Re: The UK General Election Thread

[PeterCS]

About right, the big winner was Clegg i'd say - these debates will elevate the LibDems way above the public conciousness they would otherwise get.

Think their stance on Trident is bollocks though frankly.

On the latter (and before he starts to get mock-hysterical about Brown as a sort of neo-Keyser Soze' ... ) - I agree with Chiv.

Cameron also emphasised Trident is "this country's independent nuclear deterrent". Nothing of the sort. It is in the hands of the American government. This is not France, not even the new France.

Trident is the "force de crappe" - unusable as a deterrent, and not even a plausible bargaining chip. You don't threaten to nuke states who refuse to give up their nuclear status.

[Basil]

Brown had a poor start, but got better the longer the debate lasted, but was never more than competent. He'll be relieved that there was no Chilcot Inquiry-like gaffe.

Cameron seemed a little bit flat and was uncomfortable when Brown challemged him on spending pledges for the Police and Education.

Winner by a country mile was Clegg - the other two didn't land a glove on him.

I was pleasantly surprised, I was expecting something a lot more turgid. But the moderator should have been allowed to cross-examine the leaders.

[JKLever]

Cameron also emphasised Trident is "this country's independent nuclear deterrent". Nothing of the sort. It is in the hands of the American government.

Bollocks Pete, a British PM has a nuke boat in the seas 24/7 loaded with nukes that he can order to fire if he so wished. It is just the missiles that are leased from the US, even the warheads are British - don't believe all the carp you read.

Trident is unusable as a deterrent

Trident is used as a deterrent every single day. Every single day it isn't used it works. With other countries trying to acquire weapons, now is not the time to unilaterally disarm.

The LibDems big problem is defence, they'll want us to be Belgium.

[Chivalry Augustus]

What the hell's a nuke boat, something you've imagined?

They're all submarines, HMS Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengenace (Vanguard Class of Ballistic Missile Submarines).

I think they're all based at Clyde. Ugly beautiful things the lot of them, I wouldn't mind serving on one one day. I've seen one up close on one of my forays with the Reserves, I've been regaled about them as well.

[Allan D]

The above reaction is what I expected and fits in with the ITV poll and the reaction following the Chancellors' debate to St Vince. One caveat though on post-debate reaction which is often, like a Budget, quite different after a few days when some of the statements have been shown again, tested and found wanting.

A good example is the first Ford-Carter debate in 1976. Most people thought Ford had the edge over Carter but when his statement about Poland not being under Soviet domination was repeated endlessly Ford's recovery in the polls came to a grinding halt. The general consensus is, however, that Brown did himself no favours and Labour support should slump, especially after his appalling answer on immigration which was the first question out of the hat.

Clegg was in the enviable position of being able to promise the earth knowing he will never have to deliver. As far as Clegg's (and the LibDems') position on Trident goes I think it will do him no favours in the longer term. The LibDems certainly will win no extra votes in Barrow-in-Furness, Jarrow or Clydeside where the submarines, a key part of the weaponrs system, are made and serviced. If you add in firms like Racal who provide the targetting systems Trident employs a few thousand people mainly at the hi-tech end of skills, although I realise that should not be the main argument for a nuclear deterrent. Nevertheless they would all face the dole queue and several highly-quotable British companies would go to the wall if Clegg were to have his way (which, thankfully, he won't).

Inveighing against Britain's nuclear deterrent did not do Michael Foot any good in 1983 and it won't improve Clegg's chances either. Also the idea that the LibDems would cap immigration is frankly risible.

[JKLever]

What the hell's a nuke boat, something you've imagined?

Slang. Subs are also called boats btw rather than ships.

They're all submarines, HMS Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengenace (Vanguard Class of Ballistic Missile Submarines).

I think they're all based at Clyde. Ugly beautiful things the lot of them, I wouldn't mind serving on one one day. I've seen one up close on one of my forays with the Reserves, I've been regaled about them as well.

I agree with a lot of what Clegg says, but fear he'd sell us to the EU and rape our armed forces.

A moot point anyway, he may have won the debate but not enough of those polled will vote for them at a general election.

[LeFromage]

Didn't see the debate - but saw a few brief clips: what shade of orange was Cameron going for?

Everyone on Question Time, except Tory boy, seemed to think he was a massive let-down.

Kind of interesting, I guess, as he had the most to lose - everyone already expected Brown would be rubbish.

[Ash]

clegg just played to the galleries, all style little substance. brown probably had the most substance.

[JKLever]

Clegg will stuff up in the next debate on Foreign policy. Most Britons are moderately Eurosceptic or favour at least no more integration - LibDems are more pro-EU than Labour.

[Merlin]

Nick Clegg FFS

He reminds me of a horse entered for the Grand National that hasn't yet won a Blackpool Donkey Derby in its entire carreer. Glistening coat in the parade ring; head upright and alert; nice stride; swishing tail ... but fools no one as the bookies peg it at 500/1. Then during the race, it bolts off into the lead, leaping the first 10 fences like a stag, leaving the other runners in its wake ... until, after one circuit, it begins to labour, the jumping falters whilst the clueless jockey gets the whip across its arse to squeeze a last effort out of a dying cause! With 3 miles and 20 fences still to go, it limps along as the pack passes it with ease .... then, when it's all over, it returns to its home stable telling it's fellow equines that "it took part and nearly/almost/may have done well" !! Meanwhile, the unsuspecting and romantic punter who loses his hard-earned on the donkey vows never to bet on it again .... but ... he will ... because some people prefer romance over reality and anyway, they never learn.

"No policies" Clegg thrived on ridiculing the other two leaders last night with absolutely no substance nor hope of ever "convincing" anyone. He's the popular pimp who will cut the price of the tricks in his care in order to be the centre of attraction on the High Street ... "We told you to do it" .... "We thought of the policy first" ..."We offered the people that alternative long before you did" .... "We want proportional representation" .... "How about a half-priced blow job if you vote for me?" ... FFS change the record man ... stereo lines from the lips of another wannabe leader who, unlike his predecessors, did at least have this one chance in public to score against his opponents and get that misguided, unsuspecting punter to put the money on him yet again.

But ... next week, when the Welsh and the Jocks also share the podium, Cleggie's voice ain't gonna be heard as loud as it was "sincerely" put over last night... just as the used-car salesman's who plies his trade beside the M1 motorway.

F**king sham.

Mind you, I suspect Lloyd George would've been proud of Clegg's performance last night.... boyyo.

[Allan D]

One good thing about the debate is that it increases the chances of Labour losing many more seats to the LibDems in areas like mine where the Tories have no hope of winning. At a local level I feel much more confident about Jeremy Corbyn finally being booted out.

I see from the local paper that the Conservative candidate is a wheelchair-bound muscular dystrophy sufferer. Whilst I am totally committed to equal rights for disabled people I am rather reluctant to vote for a political representative who is even more worse off than I am. It makes me think that the Conservatives are not going to be expending a great deal of effort here and are leaving the Lib Dems a clear run. I don't think the Tory candidate will be canvassing me somehow as I live on the second floor (with no lifts).

I think we may be seeing a more significant process at this election than the usual turnaround in political fortunes (which has in fact been going on since 1974) and that is the death of New Labour and its eventual replacement by the LibDems. In retrospect I think Labour's resurrection and its metamorphosis into New Labour will be seen as a kind of Indian summer - the last flickering embers of a party that was due to become extinct anyway because of social changes and the decline of the traditional working class in the same way that the Liberal Government elected in 1906 represented a brief revival of Gladstonian Liberalism before its eventual decline and virtual extinction (before new life was breathed into it during the 1950s under Jo Grimond and the 'Liberal Revival' caused by middle-class discontent and the start in the decline of the class system)..

A catalyst for the decline of the Liberal Party was the personal rivalry between Asquith and Lloyd George and the compromises both had to make with traditional Liberal principles due to the onset of WWI. Similarly the personal rivalry between Blair and Brown and the changes forced upon them by the circumstances brought about by 9/11 will be seen to have destroyed the project of New Labour of which they were the co-authors. Not immediately, but in the near future the LibDems will replace New Labour as the principal opposition to the Conservatives and Labour will either become mired in arcane and obscurantist ideological debates or merge with .the LibDems or, possibly, both.

To Dello, I think your TV needs some serious adjustment. Cameron appeared perfectly fine on mine. I think you must be confused with this well-known figure from yesteryear doing a pretty passable imitation of a satsuma:




(Had the organisers realised what his skin tone was they might have chosen a different backdrop as the two tend to marge - bit like using a pink ball and a pink sightscreen).

[eowyn]

Well, from reading comments on here and other places, I think it's safe to say most people saw what they wanted to see. Especially those who's minds were already firmly made up.

[Merlin]

TBH Ange, with the feeling in me bones that Boy David has this election just about in the bag anyway ... I concentrated on both the oppos to see if they could 'convince me'.

Frankly, Brownie really was tedious and labouring ... and in all honesty, with a face like his, he wouldn't get a bit part in a Frankenstein horror movie ... and, as the saying goes, if the face don't fit ... sadly in his case that applied, one look at the mug shot, then the scotch broth drawl and I was lost to his cause.

And so I focused purely on Nick Clegg. Yes, there is no denying he was well groomed and that his performance was perfectly rehearsed ... but bear in mind two things:
1. His party have almost no chance whatsoever of ever shaking out of 3rd spot in Westminster and therefore
2. With absolutely nothing to lose, he can afford to be hyper critical and smug, his party having not held office since Lloyd George's days (almost) ... and so, by kicking arse and making the other leaders look like cabbage dolls, he was "scoring" heavily and therefore looked good.

Camerooney was stiff at times last night ( SamCam welcomed this!! ) ... perhaps if he loosened up a bit and looked as smug as the pimp, he might have got somewhere - BUT ... had he done so, being the nearest challenger to the incumbents, he might well have attracted the same-old same-old reference of being " the smug tory toff " ... which would have, paradoxically, lost him points and votes.
Hence his neutral and less animated stance ... wooden at times even ... but ever so conscious of not rocking the boat too much ...

[Allan D]

To give Clegg is due he at least sounded spontaneous and appeared to respond to what the others said whereas the other two were scripted and spoke in pre-prepared soundbites - I lost count of the number of times Cameron talked about the NIC rise as a "tax on jobs" and Brown kept parroting on about Cameron wanting to take "£6 bn out of the economy" which would damage the recovery. Both statements were repeated so often they simply turned into mantras and lost their impact.

There was also little interaction, caused by the rather stultifying format and the desire of the moderator to give each of the leaders exactly equal speaking time but Cameron also lacked the killer instinct and allowed both Clegg and Brown to get off the hook too easily.

When Cameron challenged Clegg on his barmy proposal for allowing immigration only on a regional basis Clegg responded with a cockeyed explanation of putting stamps on passports allowing visas only to apply in certain areas but Cameron never came back and seemed to accept his explanation but it is of course nonsense. How could you allow an immigrant to work as an opthalmologist in Scun thorpe but not in Southend? What about long-distance lorry drivers whose work takes them all over the country? What if the firm the foreign migrant is working for relocates to another part of the country? Such a system could only be enforced by some sort of internal border police such as the Soviet Union had or that currently applies in China where Hong Kong is designated a "special economic area" to which Chinese from other parts of the country are forbidden from migrating. It doesn't sound particularly liberal to me. Also such a scheme, if it ever got off the ground, would be swiftly vetoed by the EU under the free movement of labour clauses of the EU treaties. Once a foreign worker was given a legal work permit by an EU member state he would become entitled to exactly the same freedoms as EU workers.

Also Brown was allowed to repeat over and over again that the government had provided growth through public spending. Since when does a bloated public sector create economic growth? Doesn't the public sector expand at the expense of the private sector? Aren't the jobs created by the public sector offset by the loss of jobs in the private sector due to the increased taxation required to pay for the increase in the public sector meaning that there is, at best, a neutral effect on growth? Isn't relying on public spending to stimulate the economy not only weak economics but a defiance of the principles of New Labour which claims that the stimulation of enterprise and entrepreneurship is vital to a growing economy?

I fear that Cameron has too weak a grasp of basic principles himself to be able to challenge Clegg's inconsistency and Brown's statism effectively.

[Guest]

Clegg came across far better than either of the other two leaders.

[Merlin]

Very true Vilks.
But only as a half decent actor who'd do well in an advert for FLORA margarine, but could never aspire the lead role in HAMLET.

[Makaveli]

Most politicians are actors at best anyway Merlin, why begrudge him for that? this country won't change much with Labour & the Conservatives switching seats every term, what's the point.

[Basil]

When all said and done, the net effect will probably be the Lib Dems not losing as many seats to the Tories as they might have feared, and possibly picking up some Labour seats, leaving them more ot less where they are.

They would probably have to shift their share of the vote up by six or seven points to make real inroads into the other parties' territory - I don't see that happening.

[Merlin]

There'd be a point Mak if the LibDems had solid and original policies - rather than continually poo-pooing the other two parties for theirs ... whilst erroneously claiming (as they do - and Clegg did last night) that it was all their ideas in the first place (providing said policy is a popular one) !

Clever boxing IMO ... but as I said earlier, a conviction lacking real substance.

[taipan]

Most politicians are actors at best anyway Merlin, why begrudge him for that? this country won't change much with Labour & the Conservatives switching seats every term, what's the point.

Um, how many terms did Labour have this time around? And how many for the Tories the previous time?

[Makaveli]

Most politicians are actors at best anyway Merlin, why begrudge him for that? this country won't change much with Labour & the Conservatives switching seats every term, what's the point.

Um, how many terms did Labour have this time around? And how many for the Tories the previous time?

Scroll to the bottom, the trend is usually two terms then pass over.

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

[taipan]

So Labour at 3 and Tories at 4

[Merlin]

So Labour at 3 and Tories at 4

... and LibDems / Liberals 0.... (for a verrrryyyy long time now!)

Thereby hangs a tale!

[taipan]

One change of government since 1979

[Allan D]

I think we can say that Brown's performance last night put the final seal on his premiership and he will match Callaghan's 3-year term - Britain's last unelected PM. Just as Callaghan was brought down by the IMF crisis in 1976 which eventually spawned the winter of discontent so Brown was brought down by the financial collapse of October 2008 which although, inthe short term, provided him with his 'finest hour' also brutally exposed his empty boast, as Chancellor, of 'no more boom and bust'. Anyway finest hours are not always rewarded at the polls as Churchill found out in 1945.

A word on the Lib Dems before we go too overboard on Nick Clegg. Although I do not resile from my previously stated opinion posted earlier that we are in the middle of a secular change in British politics with Labour declining and being gradually replaced by the Lib Dems part of the reason why that change has been slow has been the capacity for Liberal support to evaporate as quickly as it has risen and for the Liberals to produce leaders that have been personally flawed.

In 1983 the Liberals and SDP together got 27% of the vote -only 1 point less than Labour yet 6 years later, after the rowover the fusion of the two parties, they ran fourth in the European elections, below the Green Party, with only 5% and it was a long climb back to the foothills of respectability.

Had there been debates in 1974 Jeremy Thorpe would have undoubtedly have been the most popular of the three leaders. In the wake of the election Edward Heath offered Thorpe a seat in the Cabinet which he, fortunately in light of later events, declined. Four years later he provoked a collective squirm of embarrassment from his colleagues when he turned up unannounced at the Liberal Party assembly with a charge of conspiracy to murder hanging over his head.

In 2005 Charles Kennedy was popular with all shades of the liberal establishment with his opposition to the Iraq War as the Lib Dems took 12 seats from Labour, predominantly in inner-city areas to show that they were not simply a party of middle-class discontent yet within 8 months he, like Thorpe, had been forced out of office by his fellow MPs due to his personal failings. Today's Mr sensible can become tomorrow's shameful embarrassment.

[Sponsored content]