Election Depth, go Clegg!

DonDaddyD

I think Clegg won, but Gordon held his own. Cameron as always came up with good soundbites but lacked real depth.

asquithea

I think Clegg won, with Cameron second. Cameron was a bit too overprepared, I thought. Most of Brown's answers had no real credibility -- inevitably going to be a problem when you've had 13 years to carry out your ideas.

Won't be voting LibDem at the election based on their manifesto, though -- the Conservative proposals looked far more attractive to me (and with some actual ideas, instead of number crunching).

DonDaddyD

asquithea wrote:

Won't be voting LibDem at the election based on their manifesto, though -- the Conservative proposals looked far more attractive to me (and with some actual ideas, instead of number crunching).

See this is what I don't get. All the Conservative manifesto is, is ideas and good words. It's not thought through and most of those ideas aren't sustainable.

If you're a millionaire you'll be alright though...

DonDaddyD

I;m still undecided who I'll vote for but it probably won't be Conservative.

gabriel959

A shame that I can't vote, but if I could it would be Lib Dem out of those 3.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Ah, but DDD, no matter how popular Clegg is, the LibDems will never garner enough seats to have a majority in Parliament.

Unfortunately, I think these debates will directly contribute to the likelihood of there being a hung Parliament come May 5, because ultimately they'll result in the two main parties losing votes to the LibDems with no decisive result for the LibDems, but preventing either major party having an overall majority. Perhaps that's why Labour was in favour of the debates: they know they can't win, but they think a Lib-Lab coalition is more plausible than a Lib-Con coalition.

Still, at least with Clegg close to the hotseat, we can wave goodbye to Trident. Let's remember to be nice the remaining nuclear powers...

Looking forward to hearing High Vizard Mandelson on R4 tomorrow telling us all how wrong our assessments were, and that Gordo crushed his opponents, like a modern day yet cuddly Stalin.

lost_in_thought

Greg66 wrote:

Ah, but DDD, no matter how popular Clegg is, the LibDems will never garner enough seats to have a majority in Parliament.

Unfortunately, I think these debates will directly contribute to the likelihood of there being a hung Parliament come May 5, because ultimately they'll result in the two main parties losing votes to the LibDems with no decisive result for the LibDems, but preventing either major party having an overall majority. Perhaps that's why Labour was in favour of the debates: they know they can't win, but they think a Lib-Lab coalition is more plausible than a Lib-Con coalition.

+1.

Fireblade96

...how popular Clegg is, the LibDems will never garner enough seats to have a majority in Parliament.

That's exactly the sort of comment that I expect from either of the two current main parties, trying to ensure that voters choose them through fear of "letting the other side in".

You all have a vote (except maybe Gabe cos he must be a forrinner ;-) ). Cast your vote for the party whose policies you support. It's not a competition where you win if you voted for the party that gets elected !

Personally, I'm thinking of leaving the country again....

roger_merriman

the other thing is where you are, My MP is Vince Cable this means its a safe LIb dem seat. thats not to say they can't go labour lost one of there safest seats a few years back due to some home goals. so they are never as safe as it might seem.

lost_in_thought

Fireblade96 wrote:

...how popular Clegg is, the LibDems will never garner enough seats to have a majority in Parliament.

That's exactly the sort of comment that I expect from either of the two current main parties, trying to ensure that voters choose them through fear of "letting the other side in".

You all have a vote (except maybe Gabe cos he must be a forrinner ;-) ). Cast your vote for the party whose policies you support. It's not a competition where you win if you voted for the party that gets elected !

Personally, I'm thinking of leaving the country again....

But, even if you support Lib Dem policies what's the point in voting for a party that's unlikely to win? Surely it's better to pick between the lesser of two evils, in an 'anyone but...' way. That's how I'll be voting anyway.

olddgreg

Fireblade96 wrote:

...how popular Clegg is, the LibDems will never garner enough seats to have a majority in Parliament.

Cast your vote for the party whose policies you support. It's not a competition where you win if you voted for the party that gets elected !

+1

tailwindhome

Greg66 wrote:

I think these debates will directly contribute to the likelihood of there being a hung Parliament come May 5, because ultimately they'll result in the two main parties losing votes to the LibDems with no decisive result for the LibDems, but preventing either major party having an overall majority. Perhaps that's why Labour was in favour of the debates: they know they can't win, but they think a Lib-Lab coalition is more plausible than a Lib-Con coalition.

The election result will be a hung parliament resulting in a Lab-Lib coalition

Nick Clegg will be Home Secretary
Vince Cable will be Chancellor

Take that to the bank

Not a British bank obviously

fnegroni

You know what the funny thing is?
That I have been living in this country, paying taxes, for the last 13 years, but my Italian citizenship won't allow me to easily become British.
Yet the guy I work with whose family just moved from India a couple of years ago, has the power to vote, although I don't honestly think he has a clue whom for.
He essentially can express his confusion on the matter by potentially voting for the wrong person out of not having been in this country long enough to form an opinion, yet I am excluded from it.
I don't mind me being excluded on the base that I am not British, but I question the validity of giving the right of vote to someone who is not even remotely part of this society yet.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Fireblade96 wrote:

That's exactly the sort of comment that I expect from either of the two current main parties, trying to ensure that voters choose them through fear of "letting the other side in".

The point is that in the first-past-the-post system that we have, with two main parties you have a pretty good chance of one getting a working majority. With three, that chance reduces a lot.

Look at the number of seats vs votes. According to this page, in 2005 Lab had 36% of the vote and 349 seats, Con had 33% and 210 seats, and LibDem 22% and 62 seats. At 326 seats necessary for a working majority, LibDem have a marginally better chance than me of getting a working majority.

Think of it this way: put UKIP, the Greens and the BNP on the platform with those three, and you reduce the chances of one party having a working majority even more. A hung Parliament is really not a good thing, and IMO something that it would be hyperbolic to "fear", certainly not something to choose. Except in times of genuine emergency where party lines are set aside (eg war) history tells us that coalition governments simply do not work in this country.

It's worth remembering, I think, that this TV debate idea originated from the Presidential debates in the US. There's a two party system there (yes, I know they let that Independent nut job on one year whose name I can't recall, but that was never going to impact on the division of votes between the Dems and the Reps).

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

The election result will be a hung parliament resulting in a Lab-Lib coalition

Nick Clegg will be Home Secretary
Vince Cable will be Chancellor

Take that to the bank

Not a British bank obviously

'Cept Vince said on Newsnight last night that he wouldn't take that gig (yes, I know. A politician's promise is a pie crust promise).

tailwindhome

lost_in_thought wrote:

Surely it's better to pick between the lesser of two evils, in an 'anyone but...' way. That's how I'll be voting anyway.

Do the English get 'tactical voting'?

We are experts on this in Northern Ireland, historically for example, Protestant Unionists in West Belfast would vote for the moderate Nationalist SDLP to keep out the more extreme Sinn Fein

I'm not sure the English electorate are so savvy nor do I believe that the party machines have this level of organisational capability.

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

Do the English get 'tactical voting'?

Yes, but not to that level of sophistication (because generally there's not that need). You see tactical voting in by-elections during the life of the Parliament. The tactic is (usually) to express disapproval of the incumbent government.

Fireblade96

But, even if you support Lib Dem policies what's the point in voting for a party that's unlikely to win? Surely it's better to pick between the lesser of two evils, in an 'anyone but...' way

Because if everyone goes along with this line of thinking, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

New Labour moved away from having any sort of left-wing policy to garner votes by becoming more mainstream. The Conservatives have shoved their Euro-Sceptics under the carpet for the next few months in an attempt to appear mainstream. Neither party appears to have any really substantive policy difference, it's all about getting elected at all costs.

Short of standing for office yourself, an election is really the only chance you have to influence policy. I might not choose a winner, but I'm going to vote for the party whose policies I support. Whoever wins, they might pay some attention to the policies that people supported....(some chance, they don't even pay attention to the policies in their manifestos)

CiB

But voting for an obvious loser out of principle is a wasted vote. If you subscribe to the 'Anyone but Brown' line of thinking, it's a no-brainer - vote for the candidate most likely to win to oust the inucmbent Nu Labour MP, if that's the situation in your consitituency.

UKIP should be standing aside and giving the Conservatives & Lib Dems a clear run in close seats, rather than splitting the opposition vote. Labour's majority last time would have been closer to single figures rather than the 66 majority they ended up with, had the UKIP vote not let the Labour candidate in in those seats.

This one's a close one. Anyone thinking of voting with their conscience in a close seat who wants to see Brown out, is misguided. Idealistic, but misguided.We only get one election every four to five years. Don't sit at home on the day wittering about how they're all the same, all as bad as each other; go and vote or STFU. This is the time to vote tactically if your constituency fits that pattern.

Over & out. Vote Stats. You know it makes sense.

artaxerxes

Didn't watch the debate, was watching Welcome to Lagos on BBC2 which was excellent! I gather Cameron came out bottom in all the post debate polls. Can't say I'm surprised really and if he fails to win the election and gets ousted... Boris Johnson as the next Tory leader maybe?

TailWindHome wrote:
The election result will be a hung parliament resulting in a Lab-Lib coalition

Nick Clegg will be Home Secretary
Vince Cable will be Chancellor

Take that to the bank

Not a British bank obviously

Agree with this, there are too many people in the UK with a vested interest in continued government spending, i.e., everyone who works in or with the public sector. For a lot of people a vote for the Tories would mean voting for the dole queue.

Eau Rouge

lost_in_thought wrote:

But, even if you support Lib Dem policies what's the point in voting for a party that's unlikely to win? Surely it's better to pick between the lesser of two evils, in an 'anyone but...' way. That's how I'll be voting anyway.

Ah, the joy of living in LibDemShire. In the last Parliament the three MP's around me were all Lib Dems. They have gone and redrawn the boundaries now, I've switched constituency, so we'll see how it turns out this time around, but it's a two horse race here, Lib Dems or the Tories. I want to vote Lib Dem, and living here, I can.

fnegroni, I don't see why being Italian stops you voting.

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/elections/voter-registration wrote:

Who can register to vote?

* Anyone aged 16 or over (but you cannot vote until you are 18).
* British or qualifying Commonwealth citizens. This means Commonwealth citizens who have leave to remain in the UK or do not require such leave.
* Citizens of the Republic of Ireland or other European Union (EU) member states.

I'll take a hung Parliament over a dictatorial-esque whip-enforced majority one every single time. There is nothing so unhealthy for a democracy than the arrogant idea that every voter for a party supports every policy they can come up with so they have to be forced through Parliament. A close second is having most voters (the last time a government has over 51% of the popular vote was the 30's) not actually have any meaningful representation. A hung Parliament solves both problems.
It does nothing for the Supremacy of Parliament, you need a written constitution for that, but we'll take one step at a time.

garrynolan

But, even if you support Lib Dem policies what's the point in voting for a party that's unlikely to win? Surely it's better to pick between the lesser of two evils, in an 'anyone but...' way. That's how I'll be voting anyway.[/quote]

Used to do that in N.I. and look what sort of problems we had! Stick to your priciples and hope the 'best' one gets in.

Eau Rouge

I liked how it was back home. The constituency my parents live in has 4 TD's (TD is the Irish version of an MP), it used have 5. You can vote for everyone if you like. It means you can vote for the guy who's actually pretty good at local constituency things even if you don't support his party and still vote for the actual party or parties you do support.
OK, it takes about a week to count the votes, but the tally men can usually tell you the final results in about an hour of the counting starting.

UndercoverElephant

Here's an interesting site:

http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/

Surely we should all be voting for policies?

I was surprised how much I agree with the green party :shock:, the really surprising thing is how many other people seem to agree.

Satu

Eau Rouge wrote:

fnegroni, I don't see why being Italian stops you voting.

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/elections/voter-registration wrote:

Who can register to vote?

* Anyone aged 16 or over (but you cannot vote until you are 18 ).
* British or qualifying Commonwealth citizens. This means Commonwealth citizens who have leave to remain in the UK or do not require such leave.
* Citizens of the Republic of Ireland or other European Union (EU) member states.

Yup, but the next paragraph says:

Who can vote?

* British, Irish and qualifying citizens of Commonwealth countries (including Cyprus and Malta) can vote at all elections.
* Citizens of other EU member states resident in the UK can vote in local government elections but cannot vote in UK Parliamentary elections.

So I won't be voting either!

S. (dirty foreigner)

OldSkoolKona

Another good blog on parties cycling policies about it on the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... st-pledges

The UKIP one is particularly "interesting". Just as well they don't have a chance of getting in or we'd all be dismounting to go around roundabouts :shock:

beverick

Will someone please wake me up when it's all over.......

Bob

mickbrown

I liked the bit at the end when the Old Etonian with a personal wealth of £30 million looked into the camera and said "We are all in this togther"

Yeah, ta for that Dave, put my mind right at ease that did.

il_principe

I'm taking more of an interest in this election than I ever have done before, but last night only served to convince me that Clegg has very little substance. The numbers in their manifesto don't seem to stand up and were utterly torn apart by the 'impartial' BBC a few days ago. Still Policy wise I'm torn between Lib Dem and Tory. Lab have had long enough and I'm ready for a change. If they'd ousted Brown and managed to hold onto people like Purnell then it might have been a different story... I'm not really a fan of these debates anyway, they simply encourage the cult of personality.

UndercoverElephant

Il Principe wrote:

I'm taking more of an interest in this election than I ever have done before, but last night only served to convince me that Clegg has very little substance. The numbers in their manifesto don't seem to stand up and were utterly torn apart by the 'impartial' BBC a few days ago.

On the plus side, they were the only major party to actually include figures with their manifesto. They certainly aren't the first politicians to get their numbers wrong, but at least thy tried to provide some guidance.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Il Principe wrote:

I'm not really a fan of these debates anyway, they simply encourage the cult of personality.

+1

And we have a PM with a Cabinet here, not a President. It's not about a single person.