Re: The UK General Election Thread

[Merlin]

The Tories have always been left to clean up Labour's mess ... nothing new in that!

[Allan D]

Interesting that the UIMF have recommended countries start paying debt back in 2011 and not this year.

Rather farks up the Tory position a bit.

Except for Greece:

The EU said that further cuts may be necessary “to the extent that a number of risks, associated with the specific deficit and debt ceilings materialize.” But a commission official indicated they already have, given last week’s disappointing growth figures for the EU in the last quarter of 2009. ”Now they have until the 15-16 March. This is a key date to present new proposals,” Austria’s Josef Proll stressed about Greece, little time to make up so much ground. Also on the possible chopping block are the annual two months bonuses Greek workers get as compensation for low wages. If Papandreou cuts the Easter, Summer and Christmas bonuses, that will result in a further 17% wage cut and could be the line in the sand that workers draw. Greek officials so far have downplayed the possibility or the notion that VAT will be raised as well, a particularly regressive tax because it hits the poor and workers and consumers buying necessities, not the rich buying luxuries or trinkets they can afford at any cost.

EU says ok to Greek deficit reduction plan, but some want more cuts to make it work

Ominous warning as to what happens when a government deceives itself and its own electorate as to the perfoprmance of economy and allows structural deficits to accumulate.

At least GB kept us out of the euro. That and the independence of the Bank of England may be his only positive legacies.

[Basil]

Interesting that the UIMF have recommended countries start paying debt back in 2011 and not this year.

Rather farks up the Tory position a bit.

Except for Greece:

The EU said that further cuts may be necessary “to the extent that a number of risks, associated with the specific deficit and debt ceilings materialize.” But a commission official indicated they already have, given last week’s disappointing growth figures for the EU in the last quarter of 2009. ”Now they have until the 15-16 March. This is a key date to present new proposals,” Austria’s Josef Proll stressed about Greece, little time to make up so much ground. Also on the possible chopping block are the annual two months bonuses Greek workers get as compensation for low wages. If Papandreou cuts the Easter, Summer and Christmas bonuses, that will result in a further 17% wage cut and could be the line in the sand that workers draw. Greek officials so far have downplayed the possibility or the notion that VAT will be raised as well, a particularly regressive tax because it hits the poor and workers and consumers buying necessities, not the rich buying luxuries or trinkets they can afford at any cost.

EU says ok to Greek deficit reduction plan, but some want more cuts to make it work

Ominous warning as to what happens when a government deceives itself and its own electorate as to the perfoprmance of economy and allows structural deficits to accumulate.

At least GB kept us out of the euro. That and the independence of the Bank of England may be his only positive legacies.

Ironic that GB's only positive legacy was achieved within days of taking office in 1997 - it's been downhill ever since.

[Allan D]

It was the first decision he took as Chancellor.

[Basil]

Don't tell Merlin, but a poll in today's Times puts the Tory lead at 2% - that would leave Labour as the largest party in a hung parliament.

[Zat]

That would be interesting. I saw a news story saying that the UK was looking at the idea of preferential voting instead of first past the post. Any discussion about that as a serious topic/chance of getting up?

[Basil]

That would be interesting. I saw a news story saying that the UK was looking at the idea of preferential voting instead of first past the post. Any discussion about that as a serious topic/chance of getting up?

If the Tories win, then the idea of PR in any form is more dead than Lee's test career. But it stands a chance if Labour had to rely on the Lib Dems to keep them in power.

[Zat]

Fair enough Bas. I was referring to giving preferences on your own vote, (used in Australia's House of reps) as opposed to a proportional representation system (used in Australia's Senate). But I see the argument.

Preferential voting has probably helped to condemn anything outside the major parties in Australia to irrelevance much of the time.

[Allan D]

Brown has introduced legislation to hold a referendum on a preferential ballot or alternative vote (which isn't PR as it still uses single-member constituencies) which is the same system as Australia currently uses (although it is doubtful if it will get through all its stages, particularly in the Lords, before Parliament is dissolved). The idea is that this would favour Labour as LibDem voters would be more likely to put Labour as their second preference. However experience hasn't favoured Labour in Australia (although the comparison isn't a good one as third parties have tended to favour the Liberals).

GB's conversion to electoral reform seems rather hypocritical as he was the chief roadblock to the implementation of the Jenkins Report (commissioned by Blair) in 1998 which recommended a combination of AV with AMS (additional member system in which a proportion of seats are allocated on the basis of a list system to partially even out the imbalances caused by single-member constituencies - a system used for the Scottish & Welsh assemblies as well as the London Assembly and in Germany) along with a reduction in the number of constituencies.

The chief reform proposed by the Conservatives is the reduction in the number of Westminster constituencies by about 10% from 651 to 595. This would disadvantage Labour as many of their seats are smaller, inner-city constituencies. The number of Scottish constituencies were reduced from 78 to 65 at the last election because of the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament. The reduction was mainly at the expense of Labour.

[Zat]

Cheers Allan.

[Guest]

If the Tories win, then the idea of PR in any form is more dead than Lee's test career. But it stands a chance if Labour had to rely on the Lib Dems to keep them in power.

A Sunday Times poll today puts the Tories just 2% in front. That would translate into a hung parliament with a Labour seat advantage. Good for the Libs....

[JKLever]

Don't tell Merlin, but a poll in today's Times puts the Tory lead at 2% - that would leave Labour as the largest party in a hung parliament.

They're caving in because they have no farking policies and if they do they aren't telling the electorate anything expcept how bad its going to be.

[Chivalry Augustus]

Policy?

Neither of the two likely parties has any policies. They tell us how rubbish the other guy's going to be, how rubbish the other guys were. We have two of the least charismatic leaders of all-time to choose from, and they would both literally kill a baby just to be Prime Minister, irrespective of the harm EITHER candidate will DEFINITELY do to the country. Picking between Labour and Conservative at the general election is a choice between ruining the country and ruining the country . . . further. Personally, as I sit here now, on the cusp of voting for the first time, I have no idea what to do. Irrespective of my choice one of Conservative or Labour will win and I'll be gutted. Voting for Lib Dem is like voting for a fish, there's no point. They've no political experience whatsoever and also have a cut-out leader. I might just vote for my local independent candidate or else the maddest sounding of the parties listed.

Not a good time for politics though. Probably symptomatic of the decreasing quality of humankind generally is the decreasing quality of politics and politicians, even if the latter seems to be declining at a rapid rate.

[Basil]

Don't tell Merlin, but a poll in today's Times puts the Tory lead at 2% - that would leave Labour as the largest party in a hung parliament.

They're caving in because they have no farking policies and if they do they aren't telling the electorate anything expcept how bad its going to be.

Cameron wouldn't survive the Tories not being in a position to form a government after the election. Hague comeback anyone?

[JKLever]

I've lived exactly half my life under both parties and they're as good and as bad as each other.

For me it would be a case of choosing one aspect of what a party is promising to do. So Labour will get my vote on the back of the Tories announcing that cuts will be made in 2010 and not wait till 2011. Which will be a disaster.

[JKLever]

Don't tell Merlin, but a poll in today's Times puts the Tory lead at 2% - that would leave Labour as the largest party in a hung parliament.

They're caving in because they have no farking policies and if they do they aren't telling the electorate anything expcept how bad its going to be.

Cameron wouldn't survive the Tories not being in a position to form a government after the election. Hague comeback anyone?

Hague is more ready than ever to have another stab at it and if the Tories do get in will add some much needed experience to a cabinet. I think a lot of working class voters look at Cameron & Osborne (who is inept btw) and see Etonians who really won't give a shit about them at the end of the day. Hague on the other hand is a dull stubborn Yorkshireman!!

[Basil]

It's not impossible that Labour and the Tories could finish within a fog paper of each other and both be in a position to govern with the support of the Lib Dems (always assuming that their vote doesn't collapse), in which case their position becomes critical. Who would they support? - my money is on Labour as that's their only hope of electoral reform.

[JKLever]

It's not impossible that Labour and the Tories could finish within a fog paper of each other and both be in a position to govern with the support of the Lib Dems (always assuming that their vote doesn't collapse), in which case their position becomes critical. Who would they support? - my money is on Labour as that's their only hope of electoral reform.

I agree with that. It would mean Labour agreeing to a few LibDem policies though - I reckon the replacement of Trident would be high on the agenda.

[Allan D]

It's not impossible that Labour and the Tories could finish within a fog paper of each other and both be in a position to govern with the support of the Lib Dems (always assuming that their vote doesn't collapse), in which case their position becomes critical. Who would they support? - my money is on Labour as that's their only hope of electoral reform.

Except Clegg has already ruled out supporting Labour as a minority government since, as the incumbent government it would have lost its legitimacy to govern. In the same way Jeremy Thorpe ruled out supporting Heath after the February 1974 election when although the Conservatives had 4 fewer seats than Labour they had 230,000 more votes and even though Heath offered Thorpe a seat in the Cabinet (and would presumably have been amenable to a deal on electoral reorm) on the grounds that though Labour had not won the election Heath, who had called a 'snap' election on the issue of 'Who Governs Britain?', had most certainly lost it.

When Thorpe's successor, David Steel, supported the Callaghan Government with the so-called 'Lib-Lab Pact' in 1977-8 after Labour had lost its parliamentary majority due to bye-elections Liberal support plummetted, mainly going to the Conservatives and the pact contributed to Mrs Thatcher's victory in 1979. Every time the Liberals become involved in a coalition or a pact, such as WWI, the 1931 'National' Government, the 1950-1 electoral 'understanding' with the Conservatives, the Lib-Lab Pact of 1977-78 or its own merger with the SDP in 1988 it usually turns out disastrously for them.

Clegg's best tactics, in the event of a hung Parliament, would be to stand apart from both the other parties and provoke another election as soon as possible in the hope of further increasing the number of Liberal MPs and so force both the other parties to agree to a programme of electoral reform.

What has largely gone unnoticed amidst the concentration on the 'narrowing' of the polls is the considerably large support for the LibDems at around 18-20% which I thinkis one of the factors responsible for the Conservatives failing to get above 40%. It remains to be seen if this substantial level of support for the LibDems is sustained in Lab-Con marginals where the LibDems are 'spoilers' and even in the constituencies, largely in the south or south-west, where they, not Labour, are the main challengers to, or are challenged by, the Conservatives.

[Basil]

Clegg's best tactics, in the event of a hung Parliament, would be to stand apart from both the other parties and provoke another election as soon as possible in the hope of further increasing the number of Liberal MPs and so force both the other parties to agree to a programme of electoral reform.

Are the Lib. Dems' finances robust enough to fight two elections in (say) 12 months?

In any event they might secure electoral reform without the need for forcing a second election - assuming they hold the balance of power.

Also, the electorate might punish the Lib Dems for foisting another election on them - I doubt if its a gamble they would take.

[Shoeshine]

I'm extremely sceptical about these latest opinion polls. It has all the hallmarks of the supposed close 1987 election which turned out to be a Tory landslide.

[Basil]

And its still (probably) nine weeks to polling day. Still, I think the Tories are in a bit of a corner.

If the economy slips back into recession, then all this talk about imposing public spending cuts straight away after the election would appear more foolish than it already is.

Secondly, if the economic indicators between now and polling day generally all point the right way - the Labour can argue that voting Tory will jeopardise the recovery.

And now the Tory clarion call of tax cuts has re-surfaced - quite how they would be funded, I doubt if even the Tories know.

[Allan D]

Are the Lib. Dems' finances robust enough to fight two elections in (say) 12 months?

In any event they might secure electoral reform without the need for forcing a second election - assuming they hold the balance of power.

Also, the electorate might punish the Lib Dems for foisting another election on them - I doubt if its a gamble they would take.

You may be right, but it would also be a risk to sustain a 13yo Government in power for a further term, especially for what the Conservatives would swiftly characterise as reasons of self-interest. Any deal on electoral reform would be subject to a referendum which the Liberals would have to win and which the opposition would invariably exploit as a means of rejecting the government especially if it recommended change. AV which is the only offer Brown has made is regarded with especial disfavour by the LibDem rank-and-file who think it is worse than first-past-the-post since it forces LibDem voters to choose between the two major parties without necessarily increasing LibDem support.

The examples of the London Mayoralty elections, where AV applies, are not good ones as far as the LibDems are concerned since the first-preference vote for the LibDem candidate has been lower than their party vote for the GLA (where AMS applies) might justify and their candidates are swept away along with the other 'minor' parties. Also, if second preference votes tend to favour one party more than another this would serve to increase the parliamentary majority of the winning party at the expense of the opposition more than would be justified on first-preference votes thus increasing, rather than reducing, the tyranny of majoritarian government, as Liberals would see it, making it more likely any government would have a healthy majority (which is of course GB's aim) whereas the whole point of PR is to reduce, if not abolish, the power of single-party government.

[Allan D]

I'm extremely sceptical about these latest opinion polls. It has all the hallmarks of the supposed close 1987 election which turned out to be a Tory landslide.

Yes, and the Labour victories in 1970 and 1992 that never were.

[Basil]

At least this is going to be a genuinely contested election where the outcome will be in doubt until the polling booths close. Since 1979, there have only been two unexpected results:

1987: where it was the scale of the Tory win that was the surprise - not the win itself.

1992: which fooled most people.

[Sponsored content]