform is vs the public sentiment can to an extent NOT matter. That said, it is easier to be something different from your opposition if you are DIFFERENT from your opposition. Where you are I think underestimating this is saying that Thatcher was too exterme on immigration. I don't think that is why she stayed in power really. She stayed in power because she addressed the issue of unions in a manner that obviously struck the populace as a good solution. She got the government out of a lot of fields they were in and losing money in the process. This may or may not be the right thing in your mind or my mind, but I think it was what got her her majorities in her later terms as well. What you want or believe may not matter for much if you cannot strike the chord that needs to be struck with the electorate. Cameron cant strike that chord, because as you point out, they have kept some of the policies Labour has. I still think if he had a sensibly right of center platform with some concessions to political realities, he might be better off. Oh ya..that and a personality transplant.

[Rollo]

Tony Blair won with great style because he STOOD for something and was a LEADER.

Major couldn't even resign as Tory leader properly in 1995 when he mysteriously won against Redwood. I even remember my Gran who lived in Y Bala, complaining that as Secretary for Wales that he (Redwood) didn't speak a word of Welsh.


In Westminster parliaments, political parties tend not to win government. Governments tend to be voted out on the whole.

Tony Blair won because he was BREATHING. A shaved chimp could have won against Major in 1997.

[BDunnell]

Tony Blair won with great style because he STOOD for something

Which was...? I don't mean some vague notion of 'change', but a political philosophy.

[wedge]

Which was...? I don't mean some vague notion of 'change', but a political philosophy.

Thatcherism? Centrist? Modernist?

[Dave B]

These are the exact reasons why I tend to disagree with those who say scrappage is an economic failure.

If not for scrappage it's a certainty that a lot of dealers would have gone to the wall and the knock on effect of that would not have been good at all.

There's a good article in today's Times which explains the mathematics of the scrappage scheme:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article7086207.ece

[Daniel]

ROFL :) That is FANTASTIC, I've been going on about the VAT aspect for ages and it's not like it was something hard to realise either.

Whilst of course some people who bought on scrappage were going to buy anyway and the govt has effectively lost £1000 out on that I think the benefits in terms of jobs which weren't lost more than makes up for that.

[Rollo]

From the Times:
and a Treasury windfall profit of £101 million.

From moi:

If you then multiply that £304 by the 300,000 cars you get a tidy profit for the government of £91.2 million on the scrappage scheme

I think I came rather close using slightly dodgy reasoning and rough maths.

[Malbec]

Where you are I think underestimating this is saying that Thatcher was too exterme on immigration. I don't think that is why she stayed in power really.

I agree with most of your post Mark except for this. I wasn't actually referring to Thatcher's immigration policies but of the Tories after being beaten by Blair but before Cameron came along. I refer to the exact same period that Ben did in his earlier posts where the Conservatives lurched to the right in reaction to Blair and failed miserably. That is why the Conservatives had no choice but to elect a centrist leader and Cameron has no choice but to send the party back to the middle too.

BTW Blair didn't really stand for anything except change, his entire election campaign in 1997 was very similar to Camerons now with a lack of detail as to what his policies actually were and more focus on what he wasn't, ie Conservative. In fact if you were to define Blair's politics in terms of actual policies (discarding Iraq and his vision of what parliamentary democracy actually meant in everyday political life) you'd have a hard time beyond talking vaguely about increasing private control of the state apparatus and being rather overly sensitive to public opinion. This is unlike Thatcher where you can talk about loosening the grip of the unions on industry, privatising state owned assets or reforming the economy.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I agree with most of your post Mark except for this. I wasn't actually referring to Thatcher's immigration policies but of the Tories after being beaten by Blair but before Cameron came along. I refer to the exact same period that Ben did in his earlier posts where the Conservatives lurched to the right in reaction to Blair and failed miserably. That is why the Conservatives had no choice but to elect a centrist leader and Cameron has no choice but to send the party back to the middle too.

BTW Blair didn't really stand for anything except change, his entire election campaign in 1997 was very similar to Camerons now with a lack of detail as to what his policies actually were and more focus on what he wasn't, ie Conservative. In fact if you were to define Blair's politics in terms of actual policies (discarding Iraq and his vision of what parliamentary democracy actually meant in everyday political life) you'd have a hard time beyond talking vaguely about increasing private control of the state apparatus and being rather overly sensitive to public opinion. This is unlike Thatcher where you can talk about loosening the grip of the unions on industry, privatising state owned assets or reforming the economy.

Well, as someone viewing from a far casually, I will leave it there. I guess where the center is can be often seen as a moving target, and sometimes, the center isn't the place to be.

I do know in Canada, our democratic system is often lurching slowly right even as the right leaning PM juggles a minority and gives more than ample lip service to the opposition to stay in power.

[Hondo]

I don't think it matters who gets elected anymore. The damage is done and you're stuck. Oh, you can banter over meaningless stuff like fox hunting or stopping toothpick crime and other meaningless nonsense.

Governments, especially those with vast social spending, are deep in debt. So deep, that they have to expand the government to figure out how to get out of debt. No matter which party gets in, the only real solution is to cut government spending and increase "fees" and taxes. Not cutting back on the size of government means vastly increasing "fees" and taxes. Of course, whenever the government talks about cutting costs they go right to the scare you mode and talk about cutting police, firefighter, and education services. Not a single one of them will be willing to give up their expense allowances or allow a position vacated by retirement to remain unfilled. They refuse to make the sacrifices they demand from you.

Whichever party wins will have to make some unpopular choices.

[Mark]

Whichever party wins will have to make some unpopular choices.

Very true. And I'll make a prediction now. That whoever wins this election, won't win the next one.

[Malbec]

Very true. And I'll make a prediction now. That whoever wins this election, won't win the next one.

Depends on how long the recession lasts, if its short the guys who win the current election will take credit for the recovery in time for the next one.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Depends on how long the recession lasts, if its short the guys who win the current election will take credit for the recovery in time for the next one.

You are assuming there will be a recovery in the next year? That is a faint hope....this one is going to linger..and people are not as guillable now as people were in the 30's..

[Malbec]

You are assuming there will be a recovery in the next year? That is a faint hope....this one is going to linger..and people are not as guillable now as people were in the 30's..

The next election will be in about 5 years time, there is a possibility that Britain will be in recovery by then, though admittedly small.

[Mark]

We will be in recovery then, we're in recovery now! But government spending will remain low, and will likely to do for around a decade!

[Rollo]

nDOxu9lNuYo

I don't suggest anyone actually watch this video as it's dead boring, but I do have a question though.

What mobile phone network is he on? Orange? He looks similar in colour to Matt Neal's Halfords Computeach Hondas from a few years back. Seriously.

He may as well be doing adverts for the RAC, he looks like he could blend into one of their breakdown vans.
There's your reason why Colin Turkington still hasn't got a drive in this year's BTCC. RAC have painted Blair and are using him as an advert standing out the front of one of their offices on the Tottenham Court Road innit?

[slorydn1]

No matter how it comes out, I love the way y'all handle elections over there. Here its every 4 years, and the next cycle starts 1 1/2 to 2 years before election day...Its non stop nuttyness, I tell you....

[Mark in Oshawa]

The next election will be in about 5 years time, there is a possibility that Britain will be in recovery by then, though admittedly small.
You of course are assuming one of these dingbats will have a majority government. We have had about 4 minorities in the last 5 trips to the polls, hence about 3 of them were elections of weak leaders trying to gain that majority.

Britain is lagging most of the G7 nations in growth are they not? Much of it due to a lot of debt per GDP and some weak sector growth. If the government that gains power doesn't do something that helps the situation, or rather lets the economy heal itself (much speculation was the Depression was made worse by the "New Deal") may or may not change things.

[Mark]

No matter how it comes out, I love the way y'all handle elections over there. Here its every 4 years, and the next cycle starts 1 1/2 to 2 years before election day...Its non stop nuttyness, I tell you....

Most of the time it's every 4 years here, but the official term is 5 years. Only governments who are not popular go the full 5 years, hence this one did!

There's proposals on the table to make parliaments fixed term for 4 years, although I don't see the problem with the current system where a government can call an election any time it likes.

Although the election campaign has been rumbling on here for a good six months now, we really only get 4 weeks of proper campaigning.

One change this time is that we're going to get televised debates, which while they sound interesting, may well not be!

[slorydn1]

One change this time is that we're going to get televised debates, which while they sound interesting, may well not be!

IF the debates are anything like ours, that'll be pretty cool. You'll enjoy that-seeing the candidates on stage, on camera, and away from their "handlers". You'll be able to see them flinch when they get a question they didn't expect, and how they deal with it. That's the only cool part of our election cycle, the televised debates. The non stop campaigning is for the birds. Our politicians spend more time campaigning than governing.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Most of the time it's every 4 years here, but the official term is 5 years. Only governments who are not popular go the full 5 years, hence this one did!

There's proposals on the table to make parliaments fixed term for 4 years, although I don't see the problem with the current system where a government can call an election any time it likes.

Although the election campaign has been rumbling on here for a good six months now, we really only get 4 weeks of proper campaigning.

One change this time is that we're going to get televised debates, which while they sound interesting, may well not be!

The Canadian system is toying with the fixed election dates and doing away with the majority government just calling an election when they think they can win. The minorities of course have to stand on their own of lose the confidence of the house as always. I am sort of on the fence for it, because I believe the fixed date elections in the US means the whole last year of the term is just filled with political meandering and campaigning, and little actual governing. In short, the never ending election cycle of US politics is wearing and actually harms the process. The man on the street I suspect just tunes it all out, and he shouldn't have to. He should be engaged, but it just wears you out....

As for the Debates...no one wins in those, but people lose usually...

[BDunnell]

IF the debates are anything like ours, that'll be pretty cool. You'll enjoy that-seeing the candidates on stage, on camera, and away from their "handlers". You'll be able to see them flinch when they get a question they didn't expect, and how they deal with it. That's the only cool part of our election cycle, the televised debates. The non stop campaigning is for the birds. Our politicians spend more time campaigning than governing.

It is worth pointing out that we see this all the time in the UK, thanks to the nature of Parliamentary debates and the hardest-hitting examples of political interviewing. In fact, the UK election debates are bound to be far more bland affairs than much of the grilling the party leaders already get, because of the way they are being structured.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I find political debates need a strong but FAIR moderator, and if you don't have that, it just becomes a waste of time. I hope in the great tradition of British debates, that this one is a good one.

As I have said tho, it is rare any leader looks BETTER than the others, but a slip up here will LOSE an election as well.

I am betting right now on a minority government. I just have a feeling that the electorate may just park their votes with the Libreal-Democrats to an extent and you will end up with a minority parliament. I look at the way this is shaping up, and it reminds me a lot of the last few Canadian elections...the electorate isn't happy with any of the choices...

[Hondo]

In the USA we have our Congress and Senate and the UK has Parliament. The USA has their Republicans (supposedly conservative) and Democrats ( liberal) and the UK has the Tories and labour.

For years, all three institutions have been like a whorehouse with a revolving door. The faces may change but the goods and services remain the same. We are all now in a hell of a mess that I doubt there is a way out of without inflicting hardship on a lot of people. I can't help but wonder if the time has come to remove the voting privilege from those that contribute little or nothing to the big government money pile. Alas, I digress.

Anyway, the races are now so tight that labour is asking the Liberal Democrats to support them and in the USA the Republicans are asking a new conservative movement, The Tea Party, to support them. All of this to prevent splitting the vote amongst those groups with similar interests. I say BULLCRAP! The Republicans and Labour have had many a chance to govern and both share some of the blame for us being in the mess we are now. I think Labour ought to throw their support behind the Liberal Democrats and the Republicans ought to join and support the Tea Party.

Let's see some new faces. They can't mess it up any more than it is now.

[BDunnell]

I find political debates need a strong but FAIR moderator, and if you don't have that, it just becomes a waste of time. I hope in the great tradition of British debates, that this one is a good one.

I must say I think that these debates will be far worse than the regular round of political interviewing. The people presenting them aren't the hardest-hitting broadcasters around, and the format won't be conducive to the leaders getting a rough ride, because time for questions from the public is strictly limited.

[Mark in Oshawa]

In the USA we have our Congress and Senate and the UK has Parliament. The USA has their Republicans (supposedly conservative) and Democrats ( liberal) and the UK has the Tories and labour.

For years, all three institutions have been like a whorehouse with a revolving door. The faces may change but the goods and services remain the same. We are all now in a hell of a mess that I doubt there is a way out of without inflicting hardship on a lot of people. I can't help but wonder if the time has come to remove the voting privilege from those that contribute little or nothing to the big government money pile. Alas, I digress.

Anyway, the races are now so tight that labour is asking the Liberal Democrats to support them and in the USA the Republicans are asking a new conservative movement, The Tea Party, to support them. All of this to prevent splitting the vote amongst those groups with similar interests. I say BULLCRAP! The Republicans and Labour have had many a chance to govern and both share some of the blame for us being in the mess we are now. I think Labour ought to throw their support behind the Liberal Democrats and the Republicans ought to join and support the Tea Party.

Let's see some new faces. They can't mess it up any more than it is now.

Alas, it isn't that simple in the parliamentry democracy as is practiced over there Fiero. The Liberal Democrats I suspect are similar in platform to the other two, AND they are not a party advocating radical change, unlike the Tea Party people, who will use the primaries to put their own candidates into infect the Republican party. In a parliamentry system, you get the most seats, your leader becomes PM. He is in the House of Commons and fighting it out day to day like any other MP in a sense.

So the street fight to be a majority party will be hot, tense, and none of the 3 parties is advocating more change, but more nuances and subtle shifts. Unlike the US system, the two major parties in the UK are fighting for the same political turf more often than not and the Liberal Democrats WONT win, but WILL be the balance of power likely in a minority situation. It will likely mean another election in the next year to year and a half. Minorities are not all bad tho. Government slows down on stupidity in passing radical change, consesus is the only way to make law, and they tend to not do anything to hurt the country....lol

[Mark in Oshawa]

I must say I think that these debates will be far worse than the regular round of political interviewing. The people presenting them aren't the hardest-hitting broadcasters around, and the format won't be conducive to the leaders getting a rough ride, because time for questions from the public is strictly limited.\

Well that is too bad. A good debate can help get the populace enthused to actually get off their rear ends and vote. It usually works tho that the worst broadcasters will end up running the debates. We have had some real lame moderators in the last few elections...

[Daniel]

Watching the Labour manifesto being launched at the moment and I must say Brown is coming across very well and seems to be a completely different leader to the one we saw in 2007-2009.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Watching the Labour manifesto being launched at the moment and I must say Brown is coming across very well and seems to be a completely different leader to the one we saw in 2007-2009.

He hasn't anyone grilling him right there either. It is why leaders put themselves in the bubble for the most part. Never have anyone asking awkward questions.....mind you, the press shouldn't be giving anyone a free ride in an election, but I know I have seen it in the past.

[Daniel]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8616777.stm

Wow, what a load of pointless BS window dressing populist bullturd! Power to the people. Power to the people my butt! Most people are morons, I don't want everyday people to have any more control over my life than they already do.

Now I don't think it's necessarily bad a bad thing to want your local post office or school to stay open or to be able to sack your local MP, but for this to be the basis of the Tory manifesto is just hilariously stupid.

[RS]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8616777.stm

Wow, what a load of pointless BS window dressing populist bullturd! Power to the people. Power to the people my butt! Most people are morons, I don't want everyday people to have any more control over my life than they already do.

Now I don't think it's necessarily bad a bad thing to want your local post office or school to stay open or to be able to sack your local MP, but for this to be the basis of the Tory manifesto is just hilariously stupid.

:D +1

I read the Tory manifesto stuff, nothing in there made me think 'yeah, I want to vote for them'. Their broadcast this evening was similarly empty.

[Rollo]

"How can you afford to make things better when there is no money?"
- David Cameron's speech.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8617789.stm

I would have thought that the answer is written in front of him... Vote For Change.
Obviously if there was a 99p coin, then millions every year would be saved on change.

[Mark in Oshawa]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8616777.stm

Wow, what a load of pointless BS window dressing populist bullturd! Power to the people. Power to the people my butt! Most people are morons, I don't want everyday people to have any more control over my life than they already do.



Damn those little people demanding things like rights and their tax money being spent wisely. Damn them..don't they know their better's are going to make things work. We don't need the voice of the common man cluttering up our agenda to make their life "better"!!

Elitism is always ugly Daniel.....

[Mark]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8616777.stm

Wow, what a load of pointless BS window dressing populist bullturd! Power to the people. Power to the people my butt! Most people are morons, I don't want everyday people to have any more control over my life than they already do.


Yep, precisely! Lets have a group of local people running things. Which sounds fine in principle, but lets consider that the majority of us are very busy, working, raising a family, and just life in general to devote time to such matters. So who are you going to get on such panels? Most likely retired people who think all the 'darkies' should be sent home, no doubt.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

The problem with giving power to the people is that it will just the people with the loudest voice that get heard.

In other words 'gobsh!tes'.

[Mark]

The problem with giving power to the people is that it will just the people with the loudest voice that get heard.

In other words 'gobsh!tes'.

And in my experience, the people who shout the loudest are least representative of the majority.

[Daniel]

Exactly.

[Mark in Oshawa]

You guys really don't get it do you? It isn't that the locals don't have time to run things, but this attitude the common man is an idiot and it is you "experienced" and "educated" men know better is the problem. Listen, most of the common down in the factories can be yobs. Hey, I will say there are lots of loud mouths everywhere. But god forbid the only people ever elected to office are people who think they are better than everyone else because they are "wise" and know better. Arrogance we can do without. There is reason most polititicians tend to be lawyers...because they are the only ones who can afford to spend that much money to get into parliament to create laws that just create more work for more lawyers.

The common man would be there 3 hours, say this is all simply rubbish, draft up something simple enough everyone could grasp, and knock off to the pub.

There has to be a middle ground, and since the guy who is an idiot has the same vote as you do, it wouldn't hurt to at least listen to why he is exercised over why the world is screwed up. He may not be right, but ignore him too long at your peril....

[Daniel]

You guys really don't get it do you? It isn't that the locals don't have time to run things, but this attitude the common man is an idiot and it is you "experienced" and "educated" men know better is the problem. Listen, most of the common down in the factories can be yobs. Hey, I will say there are lots of loud mouths everywhere. But god forbid the only people ever elected to office are people who think they are better than everyone else because they are "wise" and know better. Arrogance we can do without. There is reason most polititicians tend to be lawyers...because they are the only ones who can afford to spend that much money to get into parliament to create laws that just create more work for more lawyers.

The common man would be there 3 hours, say this is all simply rubbish, draft up something simple enough everyone could grasp, and knock off to the pub.

There has to be a middle ground, and since the guy who is an idiot has the same vote as you do, it wouldn't hurt to at least listen to why he is exercised over why the world is screwed up. He may not be right, but ignore him too long at your peril....

No one is saying the common man doesn't know what they want. The problem is that he doesn't have the slightest effing idea of how to actually get it. That's why we have government in the first place.

[Mark in Oshawa]

No one is saying the common man doesn't know what they want. The problem is that he doesn't have the slightest effing idea of how to actually get it. That's why we have government in the first place.

uuuh no. The reason we have government is to regulate and protect society, not to dance about the country every election promising a chicken in every pot. Where the common man needs a kick in the pants is somehow he let these wastrels con him into believing government can do many great things, and when government fails, they insist with just a bit more, they can get it done. Sucker's game if you ask me..

Best way to have Government? Let them protect the realm, collect taxes and regulate commerce, create and run the justice system, and protect the rights of the citizenry to live in peace. Toss in health care and education funding and THAT really should be the end of it. Anything else is just fooling people...

[Daniel]

uuuh no. The reason we have government is to regulate and protect society, not to dance about the country every election promising a chicken in every pot. Where the common man needs a kick in the pants is somehow he let these wastrels con him into believing government can do many great things, and when government fails, they insist with just a bit more, they can get it done. Sucker's game if you ask me..

Best way to have Government? Let them protect the realm, collect taxes and regulate commerce, create and run the justice system, and protect the rights of the citizenry to live in peace. Toss in health care and education funding and THAT really should be the end of it. Anything else is just fooling people...
I'm going to be controversial and say that I'm generally happy at the way the UK is governed at a national level. The credit crunch was caused by the banks and everyday people both getting greedy. No one was complaining about Labour and financial regulation when their houses were worth a crapload more than what they'd paid for them a few short years before and they could get a flashy new car easily on credit....

[christophulus]

I'm pretty sceptical about the Conservative plans too, while this might work in a sleepy English village I can't see it being effective anywhere else. It seems a bit half baked, and the idea of parents opening their own schools, presumably with the freedom to teach whatever crap they see fit worries me.

[Rollo]

You comment about the credit cruch and fiscal responsibility is valid but:


I'm going to be controversial and say that I'm generally happy at the way the UK is governed at a national level.

At national level, 144 MPs aren't running again because of reasons connected with the great expenses scandal; the most famous examples being expenses being claimed for living in "switched houses", duck islands and moat cleaning.
The only creativity that the current political generation has shown is its fiddling of expense accounts.

The last time that rorting on a scale like this happened, a chap called Charlie suddenly found that he had a great weight taken off his shoulders.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I'm going to be controversial and say that I'm generally happy at the way the UK is governed at a national level. The credit crunch was caused by the banks and everyday people both getting greedy. No one was complaining about Labour and financial regulation when their houses were worth a crapload more than what they'd paid for them a few short years before and they could get a flashy new car easily on credit....

Daniel, the problem is the national treasury is being run by people who have overextended the nation's financial situation. It has been to an extent excusable on some levels, but when you realize the government is far more able to react to crisis when they are not in hock past YOUR eyeballs ( as you are the one's eventually paying the debt, or rather your kids and grandkids will).

Labour I suspect isn't any more inept than the Conservatives, but as it was discussed, both parties are so busy trying to be each other that I wouldn't blame you guys for just going in and spoiling your ballot.

The fact is, I dislike most political parties, left and right when they act as if I can always afford to pay more taxes. AT some point, there is only ONE taxpayer, and when more than half of your income is ending up in government, then THAT is too much.

[Rollo]

Gordon Banks - MP for Ochil and South Perthshire

http://www.gordonbanks.info/

For the past five years I have been the Member of Parliament for Ochil & South Perthshire – a job which I am immensely proud and honoured to hold.

An MP’s job is much more than being in Westminster. Sometimes it involves saving shots by Pelé, winning the World Cup for England and playing for Stoke City.

If anyone can "save the nation" it would be him :D

[Rollo]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gfqRu1_kG1Y1Lp7sCF1j7kSs_04g

A dead man was elected mayor of a small Tennessee town eager to oust a woman who'd been appointed to the job after the previous mayor died, local media reports.
Carl Robin Geary Sr., a local alderman known for "straight-talk" and always wearing overalls, was a candidate for mayor when he died of a heart attack on March 10.
He defeated incumbent Barbara Brock 268 votes to 85 in the town of Tracy City's election on Tuesday, the Chattanooga Times reported Friday.

"If he were to run again next week I'd vote for him again," Chris Rogers, owner of the town's Lunch Box restaurant, told the paper.
"I knew he was deceased. I know that sounds stupid, but we wanted someone other than her."

I wonder what the likelyhood (if it were possible) would be of Sir Winston Churchill if he appeared on a ballot paper as a candidate of winning his constituency. Would he as a person who's been dead for nearly 45, win the election?

"Oh yes."
- Churchill...

[Mark]

Why does that stuff always happen in America?
I'm pretty sure candidates in the UK have to be alive..

[Rudy Tamasz]

Best way to have Government? Let them protect the realm, collect taxes and regulate commerce, create and run the justice system, and protect the rights of the citizenry to live in peace. Toss in health care and education funding and THAT really should be the end of it. Anything else is just fooling people...

Agree. But the problem is people want to be fooled. First, they think life is fair and sometimes is even supposed to be luxurious. Wrong. Second, they want somebody (gov't, in this case) do things for them. Even more wrong. For whatever reasons both the expectations of quality of life and the reliance on the gov't increase. As a result people delegate too much authority to politicians and face the consequences they thoroughly deserve. People are no innocent victims of politics. More often than not they are the willing victims.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Eddie Izzard has urged voters to punish David Cameron for "slagging off" Britain.

In Labour's latest party political broadcast, the comedian insisted the country was "bloody brilliant" rather than "broken", as the Tories have claimed.

:up:
This is exactly how I felt when he Cameron started to moan about broken Britain.

[Daniel]

I feel exactly the same Jon, I don't consider myself British but I feel that saying that Britain is broken is a load of bs

[RS]

There's a good little decontruct of "Broken Britain" in this podcast here (listen from February 15th onwards):

http://www.absoluteradio.co.uk/djs_shows/shows/geoff/podcast_choice.html?m=02&y=2010

But you see, 'Broken Britain' is good illiteration, which is what you'd expect from the PR man leading the Tory party (who I notice also recently got SamCam pregnant for marketing purposes)

[Dave B]

I can't stand that phrase either. If politians want alliteration then Britain's a bit battered and bruised but basically bloody brilliant. :D

We've got our problems and it would be foolish to deny them, but we've got world leading schools and universities; a heathcare system which is the envy of much of the world; we punch well above our weight in many sports; we produce music, television and film which is enjoyed the world over; we make a significant contribution to foreign aid and peacekeeping... I could go on.

Now doubtless people will pick holes in any or all of the above, and for the benefit of the terminally stupid let me repeat: we're not perfect, we never claim to be. But to constantly belittle this country, its inhabitants and their achievments is a low and cowardly tactic.

I did notice that Cameron avoided the actual phrase last night - although he also avoided talking about much actual policy. I notice the idea that we could all run our own schools, police forces and the like didn't get a look-in - I wonder if it's been quietly dropped once it went down like a lead balloon with the public.

[Rollo]

If in the event that there is a hung parliament. Would Clegg broker a deal with one of the other two to create a coalition? If that were the case, then he might just score himself a cabinet position.

If memory serves me right, a coalition government was put on the table by the Lib-Dems and Blair. I think Paddy Ashdown would have been the leader back then.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

If in the event that there is a hung parliament. Would Clegg broker a deal with one of the other two to create a coalition? If that were the case, then he might just score himself a cabinet position.

If memory serves me right, a coalition government was put on the table by the Lib-Dems and Blair. I think Paddy Ashdown would have been the leader back then.

I'd prefer Vince Cable in the cabinet to Clegg.

[Daniel]

I can't stand that phrase either. If politians want alliteration then Britain's a bit battered and bruised but basically bloody brilliant. :D

We've got our problems and it would be foolish to deny them, but we've got world leading schools and universities; a heathcare system which is the envy of much of the world; we punch well above our weight in many sports; we produce music, television and film which is enjoyed the world over; we make a significant contribution to foreign aid and peacekeeping... I could go on.

Now doubtless people will pick holes in any or all of the above, and for the benefit of the terminally stupid let me repeat: we're not perfect, we never claim to be. But to constantly belittle this country, its inhabitants and their achievments is a low and cowardly tactic.

I did notice that Cameron avoided the actual phrase last night - although he also avoided talking about much actual policy. I notice the idea that we could all run our own schools, police forces and the like didn't get a look-in - I wonder if it's been quietly dropped once it went down like a lead balloon with the public.
Well it's a typically british thing to beat yourself or your own country up.

[Dave B]

Well it's a typically british thing to beat yourself or your own country up.
I know, and it frustrates me. I never want to get to the arrogance which seems prevelant in the USA, but it would be nice if we could occasionally big - rather than beat - ourselves up.

[BDunnell]

Agree. But the problem is people want to be fooled. First, they think life is fair and sometimes is even supposed to be luxurious. Wrong. Second, they want somebody (gov't, in this case) do things for them. Even more wrong. For whatever reasons both the expectations of quality of life and the reliance on the gov't increase. As a result people delegate too much authority to politicians and face the consequences they thoroughly deserve. People are no innocent victims of politics. More often than not they are the willing victims.

If people are so foolish as to be the 'willing victims' of politics, why should they be any less foolish if they assumed responsibility for the areas of authority that they have allowed to be delegated to politicians? I certainly wouldn't trust the vast majority of people with any level of authority whatsoever.

[BDunnell]

You guys really don't get it do you? It isn't that the locals don't have time to run things, but this attitude the common man is an idiot and it is you "experienced" and "educated" men know better is the problem.

Well, what's the point of an education, or indeed, experience, if it doesn't bestow on you a greater ability to do something than someone without that education or experience?

As I have said before, the wonderful democratising nature of the internet in particular seems to have given a lot of people with very little knowledge on certain subjects the idea that their views on said matters are suddenly of equal value to those of individuals who are genuinely knowledgeable. This is blatantly not the case.

[BDunnell]

Yep, precisely! Lets have a group of local people running things. Which sounds fine in principle, but lets consider that the majority of us are very busy, working, raising a family, and just life in general to devote time to such matters. So who are you going to get on such panels? Most likely retired people who think all the 'darkies' should be sent home, no doubt.

Exactly, exactly right.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Well, what's the point of an education, or indeed, experience, if it doesn't bestow on you a greater ability to do something than someone without that education or experience?

As I have said before, the wonderful democratising nature of the internet in particular seems to have given a lot of people with very little knowledge on certain subjects the idea that their views on said matters are suddenly of equal value to those of individuals who are genuinely knowledgeable. This is blatantly not the case.

It has gone beyond the internet now. As anyone who saw Jamelia's appearance on Yoof Question Time will know.

"I loved Margaret Thatcher because she was for working class people."

[Brown, Jon Brow]

It has gone beyond the internet now. As anyone who saw Jamelia's appearance on Yoof Question Time will know.

"I loved Margaret Thatcher because she was for working class people."

*shudders and cringes*

[V12]

We used to have a rhyme about Maggie in primary school:

Here's Maggie Thatcher (picture of stick man drawn on thumb)
flick her up and catch her (picture of stick man drawn on palm)
squish-squash-squish-squash (rub palms together)
there's Maggie Thatcher (scribble drawn on opposite palm)

Completely irrelevant and nowt to do with politics, we just found it funny at the time :P

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well, what's the point of an education, or indeed, experience, if it doesn't bestow on you a greater ability to do something than someone without that education or experience?



It is true, BUT here is the rub. Just because the elected leaders may BE smarter and more intelligent, it would be nice, just maybe more than a little considerate to not BRAG about how much smarter and wiser they are than the average joe. It is condescending and arrogant when you hear political types (and it can be from both political stripes) talk as if the little people don't know what they are talking about.

We know we are going to grow a political class. Most of the time, they are lawyers, because it is lawyers have the money and ability to debate and be that far out there. We all know as the electorate that the people we elect should be smart and educated. We also know that the smart and educated people have run deficits, driven the ship of state in to the ditch, and mismanaged the nation's finances. IN short, politicians for all their "wisdom" and education can still be screw ups. So the last thing they should ever be is smug or look down on the common man who in theory is paying his salary.

[jim mcglinchey]

[quote="Mark"]Yep, precisely! So who are you going to get on such panels?

Well, we could do alot worse than sojourn a lot of business people, large and small, from the private sector. People who know how to plan and stick to a budget. Too many politicians have an alarming lack of real world experience.

[EuroTroll]

I thoroughly enjoyed a Paxman interview with Cameron today, shown on BBC World News. There's something very pleasing in the style of British political discourse. There's real confrontation. Intelligent discussion. Verbal competence. Great to follow as an outsider who doesn't have to live with the actual consequences of the election, at least not directly.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I read online on a news service (through a FB news link...cant remember the original source) that they are calling for Cameron to win a minority government. I don't know if that is a good thing or not for some of you, but it seems to be the UK's fate. Now that the Liberal Democrats have a sizable chunk of the polls, I figure a minority will be the fate of the UK...

[christophulus]

Clegg says he won't work with Brown if there's a hung parliament, even though the incumbent PM stays in the job by default.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8642447.stm

Also, the voting system is massively skewed in favour of Labour. On the current share of the vote - Con 34%, Lab 28%, LD 29% - Labour would still be the biggest party. Conservatives need 40% for a majority:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8609989.stm

[BDunnell]

I thoroughly enjoyed a Paxman interview with Cameron today, shown on BBC World News. There's something very pleasing in the style of British political discourse. There's real confrontation. Intelligent discussion. Verbal competence. Great to follow as an outsider who doesn't have to live with the actual consequences of the election, at least not directly.

Excellent post.

[Sonic]

Clegg says he won't work with Brown if there's a hung parliament, even though the incumbent PM stays in the job by default.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8642447.stm

Also, the voting system is massively skewed in favour of Labour. On the current share of the vote - Con 34%, Lab 28%, LD 29% - Labour would still be the biggest party. Conservatives need 40% for a majority:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8609989.stm

Yes but Cam doesn't want proportional rep; the tories would never get in again as no one wants to work with them in a coalition.

[BTCC Fan#1]

What happened to my post from earlier today? :s

I saw a reply on hear earlier from Mark in Oshawa. Mark; my problem with Labours tax policy isn't the 50% tax rate (as you correctly guessed, I'm generally in favour), it's the successive shifting of the burden of taxation so that now someone on a lower wage pays more as a % of income than someone on a very high wage. To be fair it's not just a problem that has emerged under Labour, successive 'Read & Blue' governments have allowed the situation to arise.

[Mark in Oshawa]

What happened to my post from earlier today? :s

I saw a reply on hear earlier from Mark in Oshawa. Mark; my problem with Labours tax policy isn't the 50% tax rate (as you correctly guessed, I'm generally in favour), it's the successive shifting of the burden of taxation so that now someone on a lower wage pays more as a % of income than someone on a very high wage. To be fair it's not just a problem that has emerged under Labour, successive 'Read & Blue' governments have allowed the situation to arise.

Well...if people in the lower wage scales are paying MORE of their taxes percentage wise than the rich, then you have a valid point. Most tax systems in places like here or my friends to the south tho are really tipping towards the rich paying more. Which is fine..up to a point. In the US however, almost half the population pays NO income tax whatsoever. The top 1% of the population is paying 30% of the tax load, and the top 40% is paying close to 90% of the income tax take. Canada is a little more spread out but basically, you make more, you pay more perecentage wise. If the UK isn't doing that...then it really is run by idiots.

The whole problem with the tax system as practiced in the western world seems to be that it is so complicated and filled with loopholes that it is very easy for the government to mess about with various tax brackets to raise and lower taxes on target groups. This isn't fair...this is politics.

How much support do you think should there be on a flat tax, of VERY simplified flat tax. Poor pay 5%, middle class pay 20%, rich pay 30%, SUPER rich pay 35%.....or something like that. Take away all the loop holes. I bet if you took all that away, you could lay off a ton of people at Inland Revenue, put a lot of tax lawyers and accountants into another line of work, and the end result everyone would pay likely LESS tax percentage wise. Of course...it wont happen, because politicans hate any simple solutions.

I have said it more than once...If I lived in Britain this election, I would be spoiling my ballot....

[EuroTroll]

How much support do you think should there be on a flat tax, of VERY simplified flat tax. Poor pay 5%, middle class pay 20%, rich pay 30%, SUPER rich pay 35%.....or something like that. Take away all the loop holes. I bet if you took all that away, you could lay off a ton of people at Inland Revenue, put a lot of tax lawyers and accountants into another line of work, and the end result everyone would pay likely LESS tax percentage wise. Of course...it wont happen, because politicans hate any simple solutions.

The flat tax is actually gaining popularity around the world, albeit slowly. It's common though to countries whose public administration system is not so strong as to efficiently collect taxes under a complicated progressive system with many loopholes.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I believe in Change. Moving forward, by adopting 18th century Laissez-faire politics.

In times of hardship, we need to make sure the poorest are not given money to help them. We need to stop this welfare state! The poorest in society should instead help themselves, just as Laissez-faire Conservatives insisted the Irish did in the Potato Famine. To great success.

We need to make sure bankers and big private businesses are not given annoying regulations, but are free to do what they like with our economy. Because we've seen them do such an excellent job recently. And Laissez-faire policy was never behind any economic crash. Ever. Nope.

We need to give couples money if they get married, and then earn under a certain amount. Best achieved by one of the couple (preferably the wife) staying at home. Because we are progressive.

In poor areas there can be found many people with a lack of education. So we shall let these people teach their own children. This will raise education standards. As it did in early medieval Britain.

So if you want Change, then like me VOTE CONSERVATIVE!

[EuroTroll]

So if you want Change, then like me VOTE CONSERVATIVE!

I would.

[Garry Walker]

I believe in Change. Moving forward, by adopting 18th century Laissez-faire politics.

In times of hardship, we need to make sure the poorest are not given money to help them. We need to stop this welfare state! The poorest in society should instead help themselves, just as Laissez-faire Conservatives insisted the Irish did in the Potato Famine. To great success.

We need to make sure bankers and big private businesses are not given annoying regulations, but are free to do what they like with our economy. Because we've seen them do such an excellent job recently. And Laissez-faire policy was never behind any economic crash. Ever. Nope.

We need to give couples money if they get married, and then earn under a certain amount. Best achieved by one of the couple (preferably the wife) staying at home. Because we are progressive.

In poor areas there can be found many people with a lack of education. So we shall let these people teach their own children. This will raise education standards. As it did in early medieval Britain.

So if you want Change, then like me VOTE CONSERVATIVE!

Dont worry, by adopting left wing policies and having as many immigrants as possible, all problems will solve themselves and life will be like a rainbow and we can all sing kumbaya.

[Rollo]

How much support do you think should there be on a flat tax, of VERY simplified flat tax. Poor pay 5%, middle class pay 20%, rich pay 30%, SUPER rich pay 35%.....or something like that.

The brackets in Australia are:
$1 – $6,000 - 0%
$6,001 – $34,000 - 15%
$34,001 – $80,000 - 30%
$80,001 – $180,000 - 40%
$180,001 and over - 45%
And everyone pays a 1.5% Medicare Levy.

The reason why marginal rates are useful, is that the amount of tax payable is only subject on the next dollar. As soon as you start stating which bracket people fall into under your system, people like me would start working out how to lower people's stated incomes so that if they were just over a bracket, they'd fall into a lower one.


Take away all the loop holes. I bet if you took all that away, you could lay off a ton of people at Inland Revenue, put a lot of tax lawyers and accountants into another line of work, and the end result everyone would pay likely LESS tax percentage wise. Of course...it wont happen, because politicians hate any simple solutions.

Taking away loopholes is a hideously difficult task. As soon as you plug something up, investment managers start creating new products to suit the new laws.
Tax law is always following behind financial products, because it can not predict what has not yet been invented. The loopholes don't exist because they're deliberately written into the system, but exist because legal departments look at them with a fine tooth comb and then decide what to do.

We've just had released this morning in Australia a report called the Henry Tax Review which was written by the Dept of Treasury to look into the tax system.
It's made 138 recommendations and took 2 years to compile.

It's not that politicians hate simple solutions at all, but rather because the financial system is so complex, it takes complex solutions to plug existing holes, let alone write new law.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Rollo....I just know that the tax system is needlessly complicated in most nations. When the common man has to pay someone to do his taxes to ensure he isn't paying more than he should, then perhaps things are getting out of hand...

[ArrowsFA1]

Tory leader David Cameron won a big-name celebrity endorsement today when TV talent supremo Simon Cowell declared the Tory leader was 'the prime minister Britain needs at this time'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1272636/General-Election-2010-David-Cameron-Prime-Minister-Britain-needs-Simon-Cowell-backs-Tories-election.html

Cowell himself does say "I have always hated celebrities lecturing people on politics..." before going on to lecture Sun readers on politics.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/election2010/2959573/Simon-Cowell-says-General-Election-MUST-bring-change-to-Britain.html

[Dave B]

Millionaire supports Conservative policy shocker :p

[Dave B]

I see the soaraway Sun even went to the trouble of Photoshopping their Page 3 girls' underwear so that they're all wearing blue:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/may/05/the-sun-page-three-pants

They must be crapping themselves in Wapping in case Murdoch... ooops, sorry, Cameron loses tomorrow.

[Dave B]

While I'm at it, I wonder why the Sun didn't give the same prominence to the news that Robert Mugabe has endorsed the Conservatives?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/7370383/Robert-Mugabe-gives-David-Cameron-election-backing.html

:eek:

[ArrowsFA1]

While I'm at it, I wonder why the Sun didn't give the same prominence to the news that Robert Mugabe has endorsed the Conservatives?
How odd :crazy: :p You'd think the Tories themselves would be shouting from the rooftops about that endorsement :laugh:

[Bezza]

I'm voting Conservative. :)

Cameron has more depth than Brown or Clegg, and to be honest I'm just sick of Labour government. Time for change. Only the tories will be tough enough.

[christophulus]

I've already voted Conservative by post. I've only ever known a Labour government and I'm not a fan, and although they'll be massively unpopular the Conservatives will balance the books, which desperately needs doing.

Nonetheless, I do like good satire..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKFTtYx2OHc&sns=em

Millionaire supports Conservative policy shocker :p

I think the phrase you were actually looking for is wxxxxr supports Conservative policy shocker.

Besides which, anyone responsible for bringing us Sinitta hasn't got an opinion worth listening to.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

As a life long Lib Dem voter I wont be changing my mind this time.

Not only does the first £10,000 tax-free sound good to me but I'd much to have the economy run by a man who's a professor in economics and has experience as a financial manager for Shell. Rather than a man who's mummy and daddy own a curtain company.

[Rollo]

and although they'll be massively unpopular the Conservatives will balance the books, which desperately needs doing.

How can they do that when their previous policy of selling everything is impossible, by virtue of the fact that they already did that 20 years ago?

British Petroleum 79-83, British Aerospace 81-85, British Sugar 81, Cable and Wireless 81, Amersham International 82, National Freight Corporation 82, Britoil 82, Associated British Ports 83, Jaguar 83, British Telecom 84, National Bus Co. 86, British Gas 86, British Airways 87, Royal Ordinance 87, Rolls-Royce 87, British Airports Authority 87, Rover Group 88, British Steel 88, the water authorities 89, Girobank 90, and the National Grid in 90.


I've only ever known a Labour government and I'm not a fan

I've been alive long enough to know that the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems are all poison.
Actually so are the SNP, the BNP, UKIP and Plaid Cymru...

So remember when you go to the polls on May 6, that no matter who you vote for a politician will get in, and however the cards fall, everyone is pretty well ****ed :D

[Sonic]

As a life long Lib Dem voter I wont be changing my mind this time.

Not only does the first £10,000 tax-free sound good to me but I'd much to have the economy run by a man who's a professor in economics and has experience as a financial manager for Shell. Rather than a man who's mummy and daddy own a curtain company.

:up:

Its nice to be part of the party with a buzz behind it at last. Well done to "I agree with" Nick for getting the LD's message out there.

That said in my neck of the woods we've still got no hope of returning out lib Dem candidate to parliament. :(

[Dave B]

The televised debates certainly helped the Lib Dems, as Nick Clegg put up a fantastic performance. But in fairness, all he had to do was turn up and say "I'm not these two guys" and it was in the bag. The bigger problems came when people started scrutinsing their policies, and the new-found support started to ebb away.

I'm still hoping for a Lab-Lib alliance, mind, purely because I reckon it's the only real chance we've got for massive voting reform. The current system is so flawed, and PR makes far more sense. If the two parties do join forces it'll almost certainly be without Gordon Brown: Clegg's already indicated that he could work with Labour but not Brown, and Brown himself has already hinted that he'd be prepared to step aside if he could "no longer be useful".

I'm just crapping myself that the Conservatives might limp across the finishing line either on their own or with the support of some minority parties.

[Sonic]

Very true Dave. Lib Dem polls have dipped a bit in the last week - personally I think because they been perhaps the most blunt about the cuts to be made and its spooked a few people. That said I truely believe that their policies are about as good as can be mustered in the cxurrent climate so i'd be very happy to see them in partial control of the parliament and perhaps push through some of their priorities.

[christophulus]

I can't see Labour being any more open to electoral reform than the Conservatives. The current system heavily favours Labour, and even though they're behind the Tories by 8+ % they're still in with a chance of being the biggest party.

Besides, I can't see PR working any better. While undoubtedly "fairer" in that it accounts for every vote, it's highly unlikely that any party will get a majority. And then we have to rely on politicians acting like adults and discussing policies, and agreeing with opposition for the common good. Sadly I just can't see that happening.

[Daniel]

PR is better. Sure it'll result in coallition govt's but is that a bad thing?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

PR is better. Sure it'll result in coallition govt's but is that a bad thing?

:up:

The see-saw politics of Conservative to Labour from electon to election just results in counter productive politics. Sometimes compromise is a good thing.

[Mark in Oshawa]

PR is better. Sure it'll result in coallition govt's but is that a bad thing?

We have the same arguments over here because we have 3 or 4 parties fighting for space in Parliament. PM's rarely are elected with more than 40% of the vote.

I think there has to be a better system, but with people not inclined to vote now, making the voting procedure more complicated wont encourage pluarlity, and I am not a big fan of the coalition governments. I think you need to give a politician enough rope to hang himself or do good with bold strokes. IT is up to them...the real problem is the lack of really smart and principled leaders who stick to a plan. We now get often government by poll, which is how coalitions would pretty much govern....

[Daniel]

We have the same arguments over here because we have 3 or 4 parties fighting for space in Parliament. PM's rarely are elected with more than 40% of the vote.

I think there has to be a better system, but with people not inclined to vote now, making the voting procedure more complicated wont encourage pluarlity, and I am not a big fan of the coalition governments. I think you need to give a politician enough rope to hang himself or do good with bold strokes. IT is up to them...the real problem is the lack of really smart and principled leaders who stick to a plan. We now get often government by poll, which is how coalitions would pretty much govern....
IMHO the Australian system is better.

In Australia you give preferences to the parties from 1 being the one you want in the most to and 11 (if there were 11 candidates) to the candidate you have the least preference for.

My example assumes that there are 100 votes cast in a constituency

So for instance if one candidate A got 40 votes, candidate b 35 and c 25 but candidate A didn't get any second preferences from the voters who voted for b and c and candidate b got 25 second preferences from the people who voted for c then he'd get the seat. Or at least that's how I remember it.

Also the members of the upper house are voted in as well based on how many votes the party gets in the senate vote. So you don't get the silly situation where one party has lots of support but no seats....

[Mark in Oshawa]

IMHO the Australian system is better.

In Australia you give preferences to the parties from 1 being the one you want in the most to and 11 (if there were 11 candidates) to the candidate you have the least preference for.

My example assumes that there are 100 votes cast in a constituency

So for instance if one candidate A got 40 votes, candidate b 35 and c 25 but candidate A didn't get any second preferences from the voters who voted for b and c and candidate b got 25 second preferences from the people who voted for c then he'd get the seat. Or at least that's how I remember it.

Also the members of the upper house are voted in as well based on how many votes the party gets in the senate vote. So you don't get the silly situation where one party has lots of support but no seats....

This works though because in Australia, you have to vote by law. IN a voluntary system such as in the UK or Canada, anything that complicates people voting tends to knock down the rate of participation. Foolish and silly I know, but I don't believe the state should force people to vote. It interferes with my libertarian streak. I think it is stupid NOT to vote, but people have the right to be stupid.

[Daniel]

This works though because in Australia, you have to vote by law. IN a voluntary system such as in the UK or Canada, anything that complicates people voting tends to knock down the rate of participation. Foolish and silly I know, but I don't believe the state should force people to vote. It interferes with my libertarian streak. I think it is stupid NOT to vote, but people have the right to be stupid.
I kind of agree but having grown up in Australia with that system I don't see the big problem with people being forced to vote :)

[Mark in Oshawa]

I kind of agree but having grown up in Australia with that system I don't see the big problem with people being forced to vote :)

It is the princple of it....some people are really so clueless or disinclined to support any of the choices that one shouldn't be forced to vote. In a democracy, you are free to have no opinion, or have no preference. My brother in law wont vote. He figures he is getting screwed no matter what, and he has never voted. I think it is short sighted, and I think he just was frustrated his vote didn't go the way it should have the only time he did vote. He has that right not to participate...

[christophulus]

PR is a risk, I'd hope that politicians are able to just say "OK, we've got PR, let's get on with it", but I'm ever the sceptic and I just don't think hundreds of years of bickering and politics can be forgotten overnight, or even over the course of a parliament. Although combining that with a clean up of the expenses, and as a side effect getting rid of some of the "old guard" could be a positive step...

I think the alternative vote, or whatever the name for the 1st,2nd,3rd.. choice is might have some mileage in it, but I'd imagine most people would just stick a number one next to their chosen party and ignore the rest? I can't see anyone voting 1. Labour then 2. Conservative...

I've never seen the problem with compelling people to vote either, you can still spoil your ballot paper if you want.

[Daniel]

PR is a risk, I'd hope that politicians are able to just say "OK, we've got PR, let's get on with it", but I'm ever the sceptic and I just don't think hundreds of years of bickering and politics can be forgotten overnight, or even over the course of a parliament. Although combining that with a clean up of the expenses, and as a side effect getting rid of some of the "old guard" could be a positive step...

I think the alternative vote, or whatever the name for the 1st,2nd,3rd.. choice is might have some mileage in it, but I'd imagine most people would just stick a number one next to their chosen party and ignore the rest? I can't see anyone voting 1. Labour then 2. Conservative...

I've never seen the problem with compelling people to vote either, you can still spoil your ballot paper if you want.
If you put a 1 next to your primary vote choice then the preferences are redistributed as that party wishes :)

[Daniel]

http://www.youtube.com/user/BrianMayCom?v=Eef8SSGOsuM&feature=pyv&ad=5129518950&kw=conservative%20party&gclid=CPaX5JaIvqECFVGX2AodtWi1EA

rofl this is being advertised in this thread :D

[fandango]

I agree in principle, Mark, but some things are just too important to leave to people's inclination not to bother. We have to wear a helmet on a motorbike, a law which protects people from themselves, from the moments when they think "ah heck, everything'll be fine".

However, I think that along with an obligation to vote, people should be able to vote "none of the above", and that if a certain percentage of the people vote this, then elections would have to be re-held a few weeks later. Expensive and impractical as that may sound, it's probably better than having to choose between four years of bad or worse, and no prospect of change. It would soon get the politicians to do what people want.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I agree in principle, Mark, but some things are just too important to leave to people's inclination not to bother. We have to wear a helmet on a motorbike, a law which protects people from themselves, from the moments when they think "ah heck, everything'll be fine".

However, I think that along with an obligation to vote, people should be able to vote "none of the above", and that if a certain percentage of the people vote this, then elections would have to be re-held a few weeks later. Expensive and impractical as that may sound, it's probably better than having to choose between four years of bad or worse, and no prospect of change. It would soon get the politicians to do what people want.

Nope...it wouldn't get anyone we want. The same people who want to run now will run then. There is a long line of them waiting too...

A free vote of informed citizens is the best defense, and an informed populace makes better choices. The problem is, most people pay cursory attention and vote based on sound bites, shallow and biased hacks on TV at election time; and often just biases that all people refuse to drop or even examine. Or how their dad voted....

People should be educated from a young age with far more care and concern to understand why the process is why it is. How many people don't grasp things that are the bench marks of society such as the principle's of free speech? The right to a fair and open trial? The way the Constitution of a nation ostensibly protects the citizenry? It is paid lip service to in school, but the kids never really take it seriously, and as they grow into adults, we end up with a large number of politically naive and shallow idiots voting. When that happens, they elect shallow and vain politicians. When Politics is covered like a spectator sport, it cheapens the process too.

I am afraid, the right to be stupid or naive is the one right to many people in modern democracies take seriously.....but alas, we have a lot of people who died to give our socieities this freedom too..

[Dave B]

Exit poll suggests a hung parliament with 307 Tory seats, 266 for Labour, 59 Lib Dem.

[Daniel]

Exit poll suggests a hung parliament with 307 Tory seats, 266 for Labour, 59 Lib Dem.
Will be interesting to see for sure!

[Mark in Oshawa]

I believe somewhere near the start of this thread I called for a Tory Minority.....it could be close...

Welcome to the fun of having a 3 party system in a Parliamentry system designed for 2!!! It means endless political posturing, endless sound bites and bickering, and an election about once a year to 18 months. IT is SO much fun, we Canadians will likely do it again within the year!!!

[Dave B]

Labour seem very on-message about electoral reform all of a sudden, which would indicate to me that they're looking to do a deal with the Lib-Dems. Cameron, on the other hand, is saying that based on the exit polls he could form a government.

Fight....

[Daniel]

Yeah :D Lib dems could be in a good position

[Daniel]

This is rather exciting...... Some results to be challenged? Hmmmm

[Daniel]

Flaming heck. 11.6% swing. If this continues labour are toast......

[Dave B]

Two Sunderland seats (about to be 3) where there have been very heavy blue-collar job losses. I wouldn't panic just yet. (Edit: only 4.8% swing in Sunderland Central)

There are numerous reports of voters being turned away, police called to polling stations, and even one situation where disgruntled would-be voters are refusing to let the ballot box leave the building until they've voted. Part of me has little sympathy as they've had 15 hours to vote*, or the option of a postal vote, but it really does highlight the need to reform the voting system - not just introducing PR, but also embracing technology.

*I retract that, as I'm increasingly hearing of people who turned up in good time and queued for over an hour before finally being denied entry. I smell a legal challenge if the results in those seats is close.

[Daniel]

3 for Labour. Less of a swing on this one. Looking better for Labour.

[Rollo]

However, I think that along with an obligation to vote, people should be able to vote "none of the above", and that if a certain percentage of the people vote this, then elections would have to be re-held a few weeks later. Expensive and impractical as that may sound, it's probably better than having to choose between four years of bad or worse, and no prospect of change. It would soon get the politicians to do what people want.

I agree with 100% of this post. :up: Hear hear.

In Australia where "voting is compulsory" because the ballot is secret, you are still free not to mark the paper or ever write "bugger everyone" on the ballot paper.
Of course it does mean that uneducated idiots are forced to vote, but yet because they are part of the population, their voices deserve to be heard. You can not have a truly representational vote, unless you hear from everyone.

The preferential voting system in Australia is also excellent, because the final candidate at some point has been voted for by at least 50% + 1 vote, of the population. At the moment in the UK it's technically possible (although hideously unlikely) that if there were 20 candidates to win office with only 6% of the vote.

[Rollo]

Part of me has little sympathy as they've had 15 hours to vote*, or the option of a postal vote, but it really does highlight the need to reform the voting system - not just introducing PR, but also embracing technology.

Wouldn't it just be easier to hold the election of a Saturday when the majority of people aren't at work? Local schools and parishes can host barbecues, bake sales and coffee shops to raise a little cash as well.

[Daniel]

Works well in Oz Rollo!

[Dave B]

Something needs to give. Unconfirmed reports from Manchester say that one polling station ran out of ballot papers FFS. This is unacceptable in a 21st century democracy.

[Dave B]

This is truly shocking:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=121206334573223&v=wall

A Facebook group (the most pointless form of protest in history!) set up by students who claim that in one polling station residents were prioritised over students, delaying their vote and in some cases resulting in them being unable to vote. There's no way on earth this should be happening.

[Daniel]

Yeah..... Got to love Jeremy Vine's 3d errrrr environments

[Daniel]

Did that guy on the BBC say the Queen is like Heineken lager?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

3 results in one hour.

This is going to take 5 days then :erm:

[Dave B]

Yeah..... Got to love Jeremy Vine's 3d errrrr environments
I'm convinced I need a bigger telly: Vine appears to be bending down to fit on my screen. At least he's not dressed like a cowboy this year :s

y7JX8D1Kb88

[Daniel]

i LOVE that clip Dave. Must say I prefer the australian elections as you get counts part way through the counting.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

The exit polls in favour for the Tories and all this news about people being turned away from voting suggests to me that Conservatives are more punctual.

[Dave B]

Something needs to give. Unconfirmed reports from Manchester say that one polling station ran out of ballot papers FFS. This is unacceptable in a 21st century democracy.
Add Liverpool to that.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/2010/05/06/astronomical-turnout-blamed-for-ballot-papers-running-out-in-liverpool-100252-26393928/3/

[Daniel]

Wow that's really weak

[Rollo]

And proof that compulsory voting is a good idea.

If a constituency knows in advance that everyone has to vote, then obviously they'll print enough ballot papers (and then some) to make sure that that happens :D

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Lib Dems fail in Durham which doesn't bode well for them :\

[Thor]

I hope the Liberal Democrat will do well,we Icelanders are glad you Englishmen are taking Brown out off the office

[Mark in Oshawa]

You guys seem to have this election thing all messed up. It is the wee hours of the morning the counts are still going???

[Dave B]

You guys seem to have this election thing all messed up. It is the wee hours of the morning the counts are still going???
Yup. In some third world countries they vote electronically and the results are known within minutes of the polls closing.

This morning I went to a primary school, put a cross in a box with a pencil, and now a team of people are physically counting mountains of paper. My constituency is the most marginal in the country (Labour have/had a majority of just 33) so expect the count to drag on for hours.

Brilliant, isn't it? Envy of the world. Or something.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

My constituency has stayed Conservative with over a 50% majority :\

[Malbec]

Lib Dems fail in Durham which doesn't bode well for them :\

Looks like they're actually going to lose ground at the moment especially where they are running against the Tories. Still, the projected ~60 or so seats for the Lib Dems is a travesty when Labour with the same share of the vote look set to get 4 times as many seats.

[Dave B]

Still, the projected ~60 or so seats for the Lib Dems is a travesty when Labour with the same share of the vote look set to get 4 times as many seats.
So far though they're not on the same share of the vote. As I type, it's 28.9% Labour, 20.3% Lib Dem.

It still doesn't make it right, mind, and we desperately need PR.

[Dave B]

Why the heck am I still up? First Practice starts in just over 4 hours! :eek:

[Daniel]

ROFL @ the crazy conservative lady in Westminster North

[Rollo]

It was nice to see in Barking that Nick Griffin hasn't picked up a seat. Hopefully the BNP will sort of fade away now.

Even the Official Monster Raving Loony Party candidate looked happier than he did when they announced the result.

[Dave B]

When Sky had Nick Griffin captioned with "Barking" it was one of the most accurate moments of the night :D

That's my only problem with PR: under the current system the BNP - rightly - have no seats and no power. However, as of now they do have 529,118 votes. Under PR that would give them a voice. A small one, but a voice nonetheless.

[Daniel]

When Sky had Nick Griffin captioned with "Barking" it was one of the most accurate moments of the night :D

That's my only problem with PR: under the current system the BNP - rightly - have no seats and no power. However, as of now they do have 529,118 votes. Under PR that would give them a voice. A small one, but a voice nonetheless.
:D

I think we're in for a lot of discontent in the non-liberal media.... a lot of "how can THEY do this!?!?!?!?!?!" and so on.

The fact of the matter is that it's not the biggest party that forms a govt, it's a party or coallition of them which has the majority. This has been the case in Australia numerous times with the Liberals and National Party banding together to form a govt against labor who were bigger than the libs in terms of seats IIRC.

[christophulus]

So I stayed up for that? An odd night but at least our local rubbish expenses-claiming Labour MP was successfully unseated.

Amazed at how badly the Lib Dems have done, and I love the audacity of Labour talking about "reform" so early in the night when they benefit most from the present system. Hopefully we're heading for a Con/LD coalition but stranger things have happened..

[Sonic]

So disapointed for the Lib Dems. I fear those calls for tactical voting stripped them of votes without suceeding in holding off the tories. Ahhh well there's always 2015.

[ArrowsFA1]

Still, the projected ~60 or so seats for the Lib Dems is a travesty when Labour with the same share of the vote look set to get 4 times as many seats.
:up:

At the moment this is how things look:

Conservatives: 10,121,863 votes (290 seats)
Labour: 8,175,832 votes (246 seats)
LibDems: 6,416,725 votes (51 seats)

[Dave B]

My prediction:

Lib-Lab alliance, Brown stays on long enough (6 months?) to see through electoral reform then resigns and calls a General Election to be fought under the new system and with a new Labour leader.

We'll have another election this year.

[Dave B]

Either that or Andrew Lloyd-Webber gets to choose and the loser has to hand him their shoes while the others sing at him.

[ArrowsFA1]

David Cameron will make a statement at 1430 BST. He is expected to outline plans for a government which is "strong and stable with broad support that acts in the national interest".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/liveevent/

That'll be a LibDem/Labour coalition then :p

[Alfa Fan]

That is almost impossible if you look at the numbers. And by the the time all the results come in, it could be completely impossible.

[christophulus]

So, Labour is desperate to talk to the Lib Dems, but the Dems aren't interested and want to jump in with the Conservatives. But the Conservatives want to govern as a minority party?

Yep, PR is really going to work well if there's this level of co-operation.. not.

[ArrowsFA1]

Gordon Brown says that, if talks between Nick Clegg and David Cameron fail, he will talk to Mr Clegg


David Cameron urges the Lib Dems to work with him.


David Cameron says the Tories and Lib Dems can discuss electoral reform


The prime minister says a fairer voting system is needed, offering immediate legislation to bring this about.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/liveevent/

[Brown, Jon Brow]

What are the chances of Cameron as PM with cabinet seats for Clegg and Cable?

[Cooper_S]

When Sky had Nick Griffin captioned with "Barking" it was one of the most accurate moments of the night :D

That's my only problem with PR: under the current system the BNP - rightly - have no seats and no power. However, as of now they do have 529,118 votes. Under PR that would give them a voice. A small one, but a voice nonetheless.


As Barking is my constituency I had the pleasure in NOT voting for Nick Griffin,

I am a firm believer in PR and while you say with 500k votes the BNP would have a voice under PR with an electorate of potentially 40million+ there share is less than 2% of the votes cast, PR does not give every % cast a seat, more likely a party would need at least 5% if not more to gain a seat so the BNP would remain in their rightful place as voiceless in parliament.

We also vote in Local elections where the BigotNaziParty are defending 12 council seats... hopefully they will lose most if not all of them this time.

[Cooper_S]

What are the chances of Cameron as PM with cabinet seats for Clegg and Cable?


Unless electoral reform is offered as well I reckon it is slim... the Tory party will never (IMO) offer meaningfull reform and we may yet see a Lab/Lib-Dem/SNP/PC coalition and some form of electoral reform.... Oh and Brown as PM

[Dave B]

I stand by my earlier post. Brown will remain as "caretaker" PM with Lib-Dem support, for long enough to push through electoral reform. He will then step aside, and test the new voting system by calling a general election.

Meanwhile the Conservatives will replace Cameron, who has thus far snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by cocking up the most open-and-shut election since 1997.

Six months, tops, and we can genuinely start afresh.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I stand by my earlier post. Brown will remain as "caretaker" PM with Lib-Dem support, for long enough to push through electoral reform. He will then step aside, and test the new voting system by calling a general election.

Meanwhile the Conservatives will replace Cameron, who has thus far snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by cocking up the most open-and-shut election since 1997.

Six months, tops, and we can genuinely start afresh.

We can hope that the Conservatives replace Cameron with someone more to the right. That way the progressive UK public will get Labour back in.

[Cooper_S]

HOORAY.................

We (Barking & Dagenham) have removed ALL our our 12 BNP councillors from the council.

Today just gets better and better...

[Dave B]

HOORAY.................

We (Barking & Dagenham) have removed ALL our our 12 BNP councillors from the council.

Today just gets better and better...
Hooray indeed. A black day for the BNP, which will only annoy them further :D

I stand by my earlier post. Brown will remain as "caretaker" PM with Lib-Dem support, for long enough to push through electoral reform. He will then step aside, and test the new voting system by calling a general election.

Meanwhile the Conservatives will replace Cameron, who has thus far snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by cocking up the most open-and-shut election since 1997.

Six months, tops, and we can genuinely start afresh.

Rare, but on this occasion Mr Brockman is making the right call.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

In the UK the right/centre-right got 42.2% of the vote and 314 seats.

The left/centre-left got 56.3 of the vote and 328 seats.

In Scotland the centre-left got 58 seats. The centre-right got 1 seat.

In England the left/centre-left got 235 seats. The centre-right got 297 seats.

In Wales the centre-left got 32 seats. The centre-right got 8 seats.

In Northern Ireland the centre-left got 9 seats. The centre-right got 8 seats.

[Dave B]

Rare, but on this occasion Mr Brockman is making the right call.
Your approval means so much to me I could almost cry :p

[Mark in Oshawa]

Never have I read so much wishful thinking in a while.

Cameron is PM because when you toss away the left/right stuff, you are faced with the reality that people are TIRED of the Labour party, so to prop them up will likely anger any Lib Dem supporters who were REALLY annoyed with the Labour party. Next election, and with a hung parliament with Brown in charge, that would be within a year, the Tories would win despite Cameron. People wanted Brown gone...Clegg would be an idiot to prop him up, and from what I have read online today, that isn't happening. Clegg is the king maker and he knows people want Brown gone.

Left/right doesn't mean much in an election when all 3 parties are crowding the center...

[Daniel]

Never have I read so much wishful thinking in a while.

Cameron is PM because when you toss away the left/right stuff, you are faced with the reality that people are TIRED of the Labour party, so to prop them up will likely anger any Lib Dem supporters who were REALLY annoyed with the Labour party. Next election, and with a hung parliament with Brown in charge, that would be within a year, the Tories would win despite Cameron. People wanted Brown gone...Clegg would be an idiot to prop him up, and from what I have read online today, that isn't happening. Clegg is the king maker and he knows people want Brown gone.

Left/right doesn't mean much in an election when all 3 parties are crowding the center...

I don't think people are tired of Labour, I think they want Brown gone. Clegg would only form a coallition with Labour if Brown promised to go.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I don't think people are tired of Labour, I think they want Brown gone. Clegg would only form a coallition with Labour if Brown promised to go.
You naive enough to think the guy who pretty much committed regicide on Blair is going to go quietly? This is a ruthless and arrogant man....he isn't going to step down so someone else can run the show Daniel.

I have read in about 3 different sources online and in today's paper that Clegg's supporters and the polling is indicating people would be more inclined to accept the change of the Tories. It is WISHFUL thinking to assume otherwise. More people voted against the Labour gov't than for it, and when you mess with THAT, you risk really inflaming the electorate.

This is a mirror of the minority/hung parliament situations we have had here for the last few years. When a coalition threatened to drive the largest party out of gov't using your rationale, polls jumped immediately in favour of the sitting gov't's position. People wanted change....not Labour still in power with Brown, and as I said, he hasn't given any indication he is leaving...

[Daniel]

You naive enough to think the guy who pretty much committed regicide on Blair is going to go quietly? This is a ruthless and arrogant man....he isn't going to step down so someone else can run the show Daniel.

I have read in about 3 different sources online and in today's paper that Clegg's supporters and the polling is indicating people would be more inclined to accept the change of the Tories. It is WISHFUL thinking to assume otherwise. More people voted against the Labour gov't than for it, and when you mess with THAT, you risk really inflaming the electorate.

This is a mirror of the minority/hung parliament situations we have had here for the last few years. When a coalition threatened to drive the largest party out of gov't using your rationale, polls jumped immediately in favour of the sitting gov't's position. People wanted change....not Labour still in power with Brown, and as I said, he hasn't given any indication he is leaving...
You know this is a political game and the players will keep their cards close to their chests. Brown will not make it publicly known if he's willing to step down.

[Mark in Oshawa]

You know this is a political game and the players will keep their cards close to their chests. Brown will not make it publicly known if he's willing to step down.

Daniel, if he stepped down, the Labour gov't has a shot at it. He is too arrogant though to step down and let someone else do it. No cards close to the vest. Brown is all in ....

[Mark in Oshawa]

You know this is a political game and the players will keep their cards close to their chests. Brown will not make it publicly known if he's willing to step down.

So much for keeping the cards to the chest:

ttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election ... binet.html (ttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1275443/UK-ELECTION-RESULTS-2010-Brown-vents-rage-furious-phone-Nick-Clegg-Lib-Dems-edge-accepting-key-jobs-Ministers-Cameron-Cabinet.html)

It seems Brown wont be going quietly....

[BDunnell]

Daniel, if he stepped down, the Labour gov't has a shot at it. He is too arrogant though to step down and let someone else do it. No cards close to the vest. Brown is all in ....

You forget one very important practical detail. There is no time for Brown to be replaced as Labour leader if Labour are to be involved in forming a government. A leadership election would take too long. He is, as things stand, the only option in the immediate term. If a Lib-Lab deal were to be struck, one option could be for Brown's immediate departure to be a pre-condition. However, the Lib Dems are unlikely to stand for being part of a Government led by a Labour leader who did not go to the polls as such. Nor does anyone want a second election in a few weeks' time.

At present, then, the most likely outcome seems an arrangement, as opposed to an actual coalition, between the Tories and the Lib Dems. This could well have the effect of killing off the Lib Dems for good as a true opposition force, and depriving them of any credibility. I would certainly, and most reluctantly, cease voting for them were such an arrangement to come about, on the grounds of personal political principle. Sod the 'good of the country', 'stable government' and such bollocks — if I wanted a Tory government to be propped up, I would vote Tory, but I don't.

[Mark in Oshawa]

You forget one very important practical detail. There is no time for Brown to be replaced as Labour leader if Labour are to be involved in forming a government. A leadership election would take too long. He is, as things stand, the only option in the immediate term. If a Lib-Lab deal were to be struck, one option could be for Brown's immediate departure to be a pre-condition. However, the Lib Dems are unlikely to stand for being part of a Government led by a Labour leader who did not go to the polls as such. Nor does anyone want a second election in a few weeks' time.

At present, then, the most likely outcome seems an arrangement, as opposed to an actual coalition, between the Tories and the Lib Dems. This could well have the effect of killing off the Lib Dems for good as a true opposition force, and depriving them of any credibility. I would certainly, and most reluctantly, cease voting for them were such an arrangement to come about, on the grounds of personal political principle. Sod the 'good of the country', 'stable government' and such bollocks — if I wanted a Tory government to be propped up, I would vote Tory, but I don't.

Alas Ben, here is the rub, Not all Lib Dem voters may feel the same as you. If your guys prop up Labour, who is to say that wont alienate others? I know the people voting Lib Dem for change will just figure, sod this, these guys cannot win and I cant stand Labour. Consider the last 13 years of been Blair and Brown....I put more people in the latter camp.

[Mark in Oshawa]

You forget one very important practical detail. There is no time for Brown to be replaced as Labour leader if Labour are to be involved in forming a government. A leadership election would take too long. He is, as things stand, the only option in the immediate term. If a Lib-Lab deal were to be struck, one option could be for Brown's immediate departure to be a pre-condition. However, the Lib Dems are unlikely to stand for being part of a Government led by a Labour leader who did not go to the polls as such. Nor does anyone want a second election in a few weeks' time.

At present, then, the most likely outcome seems an arrangement, as opposed to an actual coalition, between the Tories and the Lib Dems. This could well have the effect of killing off the Lib Dems for good as a true opposition force, and depriving them of any credibility. I would certainly, and most reluctantly, cease voting for them were such an arrangement to come about, on the grounds of personal political principle. Sod the 'good of the country', 'stable government' and such bollocks — if I wanted a Tory government to be propped up, I would vote Tory, but I don't.

You still in the end may be right though Ben. Here is the story I just finished from the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/world/europe/09britain.html

The upshot of it is, the Lib Dem's want to change the first past the post voting system that doesn't help the smaller parties, and go towards a more PR system. The Tories are resisting, and that is making things difficult.

In the end though, I don't know what is worse. Dithering, or going to Brown again. He hasn't agreed to sit down, and even if he does, he cant go right away, and will the race for the new leadership just be a blood bath. Does Britian need that turmoil when the recession and economics of the nation in flux?

[Mark in Oshawa]

What the Times of London says:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7120730.ece

[BeansBeansBeans]

Alas Ben, here is the rub, Not all Lib Dem voters may feel the same as you. If your guys prop up Labour, who is to say that wont alienate others? I know the people voting Lib Dem for change will just figure, sod this, these guys cannot win and I cant stand Labour. Consider the last 13 years of been Blair and Brown....I put more people in the latter camp.

I disagree.

The bulk of Lib Dem supporters will be centre-left and are therefore more likely to find Labour the lesser of two evils.

I saw a funny thing on Twitter, listing the possible policies of a Con-Lib coalition. "Gay people to be allowed bed, but not breakfast."

[BDunnell]

Alas Ben, here is the rub, Not all Lib Dem voters may feel the same as you. If your guys prop up Labour, who is to say that wont alienate others? I know the people voting Lib Dem for change will just figure, sod this, these guys cannot win and I cant stand Labour. Consider the last 13 years of been Blair and Brown....I put more people in the latter camp.

More Lib Dem voters, I would hazard to guess, are better-disposed — I'm not saying well-disposed — towards Labour than they are the Conservatives. However, the Labour coalition option is also pretty unpalatable.

[Mark in Oshawa]

More Lib Dem voters, I would hazard to guess, are better-disposed — I'm not saying well-disposed — towards Labour than they are the Conservatives. However, the Labour coalition option is also pretty unpalatable.

Yes, the more I read of the Lib Dem's I think you may be right. However...just how many soft votes are in that voting block that gave Clegg this hammer? How many Lib Dem votes helped draw votes away from the Tories and Labour but really want a change? If they go with the Con's next time over Labour being propped up by the Lib/Dem's, it isn't Clegg who comes out of this looking good.

In Canada, there isn't a question. The party with the most seats gets a crack at govenrment and the opposition keeps the noose tight and it forces the minority government to consult and deal with the opposition. It has happened that way all along in Canada, and you will find it actually works just as well as trying to cobble together some flimsy coalition that deevolves in 18 months anyhow.

WE know no party won a majority, but we also know Gordon Brown was rejected by the majority and Clegg certainly didn't win any true seats except in Wales, Scotland and pockets here and there in England. So he has to be really careful about this king maker thing. He can try and strike a real good deal for his party, but in the end, he isn't going to be PM, and he has to look at which way the wind is blowing. Philsophically he is closer to Labour, but lets face it, if you mimic what Labour stands for, don't you have to take some ownership of the philosophies that didn't work in the last 13 years? Not Iraq, god knows no one in Clegg's party wanted that, but the fiscal policy and so on?

Britain is getting deeper into the hole fiscally all the time...and the one thing where the Con's are not sitting in the center is on that. At least, they say they will be tougher. Maybe they wont....or they certaintly will be more careful if Clegg is riding herd on them in a minority situation. Labour has had 13 years at it, and don't seem like they have anything new. I cannot see how in the end Clegg can go with them. I know it is a horrible thought to conteplate Ben, but Clegg wasn't elected to lead the nation, and neither was Brown or Cameron, but Cameron is REALLY close...just what, 20 seats? Does it help Clegg to prop up Brown? Really?

[Mark in Oshawa]

I just read my last post...and I still forget...Cameron is a bit of a buffoon in my eyes...lol...THAT is the problem...

[BDunnell]

Yes, the more I read of the Lib Dem's I think you may be right. However...just how many soft votes are in that voting block that gave Clegg this hammer? How many Lib Dem votes helped draw votes away from the Tories and Labour but really want a change? If they go with the Con's next time over Labour being propped up by the Lib/Dem's, it isn't Clegg who comes out of this looking good.

I agree with the last point especially. It's one of the reasons why the German Liberal party, the FDP, isn't taken especially seriously — their willingness to get into bed with either of the big parties in coalitions. As for the nature of Lib Dem voters this time, it is hard to say anything other than 'not much different to last time', because, after all, there weren't too many more of them! What is clear, and which many of the pundits, not least those on the BBC on election night, ignored is that the performance of individual MPs played a major role in their success or otherwise. My Lib Dem MP — and former boss — is brilliant, and he managed to increase an already large majority. Others were far from brilliant and were voted out. The expert pundits, though, seem unable to take this into account in their search for national trends, and appeared irritated that the public weren't allowing their usual neat analysis to hold sway.



I know it is a horrible thought to conteplate Ben, but Clegg wasn't elected to lead the nation, and neither was Brown or Cameron, but Cameron is REALLY close...just what, 20 seats? Does it help Clegg to prop up Brown? Really?

Again, I agree with all of that. The neatest option is, sadly, a minority Tory government. If it performs badly, it will deserve to fall early.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Again, I agree with all of that. The neatest option is, sadly, a minority Tory government. If it performs badly, it will deserve to fall early.

So why is this dragging out? How is this good for the nation to have a week of negotiation, deal making in back rooms (something that is never good for democracy) and reading about Gordon Brown having another temper tantrum as his ego wont admit he is a loser?
Why would anyone want that angry loser to be PM again?

The longer this drags out, the less Clegg can justify it. He tried to leverage some concessions from the Tories, but in the end, the nation has to be led and needs a new direction...so he should just get on it with it, and tell yourself and the other supporters that the party isn't bigger than the needs of the nation, and if the brand is to have any currency with people not voting for it now, it wont get there by putting the needs of the party over the obvious will of the electorate to flush Gordon Brown from office.

I saw the electoral map the Daily Mail had on their webpage and it shows Tory Blue all over England except in the cities. It does seem that party support is really regional and there is a urban/rural divide as well, much the same as we have in Canada. Curious how trends in two nations are similar.....

[Daniel]

So why is this dragging out? How is this good for the nation to have a week of negotiation, deal making in back rooms (something that is never good for democracy) and reading about Gordon Brown having another temper tantrum as his ego wont admit he is a loser?
Why would anyone want that angry loser to be PM again?

The longer this drags out, the less Clegg can justify it. He tried to leverage some concessions from the Tories, but in the end, the nation has to be led and needs a new direction...so he should just get on it with it, and tell yourself and the other supporters that the party isn't bigger than the needs of the nation, and if the brand is to have any currency with people not voting for it now, it wont get there by putting the needs of the party over the obvious will of the electorate to flush Gordon Brown from office.

I saw the electoral map the Daily Mail had on their webpage and it shows Tory Blue all over England except in the cities. It does seem that party support is really regional and there is a urban/rural divide as well, much the same as we have in Canada. Curious how trends in two nations are similar.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/


Click the proportional button and you'll get a better idea of things, but you're right, people in the more densely populated areas tend to support Labour more.

[Daniel]

I agree with the last point especially. It's one of the reasons why the German Liberal party, the FDP, isn't taken especially seriously — their willingness to get into bed with either of the big parties in coalitions. As for the nature of Lib Dem voters this time, it is hard to say anything other than 'not much different to last time', because, after all, there weren't too many more of them! What is clear, and which many of the pundits, not least those on the BBC on election night, ignored is that the performance of individual MPs played a major role in their success or otherwise. My Lib Dem MP — and former boss — is brilliant, and he managed to increase an already large majority. Others were far from brilliant and were voted out. The expert pundits, though, seem unable to take this into account in their search for national trends, and appeared irritated that the public weren't allowing their usual neat analysis to hold sway.



Again, I agree with all of that. The neatest option is, sadly, a minority Tory government. If it performs badly, it will deserve to fall early.
Very true Ben, I suspect some of the pundits got sucked into the whole voting for the PM thing. Our local Labour MP is excellent and stayed in as a result, he wasn't a victim of the expenses scandal and does his job for his constituency by doing his part for the area. He did a good job so I voted for HIM rather than for the party I liked the most.

[BDunnell]

Very true Ben, I suspect some of the pundits got sucked into the whole voting for the PM thing. Our local Labour MP is excellent and stayed in as a result, he wasn't a victim of the expenses scandal and does his job for his constituency by doing his part for the area. He did a good job so I voted for HIM rather than for the party I liked the most.

Quite right too. I would do the same for a good Labour MP. As for the pundits, they forget that the UK is made up of 650 constituencies and that individual circumstances pertain in each. Of course national and other wider issues play a part, but not exclusively. The broad-brush approach adopted by those academics seen on election night struck me as being pointless (how many times could one take hearing 'What's going to happen?' 'Well, I don't know. There's no uniform trend') and ignorant of the specifics.

[Daniel]

Better than pointless celebs giving their opinions! :D

[BDunnell]

Better than pointless celebs giving their opinions! :D

Which we also had, courtesy of Joan Collins, Bruce Forsyth...

[Dave B]

Which we also had, courtesy of Joan Collins, Bruce Forsyth...
And Simon Cowell, saying how he hates it when celebrities lecture on politics before going on to do exactly that :s

[BDunnell]

And Simon Cowell, saying how he hates it when celebrities lecture on politics before going on to do exactly that :s

No doubt, let's face it, followed by many people saying to themselves, 'He's 'successful', therefore he must know what he's talking about'. Morons.

[Rollo]

I've just had a rather disturbing thought.

If the Tories actually do form government doesn't that mean that George Osborne would be Chancellor of the Exchequer?
If so, can he "flip" the United Kingdom and thereby get out of having to repay all the debts? :D

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I've just had a rather disturbing thought.

If the Tories actually do form government doesn't that mean that George Osborne would be Chancellor of the Exchequer?
If so, can he "flip" the United Kingdom and thereby get out of having to repay all the debts? :D

Why can't they make Mr Cable the Chancellor if it is a Con/Lib government?

Has anyone noticed how the Tories have kept Mr Osbourne very much out of the spotlight during the election campaign?

[Dave B]

I've just had a rather disturbing thought.

If the Tories actually do form government doesn't that mean that George Osborne would be Chancellor of the Exchequer?
If so, can he "flip" the United Kingdom and thereby get out of having to repay all the debts? :D
If they form minority government then yes, but I can't see the Lib Dems swallowing it as part of any deal with them.

Curious how they kept Osborne and Oliver Letwin locked away during the campaign, isn't it, almost as if they regarded them as some sort of liability. :dozey:

[Dave B]

Has anyone noticed how the Tories have kept Mr Osbourne very much out of the spotlight during the election campaign?


Curious how they kept Osborne and Oliver Letwin locked away during the campaign, isn't it, almost as if they regarded them as some sort of liability. :dozey:

Great minds....

(Us, obviously, not Osborne and Letwin :p )

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Great minds....

(Us, obviously, not Osborne and Letwin :p )

They have though. Everytime Osbourne opens his mouth he embarrasses himself.

http://labs.38degrees.org.uk/headline/?headline=HUNG+PARLIAMENT+IS+POLITICAL+CORRECTNESS +GONE+MAD+&subheadline=EXCLUSIVE%3A+WHAT+WE+FOUND+OUT+ABOUT+N ICK+CLEGG.+YOU+COULDN%27T+MAKE+IT+UP!&paper=1

[Cooper_S]

There will be a new PM regardless as Brown stepps down.

[Langdale Forest]

Lib Dems are a discrace. :mad:

[Mark in Oshawa]

And Simon Cowell, saying how he hates it when celebrities lecture on politics before going on to do exactly that :s
Hey...no one minds celebs saying it when they agree with them. I think Simon's point is rather watered down in this case. It wouldn't be the first time Simon has been a hypocrite.

That said, his dad was a big shot in the party once upon a time...so at least his political leanings are not some new found zen movement he discovered through his new found friend...

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Lib Dems are a discrace. :mad:

How? :erm:

[driveace]

Why are they a disgrace?
Well they got a measly number of seats (lesss than 60),are a minority party,and are now coseying up to whoever will agree to AV.
Hain and some of the lefties are hell bent on Labour keeping in power,even though they lost over 90 seats due to the majority voting for the Conservatives,unfortunatly they just did not get a large enough majority,even though they have 50 more seats than Labour.I would say to David Cameron,go it alone and leave the Lib Dems on thier own,its thier loss.
The general public must feel dejected that the largest majority voted for Conservative and MAY get Labour and Lib Dems.A disgrace!

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Why are they a disgrace?
Well they got a measly number of seats (lesss than 60),are a minority party,and are now coseying up to whoever will agree to AV.
Hain and some of the lefties are hell bent on Labour keeping in power,even though they lost over 90 seats due to the majority voting for the Conservatives,unfortunatly they just did not get a large enough majority,even though they have 50 more seats than Labour.I would say to David Cameron,go it alone and leave the Lib Dems on thier own,its thier loss.
The general public must feel dejected that the largest majority voted for Conservative and MAY get Labour and Lib Dems.A disgrace!



You don't understand the word majority.

Majority means more than half. 50.1%. A number larger than half of the total.

The Conservatives didn't get a majority no matter which way you look at it. In fact a majority of the voters didn't vote Conservative. If Cameron tries to lead with a minority nothing will get done because everything he tries to do will not get through Parliament, because the majority of Parliament (which isn't Conservative) will vote against it.

The only reason the Lib Dems have a measly number of seats is because First-past-the-post doesn't work. The Liberals got more votes, a higher share of votes, but less seats!!

[race_director]

i dont understand this rule of the Sitting PM has the 1st right to form the goverment , inspite of a clear verdict against the present goverment . and he is not even 1st in the hung verdict

i think Conservatives have the mandate of the people. it would be disgrace if labour forms a goverment in UK. whats the use to holding a election ??.

[Rollo]

i dont understand this rule of the Sitting PM has the 1st right to form the goverment , inspite of a clear verdict against the present goverment . and he is not even 1st in the hung verdict

The UK has no constitution but the rules of parliament are made up of a series of unwritten conventions and really the whole idea of political parties is only relatively new.

If you look back through the list of British Prime Ministers, whilst they do have a political party listed next to their names, they're really only nominal up until about the time of Viscount Melbourne or so in about 1834.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom

It was always the sitting PM who was asked to form government out of the rabble that was the House of Commons. After Peel tried unsuccessfully in 1835 to form government, the parties themselves more or less crystalised from that point onwards.
The idea of forming government out of the party with the most seats rather than forming government out of the elected members is a result of that.

The convention though persists mainly because of the absence of a written constitution.

[Rollo]

I've just had a rather disturbing thought.

I've had another rather disturbing thought.

In the meantime whilst there is no formal government, does that mean that the most powerful man in the UK is Boris Johnson? :eek:

[Mark]

At the moment it's reported that the Tories will hold a referendum on AV. Labour will put AV into law then hold a referendum... Is there any difference there at all?!

[Dave B]

I love the Conservatives ripping up their manifesto on the hoof in an attempt to suck up to the Lim-Dems, and the increasingly desperate tone from the likes of William Hauge. Brown's resignation has certainly set the cat among the pigeons, the Tories can see this slipping away from them.

Cameron's toast. He had the best funded political campaign in history against an unpopular PM leading a discredited government, and still can't quite pull off a win.

Oh, and have you noticed the way the "big idea" for everybody to run their own schools, police forces and whatnot has quietly been dropped over the last few days? It's almost as if senior voices within the shadow cabinet think it was completely bollocks.

[Mark]

I love the Conservatives ripping up their manifesto on the hoof in an attempt to suck up to the Lim-Dems, and the increasingly desperate tone from the likes of William Hauge. Brown's resignation has certainly set the cat among the pigeons, the Tories can see this slipping away from them.

Cameron's toast. He had the best funded political campaign in history against an unpopular PM leading a discredited government, and still can't quite pull off a win.

Oh, and have you noticed the way the "big idea" for everybody to run their own schools, police forces and whatnot has quietly been dropped over the last few days? It's almost as if senior voices within the shadow cabinet think it was completely bollocks.

I see that there's already a name for the club of everyone who isn't a Conservative of "The progressive alliance".

I'm not sure how stable such a government would be, but they are all united by the fact of none of them wanting to see the Tories in power again.

It's a difficult choice for the Lib Dems, in with the Tories would be easy, but could they really stick together? Certainly the Libs wouldn't have a major role to play in the government there.

Labour is a very tempting option for them. A guarantee of the voting reform they've been crying out for, for years. A guarantee of senior Lib Dem figures taking cabinet posts. Plus it means they don't have to cooperate with David Cameron :vader: , with Brown out of the picture the obstacle to doing a deal has gone.

But there is potentially a heavy price to pay. Will the government be stable? Certainly the Conservatives will be doing all they can to bring that government down and force another election, they alone have the financial resources to fight another campaign straight off the bat.

But lets say we have a Lib-Lab pact and it goes the 5 year distance. Would the change in the voting system effectively mean the Liberals remain as power brokers for ever more?

One thing which is true is that we're at an absolutely critical juncture of British policitcs right now. What happens in the next few days could shape the outcome of things for a generation.

[Storm]

Looks like you Brits are in for a nice dose of coalition politics (just like we have been suffering for the last 15-20 years)

[Mark]

Looks like you Brits are in for a nice dose of coalition politics (just like we have been suffering for the last 15-20 years)

Well it does seem that the majority of the world with the notable exceptions of the USA and UK deal with coalitions as a matter of course. The UK has never had to deal with one on a long term basis.

There are many in the political parties involved and their supporters who still can't grasp the reality of what they are having to deal with here.

[Dave B]

There's talk that an announcement is imminent.

As Bollo would say, I've got a bad feeling about this... :s

[Dave B]

It's looking more and more like a "supply and confidence" arrangement, with the Conservatives relying on the LibDems not to vote against them in the Commons, rather than any formal coalition.

As an aside it's funny to watch Sky News' speculation that "Brown has resigned as PM", the BBC reporting that "PM's spokesman denies he has resigned"; also Sky reporting that Brown's effects are being packed into a removal van while the BBC report that the boxes belong to the police.

Who will Adam Boulton get into an argument with today, I wonder? He's already attracted "hundreds" of complains to OFCOM about his clashes with Bradshaw and Campbell, on top of the allegations of bias after he broke the debate rules to challenge Nick Clegg. You can almost see Murdoch's hand up his backside working the mouth like some horrific ventriloquist act.

Sky News: never wrong for long.

[driveace]

You don't understand the word majority.

Majority means more than half. 50.1%. A number larger than half of the total.

The Conservatives didn't get a majority no matter which way you look at it. In fact a majority of the voters didn't vote Conservative. If Cameron tries to lead with a minority nothing will get done because everything he tries to do will not get through Parliament, because the majority of Parliament (which isn't Conservative) will vote against it.

The only reason the Lib Dems have a measly number of seats is because First-past-the-post doesn't work. The Liberals got more votes, a higher share of votes, but less seats!!
The Lib Dems did not get more votes than any other party as you state.The Conservatives had more votes and elected MPs than any other party had,they just have not got the magical number of 325 seats ,BUT Labour with the Lib Dems have NOT GOT enough MPs either,so would be relying on all the waifs and strays from small minority partys.Obviously as a Lib Dem supporter you are a BIT UPSET!!!

[Cooper_S]

Why are they a disgrace?

Well they got a measly number of seats (less than 60)




There are 650 seat in the UK parliament, On May 6th the Conservatives won 306 seats (or 47% of the seats available) against the Lib-Dem's 57 seats (or 9% of the seats available).

The only reason for this is the undemocratic and unfair FPTP system that allocated seats. the actual share of the votes cast was 36.1% for the Conservatives and 23% for the Lib-Dem's. In a fair system that would give the Conservatives the most seats of any one party on 235 while the 3 place Lib-Dem's would have 150 seats (Labour would remain second on 29% or 188 seats)

To say the Lib-Dem's are a disgrace because they 'only have 57 seats' is rather feeble and demonstrates either a lack of understanding of the maths or worse a belief that the UK should have an unjust and undemocratic system rather than a democratic and fair one for all it's citizens.


Tories and Labour supporters have become far too accustomed to getting to govern without the backing of the MAJORITY of it's electorate. PR does not always deliver a coalition government, when a party has the support of most of the electorate they can will with a clear majority, but just because most of the time the needs of the electorate are not met by one single party does not mean they should be ignored and a government formed by the largest minority at the exclusion of all others.

That is one step away from a dictatorship, such minority government (which FPTP system would give an unqualified majority when it comes to passing legislation) could vote to dissolve all political opposition, or should the mood take them introduce controversial changes like Sharia Law and it would (under FPTP) be totally legitimate, It happened when the 1990's Poll Tax was made law, and it could happen again.

So the Disgrace here is the current system and is not the Lib-Dem party who despite the best efforts of the FPTP system to silence a sizeable percentage of the UK electorate finally are holding some long overdue influence at Westminster

[Cooper_S]

The Lib Dems did not get more votes than any other party as you state.!!!

It is quite clear that the 50.1% majority was in reference to the combined share of any coalition of parties. The point being that no matter which way to look at it the Conservatives did not achieve a MAJORITY of the national vote (36.1%) or in the number of seats won (47%).

This is not anti conservative propaganda but simple facts. Yes individually the placed higest of all the parties but that feat alone is NOT a MANDATE of the electorate to govern.

[Cooper_S]

so would be relying on all the waifs and strays from small minority parties.


Remember these so called 'waifs and strays' were elected by the people and have as much right to play their part if called upon as any of the other MP's from the larger parties.

Once again such comments display a rather unhealthy dislike of democracy...

[Cooper_S]

I do apologise to driveace, It is not my intention to single you out specifically, it is just your comments resonated most with the sense of how unjust the FPTP system is and the mentality of those who know no other way. Your are not alone in your view and my comments are directed to all those of similar of a view. I'm sure you are a wonderful person with whom on other subjects we may have lots in common.

Regards
Cooper

[Dave B]

That's that then. The only question now is whether it's a minority Tory government or a coalition.

When Brown leaves the Palace after talking to the Queen, he'd better make sure his microphone is off... :eek: