The United Kingdom Elections 2010

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

None are so blind as those who will not see.

---

Indeed. :rolleyes:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

None are so blind as those who will not see.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shlin28

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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!".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

I couldn't watch the debate :sad:

---

I'm watching much of it here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/election2010/liveevent/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shlin28

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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/new...cle7105727.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.

anyone else going to join the election sweep-stakes:

Quote:

---

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

JAG (27/02/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2440038

Furunculus (29/03/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2459341

Idaho (16/04/10) - Narrow Labour win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2471029

Rory (16/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2471056

CountArch (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2476911

Banquo's Ghost (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2476913

Louis (23/04/10) - Labour led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2476925

Tbilicus (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2476926

Insane Apache (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2476935

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

---

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.

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

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."

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.