The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[gaelic cowboy]

I still cannot not believe no one is discussing the Lib Dems and the likely effect on Tory promises if as seem likely its a hung parliment then each party will have to give up some of there own cherished policy cards to attain government.

Seems to me no one in britain can even stomach talk of coalition even when it is the reality you all face very strange indeed. What deals will have to be made who will lose out on ministerial posts where will the wonga go to reward certain constitieuncies and that is without taking in independants who may even hold all the parties to ransom to achieve majority.

Very strange people in Sasana indeed when it comes to deal making the talk of coalitions and deals starts even before an election in Ireland

[Beskar]

What's your party & constituency? Found yourself a suitable rotten borough?

Unfortunately, they were already taken by Labour and the Conservatives. Also, I lack the funds of Big Money to do a campaign. However, with the support of the Org Backroom, the lead council in the authority of Britain (and probably the majority of the vote, due to the apathetic population), I request Magister Populi to make the changes needed, and then retire from the life of politics once completed, back to my farm.

[LittleGrizzly]

I would love lib dems to win (well compared to the other 2 winning) though they are far from perfect... they have been my vote in previous elections...

This year I think my mp's safe labour seat may be up for grabs by plaid cymru so i may use my vote tactically for labour rather than following a mix of my heart and my head and voyting lib dem (green's is the follow my heart vote...)

I think that calulator had me down as a Lib Dem voter then Labour then Greens, not much on any of them, 58% highest score... though i did have quite a few open minded answers can't come down completely on one side on an issue...

[Furunculus]

I still cannot not believe no one is discussing the Lib Dems and the likely effect on Tory promises if as seem likely its a hung parliment then each party will have to give up some of there own cherished policy cards to attain government.

Seems to me no one in britain can even stomach talk of coalition even when it is the reality you all face very strange indeed. What deals will have to be made who will lose out on ministerial posts where will the wonga go to reward certain constitieuncies and that is without taking in independants who may even hold all the parties to ransom to achieve majority.

Very strange people in Sasana indeed when it comes to deal making the talk of coalitions and deals starts even before an election in Ireland

because i really don't think its going to happen, the british public are on record as being pretty decisive, and wanting a decisive electoral decision.

[Subotan]

A Lab-Lib government would be my dream government

[Furunculus]

Chippy grassroots Tories are choking on their class hatred of posh Dave:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cr...back-in-power/

[al Roumi]

I still cannot not believe no one is discussing the Lib Dems and the likely effect on Tory promises if as seem likely its a hung parliment then each party will have to give up some of there own cherished policy cards to attain government.

Seems to me no one in britain can even stomach talk of coalition even when it is the reality you all face very strange indeed. What deals will have to be made who will lose out on ministerial posts where will the wonga go to reward certain constitieuncies and that is without taking in independants who may even hold all the parties to ransom to achieve majority.

Very strange people in Sasana indeed when it comes to deal making the talk of coalitions and deals starts even before an election in Ireland

because i really don't think its going to happen, the british public are on record as being pretty decisive, and wanting a decisive electoral decision.

I'd agree that the public doesn't like to see politicians dithering and dropping cherished bits of manifestos, but i don't think that makes the public decisive. The voting system and established 2 + 0.5 party rule is what has made elections outcomes appear clear.

No-one is openly talking about compromises because:
1. They haven't even published their manifestos yet, so the issues have not even begun to be laid out for the voters
2. To speak of compromise on the causes they are championing from the start would be a huge strategic miss-step. They'd look, unfortunately not like a realist, but weak and as if they were already giving up -the voters would desert them and vote for whoever was closer to their views and looked stronger.
3. Standing firm and winning as many votes as possible on the platform they have will put them in a stronger position when/if there is any bargaining to be done afterwards.

Unfortunately, they were already taken by Labour and the Conservatives. Also, I lack the funds of Big Money to do a campaign. However, with the support of the Org Backroom, the lead council in the authority of Britain (and probably the majority of the vote, due to the apathetic population), I request Magister Populi to make the changes needed, and then retire from the life of politics once completed, back to my farm.

Well, at least you've made it clear what you'll be standing for. I'll pledge you my vote, especially if you are going to pursue that great idea of a land-war in Asia.

[Furunculus]

I'd agree that the public doesn't like to see politicians dithering and dropping cherished bits of manifestos, but i don't think that makes the public decisive. The voting system and established 2 + 0.5 party rule is what has made elections outcomes appear clear.

agreed, but ultimately it is the british public that perpetuates the 2.5 party system.

[rory_20_uk]

agreed, but ultimately it is the british public that perpetuates the 2.5 party system.

To change the system would require one of the following:

• The existing politicians to change the system
• The Monarch to force a change in the system
• Insurrection

Politicians aren't going to change as it works relatively well for the large two parties.
The Monarch would be very brave to try to wade in. Easy to portray that they were overthrowing Democracy
Insurrection unlikely to function, unless we have a "new" Civil War. Who fighting who? Monarchists against the Parlimentarians, or the State verses the Traitors?

Few enough people care about who is in charge. The top corrupt the winners, the bottom are barely literate enough to read beyond the Sport section of the Sun, which leaves the middle which are so desperately keen to be middle class that they'd not want to loose what they've got or commit a social faux pas.

[Furunculus]

not quite sure what you are saying from the point of view of the comment, i.e. that our 2.5 party FPTP political system tends to produce unambiguous results on election day......?

[al Roumi]

not quite sure what you are saying from the point of view of the comment, i.e. that our 2.5 party FPTP political system tends to produce unambiguous results on election day......?

I think Rory might have been aluding to your point over who perpetuates the current electoral system.

I think he was working from the assumption that the existence or persistence of a state of affairs, in this case the 2.5 party & FPTP systems, is more accurately decided by those equipped with the power to directly change it.

In that sense, he provided three examples, 1 the elected MPs and Govt and then two pretty fruity (but exciting) other possibilities.

I don't think your British public has much ability to change the system without pressuring its legislative representatives (MPs), as they are the gatekeepers to the change. However, MPs could quite feasibly change the system without the public's explicit approval, the Iraq war proved that even mass demonstration is not enough to ensure MPs do what the british public would like...

...but, yes on paper the public ought to hold ultimate responsability and choice over the system under which its country is ruled.

[Furunculus]

I think Rory might have been aluding to your point over who perpetuates the current electoral system.

I think he was working from the assumption that the existence or persistence of a state of affairs, in this case the 2.5 party & FPTP systems, is more accurately decided by those equipped with the power to directly change it.

In that sense, he provided three examples, 1 the elected MPs and Govt and then two pretty fruity (but exciting) other possibilities.

I don't think your British public has much ability to change the system without pressuring its legislative representatives (MPs), as they are the gatekeepers to the change. However, MPs could quite feasibly change the system without the public's explicit approval, the Iraq war proved that even mass demonstration is not enough to ensure MPs do what the british public would like...

...but, yes on paper the public ought to hold ultimate responsibility and choice over the system under which its country is ruled.

no, our FPTP plurality electoral system is something that could be changed by parliament, but the fact that we continue to have a point-five party is down to the electorate.

the US has a plurality electoral system that encourages two major parties and a number of minor parties just like the UK, but our point-five party is an accident of history in its creation and the will of the people in its perpetuation.

[tibilicus]

the US has a plurality electoral system that encourages two major parties and a number of minor parties just like the UK, but our point-five party is an accident of history in its creation and the will of the people in its perpetuation.

The thing is the US system works well, ours doesn't. It doesn't even need electoral reform to work. The problem in my opinion with the electoral system is that we are made, as constituents, to vote for a representative to represent our interest. In the US this works well and representatives can vote with a relative degree of flexibility and in the interest of those who they represent. Thanks to the whipping system and the sense of party loyalty in our system it doesn't really work. We elect representatives who don't even represent us, they represent the party machine instead. I highly doubt the system will ever be done away with but at least allow more free votes, particularly on issues which are divisive. The amount of free votes MP's get is laughable and very few have the balls to stand up to the party heads for fear of ruing their own precious career.

[Furunculus]

i don't disagree that the whips are over-powerful, but again this doesn't impact on the existence or utility of a point-five party.

[InsaneApache]

i don't disagree that the whips are over-powerful, but again this doesn't impact on the existence or utility of a point-five party.

They've been aound for a couple of hundred years. It's Labour that's the mold breaker. Hence gang of four; SDP.

[Furunculus]

very true, but the arrival of Labour dropped the liberals down a notch, but not so much that they became a minor party.

this, IMHO, is a good thing as it means that there is always a credible alternative waiting in the wings to dethrone whatever incumbent is arrogant enough to stop representing the needs of the electorate.

[Furunculus]

bit more Dan's special sauce:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da.../780172602739/

£780,172,602,739

By Daniel Hannan Politics Last updated: April 8th, 2010

That’s the level of Britain’s national debt. It’s rising at a rate of £5,169 per second, £310,212 per minute, £18,607,306 per hour, £446,575,342 per day.
The level of our government’s overspend should be the main, almost the only, issue at this election. To ensure that it isn’t forgotten, the heroes at the TaxPayers’ Alliance have mounted a vast debt clock on the back of a lorry, and are driving it on a 1300-mile tour of Britain.
It bears repeating: Labour has introduced 111 tax rises since 1997, taken an additional trillion pounds in revenue, and still left us with the same level of deficit as Greece.

British consumers got rich quicker under the Conservatives than under Labour, a study has discovered. :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/elec...an-Labour.html

Britain got rich quicker under Tories than Labour

By Harry Wallop, Consumer Affairs Editor
Published: 8:30AM BST 08 Apr 2010

The average wealth of British consumers grew quicker under both Baroness Thatcher and Sir John Major than under New Labour, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

The study found that people continued to increase their disposable income after Tony Blair was elected in 1997, but the rate of growth slowed. Since Gordon Brown took over at number 10 the rate has dropped off almost completely.

In 1979, when Lady Thatcher took office the average household disposable income was just a little over £150 a week, in today's prices. This steadily increased during her premiership, by 2.6 per cent a year. When Sir John took over it carried on increasing by 2.3 per cent a year.
By the time he lost the 1997 election to Tony Blair the average weekly income had hit £250.

During Mr Blair's first term in office, the rate accelerated to 3.2 per cent, but since then it has steadily slowed down. His second term saw incomes climb by 2 per cent, and during the current third term incomes have edged up by just 0.7 per cent to hit £300 a week. Under the New Labour Government, as a whole, the growth rate was 2 per cent compared with the Conservative's 2.5 per cent.

The IFS concluded the main reason for the slowdown in consumers' wealth growth was employers cutting back on wage increases. "We concluded that it is earnings from employment which appear to account for most of the slowdown. From 1996–97 to 2001–02, the average income households received from earnings grew by over 4 per cent per year. From 2001–02 onwards, however, income from earnings grew far more slowly – at a rate averaging just 0.7 per cent per year," the report said.

Though both poor and rich have befitted from the increase in wealth, the Labour Government has failed to tackle the gulf between the two groups, the IFS study said: "The latest data show that in 2007–08 income inequality was slightly higher than when Labour came to power and higher than in any year since at least the 1950s."

[rory_20_uk]

very true, but the arrival of Labour dropped the liberals down a notch, but not so much that they became a minor party.

this, IMHO, is a good thing as it means that there is always a credible alternative waiting in the wings to dethrone whatever incumbent is arrogant enough to stop representing the needs of the electorate.

We'll see if that happens. I'm not sure who Labour represents at the moment, but I doubt votes will flod to the Lib Dems.

[Subotan]

the heroes at the TaxPayers’ Alliance

I thought none of them paid any tax

[Furunculus]

We'll see if that happens. I'm not sure who Labour represents at the moment, but I doubt votes will flod to the Lib Dems.

that is kind of the point, labour or the cons cannot stray to far because they are constantly aware that a bunch of opportunistic young thrusters waiting in the wings.

but if labour do continue to tank, they basically rely on wales and scotland currently to get them into power, then that might change.

I thought none of them paid any tax

and this matters........... why?

[Banquo's Ghost]

bit more Dan's special sauce:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da.../780172602739/

That’s the level of Britain’s national debt. It’s rising at a rate of £5,169 per second, £310,212 per minute, £18,607,306 per hour, £446,575,342 per day.

[PEDANT]Like George Osborne, Mr Hannan is another modern Tory that can't do sums. £5,169 x 60 = £310,140 x 60 = £18,608,400 x 24 = £446,601,600. I guess the £26,258 per day he's missed is being re-located overseas to Lord Ashcroft's Buy-a-New-Small-Country Fund. [/PEDANT]

[Furunculus]

[PEDANT]Like George Osborne, Mr Hannan is another modern Tory that can't do sums. £5,169 x 60 = £310,140 x 60 = £18,608,400 x 24 = £446,601,600. I guess the £26,258 per day he's missed is being re-located overseas to Lord Ashcroft's Buy-a-New-Small-Country Fund. [/PEDANT]

[RELEVANT] It bears repeating: Labour has introduced 111 tax rises since 1997, taken an additional trillion pounds in revenue, and still left us with the same level of deficit as Greece. [/RELEVANT]

[Furunculus]

a new voting tool; the sceptical voter:
http://skeptical-voter.org/wiki/inde...itle=Main_Page

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture...science-nerds/

General Election 2010: Skeptical Voter – the voting tool for science nerds

By Tom Chivers Last updated: April 8th, 2010
5 Comments Comment on this article
Are you, like me, a nerd? Do you care about nerdy things like science and rationality? Are you wondering, ahead of the 2010 general election, which parties and candidates also care about basing policy on evidence, rather than media scaremongering, opinionated ignorance and/or kneejerk populism? If the answer is yes to all of the above, I would like to point you towards Skeptical-Voter.org.
Because it’s true what they say – this is going to be Britain’s first digital election. But not, you suspect, in the way that the parties might think, or hope. For every vote swayed by WebCameron or the Labour Party’s official Facebook page, there will be thousands who change their mind because of the faster spread of information that the internet allows.
Skeptical Voter is a tool, similar in broad intent if not design to our own Vote Match, that allows voters to find out which parties and candidates match their views on rationalist topics. Worry that your MP wants creationism taught alongside evolutionary theory in schools, or to give Sharia legal status in the UK? Maybe you think homeopathy (I know I go on about it) should be subject to the same standards of scientific rigour as other NHS treatments, and want to know which candidate agrees with you. As the Bad Science blogger and Guardian writer Ben Goldacre put it in a typically acid Tweet, “Does your MP seriously believe in fairies and magic beans?”
It’s more widespread than you might think. David Tredinnick, the Conservative MP for Bosworth, has used Parliamentary questions to promote homeopathy, “Medical Astrology”, and something called radionics (which Skeptical Voter describes as “healing via a kind of psychic remote control”. This from someone who gets to vote on health policy bills.
Iris Robinson, the Democratic Unionist Party MP, says “the government has the responsibility to uphold God’s laws”, and clearly feels she has a clearer insight than the rest of us about what those laws are – including banning stem cell research, despite its potential to transform medicine.
She has offered to put homosexuals in touch with a “psychiatrist [who] tries to help homosexuals – trying to turn away from what they are engaged in,” (she is also reported on Hansard as saying that homosexuality is “viler” than sexually abusing children), despite there not being a shred of evidence that such a thing is even possible, let alone desirable.
Another DUP MP, Jeffrey Donaldson, worries that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill could lead to “GM babies or cloned adults or minotaurs” (minotaurs!), while Paul Williams, the UKIP prospective candidate for Oxford West and Abingdon, believes that “Neither creationism nor evolution have been conclusively proved or ’settled’. My view is that schools should teach both and allow pupils to make up their own mind.” For the record: it is settled and has been for years.
There are lots more – and, of course, lots who have admirably sensible views, like the redoubtable Dr Evan Harris, MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, who campaigns for “science, evidence-based policy and free speech”, and has fought the good fight against MMR scaremongering. You can also find out which MPs and candidates have a background in science or medicine – like Caroline Johnson, the Conservative Party candidate for Scunthorpe, a qualified doctor.
Having said all that, it is far from complete. In my constituency of Dulwich & West Norwood, only the sitting MP – Tessa Jowell – has an entry, and that’s very sparse. Neither of the two main-party candidates challenging her has a profile at all. And that’s where you come in.
If this matters to you – and it should; if we don’t base policy on evidence, we may as well make it up, or say it comes to us in dreams – you can get involved. Email your MP to find out where they stand on sceptical and rational issues. When they reply, go and add the information to Skeptical Voter’s Wiki site.
I’ve included their suggested questions below, but you can of course add your own. Happy hunting. Wouldn’t it be nice to be governed on the basis of what we actually know, rather than what some kaftanned psychic healer saw in a vision?
Skeptical Voter’s suggested questions for candidates ahead of the General Election 2010:
1. Do you support the use of public funds to provide unproven alternative “treatments” such as homeopathy?
2. Should schools be allowed to teach creationism as an equivalent theory to evolution?
3. Do you believe that religious belief should be legally protected from ridicule?
4. Should an independent government adviser whose views in their area of expertise conflict with government policy be able to express those views publicly without fear of being sacked?
5. Should Sharia law be allowed as an alternative system within UK law?
6. Do you agree that testing on animals (within strict criteria) is a necessary part of the development of medicines?
7. Should policy-makers trust scientific evidence even when it appears counter-intuitive?
8. Do you think that abortion time limits should always be determined by the current scientific and medical consensus?
9. Should religious leaders be entitled to vote in the House of Lords?
10. Do you support the reform of English and Welsh libel law to allow a stronger ‘public interest’ defence?

[Banquo's Ghost]

[RELEVANT] It bears repeating: Labour has introduced 111 tax rises since 1997, taken an additional trillion pounds in revenue, and still left us with the same level of deficit as Greece. [/RELEVANT]

Because of course, the Tories would never break promises on tax. And much as I would have hoped a conservative government would have refused to bail out the banks, had they been in power they too would have given in to spending citizens' money to maintain the stupefyingly incompetent.

[Furunculus]

Because of course, the Tories would never break promises on tax. And much as I would have hoped a conservative government would have refused to bail out the banks, had they been in power they too would have given in to spending citizens' money to maintain the stupefyingly incompetent.

BG, the argument runs that you reduce deficits in the good years to make up for the bad, labour was playing its old game of tax-n-spend in addition to borrow-n-spend in the good years, which has made the deficit truly stupendous when you add the cost of the recession to the above.

it is a simple concept, really.

[Banquo's Ghost]

BG, the argument runs that you reduce deficits in the good years to make up for the bad, labour was playing its old game of tax-n-spend in addition to borrow-n-spend in the good years, which has made the deficit truly stupendous when you add the cost of the recession to the above.

it is a simple concept, really.

I don't disagree with that analysis - where I part with Mr Hannan is on the contention that the current Conservatives will be any different, since fiscal responsibility appears to be something of which they are terrified. My link was to demonstrate that Tax'n'Spend is by no means confined to the Labour Party.

[rory_20_uk]

Human beings are more averse to losses than gains.

So, to inform that losses (cuts in services) are required now as else soon in the non specific future thing will be bad isn't a vote winner.

People understand that cuts are needed. BUT not to anything that they want. So, best to stick to a detached message, rather than focus on specifics.

[Furunculus]

banks are hoping for a tory win:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/elec...p-economy.html

[Louis VI the Fat]

banks are hoping for a tory win:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/elec...p-economy.html

If I were a Tory, I wouldn't advertise that...

[tibilicus]

If I were a Tory, I wouldn't advertise that...

Agreed.