The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[CountArach]

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

[Banquo's Ghost]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Furunculus]

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

excellent point.

[rory_20_uk]

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

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

[Furunculus]

PVC, what is your prediction?

[Furunculus]

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

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

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Beskar]

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

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

[tibilicus]

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

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

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

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

[rory_20_uk]

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

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

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

[al Roumi]

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

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

[Tellos Athenaios]

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

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

[shlin28]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...oment-has-come

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

[tibilicus]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...oment-has-come

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

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

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

[Furunculus]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...oment-has-come

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

don't know that anyone should be surprised, the guardian has always been as solidly left-wing just as the torygraph has been right wing, and the former doesn't even have the reputation as being a paper of record!

[Furunculus]

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

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

canada tried it, i doubt they would say the exercise was a success. wrong again.

[Idaho]

I found the debate profoundly depressing.

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

I find the reasons for your voting intention profoundly depressing.


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

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

[Banquo's Ghost]

I find the reasons for your voting intention profoundly depressing.

I thought you might.

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

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

[Idaho]

I thought you might.

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

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

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

[rory_20_uk]

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

[Banquo's Ghost]

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

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

[InsaneApache]

As the Yanks see us....

http://tv.gawker.com/5527780/jon-ste...tical-scandals



I think I had a little wee watching that!

http://tv.gawker.com/5528164/jon-ste...tical-scandals

This link works.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

Now that's an excellent reason to vote Conservatives.


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

[tibilicus]

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

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

Anyway, here's the polls.

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

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

[InsaneApache]

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

I've had a change of heart.

Tory minority gov.

So lib-dems on board, as and when.

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

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

Anyway, here's the polls.

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

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

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

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

[InsaneApache]

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

Like I keep on saying...

New Labour. New Britain.

[Louis VI the Fat]

New Britain. New Republicans Conservatives.

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


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

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

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

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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...troud-gay-cure

[Furunculus]

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

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

Anyway, here's the polls.

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

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

still time to amend your vote...........?

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

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

[CountArach]

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

Angus Reid don't weight by party preference, unlike most other polling companies.