Printable View
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:
added.
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?
Labour-led Hung parliament to. Conservatives to have more seats but still failing to form a coalition.
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. :)
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. :)
No problem with minimum pricing on alcohol. £1.50 for 4 litres of white lazer/dragon/etc can't be a good thing.
Who is right, Ken Clarke or Goldman Sachs?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...man-Sachs.html
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.
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.
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:
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.
Lib dems to get the popular vote, hung parilament, conservatives with most seats.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
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.
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.
The mask doesn't have to slip much to give everyone an insight into who (wants to) run this country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
I'd say he thinks he already does, rather than wants to.
Sounds more like a petulant Daddy's boy to me.
~:smoking:
So much for 'clean' politics. Good god.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3X8...layer_embedded
Same old, same old.........
Ahem never happen is more likeQuote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
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 governmentQuote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Harriden Harperson all over the place......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...an_24_04_2010/ :laugh4:
1 hour 46 mins in
i wouldn't count on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
there appears to be plenty of precedent for a lib-con coalition:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/elec...-councils.html
that is not what Cameron wants, he has already been very clear on the subject:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
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
There should be one though, it would really bring in some of the changes Britain needs. I especially want Parilamentary reform.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
A simple footnote!
The guy will be remembered as Temüjin. uk. com.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by 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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
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:
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.
I know polls can be deceptive, but looking at those figures a hung parliament seems increasingly likely.
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.
It may cause economic chaos, but by God is it going to be fun :2thumbsup:
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.
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.
This article summarises that point quite nicely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
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
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!
more detail for the above:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...-cuts-election
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:
Quote:
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.
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.
on the non-differences between the parties on deficit reduction from the IFS:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ne...te-about-cuts/
oh yes, won't it just be sweet!Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
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/...691546,00.html
and in case anyone was wondering:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ectoral_system
oh what bliss!
The party system and hence PR is the problem. Intrinsically undemocratic.
Party list system* is undemocratic compared to our current system, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
STV, RON and other measures are intrinsically very democratic though.
is that what is being advocated by saint Nick?
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.
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.
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_politi...10/8649012.stm
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/be...-gordon-brown/Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
lulz indeed! :D
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_politi...10/8649174.stm
You be the judge.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
And yes, she is upset. Very upset. Try watching the video.
Exactly! We should be welcoming Brown's uttering of his private opinions!Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
I can't, I'm in college.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
I agree. People cry about spin and the fact is, they don't want to hear the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
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".
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
For a full transcript, including the Radio 2 appology, click here.
If this is what floors labour, I hope it will be enough to tear his leadership of the party down.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
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:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
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:
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) 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 for more details.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
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.
As do the two other major parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
I don't want to appear like a development stooge here but DFID's website has some background on why they do what they do...Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
The UNDP website 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...
At least it is better than just throwing money at the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
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.
Should elect me, because I am different. The irony is, because I am different, I am unelectable.
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.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-john-prescott
:laugh4: No mate, you lot have been rumbled good and proper. :laugh4:
all this waffle about the news of the world is entirely besides the point.
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.
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.
The next couple of days worth of polling will be interesting, if only to see where Labour voters flee to.
A new 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.
apparently the best lay-mans break down of the IFS study into the parties fiscal plans:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...al-knockabout/