The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So those things are the solve preserve of the public school? If Oxford is meant to be about academic excellence, then statistically, more students from my college should go to Oxford than Eton.

It's about more than better grades, everyone at Oxford gets in with good grades and they are swamped with applications, so the colleges choose people they want; schools like Eton are good at producing people they want. Also, Eton probably better supports and prepares it's candidates than your college does.

[InsaneApache]

The funny thing is the people who kicked away the ladder for the working classes, all send thier kids to fee paying schools. So money and not talent is effectively rewarded. Very council house.

Here's a quiz for you.

What do Dianne Abbot, Harriet Harman and Tony Blair have in common?

Answer: They went to and/or sent their kids to public school where they would recieve an education much better than the children of the idiots who voted for them. Amazing chutzpah, you have to hand it to them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The funny thing is the people who kicked away the ladder for the working classes, all send thier kids to fee paying schools. So money and not talent is effectively rewarded. Very council house.

Here's a quiz for you.

What do Dianne Abbot, Harriet Harman and Tony Blair have in common?

Answer: They went to and/or sent their kids to public school where they would recieve an education much better than the children of the idiots who voted for them. Amazing chutzpah, you have to hand it to them.

On the other hand; at least they aren't twisted enough to screw up their own children's lives for votes.

[rory_20_uk]

On the other hand; at least they aren't twisted enough to screw up their own children's lives for votes.

I agree. Idealists will destroy the world as the know they're right. Pragmatists can work towards something, without undue damage to everything else.

[Furunculus]

I agree. Idealists will destroy the world as the know they're right. Pragmatists can work towards something, without undue damage to everything else.

what we are talking about here is callous opportunists, happy to play class politics which screws over their own electorate whilst sending their kids to exactly the kind of school they are telling the electorate they shouldn't have.

[rory_20_uk]

what we are talking about here is callous opportunists, happy to play class politics which screws over their own electorate whilst sending their kids to exactly the kind of school they are telling the electorate they shouldn't have.

Yes, they're politicians. In essence they are salesmen. Do financial advisers have the policies they flog? No. Do share analysts back their advice with their own money? No. Hell, do I go to the gym 3 times a week and eat a diet laden with green stuff and no meat? No. My parents believed that state schooling was "right", but it was so dire when I was growing up I was sent to a private school (on an assisted place) as they saw no reason to wreck my life just to prove a point that no one would know or care about.

In every walk of life it is always "do as I say, not as I do". Why should politicians be any different? It might not be right, but it is. As long as they were salso orting out the state system, by sending their own children elsewhere they are at least reducing the demands on it.

[Myrddraal]

by sending their own children elsewhere they are at least reducing the demands on it.

That's the single best argument against those who say that public schools should be abolished. In fact I'd go so far as to say it's one of the few good arguments in favour of public schools, but it is a very good argument.

[Furunculus]

Yes, they're politicians. In essence they are salesmen. Do financial advisers have the policies they flog? No. Do share analysts back their advice with their own money? No. Hell, do I go to the gym 3 times a week and eat a diet laden with green stuff and no meat? No. My parents believed that state schooling was "right", but it was so dire when I was growing up I was sent to a private school (on an assisted place) as they saw no reason to wreck my life just to prove a point that no one would know or care about.

In every walk of life it is always "do as I say, not as I do". Why should politicians be any different? It might not be right, but it is. As long as they were salso orting out the state system, by sending their own children elsewhere they are at least reducing the demands on it.

this is not about do-as-i-say-not-do-as-i-do, this is about nasty, chippy, idiotic, small-minded politics that treats education as a pawn of electoral positioning and willfully destroys the few remaining good parts of the educational establisment, and this from the party that likes to say that it helps the little man get a leg up in life.

[rory_20_uk]

this is not about do-as-i-say-not-do-as-i-do, this is about nasty, chippy, idiotic, small-minded politics that treats education as a pawn of electoral positioning and willfully destroys the few remaining good parts of the educational establishment, and this from the party that likes to say that it helps the little man get a leg up in life.

I personally don't think that the way education has been addressed has been good, but I don't think that this has anything to do with attending Private Schools. Labour as a rule like to monitor everything centrally and half the mess is the attempt to do this; getting more to Uni has helped stoke exam result inflation with A levels now requiring a vintage to be adequately compared.

Labour does a far better job of dragging people and institutions down than it ever does of giving people a leg up. To give a real leg up would be to acknowledge that people are different, with different abilities and needs and that is Heresy. No! We are all the same, and thus must all have an equal sludge of "education" with any wealth being redistributed as fast as the taxes can be written to do so.

That's the single best argument against those who say that public schools should be abolished. In fact I'd go so far as to say it's one of the few good arguments in favour of public schools, but it is a very good argument.

And for the ultra rich banker / broker / hedge/vulture fund manager this is often extended a lot further to having a Private GP and Private Health Insurance so although they're paying a vast amount in tax, their use of the money is relatively low - . It might not be fair, but it takes a small army of people like me to give the government the same amounts.

[Furunculus]

and yet more evidence that mainstream politics is convinced that Defence has once again become an important electoral issue:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7010508.ece

Brown goes into battle with billions for defence

Roland Watson, Political Editor, and Deborah Haynes, Defence Editor

Gordon Brown will put two new aircraft carriers at the heart of his vision for the military this week as he commits Labour to billions of pounds of extra defence spending.

At the same time, defence chiefs are exploring how closer military links with France and the potential benefits of an entente cordiale could tackle future dangers with limited resources.

The Prime Minister will use the launch of a Green Paper on the future of the Armed Forces to promise a new generation of warships and fast jets over the coming decade. He will also guarantee an extra £1.5 billion for the war in Afghanistan, and promise to safeguard defence spending from any cuts next year.

Mr Brown aims to display Labour commitment to the military while also forcing the Conservatives to say whether they would match such spending.

His pledges will include:

• going ahead with two 65,000-tonne aircraft carriers at a cost of £5 billion;

• maintaining troop numbers in the Army at more than 100,000; and

• committing a future government to the Joint Strike Fighter, costing £10 billion, and completing the £20 billion Typhoon programme.

The list will prompt questions about how an incoming government could afford such sums at a time of deep spending cuts across Whitehall. A government source said there would have to be “tough decisions elsewhere”.

The Green Paper, which paves the way for a strategic defence review after the election, will examine the nature of future threats and conflicts and Britain’s ability to respond. “It recognises that no country with the possible exception of the United States can do all this by itself,” said a source who has seen the report.

Britain’s partnership with the US will remain an important factor but France is also seen as a main ally, particularly in delivering joint leadership on defence in Europe. “We are like an old married couple who bicker a lot but we know that we can’t live without each other,” the source said.

He added that the outgoing French Chief of the Defence Staff held meetings in London last week in which he highlighted the need to work together.

Liam Fox, the Shadow Defence Secretary, said that Paris and Washington would be the two main strategic partners for a Conservative government. But he said there would have to be difficult decisions about spending, and procurement projects in particular.George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, has not given a commitment to the aircraft carrier programme. Both the aircraft carriers and jets that would operate from them have been subjected to delays and huge cost increases. Some analysts say that much of the planned hardware is no longer the best way of countering the most likely future threats of insurgency-style warfare, nuclear proliferation and international terrorist attacks.

A government source said the Ministry of Defence would look to cut up to 10,000 extra civilian jobs, without waiting for the Strategic Defence Review.

Britain and France, both nuclear powers, are the only two countries in the European Union that spend more than 2 per cent of national income on defence. They also face similar financial problems, making collaboration an attractive option, even though attempts in the past, such as a joint Frigate project in the 1980s and 1990s, failed to get off the ground.

fantastic news! :D

[Subotan]

Sounds cool.

Vive le engagement mutuel!

[Boohugh]

Good news indeed, Mr Brown has just gone up a notch in my books by committing to some of those bigger projects, although I'll be interested to see what the cost is in terms of other lower profile projects being cancelled. Will be interesting to see if the Conservatives are willing to make any such committment too...

Edit: Although not so sure about increased cooperation with the French (sorry Louis!), there hasn't been a great history in that area.

[Furunculus]

in many ways Brown is doing nothing more than creating a trap for the Conservatives by forcing them into unattractive compromises on their deficit reduction plans and their public 'perception' as the party that is strong on Defence, but from my point of view its great either way as it traps both parties into defining Defence as a key electoral issue.

and no, i don't buy the euro-defence idea either, and nor i suspect will much of the electorate either.

[al Roumi]

Edit: Although not so sure about increased cooperation with the French (sorry Louis!), there hasn't been a great history in that area.

Oh? I must (honestly) plead ignorance on this...

Is France as interested in cooperating with the UK though? Or is this R&D cooperation, e.g where both countries share the development costs for a similar/identical product (like the JSF deal), mostly likely on large purchases eg Carriers, subs etc.

[Furunculus]

Oh? I must (honestly) plead ignorance on this...

Is France as interested in cooperating with the UK though? Or is this R&D cooperation, e.g where both countries share the development costs for a similar/identical product (like the JSF deal), mostly likely on large purchases eg Carriers, subs etc.

would you trust them if they said they were?

[Boohugh]

Yeah, there is a history of trying to cooperate on defence procurement projects but there isn't exactly a string of success stories. Some notable failures include a Frigate replacement in the late 80's and, after that failed, another attempt in the 90's which the UK again abandoned and pursued the Type 45 destroyer instead. Then there is the rather infamous Eurofighter, with the French eventually pulling out and pursuing their own Rafale. The A400M military transport aircraft is mired in technical difficulties, cost overruns and delays and may still be cancelled completely. The French were also involved in the development of the new British carriers with a view to ordering their own based off the same designs, however Sarkozy suspended cooperation in 2008 as they weren't happy with the way it was being designed (specifically they weren't happy it wasn't going to be nuclear-powered).

So yeah...not really any success on the large project front!

[rory_20_uk]

Brown is also going to go to the Chilcot Enquiry and explain why he didn't provide money for the Armed forces. Now he's a changed man as he's throwing money hand over fist at it. Obviously not at boots or body armour that will get used all the time, but some nice new Aircraft carriers as putting all one's eggs into one basket is a strategy!

[Furunculus]

it's a sensible strategy, if he really intends to fund Britain sufficiently to remain a Great Power, however i sense mere politiciking in order to let the Cons dig themselves into a hole re deficit reduction.

[Myrddraal]

I do find the decision to go for two aircraft carriers a little confusing. I am under the impression that the same level of investment aimed at ground forces / helicopters would have a greater effect in our areas of conflict.

I was also surprised to read in the Times that we have almost twice as many soldiers in Germany as in Afghanistan.

[Furunculus]

if we wish to project power in amphibious and expeditionary warfare (i.e. short sharp and effective), then we need carriers and expeditionary forces, but, if we want to be able to conduct independant theatre level opertions of extended duration (like iraq and afghanistan), then we need to inest in the army and air support.

arguably britain is sick of extended and nasty ground wars.
arguably a naval centric doctrine plays to britains strengths.
arguably are most 'succesful' wars as percieved by the public are the falklands and sierra leonne.
arguably it is a scarce and thus valuable capability.

the author of the RUSI report happens to agree with those points. :)

[Subotan]

Wait, what did we do in Sierra Leone?

[Louis VI the Fat]

and yet more evidence that mainstream politics is convinced that Defence has once again become an important electoral issue:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7010508.ece

Brown goes into battle with billions for defence

Roland Watson, Political Editor, and Deborah Haynes, Defence Editor

Gordon Brown will put two new aircraft carriers at the heart of his vision for the military this week as he commits Labour to billions of pounds of extra defence spending.

At the same time, defence chiefs are exploring how closer military links with France and the potential benefits of an entente cordiale could tackle future dangers with limited resources.

The Prime Minister will use the launch of a Green Paper on the future of the Armed Forces to promise a new generation of warships and fast jets over the coming decade. He will also guarantee an extra £1.5 billion for the war in Afghanistan, and promise to safeguard defence spending from any cuts next year.

Mr Brown aims to display Labour commitment to the military while also forcing the Conservatives to say whether they would match such spending.

His pledges will include:

• going ahead with two 65,000-tonne aircraft carriers at a cost of £5 billion;

• maintaining troop numbers in the Army at more than 100,000; and

• committing a future government to the Joint Strike Fighter, costing £10 billion, and completing the £20 billion Typhoon programme.

The list will prompt questions about how an incoming government could afford such sums at a time of deep spending cuts across Whitehall. A government source said there would have to be “tough decisions elsewhere”.

The Green Paper, which paves the way for a strategic defence review after the election, will examine the nature of future threats and conflicts and Britain’s ability to respond. “It recognises that no country with the possible exception of the United States can do all this by itself,” said a source who has seen the report.

Britain’s partnership with the US will remain an important factor but France is also seen as a main ally, particularly in delivering joint leadership on defence in Europe. “We are like an old married couple who bicker a lot but we know that we can’t live without each other,” the source said.

He added that the outgoing French Chief of the Defence Staff held meetings in London last week in which he highlighted the need to work together.

Liam Fox, the Shadow Defence Secretary, said that Paris and Washington would be the two main strategic partners for a Conservative government. But he said there would have to be difficult decisions about spending, and procurement projects in particular.George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, has not given a commitment to the aircraft carrier programme. Both the aircraft carriers and jets that would operate from them have been subjected to delays and huge cost increases. Some analysts say that much of the planned hardware is no longer the best way of countering the most likely future threats of insurgency-style warfare, nuclear proliferation and international terrorist attacks.

A government source said the Ministry of Defence would look to cut up to 10,000 extra civilian jobs, without waiting for the Strategic Defence Review.

Britain and France, both nuclear powers, are the only two countries in the European Union that spend more than 2 per cent of national income on defence. They also face similar financial problems, making collaboration an attractive option, even though attempts in the past, such as a joint Frigate project in the 1980s and 1990s, failed to get off the ground.

fantastic news! :D

I am most pleased for you that defense should move up on the agenda in this election.

I am afraid I myself am mostly uninterested in military matters. Regardless, yes, I would heartily welcome a rapprochement bewteen the UK and France in defense. There is a lot of synergetic advantage to be had. Basically, more bang for our bucks, or the same bang for less bucks. (<- my preference)


The larger political framework is to me what defense is to you: a long-standing pre-occupation. My three mantra's: European co-operation is not anti-Atlantic. A further integration of the UK within Europe benefits both. The UK's double status as EU member plus the special relationship with America benefits Europe, the US, and most of all the UK itself.

I am happy that Brown is welcoming of Sarkozy's overtures. You may find the following article interesting, which gives a good analysis of French motives, especially those of Sarkozy's 'project', of which I am so fond.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Sarko the Brit
The French gave Sarkozy the nickname Sarko l’Américain. But it would be better to call him ‘Sarko the Brit’. Sarkozy’s rapprochement with NATO has other reasons than just those to please the Americans. The French President has learnt the lessons of Chirac’s two failed efforts of the 1990s. He knows that France’s splendid isolation does not work. And he knows that there is one country in Europe that is ‘the indispensible nation’ when France wants to build a credible European defence: Britain. All attempts to bind Britain closer in a European defence project, however, have failed until now because of Britain’s deep distrust of a partner that is suspected of wanting to undermine the Atlantic Alliance. Sarkozy’s return to the NATO fold is, in fact, a powerful charm offensive to woo London. Britain will no longer have to distrust a country that is a full fledged member of NATO. This means that closer defence cooperation between the two countries is no longer jeopardised by France’s ‘special position’. The former French Defence Minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie, alluded to this motive (without, however, mentioning Britain) in an article in Le Figaro (17 February 2009), when she wrote: ‘The unwillingness of certain European countries to make the necessary efforts to reinforce European defence will be easier to overcome when they will be assured that this will not be built against NATO’.

http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/w...ity/ari40-2009

[Furunculus]

Wait, what did we do in Sierra Leone?

are you serious?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Palliser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barras

I am most pleased for you that defense should move up on the agenda in this election.

I am afraid I myself am mostly uninterested in military matters. Regardless, yes, I would heartily welcome a rapprochement bewteen the UK and France in defense. There is a lot of synergetic advantage to be had. Basically, more bang for our bucks, or the same bang for less bucks. (<- my preference)


The larger political framework is to me what defense is to you: a long-standing pre-occupation. My three mantra's: European co-operation is not anti-Atlantic. A further integration of the UK within Europe benefits both. The UK's double status as EU member plus the special relationship with America benefits Europe, the US, and most of all the UK itself.

I am happy that Brown is welcoming of Sarkozy's overtures. You may find the following article interesting, which gives a good analysis of French motives, especially those of Sarkozy's 'project', of which I am so fond.

I agree with the last mantra at least.

And I am delighted it is no longer Frances policy to lever us away from our anglophone roots, but i still don't see the need for Britain to get all cosy with EU defense, just because splendid isolation doesn't work for France does not mean that straddling the Atlantic is not perfectly viable and satisfactoey for Britain. :)

[Furunculus]

How the boy george wants you to judge him:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/be...ment-100155902

How to judge George Osborne

By Benedict Brogan Politics Last updated: February 2nd, 2010

With luck today we’ll get away from the confusion of the past few days and back to the difference between Labour and the Tories on the economy. CCHQ’s best efforts to muddy the waters should not allow us to lose sight of the substantial gap between what Labour proposes – profligacy coupled with pandering to sectional interests – and what the Conservatives are committed to achieving – sound money, rebuilt society etc.

That at least was where the debate was until last week. Since then the Tories have shifted the ground and left us scratching our heads. Are they afraid? Are they confused? Are they slacking? Today is their chance to get back on track.

In the lead is George Osbornem, who is showing a bit more ankle with the publication of eight benchmarks by which he would like us to judge him and a Tory government if we give them a chance on May 6. He describes it as a ‘new economic model for Britain’ which will create the growth we desperately need and which won’t come if we carry on trashing the competitiveness of the City and don’t tackle the debt millstone. He’s also announcing a number of endorsements.

Crucially the benchmarks are measures against which the British people “can judge the success or failure of their Chancellor and their government over the next Parliament. We will be accountable.” They are:

* Ensure macroeconimic stability by protecting Britain’s credit rating.
* Create a more balanced economy – ensuring higher exports, business investment and saving as a share of GDP
* Get Britain working by reducing youth unemployment
* Make Britain open for business by improving our international ranking on tax competitiveness
* Ensure the whole country shares in rising prosperity – by raising the private sector’s share of the economy in all regions of the country, especially outside London and the South East.
* Reform public services to deliver better value-for-money by improving productivity in the public sector
* Create a safer banking system that serves the needs of the economy
* Build a greener economy by reducing carbion emissions and improving our share of green technologies

Top Civil Servant: "Gordon Brown 'guillotined' defence budget six months into the iraq war":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ce-budget.html

Iraq inquiry: Gordon Brown 'guillotined' defence budget
Defence chiefs had to cut projects for helicopters, warships and Nimrod spy planes after Gordon Brown ''guillotined'' their budget, the Iraq inquiry has been told.


Published: 10:37AM GMT 03 Feb 2010
Former permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence Sir Kevin Tebbit gives evidence to the Iraq Inquiry in London's Queen Elizabeth II conference centre: Iraq inquiry: Gordon Brown 'guillotined' defence budget
Former permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence Sir Kevin Tebbit gives evidence to the Iraq Inquiry in London's Queen Elizabeth II conference centre Photo: PA

The former top civil servant at the Ministry of Defence spoke of the ''crisis period'' when Mr Brown as Chancellor suddenly slashed military spending six months after the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Sir Kevin Tebbit said the MoD had to launch an ''across-the-board major savings exercise'' to meet the Treasury's ''arbitrary'' cuts.

Projects affected included helicopters, Nimrod spy planes, Royal Navy destroyers, frigates, minesweepers and patrol vessels, Challenger tanks, AS90 artillery and Jaguar aircraft, he told the inquiry.

The MoD also had to reduce numbers of Armed Forces personnel and civil servants.

Sir Kevin, who was MoD permanent secretary from 1998 to 2005, stressed that defence chiefs saved resources needed for Iraq but admitted the cuts had a long-term impact.

He said: ''I was running essentially a crisis budget rather than one with sufficient resources to be able to plan as coherently, as well for the long term, as we would have liked.''

[Boohugh]

Don't know if anyone else saw PMQ's today but defence dominated the questions (I'd say over half of all the questions related to defence), but with the Green Paper on defence coming out today perhaps that isn't so surprising, although it wasn't actually mentioned in any questions. Only had a chance to glance over it so far but it doesn't seem to say much of substance, rather just helps set the scene for the Strategic Defence Review that will follow the election (which is basically the purpose of a Green Paper so not surprising).

Brown's only reply to all the questions was that he had increased defence spending, which doesn't look great when an increasingly long list of civil servants and military chiefs have been telling the Chilcot Inquiry that the armed forces were underequipped for Iraq and Afghanistan, as all it shows is Brown is either fibbing or has misspent all that extra money he's apparently thrown at the military.

[Furunculus]

excellent news, thank you.

i am as happy to the Cons forced to adopt pro-Defence positions that will 'haunt' them after a general election as i am to see Labour flayed for their mistreatment of the the Forces.

imho, the damage has been allowed to happen because Defence wasn't considered worth the air necessary to discuss it, well now that has changed.

[Boohugh]

i am as happy to the Cons forced to adopt pro-Defence positions that will 'haunt' them after a general election as i am to see Labour flayed for their mistreatment of the the Forces.

Haha well umm...don't think the Conservatives really adopted a pro-defence position as such, they just got to point out Brown's failures. Unfortunately there was no mention of the Conservatives actually doing anything about fixing Labour's failures should they win the election (no mention of even meeting the Labour position on the aircraft carriers and JSF projects), so it wasn't all good news. I'd say the one criticism that Brown got right in his responses was that of the Conservatives not really clearly stating any policies recently, only causing confusion as to what they actually are.

[Furunculus]

Will Cameron be a radical when in office, or is his current timidity a sign of things to come?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/to...959/100024959/

Will Cameron cast off his Clark Kent disguise on entering Downing Street and become Super Tory?

By Toby Young Politics Last updated: February 4th, 2010

In last night’s Keith Joseph Memorial Lecture, Spectator editor Fraser Nelson urged David Cameron to embrace a more radical Conservative agenda. He’s worried that the cautious tone of the Party’s recent announcements on the health service, foreign aid and fiscal policy are symptomatic of an intellectual timidity that will hamper Cameron’s premiership. Instead of reducing state spending as a percentage of GDP, which Fraser fervently believes he ought to do, it’ll be more of the same, with Gordon Brown continuing to dictate the agenda long after he’s been defeated:

From global warming targets to the Equality Bill, Mr Brown is passing legislation intended to tie the hands of the Tory government. He has established a network of quangos, choc full of Labour placemen, who will act as his government in exile; hoarding both power and money.

Fraser joins a long list of people who are hoping against hope that, on entering Downing Street, Cameron will cast off his Clark Kent disguise and emerge as a kind of Super Tory, imposing the very same “swingeing cuts” that he decried on the Politics Show last Sunday. They want him to be the opposite of Barack Obama: instead of campaigning in poetry and governing in prose, they grudgingly accept the need for him to campaign in prose but fervently hope he will govern as a true blue, movement Conservative.

I can offer one small crumb of comfort to Fraser. I was two years above Cameron at Brasenose, also studying Philosophy, Politics and Economics, and would occasionally engage him in debate about the political issues of the day. This was in 1985 in the aftermath of the miners’ strike and I can report that, back then at least, he was a dry-as-dust Thatcherite. He was a braying, triumphalist Conservative who made no concessions to the leftwing atmosphere of Oxford in the mid-80s — no hint of the Wet he was to become. If the child is the father of the man, Fraser can rest easy.

"This was in 1985 in the aftermath of the miners’ strike and I can report that, back then at least, he was a dry-as-dust Thatcherite. He was a braying, triumphalist Conservative who made no concessions to the leftwing atmosphere of Oxford in the mid-80s."

he used to be a radical, but that might just be the same as every other youth, and thus not reflective of the man now............... we shall have to see.

[Subotan]

Well, Alistar Darling used to be a raving Trotskyite, so don't get your hopes up.

[JAG]

Tories - we are coming to get youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!

Ave poll lead down to 9, some put it closer. All Labour need is to lose by 5 points and we stay in power as the biggest party in a hung parliament.... It is gonna happen, I have been saying it for a couple years now. The wheels are coming off Cameron's bus, now it is getting closer to the election, the polls will always close up, not only that but he will be under more scrutiny and when people look at what he has to say, they will realise it is the same old Tories. Labour people will not move away from us to the Tories en masse, this is no '97 for the Tories. Plus we get the added advantage of when the polls narrow, the crack pot tory back benchers start to rear their ugly head. :)