The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Furunculus]

Germany has been racked by guilt for the Second World War for several generations, and it's always going to be a stain on Germany's history. Yet Germany has moved on. Business links with Russia, America, France, America etc. are all extremely strong. Britain is no longer the "Perfidious Albion" of pre-1945 German media, but recognised as an equal partner on the world stage.

And yet, a juvenile, ignorant and totally repulsive attitude exists in Britain of a feeling of superiority over Germany and Germans as a whole. Despite the fact that there is hardly anyone alive who actually fought against Fascism, apparently every British citizen alive today was a contributor to "winning the war", as if it finished last week. I don't need to give any examples because it such a common phenomenon in British society. The numerous contributions that Germany has made to science, the arts, engineering and pre-1914/post-1945 history go totally ignored. It is insulting to Germany and the German people, and Clegg was entirely in the right to speak out against this rot that infests Britain.


straw-man, and absolute bobbins!

there are always nut-cases, they they always shout loud, should I tar germany with the visible presence of their neo-nazi groups...........? no, because it doesn't reflect germany as a whole.

clegg is talking utter guff, and repellent guff at that. i do not want him representing me.

:yes:
Also, 'Britain's cross' is not Britain's past. It is not the history of Britain that is compared with the history of Germany. It is the dealing with history that is compared. Germany's cross to wear is simply guilt, that of Britain is more insiduous still, namely misplaced superiority, sometimes resulting in outright insulting behaviour.

more bobbins, i'll be the judge of the intellectual strait-jacket through which I grapple with british history, thank you very much.

[Furunculus]

Cor blimey, I do believe I have found an article by David Cameron criticising the British constitution! It's a scandal, a scandal!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/jun/23/davidcameron.politicalcolumnists


Never mind the European constitution, what about the British one? Evidence of the wretched state of our own arrangements is all around us.
The House of Commons is quite useless at scrutinising legislation and amending it accordingly.
My experience on one "standing committee", covering the criminal justice bill, was enough to convince me of this. Whole clauses were not even debated because time was too short. Changes of huge significance, such as storing DNA from anyone who is taken to a police station, were introduced at the last minute and discussed for less than an hour.
Down the corridor in the House of Lords the government may face a more challenging time, but as the upper house is now almost entirely made up of appointed peers it lacks genuine legitimacy.
The Conservative party is always in danger of letting its reverence for our institutions translate into a dignified silence about constitutional reform. It is time we spoke out.
Don't get me wrong. Two years into this job I have not lost faith with the British way of doing things. Much of its job, parliament does very well. Our one-member, one-constituency system ensures excellent representation for every part of the country. The Commons is a great place for raising concerns, questioning ministers, discovering information and debating important issues.
But there is a lot that is seriously wrong. The failure to scrutinise laws. The power of the whips and patronage. The illegitimate second chamber. And the unchecked growth of government from both Whitehall and Brussels.
What would a package of Conservative constitutional reform look like? Here goes:
1. Lords' reform
A botched job that we didn't start, but we must finish. Legitimacy flows from elections and we must restate our commitment to a majority elected house. Conflict between the houses could be limited by making the second chamber a senate, rather than a mirror. Taking out all the ministers, insisting on a single term of 15-year duration and setting out down the powers to reject, delay and question in clear detail would be a pretty good start.
But the real problem is not the Lords, but the Commons. After all, they actually scrutinise legislation, we just pass it.
2. Independence for the Commons
The central problem is the government's complete control of the Commons timetable. There is no balance between the government's right to get its way and the Commons right to scrutinise. Labour's routine timetabling of all bills, the reform of the hours and abolition of all late sittings has made this far worse. Time and again the Speaker is asked for more time, yet all he can say is "these are not matters for me".
Why not have an all-party committee, elected by MPs, to adjudicate? If the whips kept control those elected would effectively be "named and shamed" for not doing their job properly.
3. Voting by secret ballot on standing committees.
Sounds insignificant, but goes to the heart of the problem. We debate laws line by line, but votes are then whipped. During the criminal justice bill Labour MPs would make valiant speeches about why a clause was wrong-headed, only to vote for it as soon as a division was called. Even if amendments were overturned in the chamber, the government would have to explain why it was going against the considered opinion of MPs.
4. Election of select committee members
Everyone agrees that select committees do a great job and should be nurtured. They ought to provide an alternative career path to the greasy pole of ministerial office. But members are chosen by an opaque process owing more to patronage than performance. The fiercely independent and effective Chris Mullin has just left the home affairs select committee to become a minister. Heaven knows who we will be sent in his place. Why not guarantee places for all parties, including the minor ones and then let backbenchers vote for their colleagues?
5. Referendum provision
I am no fan of what can be the "dictator's weapon", and referendums should have a very limited place in a representative democracy. But it seems to me a pretty good principle that elected representatives should not give up the powers they were elected to wield without asking the people who elected them first.
At least the wretched Maastricht treaty was clearly set out in the Conservatives' 1992 manifesto; the new constitution was never mentioned in Labour's effort for 2001. 6. Fixed-term parliaments
If we are looking for ways to redress the balance between a weak legislature and an over-mighty executive, five-year fixed-term parliaments could play a role. A government that lost the confidence of the house could still be forced to dissolve parliament through a vote of confidence.
7. Limits on ministers, bills and taxes.
We may not scrutinise it, but we sure as hell pass enough of it. The Home Office is the most incontinent department, having produced some 10 criminal justice bills since 1997 - and to what end?
Budgets get thicker, taxes get heavier, lists of ministers and their advisers get ever longer. A proper, more independent House of Commons would get to grips with this, but why not set down some limits so that ministers are suitably embarrassed if they have to come back and ask permission to break them?
8. War powers act
The Iraq debate set a precedent: it is hard to imagine any government going to war now without a vote in the Commons. But the fact remains that it does not need to seek one. It should.
9. A written constitution
What! Isn't it sacrilege for a Conservative to question our age-old, time-proven "unwritten" constitution that has evolved and adapted so superbly down the ages?
I am beginning to think not. How do we know that freedoms won through the Magna Carta, the bill of rights or anywhere else are under threat? Because we know what they say. Our constitution is being assaulted by an overweening government on the one hand, and a burgeoning Brussels bureaucracy on the other. Is it such a revolutionary concept to suggest that it could, just possibly, be time to write the thing down on a piece of paper?



you are surprised by this why?

and most interestingly, something i have been saying on this forum for years: "But it seems to me a pretty good principle that elected representatives should not give up the powers they were elected to wield without asking the people who elected them first."

[Myrddraal]

Nick Clegg says British past is more insidious than even Nazi Germanys, that should play out well in the marginals:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7616685/Nick-Clegg-Britain-bears-cross-bigger-than-Germanys-Nazi-past.html

What a stupid, stupid comment!

When I saw this comment I thought you were referring to some news, but no, the comments were made seven years ago, and the telegraph is twisting those words from the headline onwards. I know the telegraph is partisan, but this is pretty low for a paper that at least pretends to be about reporting the news.

I'm unconvinced of the Lib Dem policies, but this mud slinging does nothing to anyone's reputation other than of the torygraph.


that is the BIS and the IMF one after the other, we need cuts and massive reform of the pension system, and they need to be brutal!
I suppose we also need to lower taxes, in order to reduce the deficit. But it's ok, we can budget for this by relying on billions of pounds of waste savings.

[Beskar]

straw-man, and absolute bobbins!

there are always nut-cases, they they always shout loud, should I tar germany with the visible presence of their neo-nazi groups...........? no, because it doesn't reflect germany as a whole.

clegg is talking utter guff, and repellent guff at that. i do not want him representing me.


more bobbins, i'll be the judge of the intellectual strait-jacket through which I grapple with british history, thank you very much.

Not exactly, it is pretty true. What is even more funny, the English keep going "1966!!!" to the Germans, and the Germans are like "What? Who cares?"

[Subotan]

straw-man, and absolute bobbins!

there are always nut-cases, they they always shout loud, should I tar germany with the visible presence of their neo-nazi groups...........? no, because it doesn't reflect germany as a whole.

clegg is talking utter guff, and repellent guff at that. i do not want him representing me.
The phenomenon which I and Clegg are talking about has nothing in common with the far-right. The far-right is a minority group of mentally challenged extrremists. Anti-German sentiment in the UK is something which is far deeper and more insitutionalised.

80 per cent of British schoolchildren, when asked what they associated with Germany, mentioned the Second World War, and 50 per cent mentioned Hitler. Even John Cleese hates it, saying at a competition at the German Embassy ""I’m delighted to help with trying to break down the ridiculous anti-German prejudices of the tabloids and clowns like Basil Fawlty, who are pathetically stuck in a world view that’s more than half a century out of date...I think the German contribution to literature and philosophy is extraordinary, and to music and science is enormous.". To say that this a "strawman" argument is to say that we live in a nation of scarecrows.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/world/Why-do-we-still-laugh.2442846.jp
http://userweb.port.ac.uk/~joyce1/abinitio/whygerm1.html

[Beskar]

Isn't the biggest myth of this election your reputation. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-grwkqnc1U&feature=player_embedded)

A shame. I heard a couple of his points which I agreed with, and he has apparently reversed them elsewhere. :sad: On the otherhand, some of his comments do have a middle-ground, because ruling something out in one situation and then saying you will do it in a different situation is not flip-flopping.

For example ranting about going to the beach in Winter, is a stupid idea, then a few months later in late spring/early summer saying going to the Beach is a good idea, doesn't mean he flip-flopped on it.

[Myrddraal]

Might also be worth watching the unedited version on iPlayer. That was posted by guidofawkes

[InsaneApache]

For example ranting about going to the beach in Winter, is a stupid idea, then a few months later in late spring/early summer saying going to the Beach is a good idea, doesn't mean he flip-flopped on it.

Desperate stuff mate, desperate stuff. :laugh4:

[Beskar]

Desperate stuff mate, desperate stuff. :laugh4:

Not a "desperate" attempt by me, I have nothing to gain by defending him. Just saying what it is.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The phenomenon which I and Clegg are talking about has nothing in common with the far-right. The far-right is a minority group of mentally challenged extrremists. Anti-German sentiment in the UK is something which is far deeper and more insitutionalised.

80 per cent of British schoolchildren, when asked what they associated with Germany, mentioned the Second World War, and 50 per cent mentioned Hitler. Even John Cleese hates it, saying at a competition at the German Embassy ""I’m delighted to help with trying to break down the ridiculous anti-German prejudices of the tabloids and clowns like Basil Fawlty, who are pathetically stuck in a world view that’s more than half a century out of date...I think the German contribution to literature and philosophy is extraordinary, and to music and science is enormous.". To say that this a "strawman" argument is to say that we live in a nation of scarecrows.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/world/Why-do-we-still-laugh.2442846.jp
http://userweb.port.ac.uk/~joyce1/abinitio/whygerm1.html

This is something pressed by the government, almost the entire history curriculum from GCSE onwards is either 1914-46, with a focus on Germany, or is more generally about Israel!

no wonder we have anti-German prejudice ingrained in the school children.

[Boohugh]

80 per cent of British schoolchildren, when asked what they associated with Germany, mentioned the Second World War

I don't quite see why you are surprised or shocked by that statistic? The biggest single contribution (if it can be called that) Germany has made to history is World War Two, that event has shaped everything that has happened in the last 60 years. That doesn't mean they haven't made other contributions, and it doesn't mean we can't recognise those other contributions to science, literature, etc, but it also doesn't mean we should ignore or forget what happened.

There is an important difference between understanding and recognising history (which should be encouraged) and trying to continually blame people for it (which should be discouraged). Obviously when you have people randomly insulting German tourists then there is a problem, but pointing out those people and saying they represent everyone in England is just as bad a stereotype and, as explained above, using a statistic that says schoolchildren associate Germany with WW2 does not prove that they all then hold a negative view because of that.

[Myrddraal]

Furunculus, I'm sure you're happy to see Trident in the headlines again. What do you make of the letter to the times?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7103318.ece

[Idaho]

Looking at the (largely Murdoch owned) newspaper front pages in the shop at lunch time was hilarious and instructive about where the power lies. All of them were desperately attacking Clegg for anything and everything. Murdoch has got the willies thinking that his preferred candidate might not get elected. How very dare they! Free and fair press? Not a chance.

Sky are hosting the debate tonight - I wonder if Murdoch is pulling some strings and making it known to the production team that they are to show Clegg in the worst possible light.

And all you Tories are quite happy with it, because, like all right wingers, your belief in a true democratic process is just a thin layer of paint over your desire to maintain your own priviledge and status.

Still - I couldn't give a toss about Clegg, as he is no different to the others. I just think Murdoch's control of the media is an afront to a modern society.

[Furunculus]

When I saw this comment I thought you were referring to some news, but no, the comments were made seven years ago, and the telegraph is twisting those words from the headline onwards. I know the telegraph is partisan, but this is pretty low for a paper that at least pretends to be about reporting the news.

I suppose we also need to lower taxes, in order to reduce the deficit. But it's ok, we can budget for this by relying on billions of pounds of waste savings.
the editorial is tory, but it is not for nothing that the telegraph is known as the other paper of record alongside the times!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_of_record
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3409185.stm

yes indeed we do, because we need to encourage economic growth to pay for those unfunded pension trillions.

[Furunculus]

Not exactly, it is pretty true. What is even more funny, the English keep going "1966!!!" to the Germans, and the Germans are like "What? Who cares?"
still utter bobbins, please define 'the english'?

The phenomenon which I and Clegg are talking about has nothing in common with the far-right. The far-right is a minority group of mentally challenged extrremists. Anti-German sentiment in the UK is something which is far deeper and more insitutionalised.

80 per cent of British schoolchildren, when asked what they associated with Germany, mentioned the Second World War, and 50 per cent mentioned Hitler. Even John Cleese hates it, saying at a competition at the German Embassy ""I’m delighted to help with trying to break down the ridiculous anti-German prejudices of the tabloids and clowns like Basil Fawlty, who are pathetically stuck in a world view that’s more than half a century out of date...I think the German contribution to literature and philosophy is extraordinary, and to music and science is enormous.". To say that this a "strawman" argument is to say that we live in a nation of scarecrows.

yes, some people are idiots, but obey the laws of the land and you can think whatever you want as i have no truck with the thought police mentality, and the last time i checked aggressive english nationalism has not caused any atrocities genocides or invasions.

So What?

[Furunculus]

Furunculus, I'm sure you're happy to see Trident in the headlines again. What do you make of the letter to the times?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7103318.ece

i am always happy to see Defence hit the headlines.

what must be realised here is that four, only four, retired generals are having palpitations because they know that defence is going to be truncated to live within its budget, rather than the unfunded ambitions of SDR98, and they are terrified that Liam Foxes pro-navy comments mean that the army is going to bear the brunt of that truncation.

[Furunculus]

Looking at the (largely Murdoch owned) newspaper front pages in the shop at lunch time was hilarious and instructive about where the power lies. All of them were desperately attacking Clegg for anything and everything. Murdoch has got the willies thinking that his preferred candidate might not get elected. How very dare they! Free and fair press? Not a chance.

And all you Tories are quite happy with it, because, like all right wingers, your belief in a true democratic process is just a thin layer of paint over your desire to maintain your own privilege and status.


please, grow up and ditch the conspiracy theories, the rules around the debate are stifling and structured it defies belief:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/02/how-leaders-election-debates-will-work

d00d, that class-war chippiness is SOOOOOO twentieth century, why don't you bury alongside Marx for crying out loud!

[Idaho]

please, grow up and ditch the conspiracy theories, the rules around the debate are stifling and structured it defies belief:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/02/how-leaders-election-debates-will-work

d00d, that class-war chippiness is SOOOOOO twentieth century, why don't you bury alongside Marx for crying out loud!

You are a wealthy young man, living at the peak of a wealthy time for this country. Your knowledge and experience of the world are limited. You mistake what you have through luck as what you deserve and what you believe with what suits your circumstances.

Some of us have seen these cycles come and go. And we are about to see it happen again.

[Vladimir]

When I saw Jeremy Clarkson's name on this page it reminded me of a Top Gear episode. The guys were competing against a German trio and arrived, late, of course, in a trio of Spitfires. This and the occasional jab at the U.S. seem to be more in the British "sporting" tradition rather than anything malevolent. Clarkson even make a 1966 reference in the episode.

Any kind of guilt felt by the Germans is theirs to bear. They were beat twice in the same century and it will take *another* 50 years to move on. The Soviet Union bears as much responsibility as Germany for this. Much of Europe leads to the left and the USSR no longer exists as political entity so Germany gets the majority of the flack (pun intended).

Over here I don't see much official bias against Germany by the UK. The former will always be a competitor to the latter so things will never entirely normalize.

[Furunculus]

You are a wealthy young man, living at the peak of a wealthy time for this country. Your knowledge and experience of the world are limited. You mistake what you have through luck as what you deserve and what you believe with what suits your circumstances.

Some of us have seen these cycles come and go. And we are about to see it happen again.

as i consider the approach of my mid thirties, looking back at the times when i have been an executive director, unemployed, self-employed and more, currently living in a deprived part of britain, previously having lived in africa, as well as quite some time in rural poland, i fail to recognise in myself that silver-spoon attitude that makes me impervious to the needs of others......?

[Idaho]

as i consider the approach of my mid thirties, looking back at the times when i have been an executive director, unemployed, self-employed and more, currently living in a deprived part of britain, previously having lived in africa, as well as quite some time in rural poland, i fail to recognise in myself that silver-spoon attitude that makes me impervious to the needs of others......?

None are so blind as those who will not see.

[Louis VI the Fat]

more bobbins, i'll be the judge of the intellectual strait-jacket through which I grapple with british history, thank you very much.What straight-jacket?

Clegg makes the fair point that a view of history best left to the schoolyard and football stadium, has an altogether too large influence on civilised English society. Best to leave 'Two World Wars and One World Cup' to the football stands. (Never mind that the World Cup and at least one World War owe a good deal to Russians. Never mind too that it has never occurred to the singers of it that German fans, Europe's most succesful football nation, are of course not the least bit impressed by foreigners celebrating their one little success of fifty years ago)


Perhaps the real significance is that Murdoch send his bloodhounds to scour over the whole of Clegg's past, and this non-issue is the best they could dig up.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Any kind of guilt felt by the Germans is theirs to bear. They were beat twice in the same century and it will take *another* 50 years to move on. The Soviet Union bears as much responsibility as Germany for this. Much of Europe leads to the left and the USSR no longer exists as political entity so Germany gets the majority of the flack (pun intended).

It took West Germany nearly a quarter century to really recover from the war. Then they absorbed the East where little had been done and, arguably, enviornmental etc. conditions were even worse in 1989-90. Sounds like another 25+ from that point.

Collective guilt is a funny thing. I've never molested a child and never will, yet as a Catholic I do feel a sense of guilt over those who have been wronged and pray for God to comfort their spirits. So Germans feeling a hard-to-define sense of guilt for something they never personally did at all isn't quite so strange to me.

...well that's if from this right wing "son of privilege." Idaho, you and I don't quite define things the same way. Separated by a common language no doubt.

[Myrddraal]

Perhaps the real significance is that Murdoch send his bloodhounds to scour over the whole of Clegg's past, and this non-issue is the best they could dig up.

Sounds about right, and the fact that they made such a big deal out of it should do more harm to their own reputation than Clegg's.

[InsaneApache]

None are so blind as those who will not see.

Indeed. :rolleyes:

[shlin28]

Instant polls said Cameron did best in the latest debate, followed by Clegg then Brown. Cleggmania was only a temporary phenomenon I guess...

[Furunculus]

None are so blind as those who will not see.


What straight-jacket?

Clegg makes the fair point that a view of history best left to the schoolyard and football stadium, has an altogether too large influence on civilised English society. Best to leave 'Two World Wars and One World Cup' to the football stands. (Never mind that the World Cup and at least one World War owe a good deal to Russians. Never mind too that it has never occurred to the singers of it that German fans, Europe's most succesful football nation, are of course not the least bit impressed by foreigners celebrating their one little success of fifty years ago)


Perhaps the real significance is that Murdoch send his bloodhounds to scour over the whole of Clegg's past, and this non-issue is the best they could dig up.

simply unimportant, and thus still utter bobbins.
thanks for the biblical style metaphor, but what of substance were you trying to say...............?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

just watched the foriegn policy debate; all came over well, but nick clegg interrupted a lot, had fewer good answers, and gordon got shot down a lot.

[Myrddraal]

simply unimportant, and thus still utter bobbins.
Couldn't agree more, but the Telegraph managed to make a big deal of it. All it takes is a bit of creative quoting, and you get people saying "I don't want to be governed by this anti-British :daisy:"

I couldn't watch the debate :sad:

[Subotan]

Instant polls said Cameron did best in the latest debate, followed by Clegg then Brown. Cleggmania was only a temporary phenomenon I guess...
I've looked through the various newspaper websites from the Guardian through to the Torygraph, and I haven't see any which could replicate a similar answer to what the poll commissioned by Sky News could find. I smell a rat.

[Beskar]

still utter bobbins, please define 'the english'?

For some reason, I doubt it is the Scottish, the Welsh or the Northern Irish will keep going "1966 to you, Germans!".

[Louis VI the Fat]

I couldn't watch the debate :sad:I'm watching much of it here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/election2010/liveevent/

[Furunculus]

For some reason, I doubt it is the Scottish, the Welsh or the Northern Irish will keep going "1966 to you, Germans!".

and i somehow doubt it is any great proportion of the english too. straw man. utter bobbins.

[Myrddraal]

Watching snippets on youtube now. Brown certainly doesn't come across very well. So far every statement has revolved around the words "I have to do this all the time, every day, I have to get on with the job", which doesn't tell us very much other than that he's the current prime minister.

[Furunculus]

Cameron: I'm really totally different from these two, d00ds.

Brown: I'm a statesman, and the other guys are dangerous.

Clegg: I'm new, and i'll interrupt people a lot.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I thought the debate went well for Clegg. Cameron was much improved, but still strangely uncomfortable. Brown didn't seem to be in the same room - he felt irrelevant.

I was surprised that barely a glove was laid on Nick Clegg about Europe. He did very well explaining his position, and perhaps his weakest policy area (in the electorate's eyes) was defended easily and with charm. In fact, it was Cameron who got completely skewered on European policy and looked isolated. In any country which wasn't paranoid about Europe, he would have lost the election there and then, but in the UK it will be a minor blip. His decision to join the fringe of EU politics won him the Tory leadership, but looks like losing him the premiership.

Clegg also did well enough on Trident, and once the debate got back to domestic policy, he shone again, even if one didn't agree with his policies. He was a bit more bullish (hence Furunculus' 'interrupting' observation) but this showed confidence and reflected, I feel, the audience's irritation with some of the baloney being peddled by the others. Cameron failed to explain his main policy idea, the Big Society, and barely even mentioned it. He sounds more like the leader of a tired government than Brown does.

The biggest surprise to me was the rather blatant interference from Murdoch's Sky News editorial team. They chose a question on Europe first, hoping that this would nail Clegg right from the off and give their man (Cameron) the opportunity to shine. Amazingly, later on, Adam Boulton the moderator, actually attacked Clegg and only Clegg by asking him directly about the morning's Telegraph story. I thought Clegg (who has dealt with the lies and slanders with some dignity) put him down like a mad dog, but the fact remains, the Sky News moderator deliberately broke the rules and tried to influence the debate. Shameful, especially alongside the Tory press gang attack earlier in the day. Mercifully, the British electorate don't seem to agree with the Mail and Murdoch that they are bought and paid for.

[CountArach]

Instant polls said Cameron did best in the latest debate, followed by Clegg then Brown. Cleggmania was only a temporary phenomenon I guess...
Nope. All 3 of the real polling companies (ie - not internet polls) who have polled it thus far have the leaders within margin of error. 1 has Cameron winning, 2 have Clegg. Clegg didn't have the same surprise factor that he had last time and as such the expectations were higher - thus making it harder to 'win' a debate.

[InsaneApache]

It's certainly one of the most unknowable elections for many a year. It's anyones to win or lose. Except Brown that is. He's toast.

[Idaho]

The biggest surprise to me was the rather blatant interference from Murdoch's Sky News editorial team. They chose a question on Europe first, hoping that this would nail Clegg right from the off and give their man (Cameron) the opportunity to shine. Amazingly, later on, Adam Boulton the moderator, actually attacked Clegg and only Clegg by asking him directly about the morning's Telegraph story. I thought Clegg (who has dealt with the lies and slanders with some dignity) put him down like a mad dog, but the fact remains, the Sky News moderator deliberately broke the rules and tried to influence the debate. Shameful, especially alongside the Tory press gang attack earlier in the day. Mercifully, the British electorate don't seem to agree with the Mail and Murdoch that they are bought and paid for.

It's dodgy as flip, that's for sure.

The Times today has produced a poll based on a wide survey of Rupert Murdoch and his editorial team:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7105727.ece

I found the whole thing a total yawn. But Clag was a bit better than Brown, who did the wise old statesman act about as best as he could. Cameron tried to hit the right notes, and no doubt did with the already converted. But I don't think he'll win over anyone.

I still think that Labour will sneak it. Majority of 10.

[Furunculus]

anyone else going to join the election sweep-stakes:



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JAG (27/02/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2440038&viewfull=1#post2440038

Furunculus (29/03/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2459341&viewfull=1#post2459341

Idaho (16/04/10) - Narrow Labour win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2471029&viewfull=1#post2471029

Rory (16/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2471056&viewfull=1#post2471056

CountArch (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476911&viewfull=1#post2476911

Banquo's Ghost (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476913&viewfull=1#post2476913

Louis (23/04/10) - Labour led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476925&viewfull=1#post2476925

Tbilicus (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476926&viewfull=1#post2476926

Insane Apache (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476935&viewfull=1#post2476935

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[CountArach]

I'm also going with a Labour-led hung parliament, with the Torys getting a higher vote share. A Labour and Lib-Dem alliance will ultimately see Labour governing, with the condition that they enact electoral reform.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Very well, I'll throw my hat in the ring.

I think there will be a Labour-led hung parliament, with Labour actually polling third in the popular vote (and with a wafer thin advantage) and therefore the Liberal Democrats demanding that Brown steps down. Labour led, but not Brown led.

:juggle2:

[Furunculus]

added.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Very well:
Hung parliament. Cons more seats than Labour. Brown to stay on as PM. No coalition, but agreement between Labour and LibDem.

Certainly interesting. Brown will have a moral problem in trying to form a government as the second largest party. And what will Clegg do?

[tibilicus]

Labour-led Hung parliament to. Conservatives to have more seats but still failing to form a coalition.

[Furunculus]

added.

it must be pointed out that JAG is due mad-props for for calling the most popular outcome two months before it became popular.
if he is right, then I will happily accept a bitch-slap. :)

[InsaneApache]

Hung parliament with cons biggest party. Labour get a third of the popular vote but get more seats than lib-dems. Labour ditch Brown under orders from Cleggover to form a coalition government, with a referendum on PR this year. Then another election in the next 12 months.

For anyone considering voting lib-dem may I just say that they will impose a minimum price on alcohol. No vote from me there then. :)

[Idaho]

No problem with minimum pricing on alcohol. £1.50 for 4 litres of white lazer/dragon/etc can't be a good thing.

[Furunculus]

Who is right, Ken Clarke or Goldman Sachs?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7621032/General-Election-2010-Whos-right-over-pound-Ken-Clarke-or-Goldman-Sachs.html
General Election 2010: Who's right over pound, Ken Clarke or Goldman Sachs?
Views are split on what effect a hung parliament would have on sterling.

By Louise Armitstead, Chief City Correspondent
Published: 6:45AM BST 23 Apr 2010

Even for a veteran politician like Kenneth Clarke, this election campaign feels a little different. "I am trying to persuade people to vote for me who weren't born when I started," he mused.

Although he was referring to the youngsters in Rushcliffe, his Nottinghamshire constituency since 1970, the emphasis on his experience wasn't lost on traders in the City of London either.

At the same press conference on Wednesday, Mr Clarke issued a stark warning that a hung Parliament would result in financial chaos that would hit the pound so severely that a rescue mission from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) would be required.

That afternoon, Goldman Sachs published a note advising its clients to buy sterling. The hot-shot analysts at Wall Street's powerhouse argued that the UK's growth prospects were strong, that the European outlook was comparatively weak and, crucially, fears over a hung Parliament were already overblown and the election result would not have much of an impact.

Mr Clarke had warned: "Bond markets won't wait. Sterling will wobble. If the British don't decide to put in a government with a working majority, and the markets think that we can't tackle our debt and deficit problems, then the IMF will have to do it for us."

For the traders watching sterling strengthen against both the euro and the dollar, Mr Clarke's views seemed exaggerated. But they had to admit, unlike most of them, Mr Clarke can claim first-hand experience: he was actually in Westminster for the hung Parliament of 1974, the humiliation of going to the IMF in 1976 and the doomed Lib-Lab pact of 1977.

"[Sharing power] was a farce, it was a fiasco, it didn't save us from disaster," said Mr Clarke. "And I would be very, very alarmed if any prospect of that occurred on this occasion."

So who's right? Goldman Sachs or the Conservatives?

The politicians seem to have the strongest evidence so far. Sterling has already shown itself to be deeply sensitive to the prospect of a hung Parliament. Although the possibility of a coalition Government has been discussed since October last year, it wasn't until the polls in late February that a hung Parliament actually looked likely.

Thomas Stolper, chief foreign exchange strategist at Goldman Sachs, said: "The markets reacted violently. On February 25 the pound/euro rate was 0.88. Two days later this had fallen to 0.995. This was a 4.3pc drop in the value of the pound, probably the sharpest sell off we've ever seen."

Meanwhile, the ongoing debt crisis in Greece has served as a constant reminder of what happens when the markets take fright at the size of country's debt pile. And there are no shortage of opportunities to draw the comparison with Britain. On Wednesday, the IMF revised its growth forecast for the UK for next year from 2.7pc down to 2.5pc. Oliver Blanchard, economic counsellor at the IMF, added that countries running large deficits (he didn't need to mention the UK) were facing the threat of a "debt explosion".

Experts have warned that if the debt in not cut, Britain will lose its top-grade credit rating. Last month, Standard & Poor's, the rating agency, kept a negative outlook on the UK's AAA rating "in the absence of a strong fiscal consolidation plan".

Throw in political uncertainty – or worse paralysis – and the mix certainly looks flammable.

But, says Goldman Sachs, the uncertainty is overblown. Unlike the electorate, markets don't wait for polling day and the money has already moved. Mr Stopler said: "The currency markets reacted in February, there won't be any surprise now. The first TV debate gave the strongest signal yet that there will be a hung Parliament and yet this week the currency markets shrugged it off. If there's a hung Parliament on May 7, who in financial markets can realistically claim that they had no idea it could happen?"

He added: "Markets are global. In Britain, people might be surprised by a coalition but investors around the world are completely used it. They won't be fazed at all."

Moreover, between February and the TV debates, Alistair Darling delivered a Budget that reassured the City that the parties were united in restraining public spending.

Amit Kara, an economist at UBS, said: "The similarities between the political parties on the fiscal situation far outweigh their differences. All the parties have said they'll tackle the deficit in less than four years, so where the difference? The fears have been magnified and totally overblown because it's election time."

The Budget also showed that Government was not downplaying the debt problems - the figure of £163bn was better rather than worse that the £175bn forecast last year. The figures are big but, say the analysts, not frightening. Although Britain's borrowing as a percentage of GDP is high - at 11.5pc it is behind only Ireland and Greece - the Government's total debt to GDP is currently one of lowest at 68.1pc. The confidence in Britain compared to Greece is already reflected in bond prices. The yield on UK 10-year gilts on day 3.97pc. The equivalent bond in Greece was trading nearly 500 basis points higher at 8.7pc.

The analysts argue that Britain's outlook for growth is strong with the worse news already out. The view is being echoed by the Bank of England.

But the big unknown is still sentiment in the City on the day. As one senior trader said: "In untried situations, the herd mentality is the strongest mover of markets. You can rationalise all you like, but if enough people are running in one direct, it makes sense that you run too."

[Tellos Athenaios]

I think it will not depend on the outcome of the election, but on how well whatever government is in charge manages to get a firm and sound financial program on track. And this includes how the electorate will respond to that program.

[Idaho]

I agree with Goldman Sachs. It's big finance that pays for the parties and it's they who call the tune at Whitehall and Westminster (remember who bankrupted the world, got bailed out, got punished with pretty much no regulation whatsoever and are now once again making bumper profits?).

All across Europe, in countries more prosperous than ours they have minority govts and coalitions. It's really no big deal.

[rory_20_uk]

They did get bailed out. Which in many cases means shareholders lost out massively. In banks such as RBS, 0ver 90% of the shares were held by institutional investors, so they lost a whole lot of money. The government bought shares which are now worth (slightly) more than they bought them for - i.e. Gordon has finally invested in something that made a profit! The banks also lost money on having to pay for insurance on debt.

that doesn't mean that as a rule they don't saturate the thinking of the city (mainly as the Unions haven't got the money to do so as they used to - and labour have far less concern where they get their kickbacks from).

Minority governments - I think brown and Blair have shown us how badly majority governemnts can go as they have no need to be accountable to anyone as there are enough back bencher would-be careerists to whip into line to pass practically anything.

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

Blair had a massive majority and acted like he didn't. He was very tame in terms of his political agenda. Minimum wage... what else?

I would prefer coalition governments and lots more fringe parties and independents. But then I would prefer local/regional government and a hugely decentralised state.

[Beskar]

Lib dems to get the popular vote, hung parilament, conservatives with most seats.

[Beskar]

I would prefer coalition governments and lots more fringe parties and independents. But then I would prefer local/regional government and a hugely decentralised state.

I would like Regional Government doing the day-to-day politics, with house of commons only dealing with issues of national importance. Infact Regional Government is already there, just ran by Quango's.

Unfortunately, I would like to relegistrate all the existing assemblies too and possibly have a return of Ireland to Britain, but this will most likely never happen.

[Beskar]

Sky News PM Debate about Europe:

David Cameron (Furunclus): Evil Europe, lets bash it with a stick and poke its eyes out!

Nick Clegg (Beskar): Let's work together for a better future!

Gordon Brown (insert user here): While they talk about Europe, I talk about a different subject and attempt to get low-blow shots in.

[Subotan]

Oligarchic, Megalomaniac bully flips out when criticism is levelled at him (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/22/james-murdoch-independent-dodge-city)

[Idaho]

Oligarchic, Megalomaniac bully flips out when criticism is levelled at him (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/22/james-murdoch-independent-dodge-city)

The mask doesn't have to slip much to give everyone an insight into who (wants to) run this country.

[Subotan]

I'd say he thinks he already does, rather than wants to.

[rory_20_uk]

Sounds more like a petulant Daddy's boy to me.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

So much for 'clean' politics. Good god.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3X8DwoAw2k&feature=player_embedded

Same old, same old.........

[gaelic cowboy]

Unfortunately, I would like to relegistrate all the existing assemblies too and possibly have a return of Ireland to Britain, but this will most likely never happen.

Ahem never happen is more like

[Beskar]

Looks like there might be a Liberal Democrat victory in the making.

[gaelic cowboy]

Looks like there might be a Liberal Democrat victory in the making.

I think it's more likely either of the two bigger parties will scramble like starving animals for the Libs after to form government

[InsaneApache]

Harriden Harperson all over the place......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00s6kx4/Stephen_Nolan_24_04_2010/ :laugh4:

1 hour 46 mins in

[Furunculus]

Looks like there might be a Liberal Democrat victory in the making.

i wouldn't count on it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

there appears to be plenty of precedent for a lib-con coalition:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7628789/How-will-the-Lib-Dems-jump-Look-to-their-councils.html

[Furunculus]

Sky News PM Debate about Europe:

David Cameron (Furunclus): Evil Europe, lets bash it with a stick and poke its eyes out!

Nick Clegg (Beskar): Let's work together for a better future!

Gordon Brown (insert user here): While they talk about Europe, I talk about a different subject and attempt to get low-blow shots in.

that is not what Cameron wants, he has already been very clear on the subject:

1) The referendum lock
2) A United Kingdom sovereignty bill
3) A guaranteed say for MP’s if Ministers want the EU to extend its powers
4) Opt out from the charter of fundamental rights
5) Return of powers over criminal justice
6) Repatriation of control over social and employment legislation

[Beskar]

i wouldn't count on it.

There should be one though, it would really bring in some of the changes Britain needs. I especially want Parilamentary reform.

[Furunculus]

it is certainly possible that the lib-dems could do to labour what labour did to them a century earlier, and oust them as the 'other' major party.

labour is going to get decimated at this election, and if the electorate determine that labour have ceased to be relevant to their aims and expectations then the lib-dems could fill that void.

i like FPTP politics, and i like our 2.5 party system as it forces the incumbents to represent the will of the people constantly as there is always a credible alternative willing to step in.

it is why the lib-dems are so schizophrenic and opportunistic; they are constantly testing the weak points of labour and conservative policy and looking for advantage.

[Banquo's Ghost]

It looks as if Gordon Brown is history, even this far ahead of the actual election. Nick Clegg has put on record that if Labour are third in the popular vote, he will not support them continuing in government if McBroon is Prime Minister.

I thought he would make that move, as it shores up the Lib Dems' last remaining weakness in the eyes of the electorate - that by voting LD, you get Brown. Now, Liberals will be able to vote for their party knowing that Brown is going to be a simple footnote in the historical record.

[InsaneApache]

A simple footnote!

The guy will be remembered as Temüjin. uk. com.

[Idaho]

It looks as if Gordon Brown is history, even this far ahead of the actual election. Nick Clegg has put on record that if Labour are third in the popular vote, he will not support them continuing in government if McBroon is Prime Minister.

I thought he would make that move, as it shores up the Lib Dems' last remaining weakness in the eyes of the electorate - that by voting LD, you get Brown. Now, Liberals will be able to vote for their party knowing that Brown is going to be a simple footnote in the historical record.

I think the libs should publically kill the idea of tactical voting. They should appeal to people to vote for them wherever to send a message. Say that in this election the total share of the vote is significant.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's certainly one of the most unknowable elections for many a year. It's anyones to win or lose. Except Brown that is. He's toast.

This is, unsurprisingly, under-reported here. Would it be possible for Brown to win by having both other major candidates split more or less evenly and allow his party to edge both of the others out narrowly? Or do the polls suggest that that is an impossibility?

[Idaho]

IA is very partisan.

It is entirely possible that Brown will win. I still think that Labour will scrape a win out of it.

[InsaneApache]

IA is very partisan.

It is entirely possible that Brown will win. I still think that Labour will scrape a win out of it.

Hehe, you noticed! Bless. :smitten:

The nightmare scenario is that Labour come third, yet hold more seats than the rest, so ergo our 'Great Leader' carries on as before. That's democracy for you. :shame:

[Myrddraal]

But the Lib Dems have ruled that out no? If Labour come third they will be dependent on the support of the Lib Dems to form a government, and the Lib Dems have said that in this situation, they will only negociate with Labour if Brown steps down as prime minister.

Latest polls:
.Tory
Labour
Lib Dem


YouGov/Sun
33
28
29


Opinium/Express
34
25
28


ICM/Guardian
33
28
30


ComRes/ITV/Independent
32
28
31


Average
33
27.25
29.5



Very closely matched, very tight. Labour definately aren't toast, there's less than 6% between them and the Tories by the average.

[Myrddraal]

I know polls can be deceptive, but looking at those figures a hung parliament seems increasingly likely.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Interesting, this shows Labour consistantly coming third, but not far enough down to be wiped out. The situation is extremely worrying, I predict another election in less than three years.

[Subotan]

It may cause economic chaos, but by God is it going to be fun :2thumbsup:

[Myrddraal]

Could it even happen that the Lib Dems form a government with the support of the Labour Party? It seems very unlikely. According to the UK Polling Report Swingometer, if there was a uniform swing across the country to match the latest polls, the result would be:

Tories : 254 seats (+56)
Labour : 267 seats (-89)
Lib Dem: 98 seats (+36)
Others : 13 seats (+1)

Of course, the super massive assumption there is the uniform swing bit, but it does illustrate the difficulty in winning seats for the Lib Dems.

[tibilicus]

My personal feelings regarding the poll data I've seen the past few days, I think it's still to soon to say anything is certain. I think this weeks debate will be crucial, provided people tune in, which they should, as it is on BBC1. I say this because it's really make or break in terms of the lib dem surge. As an electorate Britain generally votes in a very familiar way. To me this means that if Clegg wants to hold onto this level of support, he needs to cement himself in the minds of voters as a viable option. Whilst the support for the lib dems is currently huge, I suspect many of those saying they will vote lib dem aren't 100% behind it and could still break for either of the two parties if they get cold feet about Clegg in the final week. To me this means that in the final debate Clegg really has to shine. Not, just come out on top by a margin like the second debate but deliver a substantial performance which is better than the other two. It wont be possible for him to emulate the first debate but for me, If he's to win the level of support the polls are suggesting, he needs to be decisive. I think that if Clegg fails to do this, we could see the temporary lib dem support crumble.

As for the tories, their strategist needs a slap. People don't generally like negative campaigning, which the tories are now using and I think it wont result in the poll boost they desperately want. Also changing their electoral strategy to target more Labour seats with just over 2 weeks till polling day? To see the tories throw away a lead in this manner is laughable. Cameron was a PM in waiting a couple of months back, now he's struggling to persuade the electorate that he's even the best out of a bad bunch. Cameron's inability to coherently explain any of his policies is also making him look bad. I get the idea of the "big society", why not just drop the gimmicky face and tell us how it is, the spin just makes it all seem like rhetorical :daisy:. Another classic example is a recent campaign broadcast attacking Labour. Apparently the tories think the deficit can be cut and the ecenomic situation solved simply by cutting QUANGOS and cutting up senior civil servants credit cards, give us a break Dave.


Labour are positioned to come out of this ok, even if they do perform badly on election day. As a political party, I fully believe that Labour, being the snake it is wont die. Everyone thought it was dead in 1983 but no, it climbed its way back up from the underworld and regenerated as New labour. Even if they do end up in the wilderness for a couple of years, we will see them again some day. Also, interestingly, the Labour vote is holding solid in Scotland. I have no idea why but I actually hope it stays like that. The SNP should be denied as many MP's as possible seeming they refuse to allow Scottish cuts even though the whole of the UK needs cuts. Alex Salmond also thinks he is a modern day Robert De Bruce, he's so desperate to be known as the man who" emancipated" Scotland that he's prepared to try and shove independence down the Scots throats, no matter how disastrous it would be for them under the current economic climate. I'm also opposed fundamentally to any party which wishes to see the disintegration of the union (N.I is different but now is not the time or the place to explain my view on that).

So that's my thoughts at this current stage. Basically the ball is with Clegg. He needs to make the surge translate into actual votes.

[CountArach]

Of course, the super massive assumption there is the uniform swing bit, but it does illustrate the difficulty in winning seats for the Lib Dems.
This article (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/is-lib-dem-surge-for-real-part-2-target.html) summarises that point quite nicely.

[al Roumi]

As was mentioned in the "Prioritizing government spending" thread, the parties have so far ignored the elephant in the room:

Parties attacked for failing to 'come clean' on cuts (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/27/thinktank-spending-cuts-election)

Britain's leading financial thinktank today launched a strong attack on all three main political parties for their failure to come clean about the swingeing public spending cuts they will implement in the next parliament.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said it was "striking how reticent" Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg had been during the campaign on how they planned to tackle the UK's record peacetime budget deficit.

In an eagerly-awaited pre-election health check, the IFS said the public had been left in the dark about a period of sustained austerity in public spending.

"Over the next four years starting next year (2011-12), Labour and the Liberal Democrats would need to deliver the deepest sustained cuts to spending on public services since the late 1970s", said Robert Chote, the IFS director. "While starting this year, the Conservatives would need to deliver cuts to public spending on public services that have not been delivered over any five-year period since the Second World War."

The IFS said after taking into account pledges to ring-fence parts of public spending such as the NHS and overseas aid, the Conservatives would need to axe the budgets of unprotected Whitehall departments by £63.7bn in inflation-adjusted terms by 2014-15. Of these, only 17.7% had so far been specified.

Similarly, Labour had announced measures totalling just 13.3% of what it would need to slash spending by £50.8bn and the Liberal Democrats 25.9% of the £46.5bn they would need to save in order to meet their deficit reduction goals.

"Repairing the public finances will be the defining domestic policy task of the next government", Chote said.

It's a sticky wicket alright!

[Furunculus]

more detail for the above:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/27/thinktank-spending-cuts-election

[Myrddraal]

You can understand why the Lib Dems are so keen on electoral reform. They could win approximately a third of the popular vote, equalling the support of the other two parties, and still the other two parties could quite easily have up to three times as many seats in the commons each.

I'm not exaggerating much either. :wink:

EDIT: 2 interesting articles btw, thanks.

I thought I'd highlight this bit because it matches my thoughts quite closely:

It contrasted the plans of the parties today with the record of the Conservatives during the fiscal tightening that followed Britain's recession of the early 1990s. Then the ratio of spending cuts to tax increases was 1:1.

"This may suggest that all the parties are being overambitious in the extent to which they expect spending on public services to take the strain," Chote said. "If so, the next government may rely more on further tax increases and welfare cuts that any of the parties are willing to admit to beforehand."

The IFS also criticised the parties for making "misleading" claims that spending reductions could be met through efficiency savings.

"Presumably the parties would try to spend public money as efficiently as possible whether or not they were trying to cut spending and would implement most if not all of these efficiencies anyway," Chote said.

[Furunculus]

sure, but i like a duopoly, and i like adversarial politics, so it is up to the lib-dems to oust an incumbant, not for me to find ways to let little-nikki play at the party.

[Furunculus]

on the non-differences between the parties on deficit reduction from the IFS:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/neilobrien1/100036670/a-dishonest-debate-about-cuts/

[Furunculus]

It may cause economic chaos, but by God is it going to be fun :2thumbsup:

oh yes, won't it just be sweet!

thank god we have belgium to demonstrate just how wonderful consensual politics can be, won't it be just swell when people realise just how p00py-pants British adversarial politcs really is:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,691546,00.html

and in case anyone was wondering:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Belgium#Electoral_system

oh what bliss!

[InsaneApache]

The party system and hence PR is the problem. Intrinsically undemocratic.

[Beskar]

The party system and hence PR is the problem. Intrinsically undemocratic.

Party list system* is undemocratic compared to our current system, yes.

STV, RON and other measures are intrinsically very democratic though.

[Furunculus]

is that what is being advocated by saint Nick?

[Idaho]

Party list system is the worst option. Worse than FPTP. All the power in the hands of party heads.

I think it's hilarous what a fuss is being made about hung parliaments and coalition governments. Most of the democracies around the world get by with it just fine. Financial markets couldn't really give a toss as they know they will be left alone to make money for themselves.

[Furunculus]

i don't care what the rest of the world does or doesn't do, i like adversarial politics and i like being able to kicked a failed government out, and therefore I like a political system that tends to bring about decisive victories/defeats.

[tibilicus]

Finally, a Gordon Brown slip up. Well, he did well to avoid one up until this point so not really surprising. Just a shame he didn't slip into one of his alleged anger fits and head-but the women. That would of been gold.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8649012.stm

[Furunculus]

Finally, a Gordon Brown slip up. Well, he did well to avoid one up until this point so not really surprising. Just a shame he didn't slip into one of his alleged anger fits and head-but the women. That would of been gold.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8649012.stm

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100036874/the-gaffe-that-could-kill-off-gordon-brown/

lulz indeed! :D

[InsaneApache]

It illustrates beautifully that Labour despises the white working class.

She seems like a nice lady. A bit like me mam.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8649174.stm

You be the judge.

[Subotan]

It's interesting how the public complains when politicians use spin, when they are "economical with the truth", and when they don't say what they think etc., and yet when a politician does honestly say what he or she think, the public goes mental.

It's not like ordinary citizens are above criticism. I haven't seen what this women said, so I don't know whether it was bigoted or not, but a she didn't seem too upset.

[InsaneApache]

It's interesting how the public complains when politicians use spin, when they are "economical with the truth", and when they don't say what they think etc., and yet when a politician does honestly say what he or she think, the public goes mental.

It's not like ordinary citizens are above criticism. I haven't seen what this women said, so I don't know whether it was bigoted or not, but a she didn't seem too upset.

Spin! Spin! This wasn't spin, it was a remark he made just after leaving the lady when he thought the mike had been turned off.

And yes, she is upset. Very upset. Try watching the video.

[Subotan]

Spin! Spin! This wasn't spin, it was a remark he made just after leaving the lady when he thought the mike had been turned off.
Exactly! We should be welcoming Brown's uttering of his private opinions!


And yes, she is upset. Very upset. Try watching the video.

I can't, I'm in college.

[InsaneApache]

Exactly! We should be welcoming Brown's uttering of his private opinions!

Indeed. The mask hasn't so much slipped as been ripped off. I used to think he was a loony toon, now I think it's much more sinister than that.

[Beskar]

It's interesting how the public complains when politicians use spin, when they are "economical with the truth", and when they don't say what they think etc., and yet when a politician does honestly say what he or she think, the public goes mental.

I agree. People cry about spin and the fact is, they don't want to hear the truth.

If a politician turned around and go "I looked at the economical figures and one thing is for sure, we are well and truly :daisy:" people will fly off the handle. Then instead of electing that person who is telling the truth and who could possibily lead us out of it, they run into the arms of Mr. Public Relations to solve it who goes "oh it isn't that bad, ho ho ho".

[al Roumi]

Indeed. The mask hasn't so much slipped as been ripped off. I used to think he was a loony toon, now I think it's much more sinister than that.

Nah, he's just incapable of speaking to people who don't agree with him. Blair went the same way towards the end of his PMship. I guess it's the stress 7 pressure, being unable to patiently reason with strongly opposing views.

For a full transcript, including the Radio 2 appology, click here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/28/gordon-brown-gillian-duffy-transcript).

If this is what floors labour, I hope it will be enough to tear his leadership of the party down.

[al Roumi]

I agree. People cry about spin and the fact is, they don't want to hear the truth.

If a politician turned around and go "I looked at the economical figures and one thing is for sure, we are well and truly :daisy:" people will fly off the handle. Then instead of electing that person who is telling the truth and who could possibily lead us out of it, they run into the arms of Mr. Public Relations to solve it who goes "oh it isn't that bad, ho ho ho".

Exactly, in what is increasingly appearing a popularity contest, the parties only have to make themselves look less worse than the alternative. no "politicaly courageous" moves will win elections these days...

[rory_20_uk]

It's one of the Irregular verbs stated in Yes Prime Minister:

He should be fired as the country needs cuts
You should have a salary freeze to help with competition
I deserve a subsidy to help boost the economy

Yes, people know in the theoretical sense something needs to happen... but not to them. Oh, they've already done their bit. In fact, they're already underpaid, being asked to do more and are getting a worse service from the council.

You hear it on the news daily. Cuts! have to happen. Structural deficit. But not health. Or of course Education. Social Services? Key service that. Law and Order? Marks out civilisation. Armed forces? They need more money, not less... Foreign office? and loose are place in the world??!?

So when we get down to it, we have "efficiencies" which if they were easy would have been done years ago - and something like a £40bn shortfall on the talk and the reality.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

I am wondering why will give around 0.7 of our GDP as "Foriegn Aid". All parties except for the BNP want to increase it as well.

Anyone got any explanation for it?

Edit: Corrected.

[InsaneApache]

It's going to be interesting to see what explaination the parties have when they cut benefits and pensions but keep OSD at it's present level.

Vote for me and I will slash your benefits but on the other hand give squillions to the poor in Africa/Asia/ etc. etc.

If they actually go down this path expect a huge surge in BNP voting patterns.

The politicos truly do live on another planet. Idiots.

[rory_20_uk]

I am wondering why will give around 2.7 of our GDP as "Foriegn Aid". 2% GDP was considered "Harsh Treatment" for Reperations by the Germans after World War 1. All parties except for the BNP want to increase it as well.

Anyone got any explanation for it?

We should give nothing as a hand out any more. Things have changed over the last 50 years. There are now such things as bond markets that can be tapped by both countries and companies. Rather than create synthetic economies reliant on money to be thrown at them (or in many cases, just to be stolen) if the ability to get money was directly linked to the perceived likelihood of getting it back this would help clean up governments much faster than our current limp wristed whinging.

The UK has had in the recent past to go gap in hand to the IMF - and let's sit back and watch Europe do so. If countries want money, go to the IMF with a plan, no expect an open chequebook from countries who are also broke.

~:smoking:

[al Roumi]

I am wondering why will give around 2.7 of our GDP as "Foriegn Aid". 2% GDP was considered "Harsh Treatment" for Reperations by the Germans after World War 1. All parties except for the BNP want to increase it as well.

Anyone got any explanation for it?

Hactually, the parties have commited to working up to a spend of 0.7% of GNI on "foreign aid". Last year, about 0.5% (£5.7b) (http://www.dfid.gov.uk/About-DFID/Finance-and-performance/Annual-report/Annual-Report-2009/) of GNI was actually spent on ODA (Overseas Development Aid). The 0.7% target was pledged by a range of Western countries in 1970 -see here (http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/press/07.htm) for more details.

ODA is seen a valuable tool for foreign policy, even in labour's "ethical foreign policy" terms (post Iraq, I feel this is a very bad joke).

All 3 main parties have so far stated that they will uphold the 0.7% target but it is highly likely that the manner in which, and on what, the funds are spent and where will differ accross the parties. The Tories even have plans to use the armed forces for some of it... which they may discover to be rather a tricky thing to manage vis-a-vis humanitarian impartiality...

The UK under labour has been of the most progressive countries when it comes to aid.

[caravel]

It illustrates beautifully that Labour despises the white working class.
As do the two other major parties.

[Beskar]

Hactually, the parties have commited to working up to a spend of 0.7% of GNI on "foreign aid". Last year, about 0.5% (£5.7b) (http://www.dfid.gov.uk/About-DFID/Finance-and-performance/Annual-report/Annual-Report-2009/) of GNI was actually spent on ODA (Overseas Development Aid). The 0.7% target was pledged by a range of Western countries in 1970 -see here (http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/press/07.htm) for more details.

ODA is seen a valuable tool for foreign policy, even in labour's "ethical foreign policy" terms (post Iraq, I feel this is a very bad joke).

All 3 main parties have so far stated that they will uphold the 0.7% target but it is highly likely that the manner in which, and on what, the funds are spent and where will differ accross the parties. The Tories even have plans to use the armed forces for some of it... which they may discover to be rather a tricky thing to manage vis-a-vis humanitarian impartiality...

The UK under labour has been of the most progressive countries when it comes to aid.

Trying to find the source now, which is annoying me. It had the list of parties and policies side-by-side. Saying things like Libdems would consider the Euro, Tories will never go to the Euro, etc.

Ok, I found it, I made a mistake, it is indeed 0.7%.
"Increase foreign aid to 0.7% of Gross National Income by 2013"

source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8515961.stm#subject=foreign&col1=conservative&col2=labour&col3=libdem)

[al Roumi]

It's going to be interesting to see what explaination the parties have when they cut benefits and pensions but keep OSD at it's present level.

Vote for me and I will slash your benefits but on the other hand give squillions to the poor in Africa/Asia/ etc. etc.

If they actually go down this path expect a huge surge in BNP voting patterns.

The politicos truly do live on another planet. Idiots.


We should give nothing as a hand out any more. Things have changed over the last 50 years. There are now such things as bond markets that can be tapped by both countries and companies. Rather than create synthetic economies reliant on money to be thrown at them (or in many cases, just to be stolen) if the ability to get money was directly linked to the perceived likelihood of getting it back this would help clean up governments much faster than our current limp wristed whinging.

The UK has had in the recent past to go gap in hand to the IMF - and let's sit back and watch Europe do so. If countries want money, go to the IMF with a plan, no expect an open chequebook from countries who are also broke.

~:smoking:

I don't want to appear like a development stooge here but DFID's website (http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Global-Issues/How-we-fight-Poverty/)has some background on why they do what they do...

The UNDP website (http://www.undp.org/mdg/basics.shtml) also lists more on each MDG and progress to meeting them.

Edit: Btw, I think its about 1/6th of the world's population that lives on less than $1.25 a day, that's 1 billion people...

[Beskar]

I don't want to appear like a development stooge here but DFID's website (http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Global-Issues/How-we-fight-Poverty/)has some background on why they do what they do...

The UNDP website (http://www.undp.org/mdg/basics.shtml) also lists more on each MDG and progress to meeting them.

At least it is better than just throwing money at the problem.

[Mooks]

Whoever british people vote for, next year they will be complaining about how they are taking away their rights and destroying the country. And how corrupt and generally awful they are, and how ANYONE could of voted for such a moron.

I know, because its been happening ever since I remember. O, and the guy you elect will also be America's female dog....again.

[Beskar]

Should elect me, because I am different. The irony is, because I am different, I am unelectable.

[Furunculus]

lol, true, but its part of the british condition to have little respect for the state, and possibly one of the reasons why we get worse results out of state spending than some continental countries.

brown is going to suffer on polling day for his remark, there are too many working class traditional labour voters for whom immigration is a 'problem', and to see their concerns so callously bad-mouthed by the man who is supposed to care for them is going to make the coming apocalypse even worse.

many of these labour voters probably are disaffected anyway, and might well have transitioned much of that vote to the lib-dems prior to this remark. that won't be happening now.

the ones that have no alternative to labour simply won't vote.
the ones looking elsewhere may well drift BNP now.

[InsaneApache]

By the time we got to Wolverhampton, the Prescott Express passed 3,000 miles and our 35th constituency visit in 21 days. I finished off with a meeting with Unite shop stewards and a stump speech in the town centre.

So I only just discovered in the last hour or so what happened to Gordon. While the media are concentrating on what he said and the apology, the real story is how and why it happened.

Yet again, the dying Murdoch empire is doing all it can to influence a British election. First, Murdoch's News of the World editor Andy Coulson joined Cameron – to use the same tricks for the Conservatives that his old newspaper employed.

Then the Sun came out for the Tories during our conference. What an effect that had! The Tories have seen their poll rating go from 41% poll to 33%!

So then the News of the World backed the Tories. Effect? Nothing!

Murdoch's son James and News International head (and former Sun Editor) Rebekah Brooks then resorted to bullying the editor of the Independent (oh, the irony) in his own office to stop him criticising daddy!

But today, the Murdoch family reached a new low in their desperate attempt to turn the election for the Tories. News International's Sky News broadcast a private conversation between Gordon and his staff.

The very same News International that hacked hundreds of phones and saw one of their reporters jailed after listening and publishing conversations involving the Royal Family.

The News of the World and its then editor, Andy Coulson, claimed it was a "rogue reporter" and that Cameron's spin doctor knew nothing about it. Yet they paid over £1m to Gordon Taylor and Max Clifford to buy their silence.

What Murdoch's Sky News did today was just as bad as his paper's phone-hacking. It was a breach of privacy. It was underhand. And it was done in the pursuit of ratings and political influence.

So let's show them that Britain is not for sale. That an Australian with an American passport cannot buy our general election.

And I'll be the first to proudly proclaim on 7 May, "It's the Sun Wot Lost It."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/28/bigot-gaffe-murdoch-john-prescott

:laugh4: No mate, you lot have been rumbled good and proper. :laugh4:

[Furunculus]

all this waffle about the news of the world is entirely besides the point.

[gaelic cowboy]

I can't help laughing at someone who ask the PM a question on immigrants when there own name is Duffy bit of irony there.

[Louis VI the Fat]

That Irish woman is a bit of a bigot. Who's paying for her pension if not those hardworking Poles she complains about?


Brown did manage to shoot himself in the foot. Both legs. All the way up to his knees. The impression already exists: 'Labour doesn't give a daisy about the British working class'. Neither do the other parties, but whereas they are quite open about that, Labour is the one party that is supposed to care.

Brown is part bumbling fool, and part exactly what the allegation says he is: he is ill-capable of understanding the world from the point of view of this woman. She is real, there are millions of her, and whether the elite likes it or not, these are her problems as she sees them, experiences them, not all of which exist only in her imagination.

[CountArach]

The next couple of days worth of polling will be interesting, if only to see where Labour voters flee to.

A new poll (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/28/liberal-democrats-labour-marginals-poll) is out showing that the Lib Dems are getting a decent swing where they need it and are now polling remarkably well in their marginal seats (though their swing appears to be mostly in non-marginal seats), most markedly in the Labour-held ones. They are going to take seats from the Tories, but they are going to take even more from Labour if this poll is correct.

[Furunculus]

apparently the best lay-mans break down of the IFS study into the parties fiscal plans:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100005266/tax-timebomb-ticking-behind-bigot-political-knockabout/

[Louis VI the Fat]

YOU'VE ALL BEEN HAD BY MURDOCH BROWN DID NOT SAY BIGOTED HE SAID DUFFY IS 'A BIGHEARTED WOMAN'



maybe not

[InsaneApache]

Apparently Labour are going to nail Mrs. Duffy to her front door with six inch nails should they win the election. Well following labours logic here, if they don't expressly rule it out, then they mean to do it.

[Idaho]

It's going to be interesting to see what explaination the parties have when they cut benefits and pensions but keep OSD at it's present level.

Vote for me and I will slash your benefits but on the other hand give squillions to the poor in Africa/Asia/ etc. etc.

If they actually go down this path expect a huge surge in BNP voting patterns.

The politicos truly do live on another planet. Idiots.

Go and look at the comparisons between foreign aid given to africa and debt repayment/cash crop/raw materials export. You'll see that the foreign aid is just the band-aid we slap on their neck after we've sucked them dry.

[Vladimir]

Go and look at the comparisons between foreign aid given to africa and debt repayment/cash crop/raw materials export. You'll see that the foreign aid is just the band-aid we slap on their neck after we've sucked them dry.

That's horrible. If you've sucked them dry then there's no need for a bandage. What a waste of money.

[rory_20_uk]

How did these nations get all the foreign debt? The same way we did - our leaders. Massive drain on GDP? Yup - just like ours. So why should theirs be cancelled? All that'll do is make the next lot of debt more expensive as the markets factor in the odds of default.
Export of raw materials? Rather like Australia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia... China and germany export manufactured goods. Is this wrong too?

These countries should be treated as equals. Show they're sorting things out and they will be able to get funding in the bond market. Get a decent credit rating and debt will decrease in cost. Embezzel / kill your own citizens and remain in the dark ages.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

How did these nations get all the foreign debt?

Repeat ad infinitum.

The tories, the tories, the tories.

Now go back and do some medicalling or whatever they call it these days. :laugh4:

[Furunculus]

anyone else going to join the election sweep-stakes:



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JAG (27/02/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2440038&viewfull=1#post2440038

Furunculus (29/03/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2459341&viewfull=1#post2459341

Idaho (16/04/10) - Narrow Labour win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2471029&viewfull=1#post2471029

Rory (16/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2471056&viewfull=1#post2471056

CountArch (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476911&viewfull=1#post2476911

Banquo's Ghost (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476913&viewfull=1#post2476913

Louis (23/04/10) - Labour led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476925&viewfull=1#post2476925

Tbilicus (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476926&viewfull=1#post2476926

Insane Apache (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476935&viewfull=1#post2476935

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


and have i missed anyone out?

p.s. you can can change your vote, but the original will also be retained..........

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How did these nations get all the foreign debt? The same way we did - our leaders. Massive drain on GDP? Yup - just like ours. So why should theirs be cancelled? All that'll do is make the next lot of debt more expensive as the markets factor in the odds of default...

Rory:

Are you still confusing sensible economics with what governments do?

Most governments in the West would be sent to jail en masse for fraud and/or malfeasance if their national budgets were evaluated using the legal rubrics that are applied to their own citizens and corporate entities.

IA:

While it may be personally comforting to you to heap all of the blame upon previous Tory governments, I suspect you'd find that pretty much all of the governments from Atlee forward (and maybe many before then) had a hand in this debt game.

[Myrddraal]

Thanks for that article Furunculus, this is the sort of material that the Telegraph should be putting on it's front page! (ok, maybe not front page, but you get my drift)

The taxation policies of all three parties worry me. I find it very hard to believe that the current proposed policies will do very much to relieve the deficit. Each party seems to be searching for something to entice the electorate with "We'll stop the 1% rise of NI" "We'll raise the threshold for income tax". Each of these little promises come with a hefty price tag, and no proposals to fund these concessions other than cutting public spending and reducing waste. The problem is that it's not even as if the parties can say "We know where the money is going to come from, we just don't want to talk about it", their manifestos seem fairly firm on every possible source of income, and the numbers don't add up. I predict a lot of broken promises by whoever gets into power, or a worsening deficit.

[Louis VI the Fat]

and have i missed anyone out? I was under the influence of recreational drugs! Now that I've regained my sanity, I predict: a hung parliament, Brown out, Cameron PM, etc


IA:

While it may be personally comforting to you to heap all of the blame upon previous Tory governments, I suspect you'd find that pretty much all of the governments from Atlee forward (and maybe many before then) had a hand in this debt game.Yeah, I too am getting a bit annoyed with IA blaming all of Britain's ills on the Tories. Cheeky socialist.

[Furunculus]

anyone else going to join the election sweep-stakes:



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JAG (27/02/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2440038&viewfull=1#post2440038

Furunculus (29/04/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2459341&viewfull=1#post2459341

Furunculus (29/03/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2459341&viewfull=1#post2459341

Idaho (16/04/10) - Narrow Labour win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2471029&viewfull=1#post2471029

Rory (16/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2471056&viewfull=1#post2471056

CountArch (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476911&viewfull=1#post2476911

Banquo's Ghost (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476913&viewfull=1#post2476913

Louis (29/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480070&viewfull=1#post2480070

Louis (23/04/10) - Labour led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476925&viewfull=1#post2476925

Tbilicus (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476926&viewfull=1#post2476926

Insane Apache (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476935&viewfull=1#post2476935

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


and have i missed anyone out?

p.s. you can can change your vote, but the original will also be retained..........

[Furunculus]

Beskar, you playing?

[Banquo's Ghost]

p.s. you can can change your vote, but the original will also be retained..........

Just for variety's sake, let me change to my view now (since even I'm surprised by the extent of Brown's implosion): To wit, a Conservative minority government, supported by but not in coalition with, the Liberal Democrats, with a new election in nine months.

[Beskar]

anyone else going to join the election sweep-stakes:

and have i missed anyone out?

p.s. you can can change your vote, but the original will also be retained..........

You missed me out, Conservative hung led-parliament with Lib-dem popular vote, I believe I said.

But with the talk of coalition. if there is one, I believe Conservative-Libdem coalition would be most likely.

[InsaneApache]

IA:

While it may be personally comforting to you to heap all of the blame upon previous Tory governments, I suspect you'd find that pretty much all of the governments from Atlee forward (and maybe many before then) had a hand in this debt game.

No you're right. I must try to do better. I will do my utmost to keep my socialists tendencies in check.

[al Roumi]

How did these nations get all the foreign debt? The same way we did - our leaders.

Indeed, however Western leaders are (believe it or not) held on a tighter leash. They can not (usually) go to the nepotistic & embezzeling lengths afforded to leaders of many developing countries.

Why are leaders of developing countries able to be so shamelessly self serving? They are not held to account by either the countries' inadequate governance systems, or they have corrupted these systems through patronage.

Why should the west write-off swathes of third world debt? Because that debt is a burden on the country and its people, not the old rulers who took the loans and profited from them. If there is one thing the west can do to help developing countries "help themselves", it is to reduce or remove the shackle of debt.


Export of raw materials? Rather like Australia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia... China and germany export manufactured goods. Is this wrong too?

Indeed, export of raw materials is great, providing its all set up fairly and resources are not being irresponsably extracted with no benefit to the state or its population. Resource extraction (Lumber, diamonds, oil) provide juicy incomes for cash starved countries (almost money for nothing) which can also have some awful effects, from driving wars (the wars in DRC have been famously funded by diamonds and lumber) to reducing the incentives for economic and labour reform that would foster economic growth through industry/services.

As to manufacturing, not every country can become a manufacturing powerhouse. Opportunities exist but a country must be able to exploit them at the right moment. E.g. The UK itself became an industrial giant through its adaptation of technology (driven by relatively high UK labour costs) which (after years of refinement) made production cheaper than manual labour and increased productivity. China is the current world factory because of its rock bottom labour costs, good infrastructure and permissible (sort of anyway) political environment. Not many countries can rival China for these conditions.



These countries should be treated as equals. Show they're sorting things out and they will be able to get funding in the bond market. Get a decent credit rating and debt will decrease in cost. Embezzel / kill your own citizens and remain in the dark ages.

They aren't equals though. Most developing countries (by definition, you might say) do not have the same capacity for governance and administration as western countries. Even if they have the structures, there are a multitude of factors impeding their full use for the country's development e.g. lack of civil society pressure for openness and reform.

[Furunculus]

You missed me out, Conservative hung led-parliament with Lib-dem popular vote, I believe I said.

But with the talk of coalition. if there is one, I believe Conservative-Libdem coalition would be most likely.

just to clarify; that is a Conservative minority government?

[Furunculus]

anyone else going to join the election sweep-stakes:



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JAG (27/02/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2440038&viewfull=1#post2440038

Furunculus (29/04/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2459341&viewfull=1#post2459341

Furunculus (29/03/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2459341&viewfull=1#post2459341

Idaho (16/04/10) - Narrow Labour win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2471029&viewfull=1#post2471029

Rory (16/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2471056&viewfull=1#post2471056

CountArch (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476911&viewfull=1#post2476911

Banquo's Ghost (29/04/10) - Conservative led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480078&viewfull=1#post2480078

Banquo's Ghost (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476913&viewfull=1#post2476913

Louis (29/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480070&viewfull=1#post2480070

Louis (23/04/10) - Labour led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476925&viewfull=1#post2476925

Tbilicus (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476926&viewfull=1#post2476926

Insane Apache (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476935&viewfull=1#post2476935

Beskar (23/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2477082&viewfull=1#post2477082

Alh_P (29/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480111&viewfull=1#post2480111

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


and have i missed anyone out?

p.s. you can can change your vote, but the original will also be retained..........

[Beskar]

just to clarify; that is a Conservative minority government?

I think so...

Conservatives with the most seats, Libdems with the biggest popular vote. If that is a 'Conservative minority government', then sure.

It is based mainly on the fact Libdems are gaining a lot of ground mostly against Labour and a tiny amount against Conservative. This should put Labour 3rd place popular vote-wise. Based on the popular vote, Libdems do look to be in the lead, I would put Conservative 2nd place vote wise, and Libdem most votes. However, I doubt Lib dems would have the most seats, which means Conservative will have the most seats, Labour possibly still getting 2nd, and leaving Libdems 3rd.

I am hoping for STV by next election though.

[al Roumi]

I think so...

Conservatives with the most seats, Libdems with the biggest popular vote. If that is a 'Conservative minority government', then sure.

It is based mainly on the fact Libdems are gaining a lot of ground mostly against Labour and a tiny amount against Conservative. This should put Labour 3rd place popular vote-wise. Based on the popular vote, Libdems do look to be in the lead, I would put Conservative 2nd place vote wise, and Libdem most votes. However, I doubt Lib dems would have the most seats, which means Conservative will have the most seats, Labour possibly still getting 2nd, and leaving Libdems 3rd.

I have to agree with you Beskar, this looks like the way things are going atm.

Furunculus, please put me down for some of what this chap is having :D

[Furunculus]

I think so...

Conservatives with the most seats, Libdems with the biggest popular vote. If that is a 'Conservative minority government', then sure.

It is based mainly on the fact Libdems are gaining a lot of ground mostly against Labour and a tiny amount against Conservative. This should put Labour 3rd place popular vote-wise. Based on the popular vote, Libdems do look to be in the lead, I would put Conservative 2nd place vote wise, and Libdem most votes. However, I doubt Lib dems would have the most seats, which means Conservative will have the most seats, Labour possibly still getting 2nd, and leaving Libdems 3rd.

I am hoping for STV by next election though.
fair enough.


I have to agree with you Beskar, this looks like the way things are going atm.

Furunculus, please put me down for some of what this chap is having :D

no problem.

[Furunculus]

just to be clear here.

when i talk of a narrow Con win i mean a narrow majority

when i mention xxx led hung parliament, we are talking about a coalition

when i mention xxx minority government, we are talking about less than half the seats

i believe that is the conventions correctly covered...........?

[Beskar]

https://www.youtube.com/ukelection?feature=ticker
A line-up of videos, which Nick Clegg getting the biggest support.

Clegg definitely gets the thumbs up with the Digital Economy Bill question, trouncing the other parties. Nice to see that Lab-Con coalition in removing our internet usage rights. The only one Cameron actually wins is the one on "Protecting Private Property", Brown does poorly on all of them. Clegg clear winner.


Also, from people I know, seems like the Marxists are rallying behind the Liberal Democrats instead of Labour because of policies such as STV, etc. Interesting leftist boost. They are fed-up with Labour and their rightist-authoriatian ways.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No you're right. I must try to do better. I will do my utmost to keep my socialists tendencies in check.

Louis, not I, jabbed at you for being a socialist. I was simply suggesting that there was PLENTY of blame to go around and that the Tories were unlikely to be the exclusive owners of it.


If an outsider can have a vote, I say: Tory-led coalition with Lib Dems (both holding their noses but keeping Labour out). New elections scheduled within 24 months (though the vote may be a bit past that).

[InsaneApache]

Louis, not I, jabbed at you for being a socialist. I was simply suggesting that there was PLENTY of blame to go around and that the Tories were unlikely to be the exclusive owners of it.


If an outsider can have a vote, I say: Tory-led coalition with Lib Dems (both holding their noses but keeping Labour out). New elections scheduled within 24 months (though the vote may be a bit past that).

I was being ironic in the post you highlighted. We are indeed two countries seperated by a common language. :oops:

[Idaho]

How did these nations get all the foreign debt? The same way we did - our leaders. Massive drain on GDP? Yup - just like ours. So why should theirs be cancelled? All that'll do is make the next lot of debt more expensive as the markets factor in the odds of default.
Export of raw materials? Rather like Australia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia... China and germany export manufactured goods. Is this wrong too?

These countries should be treated as equals. Show they're sorting things out and they will be able to get funding in the bond market. Get a decent credit rating and debt will decrease in cost. Embezzel / kill your own citizens and remain in the dark ages.

~:smoking:

Do you have no awareness of history? Don't you know what has happened to popular democratic movements in Zaire? In El Salvador? In Chile? Etc, etc...

They got strangled at birth by whichever western state/corporation had control of the raw materials.

[Furunculus]

funny, i thought it was a pretty even contest, with brown getting some good answers, cameron more, and clegg coming across as vacillating.

[Beskar]

funny, i thought it was a pretty even contest, with brown getting some good answers, cameron more, and clegg coming across as vacillating.

Haven't seen it yet, what do you think the main points were?

[Furunculus]

it'll take time, ninety minutes of debate takes time to walk ones mind through, at least mine does, i can only go off gut instinct at this point.

too much red wine.

brown was appealing to poor working class

cameron was appealing to southern aspiring middle class

clegg was appealing to hand-wringing professionals

[Furunculus]

questions you need to ask yourself:

1. Given that the Bank for International Settlements anticipates a UK public debt that will ramp up to 40% of GDP by 2040, and require 27% of GDP to service in debt interest at the same point, what proportion of deficit reduction should come from spending cuts and what proportion from tax increases?

2. Given that the Governor of the Bank of England has said that the necessary spending cuts will be so huge that the government to enact them will be out of power for a generation, and that the economy has been shown to grow faster under low-tax and pro-business regimes, how do you defend the tax increase portion of your deficit reduction plans?

3. Given that the Euro is about to go into melt-down, how do you defend you parties stance over the Britain’s entry into the Eurozone?

4. Given that British business and the Economist have supported the Tory’s economic policies as more conducive to economic recovery, how do you defend an electoral result that will end up with a hung-parliament and a coalition government?

5. Did the top 1% of taxpayers pay more tax in Britain in the eighties under high tax regime or under a low tax regime?

[LittleGrizzly]

questions you need to ask yourself:

1. Given that the Bank for International Settlements anticipates a UK public debt that will ramp up to 40% of GDP by 2040, and require 27% of GDP to service in debt interest at the same point, what proportion of deficit reduction should come from spending cuts and what proportion from tax increases?

I would want it mostly in cuts. Ideally I would like it if (rather than rising taxes) we could just shut down various loopholes and make those who cleverly avoid thier taxes pay thier share, but that seems a bit optimistic so almost all in cuts, 80% at least....

2. Given that the Governor of the Bank of England has said that the necessary spending cuts will be so huge that the government to enact them will be out of power for a generation, and that the economy has been shown to grow faster under low-tax and pro-business regimes, how do you defend the tax increase portion of your deficit reduction plans?

Well they would be aimed at closing loopholes top end (where I imagined thier used more and cost more) which is what we have previously decided is a fair share. I would possibly consider cutting taxes on the lowest paid though...

3. Given that the Euro is about to go into melt-down, how do you defend you parties stance over the Britain’s entry into the Eurozone?

Don't think im informed enough to make a decision... isn't the pound also not in a great place ?

4. Given that British business and the Economist have supported the Tory’s economic policies as more conducive to economic recovery, how do you defend an electoral result that will end up with a hung-parliament and a coalition government?

The question seems somewhat confusing, my answer would be freedom of choice, but i don't think thats quite the question your asking. I agree with the tory's that cuts are needed I just disagree where, I defend an electoral result where the tory's don't outright win by saying they won't get to decide where the cuts are, which is a good thing (if they could set the amount to be cut from the budget then the libs could pick what to cut, that would be perfect okay.)

5. Did the top 1% of taxpayers pay more tax in Britain in the eighties under high tax regime or under a low tax regime?


I feel like you are not asking anything, just making a point with a question... low tax regime I guess though....

[CountArach]

funny, i thought it was a pretty even contest, with brown getting some good answers, cameron more, and clegg coming across as vacillating.
Cameron won the debate according to every poll conducted with Clegg coming in second (with a tie for first in one poll).

[Myrddraal]

I thought the debate was good from all parties. I wouldn't agree that Cameron was the clear winner, his failure to even try to defend some of his policies when they were attacked was poor. It gave the impression that he wanted to hide those policies and pretend they weren't there. Clegg made a lot of sense sometimes, but I also thought he often relied too much on contradicting his opponents debating style rather than attacking their policies, describing the debate between Gordon and David as political point scoring. I was most surprised by Brown's performance in that I expected him to come across worse. There's no real attack on his policies which stuck in my mind as a particularly good one, other than perhaps the regional development agencies.

In terms of my expectations:

Cameron: Slightly worse
Clegg: About the same, if slightly worse
Brown: Much better

It's probably not the best reason to vote for a party I realise, but I don't want to vote conservative, and Labour don't feature in my constituency anyway, so it looks like I'm going to vote Lib Dem.

Looking at the policies of all three parties, there's a lot which I disagree with with all of them. The party I've been least impressed by has been the tory party. I've been impressed by some policies of the Labour Party, and some of the Lib Dem party. Those policies on which I disagree with them are also opposed by the other parties. Yet my constituency is a safe Tory seat, with virtually no Labour support. A stronger mandate for the Lib Dem party might see those views wich I share with them getting a greater voice in the commons. You never know... :shrug:

[Myrddraal]

Perhaps a moderator could split these last few posts and move them over to the UK election thread? It would be a shame to loose them just because they're in the wrong place.



questions you need to ask yourself:

1. Given that the Bank for International Settlements anticipates a UK public debt that will ramp up to 40% of GDP by 2040, and require 27% of GDP to service in debt interest at the same point, what proportion of deficit reduction should come from spending cuts and what proportion from tax increases?

2. Given that the Governor of the Bank of England has said that the necessary spending cuts will be so huge that the government to enact them will be out of power for a generation, and that the economy has been shown to grow faster under low-tax and pro-business regimes, how do you defend the tax increase portion of your deficit reduction plans?

How can you use an argument which emphasises the magnitude of the discrepancy between government income and expenditure to argue in favour of tax cut? This bit "cuts will be so huge that the government to enact them will be out of power for a generation", and this bit "that the economy has been shown to grow faster under low-tax and pro-business regimes" are opposing points.

Considering that the IFS have critisised all parties on the grounds that their proposed cuts will not be enough to dent the deficit, I think it's selfish to pretend that tax hikes can be avoided. If there's once election promise which will be broken by the conservative party should they win, I think it will be (and indeed I hope it will be) the promises to reduce tax income.


3. Given that the Euro is about to go into melt-down, how do you defend you parties stance over the Britain’s entry into the Eurozone?

I also think that it is arrogant to point to Greece and somehow claim that the pound sterling is the best way to go forward. Forget what might happen, let's take a look at what has happened. The pound has collapsed against the euro, and the dollar. I personally think that from purely economic reasons, we should have joined the euro three or four years ago, when our currency was at its prime.

I don't think that the conditions are right now for us to join the euro, but to argue that the euro in itself leads to instability isn't right. I also think it's wrong to point at Greece and say - that could happen to us if we join the euro. Greece's issues aren't due to their currency, and yet the euro has kept their currency relatively stable throughout the recession. The currency markets are in part driven by speculation. People have been speculating about the effect of Greece for months now, if this element was going to have an effect, it already would have. The currency markets are driven more by imports and exports and foreign investment. Investors are not going to hesitate to invest in France or Britain on the basis that Greece is suffering from a huge deficit, indeed they might vainly hope that Greece will make their worthwhile investments cheaper. The economics behind the euro are sound in that a common currency brings stability. Stability which the pound hasn't enjoyed (and indeed, suffered from a lack of) over the last few years. For purely economic reasons, I would be in favour of joining the euro when the pound has (hopefully) recovered. Unfortunately I don't think this will happen for purely un-economic reasons.


4. Given that British business and the Economist have supported the Tory’s economic policies as more conducive to economic recovery, how do you defend an electoral result that will end up with a hung-parliament and a coalition government?

Some business leaders have supported the Tory party but frankly they are looking at their own short term self interest, not the state of the economy or 'the greater good'. I'm inclined to believe they've been bribed with relatively small bribes.

The Tories say: Make bit cuts - everybody says Great!
The Tories say: Don't increase taxes, indeed, reduce them - everybody says Great!

If they've got sense they scratch beneath the surface and notice that the numbers don't add up.

The Tories say: Ah but we have the magic waste fairy which is going to generate pounds, but only for a Tory government, because the fairy doesn't like Gordon Brown - everybody says Great!


5. Did the top 1% of taxpayers pay more tax in Britain in the eighties under high tax regime or under a low tax regime?

The discrepency between what high earners should pay and what they do pay is due to some fairly blantant inconsistencies in the current tax system, namely the capital gains tax. To argue that reducing taxes increases tax revenue is nonsense. Reform of the tax system is what this country needs (A lib dem policy I support wholeheartedly).

Anyway, all this should be in the UK election thread, this thread is supposed to be about voting in any part of the world.

[Furunculus]

anyone else going to join the election sweep-stakes:



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JAG (27/02/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2440038&viewfull=1#post2440038

Furunculus (29/04/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2459341&viewfull=1#post2459341

Furunculus (29/03/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2459341&viewfull=1#post2459341

Idaho (16/04/10) - Narrow Labour win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2471029&viewfull=1#post2471029

Rory (16/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2471056&viewfull=1#post2471056

CountArch (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476911&viewfull=1#post2476911

Banquo's Ghost (29/04/10) - Conservative led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480078&viewfull=1#post2480078

Banquo's Ghost (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476913&viewfull=1#post2476913

Louis (29/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480070&viewfull=1#post2480070

Louis (23/04/10) - Labour led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476925&viewfull=1#post2476925

Tbilicus (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476926&viewfull=1#post2476926

Insane Apache (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476935&viewfull=1#post2476935

Beskar (23/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2477082&viewfull=1#post2477082

Alh_P (29/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480111&viewfull=1#post2480111

Seamus Fermanagh (30/04/10) - Conservative led hung parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480262&viewfull=1#post2480262

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


and have i missed anyone out?

p.s. you can can change your vote, but the original will also be retained..........

[al Roumi]

On last night's debate, I'm glad they at least spoke about the what would be required to cover the gap in debt and spending -the Lib dem idea of a cross-party comission sounds good given the severity of the situation, its also a + for parliamentary action.

Beyond that and the basic "we will cut taxes"/"we will support services", there wasn't much offered which was new. It kind of played into Gordy's hands as the rest of the debate was about services and completely devoid of the practical "we will pay for these services by..."

Amused to see how Clegg has stolen the Tory "change" mantra, with his own stronger one: "it's these guys fault, they've been in power since... [er, since we were]". Lol

Clegg's best point IMO was on immigration where he showed the Tory policy of no non-skilled non-european immigrants to be largely pointless. As to these non-Eu non skilled migrants who are reportedly flocking from Afghanistan, I am intrigued how anyone who is pro the UK's mission there and against dumping the country and its people in the sheister, can be so un-accomodating/revulsed by Afghans arriving or seeking refuge here -aren't we meant to be over there at least on one level to make things better for them?

The chair left a couple of questions run a bit too long IMO, there were a couple where all 3 leaders basically agreed with each other and struggled to really say more.

I actually found clegg a little patronising at times, but sensible at others. Gordon was good once he delivered his awful intro, his smiling and laughing actually looked genuine for once. Cameron was earnest but I'm not sure his refusal to be drawn inito a couple of discussion was a great move on an occasion when he was meant to extol and present his views and reasoning.

Edit: Just rereading my post I realise how clear a Cleggmanic I have become... the shame!

[rory_20_uk]

On last night's debate, I'm glad they at least spoke about the what would be required to cover the gap in debt and spending -the Lib dem idea of a cross-party comission sounds good given the severity of the situation, its also a + for parliamentary action.

Beyond that and the basic "we will cut taxes"/"we will support services", there wasn't much offered which was new. It kind of played into Gordy's hands as the rest of the debate was about services and completely devoid of the practical "we will pay for these services by..."

Amused to see how Clegg has stolen the Tory "change" mantra, with his own stronger one: "it's these guys fault, they've been in power since... [er, since we were]". Lol

Clegg's best point IMO was on immigration where he showed the Tory policy of no non-skilled non-european immigrants to be largely pointless. As to these non-Eu non skilled migrants who are reportedly flocking from Afghanistan, I am intrigued how anyone who is pro the UK's mission there and against dumping the country and its people in the sheister, can be so un-accomodating/revulsed by Afghans arriving or seeking refuge here -aren't we meant to be over there at least on one level to make things better for them?

The chair left a couple of questions run a bit too long IMO, there were a couple where all 3 leaders basically agreed with each other and struggled to really say more.

I actually found clegg a little patronising at times, but sensible at others. Gordon was good once he delivered his awful intro, his smiling and laughing actually looked genuine for once. Cameron was earnest but I'm not sure his refusal to be drawn inito a couple of discussion was a great move on an occasion when he was meant to extol and present his views and reasoning.

Cross party review sounds good. Also ensures Lib Dems a place at the high table, which is of course what they want.

Outlining what to cut is a massive vote looser. No party can afford to be honest about that. Noticed how the Lib Dems have got vaguer on this as they now have a real chance at power?

Our troops are over there dying not so they can seek refuge in the UK - having crossed a vast number of other safe countries where they should seek refuge under International Law. Their country was in the **** since at least the 1980's, and things have never geen great since the Mongols trashed the irrigation systems.

~:smoking:

[al Roumi]

Our troops are over there dying not so they can seek refuge in the UK

Is that why ISAF are in Afghanistan?


having crossed a vast number of other safe countries where they should seek refuge under International Law. Their country was in the sh*t since at least the 1980's, and things have never geen great since the Mongols trashed the irrigation systems.

Right, but as we are there now, taking responsability and trying to get the place back on its feet (as we see it) -can you fault them for thinking we might also take some sort of responsability for Afghans caught in what is a very live warzone?

[Furunculus]

Clegg's best point IMO was on immigration where he showed the Tory policy of no non-skilled non-european immigrants to be largely pointless.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7654278/General-Election-2010-Nick-Clegg-gets-immigration-figures-wrong-in-final-television-debate.html

[Furunculus]

got twelve predictions so far, anyone else gonna join the party?

i'm beginning to feel more confident about a narrow tory majority.

[rory_20_uk]

Wishful thinking is not by itself a sufficient reason.

Merely that we are expending masses of resources to fix their mess doesn't then mean we have to help them even further. A warzone requires two lots of fighters. The other lot are Afghans.

I see it as a massive waste of time and money. Leave these backward facing people to whatever medieval practices they want., merely trade what we need with whoever sells it.

~:smoking:

[Subotan]

You missed me

Conservative & Unionist led Minority government.

[Furunculus]

anyone else going to join the election sweep-stakes:



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JAG (27/02/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2440038&viewfull=1#post2440038

Furunculus (29/04/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2459341&viewfull=1#post2459341

Furunculus (29/03/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2459341&viewfull=1#post2459341

Idaho (16/04/10) - Narrow Labour win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2471029&viewfull=1#post2471029

Rory (16/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2471056&viewfull=1#post2471056

CountArch (30/04/10) - Conservative led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480544&viewfull=1#post2480544

CountArch (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476911&viewfull=1#post2476911

Banquo's Ghost (29/04/10) - Conservative led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480078&viewfull=1#post2480078

Banquo's Ghost (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476913&viewfull=1#post2476913

Louis (29/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480070&viewfull=1#post2480070

Louis (23/04/10) - Labour led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476925&viewfull=1#post2476925

Tbilicus (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476926&viewfull=1#post2476926

Insane Apache (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476935&viewfull=1#post2476935

Beskar (23/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2477082&viewfull=1#post2477082

Alh_P (29/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480111&viewfull=1#post2480111

Seamus Fermanagh (30/04/10) - Conservative led hung parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480262&viewfull=1#post2480262

Subotan (30/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480536&viewfull=1#post2480536

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


and have i missed anyone out?

p.s. you can can change your vote, but the original will also be retained..........

[CountArach]

Changing my bet to a Tory led hung parliament with Lib Dems coming in second on votes.

[al Roumi]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7654278/General-Election-2010-Nick-Clegg-gets-immigration-figures-wrong-in-final-television-debate.html

Ahah, well pointed out, but:

"Lib Dems officials later attempted to defend the 80 per cent figure, saying it was “supported” by a briefing in the Economist magazine.

The report said that non-EU immigrations make up one fifth of foreign workers [20%], but only when students are excluded from the figures. "

I would (even without my partisan bias) argue that this justifies Clegg's figures - Students are for 1 clearly not the sort to be un-skilled migrants, are probably here only for the duration of their studies and lastly: UK universities get substantial revenues from the fees of foreign students.

[rory_20_uk]

What percentage attend bogus colleges and are here merely to work? Not a rhetorical question - I've no idea. The Daily Mail probably would say about 130%, the guardian 0%.

We have increased degrees to courses that make use of the work "skilled" risible.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

Just watched Brillo interviewing the leader of the Monster Raving Looney Party. Hilarious. Asked why they had fielded candidates against Clegg and Cameron but not against Brown, he said that it was too far to go! LOL.

He also suggested that the EU gives up the euro because of the problems they are having and instead join Sterling. Then with the UK being the biggest island in the EU, he proposes that we become a tax haven.

At last! A party that says what it means and means what it says. They've got my vote. :laugh4:

[Furunculus]

Just watched Brillo interviewing the leader of the Monster Raving Looney Party. Hilarious. Asked why they had fielded candidates against Clegg and Cameron but not against Brown, he said that it was too far to go! LOL.

He also suggested that the EU gives up the euro because of the problems they are having and instead join Sterling. Then with the UK being the biggest island in the EU, he proposes that we become a tax haven.

At last! A party that says what it means and means what it says. They've got my vote. :laugh4:

roflmao! i like it.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I found the debate profoundly depressing. Not one of the aspiring leaders of the United Kingdom appears to have any clue as to how to address the deficit, and if they have a clue, they are not willing to share it with the electorate. A government without any sort of mandate for the austerity needed is going to have real problems.

They quibbled about inconsequential things to a nauseating degree, but carefully avoided the biggest question of all.

Performance-wise, Brown was most improved, but still irrelevant. Cameron did enough but was still utterly unconvincing - I thought he made a small tactical error by continually referring to Brown as "Prime Minister". Last week he scored by referring to himself as "if I were your Prime Minister". Clegg was adequate but dealt with Cameron's occasional attacks pretty well. He was the most engaging, but since this is not a presidential election, I was looking for more substance on policy.

I shall be voting Conservative, but with a heavy heart and a deep sense of unease. Cameron is likely to make a useless Prime Minister since he hasn't displayed any spine at all. He will have a feeble mandate, and none whatsoever for the necessary decisions. I think the Governor of the Bank of England was quite correct in his observation, and a Tory government with a wafer-thin majority will be paralysed, indecisive and cowardly - ultimately forced to make swinging cuts and substantial tax rises, which will re-establish all the bad characteristics associated with Conservative rule - and then fall out of power and be punished for a very long time ahead. This would be a very good election to lose, methinks.

I have even less time for George Osborne, but can only hope that he is given the poisoned chalice of introducing the cuts and taxes, then to be Lamonted out of office and Ken Clarke brought in as Chancellor. At least the Tories have someone of Clarke's calibre in the wings, whereas pretty much everyone else of any party is a real lightweight. I actually believe that Brown has the capability, but he has shown himself to be a rank coward politically so many times, there is no way he could handle the coming years and he could certainly no longer bring the electorate with him.

There's another, entirely selfish reason for a Tory vote, and that is the inheritance tax reduction. It's horribly unjust, but I am liable for enormous amounts of inheritance tax and any reduction will be welcome.

[Furunculus]

I shall be voting Conservative, but with a heavy heart and a deep sense of unease. Cameron is likely to make a useless Prime Minister since he hasn't displayed any spine at all. He will have a feeble mandate, and none whatsoever for the necessary decisions.

excellent point.

[rory_20_uk]

Greece might prove to be a blessing in disguise. That could soon be us. The electorate might not like what is going on, and might be sceptical - but when they can see insurrection in a European country occurring now due to their inability to cut their debt might help focus the public.

The other option is if there is unrest after the Budget to call a further election. If the populace is mad enough to go for a party promising fairy gold well, so be it - history will prove their folly.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I found the debate profoundly depressing. Not one of the aspiring leaders of the United Kingdom appears to have any clue as to how to address the deficit, and if they have a clue, they are not willing to share it with the electorate. A government without any sort of mandate for the austerity needed is going to have real problems.

They quibbled about inconsequential things to a nauseating degree, but carefully avoided the biggest question of all.

Performance-wise, Brown was most improved, but still irrelevant. Cameron did enough but was still utterly unconvincing - I thought he made a small tactical error by continually referring to Brown as "Prime Minister". Last week he scored by referring to himself as "if I were your Prime Minister". Clegg was adequate but dealt with Cameron's occasional attacks pretty well. He was the most engaging, but since this is not a presidential election, I was looking for more substance on policy.

I shall be voting Conservative, but with a heavy heart and a deep sense of unease. Cameron is likely to make a useless Prime Minister since he hasn't displayed any spine at all. He will have a feeble mandate, and none whatsoever for the necessary decisions. I think the Governor of the Bank of England was quite correct in his observation, and a Tory government with a wafer-thin majority will be paralysed, indecisive and cowardly - ultimately forced to make swinging cuts and substantial tax rises, which will re-establish all the bad characteristics associated with Conservative rule - and then fall out of power and be punished for a very long time ahead. This would be a very good election to lose, methinks.

I have even less time for George Osborne, but can only hope that he is given the poisoned chalice of introducing the cuts and taxes, then to be Lamonted out of office and Ken Clarke brought in as Chancellor. At least the Tories have someone of Clarke's calibre in the wings, whereas pretty much everyone else of any party is a real lightweight. I actually believe that Brown has the capability, but he has shown himself to be a rank coward politically so many times, there is no way he could handle the coming years and he could certainly no longer bring the electorate with him.

There's another, entirely selfish reason for a Tory vote, and that is the inheritance tax reduction. It's horribly unjust, but I am liable for enormous amounts of inheritance tax and any reduction will be welcome.

I would tend to agree on every point, with the proviso that I am unlikely to be liable for large amounts of inherritence tax.

[Furunculus]

PVC, what is your prediction?

[Furunculus]

Maybe we should also have a list of voting intentions, might be interesting to tally against the predictions?



----------------------------------
Furunculus = Con

----------------------------------

[Beskar]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7654278/General-Election-2010-Nick-Clegg-gets-immigration-figures-wrong-in-final-television-debate.html


The report said that non-EU immigrations make up one fifth of foreign workers, but only when students are excluded from the figures.

I don't see where the problem is. Foriegn students pay lots of money into university (which doesn't get taken from tax payers) and they only fill up the places which are not taken up by Homegrown students. They are only here for a few years and then they leave, or they are simply here for a year.

This includes a great many students mostly from American, Canada and Europe.

[Beskar]

I found the debate profoundly depressing. Not one of the aspiring leaders of the United Kingdom appears to have any clue as to how to address the deficit, and if they have a clue, they are not willing to share it with the electorate.

I got a few ideas on how to tackle it. Equip me with the red box and a team of number crunchers, and you will see us debt-free by 2025-30 with my five year plans.

[Idaho]

I found the debate profoundly depressing.

There's another, entirely selfish reason for a Tory vote, and that is the inheritance tax reduction. It's horribly unjust, but I am liable for enormous amounts of inheritance tax and any reduction will be welcome.

I find the reasons for your voting intention profoundly depressing.


As to my own intentions. For about 3 nanoseconds I thought about voting Lib-dem to push up their share of the vote and further show how undemocratic FPTP is. But then I came back to my senses.

None of the above. (I'll even be out of the country on election day).

[tibilicus]

On the subject of last nights debate, I don't see how on earth any one thought Cameron won.

He failed to explain his economic policies coherently without dropping in the word "waste" at every possibility. What does it even mean? From what he has said in last nights debate and previous debates I'm incredibly concerned that Dave and co's plan to reduce the deficit is to reduce the number of paper clips going around Whitehall and to cut up senior civil servants credit cards. This is actually what he's said in both debates. Yes, I gather the other two are also fairly awful but at the end of the day an ideological commitment to getting rid of "big government" isn't an economic solution. I get it may be part of the solution but when the Tories fail to explain where the rest of the money will come from, because quite frankly cutting back on paper clips isn't going to do sweet F all, it leaves us in a worrying position. Cam and co's opposition to tax rises is also absurd. No one wants higher taxes, but the point is with a deficit this big taxes are going to have to go up some where. To promise you wont raises taxes is absurd and a flat out lie, no matter which party wins next week taxes will inevitably have to go up at some point, that's my reasoning.

I would feel much easier about Conservative economic policy if Ken Clarke was shadow Chancellor. Clarke is a man with credibility and experience with tough economic situations. Just a shame we lack credible political alternatives. I will say this as a warning to anyone who's voting tory next week; If George Osborne is going to be as affective at his job as chancellor as he is at his role as a constituency MP, your all in for a pretty bumpy ride. The guy quite frankly abuses the comfortable tory majority round her, much like a certain MP before him. You will never find George walking round the streets, reassuring the locals. In fact, you will most likely find him posing for staged photos once every blue moon (if he even bothers to do any activities at all) and as for local surgeries, they're pretty much non existent. Even his predecessor made time for those he represented, you know, in between taking money in brown envelopes.

Anyway, end rant. Point being Ken Clarke>George Osborne + tories inability to explain economic policy coherently angers me.

[rory_20_uk]

All politicians have doubtlessly been having lessons on language to appeal to key voters.

It's like an Evangelical Church - they're not there to have a in-depth theological debate. They're there to increase the numbers for the church, and thus simple messages that resonate with key groups is the key.

Parties might get more votes in certain niche groups with a fully thought out budget - but nowhere near the numbers of votes that declaring that all will be solved by reducing "waste" - which after all no one associates with themselves whatever they do.

~:smoking:

[Banquo's Ghost]

I find the reasons for your voting intention profoundly depressing.

I thought you might. :yes:

I am responsible for a lot of people's livelihoods, many of whom have worked all their lives for my family. When my father died, the death duties were substantial and it has only been through tough decisions (and the staff's extraordinary dedication) that I did not have to lay off any of the long standing workers. (The irony is, because of inheritance tax, it's not even practicable to set aside savings for the evil day to protect their future, because that's just more tax to the Inland Revenue). If I can reduce that burden for my successor, I believe that I have that duty.

My obligation to my hard-working staff on both sides of the Celtic Sea, in two seriously crocked countries, means that the more of my money made unavailable to the ravenous taxman, the more I can keep them and their families safe. I don't have the luxury of moving to a nice tax haven somewhere warm. Whilst I recognise the injustice of the rich benefitting from a tax concession, I would also note that the Tories are going to keep the 50% rate on my income. My choice is to do what is possible to protect people I know from the storm to come (including myself, naturally) rather than "donate" even more cash to the waste-bucket of welfare that supports people for whom I don't have any responsibility.

[Idaho]

I thought you might. :yes:

I am responsible for a lot of people's livelihoods, many of whom have worked all their lives for my family. When my father died, the death duties were substantial and it has only been through tough decisions (and the staff's extraordinary dedication) that I did not have to lay off any of the long standing workers. (The irony is, because of inheritance tax, it's not even practicable to set aside savings for the evil day to protect their future, because that's just more tax to the Inland Revenue). If I can reduce that burden for my successor, I believe that I have that duty.

My obligation to my hard-working staff on both sides of the Celtic Sea, in two seriously crocked countries, means that the more of my money made unavailable to the ravenous taxman, the more I can keep them and their families safe. I don't have the luxury of moving to a nice tax haven somewhere warm. Whilst I recognise the injustice of the rich benefitting from a tax concession, I would also note that the Tories are going to keep the 50% rate on my income. My choice is to do what is possible to protect people I know from the storm to come (including myself, naturally) rather than "donate" even more cash to the waste-bucket of welfare that supports people for whom I don't have any responsibility.

If they work for your business, and the business is limited liability, then inheritance tax doesn't come into it. I don't understand - unless you run the business as a personal fiefdom, or these are servants and butlers you are talking about....

[rory_20_uk]

The business is an asset. Thus the government will want 40% of its cash value. If you don't have that - fire sale.

~:smoking:

[al Roumi]

What does it [waste] even mean? From what he has said in last nights debate and previous debates I'm incredibly concerned that Dave and co's plan to reduce the deficit is to reduce the number of paper clips going around Whitehall and to cut up senior civil servants credit cards.

Lol, just let him try and seperate me from my empire of pot plants and paperclip millions.

[InsaneApache]

As the Yanks see us....

http://tv.gawker.com/5527780/jon-stewart-mocks-the-laughable-tameness-of-british-political-scandals

:laugh4:

I think I had a little wee watching that! :laugh4:

http://tv.gawker.com/5528164/jon-stewart-mocks-the-laughable-tameness-of-british-political-scandals

This link works.

[Banquo's Ghost]

If they work for your business, and the business is limited liability, then inheritance tax doesn't come into it. I don't understand - unless you run the business as a personal fiefdom, or these are servants and butlers you are talking about....

Some parts are businesses, to be sure - the core is the latter, but there is more to such than simply servants and butlers.

[Tellos Athenaios]

@tibilicus: “waste” typically means “the myriad ways governments fail to invest and stick to a single coherent plan”. The follow up explanation can be summarized mostly thus: “And I am going to waste some more, but pretend I am not by cutting the amount of money other projects get: this will look like reducing waste, but really means that the actual, `effective' funds are reduced while waste is kept at a higher level over all”. Hardly ever means it making a though concession and choosing one project (i.e. voter group) over the other (i.e. different voter group presumably feared to vote opposition next time for such heresy).

For example consider the MOD (and this is a problem the US has as well, incidentally):
How much money Britain could save itself (the same goes for quite a few countries, incidentally) if army, navy and air force weren't 3 separate castles all crying “if the other gets something, then by God we shall get something too”. And if it could choose not the most militarily exciting but costly and inefficient plans possible; but rather more items of more austere equipment. So right now, if your army in the middle east needs helicopters to supply itself, you can be sure that there is no money for that because it was just spent on fighter planes that only serve to sit in a hangar all day. If you need carriers you can be sure that there won't be planes, because some other military branch has just ordered a batch of completely different and incompatible ones, too. It would literally save billions if armed forces were on a tighter financial leash; and government could effectively force it through ingrained institutional intransigence in the armed forces and dictate that there is only one budget to serve all military needs, rather than three budgets to fail to meet even a single need.

[shlin28]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/30/the-liberal-moment-has-come

... and the Guardian backs the Liberal Democrats. Hardly surprising, but I do feel that they timed it rather badly, surely it would have a bigger effect if this was announced before the debate?

[tibilicus]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/30/the-liberal-moment-has-come

... and the Guardian backs the Liberal Democrats. Hardly surprising, but I do feel that they timed it rather badly, surely it would have a bigger effect if this was announced before the debate?

The Economist has also ditched Labour, in favour of of the Conservatives as opposed to the lib dems however. Looks like that leaves Labour with pretty much nothing, minus the Mirror.

Yet another torpedo to the New Labour hull. Will the ship sink at last?

[al Roumi]

The Economist has also ditched Labour, in favour of of the Conservatives as opposed to the lib dems however.

I would have been more surprised if the Economist had supported labour. They even supported McCain for christ's sake. Their support for Tony Blair was the exception, rather than the rule.

[gaelic cowboy]

They even supported McCain for christ's sake.

Thats not true the front page of the economist showed a picture of Obama with some kind of byline about time for change or summit like that

[Idaho]

I would have been more surprised if the Economist had supported labour. They even supported McCain for christ's sake. Their support for Tony Blair was the exception, rather than the rule.

Media defaults to supporting the centre-right, unless it looks like the public are up for a sea change to er... centre less-right. In that case they try and back the winning horse.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Just a few blasts from the past for you English election punters.....


You may have neglected to mention that the Labour party has not failed in its promises in keeping the NHS and education system together and improving it. When it comes right down to it the ordinary person on the street trusts Labour more than any other party when it comes down to running the economy and investing in services. They still do not trust the Tories with those responsibilities and frankly I doubt they ever will. The reason and the only reason the Tories made such startling gains in this election was because Labour voters voted Lib Dem as a protest against the war. Now they have Tory MP's and will not make the same mistake.

Remember one thing when the Labour Government inherited the NHS the education system public transport and almost all the other public services they were decrepit and starved of funds and any real hope. Within 8 years the NHS is rapidly rising in efficiency and expertise, schools are getting better, and public transport is finally being drawn inexorably back to Nationalisation. And of course the Economy is in the best of health and with this age of mortgages and credit cards who wants an economy that had so many fluxes it looked like a seismograph, the simple fact is people trust Labour on almost all issues a lot more than they trust the Tories.

As such I can comfortable predict that within 10-20 years the Conservative party will be the Third Party in the country with the Lib Dems in second.

Have a nice day. ~:)


...
EA - I am of the opinion that a blanket benefit system like you state, however fair in theory, it is not. We should have a welfare system which is disproportionately helpful to those at the very bottom not simply equal all round. This is in fact the biggest difference between the Lib Dems and Labour - still. The Lib Dems favour a middle class welfare state, with everyone given equal chances and everyone given the same, from the lowest working class to the highest payed middle class. Where as Labour are still about giving more to those at the very bottom before anyone else and if necessary without giving anything to anyone but those in the worst off positions, it is why they are still to the left of the Lib Dems and why they are still a lefty party.

It should be disproportionately better for those further down because it is those people who struggle most and so need more. The forms are a neccesary evil, even if it can seem the opposite.


I'll add a few more in as time permits. Scanning back there it appears as though Gawain started about 1 thread in every 5.

[al Roumi]

Thats not true the front page of the economist showed a picture of Obama with some kind of byline about time for change or summit like that

Hmm, I remember articles where after the paper's positivity for Obama over Clinton was quenched by it's support for McCain's Republican politics.

I just did a quick search through passed Economist articles and came accross the following single page of responses to their endorsement of Obama (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_TNVJTNTG), seems others were baffled too. Barring their routine columnists e.g. Lexington, the Economist uses articles from various sources -it's possible they stray from a strict editorial line? Or they were unsure and plumbed for Obama at the last minute...

[InsaneApache]

Just a few blasts from the past for you English election punters.....






I'll add a few more in as time permits. Scanning back there it appears as though Gawain started about 1 thread in every 5.

I actually remember Zeldas post. How sad is that? :embarassed:

BTW Good digging SF :bow:

[Furunculus]

@tibilicus: “waste” typically means “the myriad ways governments fail to invest and stick to a single coherent plan”. The follow up explanation can be summarized mostly thus: “And I am going to waste some more, but pretend I am not by cutting the amount of money other projects get: this will look like reducing waste, but really means that the actual, `effective' funds are reduced while waste is kept at a higher level over all”. Hardly ever means it making a though concession and choosing one project (i.e. voter group) over the other (i.e. different voter group presumably feared to vote opposition next time for such heresy).

For example consider the MOD (and this is a problem the US has as well, incidentally):
How much money Britain could save itself (the same goes for quite a few countries, incidentally) if army, navy and air force weren't 3 separate castles all crying “if the other gets something, then by God we shall get something too”. And if it could choose not the most militarily exciting but costly and inefficient plans possible; but rather more items of more austere equipment. So right now, if your army in the middle east needs helicopters to supply itself, you can be sure that there is no money for that because it was just spent on fighter planes that only serve to sit in a hangar all day. If you need carriers you can be sure that there won't be planes, because some other military branch has just ordered a batch of completely different and incompatible ones, too. It would literally save billions if armed forces were on a tighter financial leash; and government could effectively force it through ingrained institutional intransigence in the armed forces and dictate that there is only one budget to serve all military needs, rather than three budgets to fail to meet even a single need.canada tried it, i doubt they would say the exercise was a success. wrong again.

[Furunculus]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/30/the-liberal-moment-has-come

... and the Guardian backs the Liberal Democrats. Hardly surprising, but I do feel that they timed it rather badly, surely it would have a bigger effect if this was announced before the debate?don't know that anyone should be surprised, the guardian has always been as solidly left-wing just as the torygraph has been right wing, and the former doesn't even have the reputation as being a paper of record!

[Subotan]

According to Wikipedia.

IMHO, Broadsheets are a more valuable indicator of prestige than "Newspaper of Record"

[Furunculus]

if only it were both........... oh wait!

[Furunculus]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100037492/first-david-cameron-adopts-the-plan-now-the-contract-with-britain/

[shlin28]

I received this 'contract' this morning (even though I can't vote yet :laugh4:). I don't think this would effect the election results here, as even though Sutton and Cheam is a 'battleground' seat, the current Liberal MP is very popular and (according to a local Lib Dem organiser I talked to) will probably get lots of Labour votes too. In 2005 the current MP gained 47% of votes, whilst the Tory candidate had 41%. Somehow I don't think this year's results will change much, especially with Cleggmania.

There is also the fact that all the houses around the Tory candidate's house have Lib Dem posters, which personally I find hilarious :laugh4:

[Subotan]

if only it were both........... oh wait!
The Guardian is a broadsheet newspaper, is it not?

[Furunculus]

but not a paper of note.

[Idaho]

but not a paper of note.

The Guardian is the worst British newspaper. With the exception of all the others.

[Furunculus]

we'll just have to disagree on that one.

[Subotan]

The Guardian is the worst British newspaper. With the exception of all the others.
QFT :beam:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Guardian is the worst British newspaper. With the exception of all the others.

Which one makes the best fish-wrap?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And now some interesting predicitions/thoughts from 3 years past....



This is an interesting opinion (http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/bruce_anderson/article2328773.ece) piece for those of us interested in the struggle for power in Britain.

Gordon Brown seems to be fading from his position as heir apparent. I don't know any of my British friends who think he can win the next general election - and several are Labour voters. David Milliband seems to think no-one can win the next election for New Labour, and that the sensible thing to do would be to stay quiet until Brown gets humiliated by the electorate and he can step in as the new New Labourite in opposition.

Yet the columnist posits another possibility - that Blair regrets his decision and might be persuaded to stay on. There has been no popular acclaim for Brown and he's looking wounded - might the PM change his mind? If he did, could he win the next election? - despite his record, he is still a formidable campaigner, and the Tories really ought to be 20 points ahead given his woes.

Bruce Anderson: Gordon Brown's fortunes are ebbing away

Milburn and Clarke speak for many Labour MPs who are afraid that he will not click with the voters
Published: 05 March 2007

The Labour Party leadership race is a bullfight without a matador. The Brown bull is charging around the ring becoming angrier and angrier, as well he might, because every few minutes a banderillero rushes in, flings a dart at him and then runs away, too fast to be gored and eviscerated. We can be certain of one thing. If a challenger does appear, it will be a cracking contest. No bull has ever been so taunted and maddened.

Political parties which lose confidence in their leader or his heir presumptive have a difficulty. They cannot keep their worries to themselves. The confessional rapidly turns into a recording studio and the electorate listens in. Charles Clarke and Alan Milburn have been hoping to raise doubts about Gordon Brown without supplying the Tories with too much quotable material (Mr Clarke had already done that). But neither man is designed to be a tightrope walker. They can only celebrate their good fortune. Gordon Brown is not yet in charge of the safety net.

Disregard the talk of new visions for 2020. Trying to work out what Messrs Clarke and Milburn mean by policies is like trying to carry water in a sieve. But none of this is about policy. It is about personality: Gordon Brown's personality. Charles Clarke and Alan Milburn are speaking for a lot of Labour MPs who are afraid that Mr Brown will not click with the voters. He will clunk with them, and they will clunk back.

It is still probable that Gordon Brown will become PM. But one fear ought to be gnawing at his vitals. Where are his troops? Why have the airwaves not been inundated by Brownites, contemptuously dismissing the carpers while urging their fellow MPs to line the route for the coronation? Although David Miliband may be some way off commanding a majority of Labour MPs, he has the enthusiasts. The 50th Milibandite hopping for a chance to sign up to his campaign is far more motivated than the 50th Brownite muttering that he supposes it has to be Gordon. Last September's Brownite coup has turned into this March's collapsed soufflé.

David Miliband must feel flattered, and alarmed. Two months ago, I am told, he regarded a leadership bid as an amusing dream, which would instantly become a nightmare if he tried to turn it into reality. That was then, long before the recent polls. Although Mr Miliband is not at all arrogant, it cannot be easy to retain your humility when so many colleagues are pressing you to have a crack at the premiership.

Immediately after the Tory leadership contest in 1990, Douglas Hurd mused he had never really thought he could win. But a number of people whom he respected had urged him to stand. He decided that if he did not have a go, he would regret it later. If Mr Miliband did run, he would do a lot better than Douglas Hurd did. Then again, Gordon Brown would not emulate John Major's effortless generosity towards defeated rivals.

So what are they making of all this, next door in Number 10? At present, Tony Blair seems more interested in adding new American billionaires to his Rolodex. On one point, we can be certain. Amid all the talk of legacies and saving the planet, Mr Blair has one goal at the forefront of his plans. He is determined that after leaving Downing Street, he will make more money than any previous prime minister.

So he will, just as long as Scotland Yard does not inconvenience him. Then again, let us assume the PM does avoid serious embarrassment at the hands of Commander Yates. Tony Blair is young. There are reports that he regrets committing himself to leaving office. It cannot be long before some Labour MP goes public to beg him to reconsider.

One Labour backbencher made an interesting comment last week. He asked me what would have happened if Bill Clinton had been able to run again in 2000. I said that he would have won. If Al Gore came that close, Clinton would surely have done better. "Precisely,'' came the reply. "But we don't have term limits. So why are we swapping Clinton for Gore?''

I doubt if there is a way back for Mr Blair. The Labour MPs who regard him as an alien implant - GM Labour - are far more numerous than the ones who respect his election- winning record. But everything is unstable; everyone is uneasy. Outside the inner Brownite tribe, there seems to be little confidence. Where there is no way forward, the way back has its attractions.

It is hard to know what Gordon Brown could do to make himself an attraction. There is a Budget in two weeks' time. There is no money to spend. No doubt the Chancellor will be up to his usual game of re-announcing spending increases which he has announced several times already. These days, however, everyone is aware of the tricks. The commentators will rush to the small print to deconstruct the Budget, exposing the double and treble counting, the quadruple and quintuple announcing - plus, no doubt, the new stealth tax increases which Mr Brown somehow forgets to mention in his speech.

Yet the Budget will go less badly for him than the Scottish elections. Labour will suffer, and it will be impossible for Gordon Brown to disassociate himself from the defeat. Many English voters will conclude that if his fellow Scots do not believe in him, why should they?

Even so, there is still no matador in sight. But it is worth remembering that the bull never survives the bullfight.


If we overlook the fact that its Bruce Anderson and therefore automatically suspect.

Its clear, I think, that Brown as PM will deliver no better a result for labour at the polls than Blair. (I have to say I disagree that Blair is a particularly formidable campaigner, Clinton he ain't) In which case it must be credible that Blair will ask himself, well, why go? Especially as "the legacy" is non existent.

The only answer I can see is that we REALLY want Blair to go. The fact that we don't want the alternatives does not detract from the fact that we want Blair out. After all, no one was gagging to have John Major as PM in 1990, but we got him, and he went on to win a tricky election against a newly confident labour party.

Which was of course a huge disaster for the party.

That said Brown vs Cameron might not even be funny. Cameron is, after all, the Tory Blair (the second Tory Blair, to be accurate. I described Cameron as Blair Mk 2 to a friend of mine who is an old communist, and he remarked bitterly, yes, well its all right for you, at least you EXPECT to have a Tory as the leader of your party.)

Seriously, my wife says she would never vote for Brown because he is so grumpy. (Women, eh. :inquisitive: 50% of the electorate too. ) She thinks Cameron is phoney but still prefers him.

I'm telling you, I think Posh is back.


Its becoming a bit of a hopeless situation for labour, Blair is hugely unpopular, and his own party won't let him stay on too much longer, even if he wanted too,

Brown is too much associated with Blair, and does'nt really come over all that well to a media-fed electorate, that said, i think he would be an improvement over Blair... It might be that he is not as good as Blair at poll-winning, but the knowledge that Blair is leaving might raise labour's support overall anyway...

Cameron is very similar to Blair, but its worth waiting until he actually announces some "substance" and policies before making that judgment, it may well be that he is more Tory than he makes out, and is attempting to take the centre ground in an attempt gain votes from the lib-dems and labour, through temporarily moderating his views...

I honestly think an in=party election for pm would be a disaster for labour, Brown would win, but the party would potentially fall apart.... no other Labour politician has the power, experience, or support to beat him, but could damage the apry image by trying...

If i was Conservative, i'd be wanting Blair to stay on for as long as possible, because as long as he is around they are loosing popularity...

:2thumbsup:


Interesting in light of recent events, no?

[Louis VI the Fat]

There's another, entirely selfish reason for a Tory vote, and that is the inheritance tax reduction. It's horribly unjust, but I am liable for enormous amounts of inheritance tax and any reduction will be welcome.Now that's an excellent reason to vote Conservatives.


So good, in fact, it makes me wonder why the other sixty million minus 3000 Britons would vote Conservative too.

[tibilicus]

The polls today show a slight shift back to the Conservatives. If the electorate does get a wobbly about the lib dems though expect a pretty significant shift of support back to the Tories. I think the threshold for a Conservative majority, all be it very small majority, is roughly 39%. That means that as things stand, we're still on our way to a hung parliament.I wouldn't be to surprised if we see a break for the Tories though. I don't know why but I just have a feeling that it might happen. I can't also see the lib dems polling anything above 30%. If they get 28% it will still be a massive achievement and I for one will certainly be shocked if they manage it. I can't also comprehend why the Labour vote is still holding. In all honesty I can't see why any ones planning to vote for them. If your a progressive left winger the lib dems are certainly the more progressive of the two and I certainly can't see why you would vote for labour on the basis of it's personalities. If anything this election has shown the true extent to which New Labour is all spin spin spin. Gordon can't even handle ordinary people because he's been shielded by the spin doctors for so long.

Also interestingly, will Furunculus be right with his prediction of a small Conservative majority?He's the only one who predicted it and to me at least, it's defiantly still in the equation for a likely outcome.

Anyway, here's the polls.

YouGov/Sunday Times (30th Apr-1st May) CON 35%(+1), LAB 27%(-1), LDEM 28%(nc)
ComRes/S.Mirror/S.Indy (30th Apr-1st May) CON 38%(+2), LAB 28%(-1), LDEM 25%(-1)
ICM/Sunday Telegraph (30th April) CON 36%(+3), LAB 29%(+1), LDEM 27%(-3)
BPIX/Mail on Sunday (30th Apr-1st May) CON 34%(nc), LAB 27%(+1), LDEM 30%(nc)
Angus Reid/Sunday Express (TBC) CON 35%(+2), LAB 23%(nc), LDEM 29%(-1)

Edit: I don't know why Angus Reid is showing Labour that low. I can't see that as being entirely accurate. In reality Labour support is probably around 28%. Although also notice the lib dem support beginning to drop.

[InsaneApache]

Yep. After the dissin of a pensioner and the ejaculating of a heckler at another of Browns 'meet the real people' rallies (what a patronising :daisy:)

I've had a change of heart.

Tory minority gov.

So lib-dems on board, as and when.

Labour, lost deposits all around. (OK that's just a wet dream :laugh4:)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The polls today show a slight shift back to the Conservatives. If the electorate does get a wobbly about the lib dems though expect a pretty significant shift of support back to the Tories. I think the threshold for a Conservative majority, all be it very small majority, is roughly 39%. That means that as things stand, we're still on our way to a hung parliament.I wouldn't be to surprised if we see a break for the Tories though. I don't know why but I just have a feeling that it might happen. I can't also see the lib dems polling anything above 30%. If they get 28% it will still be a massive achievement and I for one will certainly be shocked if they manage it. I can't also comprehend why the Labour vote is still holding. In all honesty I can't see why any ones planning to vote for them. If your a progressive left winger the lib dems are certainly the more progressive of the two and I certainly can't see why you would vote for labour on the basis of it's personalities. If anything this election has shown the true extent to which New Labour is all spin spin spin. Gordon can't even handle ordinary people because he's been shielded by the spin doctors for so long.

Also interestingly, will Furunculus be right with his prediction of a small Conservative majority?He's the only one who predicted it and to me at least, it's defiantly still in the equation for a likely outcome.

Anyway, here's the polls.

YouGov/Sunday Times (30th Apr-1st May) CON 35%(+1), LAB 27%(-1), LDEM 28%(nc)
ComRes/S.Mirror/S.Indy (30th Apr-1st May) CON 38%(+2), LAB 28%(-1), LDEM 25%(-1)
ICM/Sunday Telegraph (30th April) CON 36%(+3), LAB 29%(+1), LDEM 27%(-3)
BPIX/Mail on Sunday (30th Apr-1st May) CON 34%(nc), LAB 27%(+1), LDEM 30%(nc)
Angus Reid/Sunday Express (TBC) CON 35%(+2), LAB 23%(nc), LDEM 29%(-1)

Edit: I don't know why Angus Reid is showing Labour that low. I can't see that as being entirely accurate. In reality Labour support is probably around 28%. Although also notice the lib dem support beginning to drop.

The guy on the next desk over from me still thinks Brown has the most "experience" to fix the economy, and that he can be "trusted" to do it. When I pointed out that it was Brown who created the problem his response was, "yeah, but it would have happened anyway".

You need a more than casual interest in ploitics to see that, ignoring Labour completely, this one man has made more mistakes than not.

[InsaneApache]

I live in a labour stronghold. Summat like 8000+. I've not met anybody, and I mean anyone who has said that they will vote Labour. 'Round here it's either Lib-Dems or BNP.

Like I keep on saying...

New Labour. New Britain.

[Louis VI the Fat]

New Britain. New Republicans Conservatives.



A high-flying prospective Conservative MP, credited with shaping many of the party's social policies, founded a church that tried to "cure" homosexuals by driving out their "demons" through prayer.


Philippa Stroud, who is likely to win the Sutton and Cheam seat on Thursday and is head of the Centre for Social Justice, the thinktank set up by the former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith, has heavily influenced David Cameron's beliefs on subjects such as the family. A popular and energetic Tory, she is seen as one of the party's rising stars.

The CSJ reportedly claims to have formulated as many as 70 of the party's policies. Stroud has spoken of how her Christian faith has motivated her to help the poor and of her time spent working with the destitute in Hong Kong. On her return to Britain, in 1989, she founded a church and night shelter in Bedford, the King's Arms Project,

Stroud wrote a book, God's Heart for the Poor, in which she explains how to deal with people showing signs of "demonic activity".

"This reinforces our long-held suspicions that those out of sight, but with their hands on the levers of power, have deeply reactionary ambitions," said Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society.Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the Stonewall group, said: "If Mrs Stroud has been praying to rid Britain of its homosexuality, she clearly hasn't been praying hard enough. It would be highly regrettable if someone who continued to hold these views held any significant office in government."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/02/conservatives-philippa-stroud-gay-cure

[InsaneApache]

nm.

I'm drubk/

[Furunculus]

The polls today show a slight shift back to the Conservatives. If the electorate does get a wobbly about the lib dems though expect a pretty significant shift of support back to the Tories. I think the threshold for a Conservative majority, all be it very small majority, is roughly 39%. That means that as things stand, we're still on our way to a hung parliament.I wouldn't be to surprised if we see a break for the Tories though. I don't know why but I just have a feeling that it might happen. I can't also see the lib dems polling anything above 30%. If they get 28% it will still be a massive achievement and I for one will certainly be shocked if they manage it. I can't also comprehend why the Labour vote is still holding. In all honesty I can't see why any ones planning to vote for them. If your a progressive left winger the lib dems are certainly the more progressive of the two and I certainly can't see why you would vote for labour on the basis of it's personalities. If anything this election has shown the true extent to which New Labour is all spin spin spin. Gordon can't even handle ordinary people because he's been shielded by the spin doctors for so long.

Also interestingly, will Furunculus be right with his prediction of a small Conservative majority?He's the only one who predicted it and to me at least, it's defiantly still in the equation for a likely outcome.

Anyway, here's the polls.

YouGov/Sunday Times (30th Apr-1st May) CON 35%(+1), LAB 27%(-1), LDEM 28%(nc)
ComRes/S.Mirror/S.Indy (30th Apr-1st May) CON 38%(+2), LAB 28%(-1), LDEM 25%(-1)
ICM/Sunday Telegraph (30th April) CON 36%(+3), LAB 29%(+1), LDEM 27%(-3)
BPIX/Mail on Sunday (30th Apr-1st May) CON 34%(nc), LAB 27%(+1), LDEM 30%(nc)
Angus Reid/Sunday Express (TBC) CON 35%(+2), LAB 23%(nc), LDEM 29%(-1)

Edit: I don't know why Angus Reid is showing Labour that low. I can't see that as being entirely accurate. In reality Labour support is probably around 28%. Although also notice the lib dem support beginning to drop.still time to amend your vote...........?

i am away from home atm, so i will update the sweeps tomorrow.

i have seen a blizzard of blue posters when travelling through mid and south wales (surprising) and the same in southern england (not surprising).

[Banquo's Ghost]

Now that's an excellent reason to vote Conservatives.


So good, in fact, it makes me wonder why the other sixty million minus 3000 Britons would vote Conservative too.

In the absence of any political ideologies, each votes for personal gain. If the Tories win, I expect it will be because more people judge that they will improve their own situation. Idealism needs ideals. :shrug:

[CountArach]

Edit: I don't know why Angus Reid is showing Labour that low. I can't see that as being entirely accurate. In reality Labour support is probably around 28%. Although also notice the lib dem support beginning to drop.
Angus Reid don't weight by party preference, unlike most other polling companies.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Quite extraordinary. Peter Hitchens, in the Mail on Sunday, tells conservative voters not to vote for David Cameron (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1270363/This-important-article-I-ve-written--loyal-Conservative-voters-hate-it.html).


He is truly what he once said he was – the Heir to Blair.

If he wins, he will – as the first Tory leader to win an Election in 18 years – have the power to crush all his critics in the Tory Party.

He will be able to say that political correctness, green zealotry, a pro-EU position and a willingness to spend as much as Labour on the NHS have won the day.

He will claim (falsely) that ‘Right-wing’ policies lost the last three Elections.

Those Tory MPs who agree with you and me will be cowed and silenced for good. The power will lie with the A-list smart set, modish, rich metropolitan liberals hungry for office at all costs who would have been (and who in the case of one of the older ones actually was) in New Labour 13 years ago.

And then where will you have to turn for help as the PC, pro-EU bulldozer trundles across our landscape destroying what is good and familiar and replacing it with a country whose inhabi tants increasingly cannot recognise it as their own?

Call-me-Dave must be wide-eyed with shock. It's not easy to fault Hitchen's arguments, save the claim about Cameron's power. With even the best he can hope for being a tiny majority, the Tory party will revert to internecine warfare within a year - as soon as the French come up with sneaky Euro-proposal about fruit. Or Greece. Or Greek fruit.

[Furunculus]

if we get pr then the progressive vote is knackered, as is the tory party.

the trditional labour working class will vote in fifty plus bnp votes, and a similar number of tory seats will become ukip.

however it is a more of a problem for the left as the progressives vote won't align with the bnp for obvious reasons, whereas the the tories won't have any problems allying with ukip.

[Fragony]

nvm

[Banquo's Ghost]

This is rather an amusing questionnaire (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7541285/How-should-I-vote-in-the-General-Election-2010.html) for those who might be undecided. It accurately reports my predilection towards being a barely convinced Tory (although in the extra questions, my disagreement with the Iraq war immediately turns me over to being a LibDem).

[InsaneApache]

UK Independence Party:

36%
Liberal Democrats:

34%
Conservative Party:

34%

:p

[Tellos Athenaios]

Lots of odd questions. “The administration costs of the NHS should be reduced by one third”. Agree/Disagree. Yes, and what are the consequences of that, eh?

Anyway I am apparently a Liberal Democrat by 80%, Green by 56%, UKIP 52%, Labour 36%, BNP 25%, Conservative 25%. After extra questions BNP and Conservative swapped; and mysteriously my alignment with each party increased by at least 1%. :dizzy2:

[Banquo's Ghost]

UK Independence Party:

36%
Liberal Democrats:

34%
Conservative Party:

34%

:p

If I may say so, you appear awfully well hung.

As parliaments go, you understand. :beam:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Scottish National Party (http://votematch.telegraph.co.uk/app/index.php?s=partyresults&p=7): 56%
Liberal Democrats (http://votematch.telegraph.co.uk/app/index.php?s=partyresults&p=3): 48%
Scottish Green Party (http://votematch.telegraph.co.uk/app/index.php?s=partyresults&p=8): 45%
Labour Party (http://votematch.telegraph.co.uk/app/index.php?s=partyresults&p=21): 44%
Conservative Party (http://votematch.telegraph.co.uk/app/index.php?s=partyresults&p=2): 34%
UK Independence Party (http://votematch.telegraph.co.uk/app/index.php?s=partyresults&p=5): 34%
British National Party (http://votematch.telegraph.co.uk/app/index.php?s=partyresults&p=34): 32%
Odd, I had issues with many of the questions, yet the end result seems fairly accurate. Lib Dem on top, followed by Labour and at a long distance Conservative. Green issues rank high, UKIP and BNP at the bottom.

Even though I'm Sco'ish myself, I wouldn't seriously contemplate voting SNP.

[Beskar]

Odd, I had issues with many of the questions, yet the end result seems fairly accurate. Lib Dem on top, followed by Labour and at a long distance Conservative. Green issues rank high, UKIP and BNP at the bottom.

Even though I'm Sco'ish myself, I wouldn't seriously contemplate voting SNP.

You are French, not Scottish, you silly sausage.

However, for the questions, everytime I take the test, they have added or removed questions, which I find interesting. However, on some questions, I have to stick "Open-Minded" as in either "It depends on the situation" or "I would like something similiar, but not that".

For example, the question about Home-owners being free from prosecution. It is a case of "I agree with it, except for extreme cases outside of fair-action". If you look at the summary of the answers, Lib-dems for example say the same as me, but have "disagree" box selected. So half the things you select, have to involve the extreme-case scenario, which is stupid.

Oh and:


Liberal Democrats: 88%
Green Party: 55%
Labour Party: 48%
UK Independence Party: 37%
Conservative Party: 26%

Hence why I would never vote Tory.

My local area will be electing a Green MP by the looks of it anyway.


Edit: I did some research, the government scrapped Regional Government because of the North East problem, so they just scrapped them all this year except London's. What morons.

[Idaho]

Now that's an excellent reason to vote Conservatives.


So good, in fact, it makes me wonder why the other sixty million minus 3000 Britons would vote Conservative too.

Well quite


if we get pr then the progressive vote is knackered, as is the tory party.

the trditional labour working class will vote in fifty plus bnp votes, and a similar number of tory seats will become ukip.

The Conservative Party are basically careerist politicians who ride on the agenda of ukip/bnp whilst effectively serving themselves and their mates in big business.

[Beskar]

That reminds me, I already voted (Lib-dem, obviously).

[Strike For The South]

What a fascinating little country.

On a sidenote how come the Scots get a parliment and the English don't?

[Beskar]

What a fascinating little country.

On a sidenote how come the Scots get a parliment and the English don't?

English were meant to get regional assemblies, which were retracted last second, except for London's. It is a process which hasn't been finished yet.

Also, an English Parliament would be a very bad idea. There is a North/South English divide for example, which means the North would suffer greatly, because the South has London. This is an issue as their policies would increase wealth/prosperity the South, in exchange for greatly reducing the North.

I have no problems with Regional, as it means those Londoners can keep their policies there and out of here.

[Strike For The South]

English were meant to get regional assemblies, which were retracted last second, except for London's. It is a process which hasn't been finished yet.

Also, an English Parliament would be a very bad idea. There is a North/South English divide for example, which means the North would suffer greatly, because the South has London.

So you have your on version of carpetbagging no good yankees?

Fascinating at some point I must make it over there

As to not stray to far off topic I did watch the televiesed debate and found it to be midly interesting esp considering your candites don't seem to be jadded by the cameras like the American ones do.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Conservative Party are basically careerist politicians who ride on the agenda of ukip/bnp whilst effectively serving themselves and their mates in big business.

Absurd statements like this make me glad you aren't voting.

For starters, the BNP is a populist-socialist party.


What a fascinating little country.

On a sidenote how come the Scots get a parliment and the English don't?

"Blair" is a Scottish name.


English were meant to get regional assemblies, which were retracted last second, except for London's. It is a process which hasn't been finished yet.

Also, an English Parliament would be a very bad idea. There is a North/South English divide for example, which means the North would suffer greatly, because the South has London. This is an issue as their policies would increase wealth/prosperity the South, in exchange for greatly reducing the North.

I have no problems with Regional, as it means those Londoners can keep their policies there and out of here.

Not to mention, England is (population wise) about 10 times the size of Scotland, and getting on for 20 times the size of Wales.

[InsaneApache]

English were meant to get regional assemblies.

Meant? Meant by whom? Did anyone bother to ask the English what was in store for them?

Why do you think the Geordies told them to bugger off with their 'regional assembles' ? Has it occurred to some folks that we might rather like the idea of being English. Rather than a North-Easterner or a Yorks and Humbersiders....etc. etc.

[Beskar]

Meant? Meant by whom? Did anyone bother to ask the English what was in store for them?

Why do you think the Geordies told them to bugger off with their 'regional assembles' ? Has it occurred to some folks that we might rather like the idea of being English. Rather than a North-Easterner or a Yorks and Humbersiders....etc. etc.

London said yes, and the North East were dumb and said no. Because of that no, they didn't bother asking anyone else, so we lost them all, except London keeps theirs, obviously. >.<

Also, we have them anyway, the point is, they are staffed by unelected Quango's and there is a great multitude of many reasons why having stronger elected regional assemblies is a very good idea.


P.S. It doesn't affect people ascribing to 'English', though being honest, we are all 'British' anyway and we should act like it.

[Beskar]

Also, Tories want to pray the gay away. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/02/conservatives-philippa-stroud-gay-cure)

Some people need to exit the dark ages.

[Furunculus]

The Conservative Party are basically careerist politicians who ride on the agenda of ukip/bnp whilst effectively serving themselves and their mates in big business.
is this some kind of bizarre method for disguising the absolute truth in what i say, i.e. that if pr is introduced now then large swathes of the country that have previously been firm labour territory will now have a large chance of returning a bnp mp.

your cheap shot exposes the fact that you have zero understanding of why the immigration debate is poisonous, it is because working class people have been lied to for a generation about the scale and impact of immigration, and they feel their concerns have been treated with contempt.

seriously, THE best way to instantly make immigration a less poisonous topic is for a party to say; "yes guys, we see that this is a problem, and we will curb it to the point where it is no longer a problem. now who is saying that.............. oh yes, it is the nasty party!

[Furunculus]

London said yes, and the North East were dumb and said no. Because of that no, they didn't bother asking anyone else, so we lost them all, except London keeps theirs, obviously. >.<

Also, we have them anyway, the point is, they are staffed by unelected Quango's and there is a great multitude of many reasons why having stronger elected regional assemblies is a very good idea.


P.S. It doesn't affect people ascribing to 'English', though being honest, we are all 'British' anyway and we should act like it.

i would rather follow hannans plan, and ditch the quangoes and devolve their 'competences' downward to local level.

[CountArach]

This is rather an amusing questionnaire (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7541285/How-should-I-vote-in-the-General-Election-2010.html) for those who might be undecided. It accurately reports my predilection towards being a barely convinced Tory (although in the extra questions, my disagreement with the Iraq war immediately turns me over to being a LibDem).
Green Party: 77%
Liberal Democrats: 73%
Labour Party: 61%
UK Independence Party: 41%
British National Party: 39%
Conservative Party: 33%

Though the Greens are closest to my political views in reality I would be voting Lib Dem were I a pom, so yeah that's close enough.

[Furunculus]

anyone else going to join the election sweep-stakes:



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JAG (27/02/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2440038&viewfull=1#post2440038

Furunculus (29/04/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2459341&viewfull=1#post2459341

Furunculus (29/03/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2459341&viewfull=1#post2459341

Idaho (16/04/10) - Narrow Labour win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2471029&viewfull=1#post2471029

Rory (16/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2471056&viewfull=1#post2471056

CountArch (30/04/10) - Conservative led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480544&viewfull=1#post2480544

CountArch (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476911&viewfull=1#post2476911

Banquo's Ghost (29/04/10) - Conservative led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480078&viewfull=1#post2480078

Banquo's Ghost (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476913&viewfull=1#post2476913

Louis (29/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480070&viewfull=1#post2480070

Louis (23/04/10) - Labour led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476925&viewfull=1#post2476925

Tbilicus (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476926&viewfull=1#post2476926

Insane Apache (02/05/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2481378&viewfull=1#post2481378

Insane Apache (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476935&viewfull=1#post2476935

Beskar (23/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2477082&viewfull=1#post2477082

Alh_P (29/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480111&viewfull=1#post2480111

Seamus Fermanagh (30/04/10) - Conservative led hung parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480262&viewfull=1#post2480262

Subotan (30/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480536&viewfull=1#post2480536

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


and have i missed anyone out?

p.s. you can can change your vote, but the original will also be retained..........

[Furunculus]

I don't see where the problem is. Foriegn students pay lots of money into university (which doesn't get taken from tax payers) and they only fill up the places which are not taken up by Homegrown students. They are only here for a few years and then they leave, or they are simply here for a year.

This includes a great many students mostly from American, Canada and Europe.

i feel you deliberately miss the point, if the EU accounts for only 40% of long term immigrants than cameron's plan to cap non-eu residents will be far more effective than Clegg insiinuated when he used the 80% figure.

[Furunculus]

Maybe we should also have a list of voting intentions, might be interesting to tally against the predictions?



----------------------------------
Furunculus = Con
Idaho = None
Beskar Lib-Dem

----------------------------------

[InsaneApache]

Not quite decided yet. Probably go Lib-Dem on a tactical vote.

[Furunculus]

first poll i have heard of predicting a tory majority....................... of two seats:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100037719/latest-ipsos-mori-marginals-poll-conservative-party-on-course-for-overall-majority/

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Apparently, I'm an independent sort of thug with a streak of conservatism....

UKIP = 64
BNP = 58
Tory = 54
LD = 27
Lab = 22
Grn = 13

Other than the jack-booted thug wannabe quality the BNP occasionally evinces, that's probably a pretty good read on me. I suspect that in practice I'd be UKIP/Tory.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Apparently, I'm an independent sort of thug with a streak of conservatism....

UKIP = 64
BNP = 58
Tory = 54
LD = 27
Lab = 22
Grn = 13

Other than the jack-booted thug wannabe quality the BNP occasionally evinces, that's probably a pretty good read on me. I suspect that in practice I'd be UKIP/Tory.

Just goes to show, the average American is about 25% right of the average Brit, I suppose.

[drone]

Conservative Party: 59%
UK Independence Party: 59%
Liberal Democrats: 37%
Labour Party: 29%
Green Party: 10%

:laugh4:


Just goes to show, the average American is about 25% right of the average Brit, I suppose.
:yes: Our far left wingers are your LibDems, our right wingers are your BNP.

[Subotan]

I can't :shame:

[Idaho]

your cheap shot exposes the fact that you have zero understanding of why the immigration debate is poisonous, it is because working class people have been lied to for a generation about the scale and impact of immigration, and they feel their concerns have been treated with contempt.


The Tory/UKIP lot claim to be against immigration - but it's all balls. The UKIP's money backer runs a big shop near here. He employs Polish staff because they work cheaper :laugh4:

They love immigration - they just want the immigrants to quietly disappear after they have cleaned the toilets and swept the streets.

[tibilicus]

Put me down for a prediction of a Conservative minority government. Polls of the marginal seats which are Lab/Con show roughly a 7% swing to the Conservatives. Whilst the polling of the marginals suggests the Conservatives will win few, if any Lib/Con marginals, I still feel the Tories are in a strong position. I say this because I probably imagine that in three way marginals, an increase in lib dem support and a drop in Labour support essentially collapses the progressive vote between the lib dems and Labour.

[Furunculus]

The Tory/UKIP lot claim to be against immigration - but it's all balls. The UKIP's money backer runs a big shop near here. He employs Polish staff because they work cheaper :laugh4:

They love immigration - they just want the immigrants to quietly disappear after they have cleaned the toilets and swept the streets.

WTF! what planet do you live on?

I am a Tory/UKIP type person, and I have a Polish girlfriend, and there is zero incompatibility between the two.

It might be convenient for you to conflate the Tory's and UKIP with the BNP, as it makes them easier to be branded as guilty by association, but it is fundamentally dishonest.

The UKIP position is that they don't want to be european.
The BNP position is that they don't want have any europeans (or anyone else).

Those are two fundamentally different messages, why do you not get this? :dizzy2:

The Tory position on immigration isn't exactly ideological, it is merely a pragmatic recognition that the less well off consider it to be a problem, and it is their job to represent the view of the electorate. If you don't get that then you will never understand why labours votes among the working class are about to drop off a cliff at this election.

I as a right-wing individual don't personally give a damn about immigration, but I see social tension rising in other parts of the country and realise something should be done about that, unlike the labour position that immigration was an ideological tool to transform via social engineering the very fabric of the country.