Election Depth, go Clegg!

rjsterry

lost_in_thought wrote:

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.

Erm, because you can only vote for your local MP, not the government. As well as asking yourself who you want to run the country, you shhould decide who you want to represent your local constituency. I'm well aware that the Liberal Democrats are very unlikely to win a majority, but my local MP is LibDem, and is a very good advocate for local issues (keeping our local hospital open being a big one). Labour are nowhere locally, and the main Tory propaganda I had could only muster a "don't vote for the LibDems, 'cause then Labour will get in." Didn't even mention their own policies.

rjsterry

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. 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.

I'm fairly sure the BBC made the point that the Institute of Fiscal Studies had been pretty sceptical about all three parties' spending plans.

jonginge

Greg66 wrote:

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.

Aye. I keep on recalling* the debate between Nixon and Kennedy. According to the polls, those who listened to the debate on the radio thought Nixon had won, those who saw it on TV thought the opposite. Style over substance...?


* The analysis thereof not the debate itself: i wasn't alive

Paulie W

Greg66 wrote:

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.

The notion that a hung parliament is a potential disaster is a bit outdated in my view. It doesnt automatically mean that we will have a coalition for one thing - the largest party may choose not to set up a formal agreement with another party or parties. The failures of the past were a consequence of the much more polarised views of the parties and I'm not usre they have much relevance for 2010.

I think there is a potential positive that will come out of no party gettinga majority: that it would bring to an end the micro-legislation that has characterised both the Conservative and Labour governments for the last 20 years or so. People often fear hung parliaments because they think nothing gets done but what often happens is that lots of meaningless or knee jerk legislation never sees the light of day.

I say vote for the party you believe in and certainly dont vote tactically to avoid a hung parliament.

jamesco

FireBlade's got the right idea - ideally we should vote for who we want, not against the guy we don't want. It'd be a whole lot easier to do that if there was proportional representation, and that's a good reason to support the Lib Dems if you're leaning that way already.

A hung parliament oughtn't be a disaster - it should just result in coalition negotiations, like in most elections under a proportional system - who cares what the 'markets' think? Do they have a vote?

simonaspinall

I think Gordon Brown should've played the Scottish Hardman a bit more...

(Squares up to David Cameron then grabs him by the throat and slams him up against the wall, his expensive Italian Loafers dangling off the floor)

"Step out side Posh boy...I fancy some Eton Mess!"

More terrifying still is the wonky-eyed thing making him look slightly redneck!

greg66_tri_v2.0

Paulie W wrote:

I think there is a potential positive that will come out of no party getting a majority: that it would bring to an end the micro-legislation that has characterised both the Conservative and Labour governments for the last 20 years or so. People often fear hung parliaments because they think nothing gets done but what often happens is that lots of meaningless or knee jerk legislation never sees the light of day.

One of the successes (financially) of Clinton's second term was that he had no majority in Congress and a tied Senate. The result was essentially a deadlock that inhibited the passage of bills that would otherwise have increased Govt spending; he finished up with a huge budget surplus.

Unfortunately, something needs to be done in the next Parliament: reduction of spending. If a party's proposals can be blocked by the other two, the current levels of spending will simply continue. Not good.

PS. I remember the Lib-Lab pact, and it wasn't impressive. A lot more people here will remember the Major govt having to cut deals with the Ulster Unionists to overcome its own Euro-sceptic rebellion in order to get bills passed. It really undermines the ability of the Govt to act.

rjsterry

simonaspinall wrote:

I think Gordon Brown should've played the Scottish Hardman a bit more...

(Squares up to David Cameron then grabs him by the throat and slams him up against the wall, his expensive Italian Loafers dangling off the floor)

"Step out side Posh boy...I fancy some Eton Mess!"

More terrifying still is the wonky-eyed thing making him look slightly redneck!

I think the Guardian beat you to it on that one with their April Fool story on Labour's poster campaign.

greg66_tri_v2.0

jamesco wrote:

who cares what the 'markets' think?

Err, you will. A run on Sterling may be great for exporters, but it will affect Britain's credit worthiness and ability to borrow (something that it will need to do). So it will have to pay higher interest rates to borrow (cf Greece), and those will be met by, errr, you, in the shape of more taxes. If the Govt/BoE chooses to support Sterling, it will up interest rates (cf the ERM exit), so if you have any borrowing, your repayments will go up.

And with a weak pound, British companies look cheap to foreign buyers. Buy 'em, break 'em up, ship the bits you want abroad = job losses (cf, eg Cadbury).

simonaspinall

rjsterry wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

I think Gordon Brown should've played the Scottish Hardman a bit more...

(Squares up to David Cameron then grabs him by the throat and slams him up against the wall, his expensive Italian Loafers dangling off the floor)

"Step out side Posh boy...I fancy some Eton Mess!"

More terrifying still is the wonky-eyed thing making him look slightly redneck!

I think the Guardian beat you to it on that one with their April Fool story on Labour's poster campaign.

Indeed they did - But to have seen it live on TV watching a posh smarmy c*ck shrivel like the PR inflated l'oreal advert he is would be bruiser poetry at its best.

rjsterry

I'll admit to a certain potential satisfaction from seeing such a thing.

DonDaddyD

IMO

Brown is the ecomonist and personally I'm convinced his plan is the one that will see us through recovery.

Clegg, would probably improve society as a whole and under Lib Dem rule we would see a cultural shift. People would feel more connected with their communities.

Cameron, I find anything he says hard to pin down as it lacks detail. I do know this, if I had savings, if I considered myself middle class or if I was a high earner I would vote him.

As for health policies both Brown and Clegg's far outweigh the Conservatives.

tailwindhome

Just so I understand

A...Those who want 'Anybody but Brown' will vote Tory or Lib depending on their constituency

B..Those who want 'Anybody but Tory' will vote Lab or Lib depending on their constituency

C...Those who support the Liberal ideas, but don't want to 'waste' their vote will vote tactically according to their constituency and fit into A or B




There must be something on the other channel?

greg66_tri_v2.0

DonDaddyD wrote:

Brown is the economist and personally I'm convinced his spending plan is the one that got us into this fcuking mess

FIXED!

(couldn't resist!)

PS: would it alarm you to learn that academically, Brown is a historian who went on to lecture in politics and work as a journalist? From what I can tell from his wiki page, he doesn't have a background in economics.

il_principe

DonDaddyD wrote:

IMO

Brown is the ecomonist and personally I'm convinced his plan is the one that will see us through recovery.

that's the funniest thing you've ever posted.

il_principe

Greg66 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Brown is the economist and personally I'm convinced his spending plan is the one that got us into this fcuking mess

FIXED!

(couldn't resist!)

PS: would it alarm you to learn that academically, Brown is a historian who went on to lecture in politics and work as a journalist? From what I can tell from his wiki page, he doesn't have a background in economics.

In fact the biography on this website www.gordonbrown.com makes no mention of any experience in economics at all... he's never even worked in business:

After university and a spell of teaching at Edinburgh and then at Glasgow College of Technology, he began work as a researcher at Scottish Television, where colleagues recall an impressive young man who did a mean impression of the fascist Oswald Mosley during a mock interview. But his heart was set on a career in politics. He first stood for an Edinburgh seat, with little hope of success, in the 1979 general election which swept Margaret Thatcher to power. He was then selected for the safe Labour seat of Dunfermline East in his family's backyard.

jonginge

Il Principe wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Brown is the economist and personally I'm convinced his spending plan is the one that got us into this fcuking mess

FIXED!

(couldn't resist!)

PS: would it alarm you to learn that academically, Brown is a historian who went on to lecture in politics and work as a journalist? From what I can tell from his wiki page, he doesn't have a background in economics.

In fact the biography on this website www.gordonbrown.com makes no mention of any experience in economics at all... he's never even worked in business:

After university and a spell of teaching at Edinburgh and then at Glasgow College of Technology, he began work as a researcher at Scottish Television, where colleagues recall an impressive young man who did a mean impression of the fascist Oswald Mosley during a mock interview. But his heart was set on a career in politics. He first stood for an Edinburgh seat, with little hope of success, in the 1979 general election which swept Margaret Thatcher to power. He was then selected for the safe Labour seat of Dunfermline East in his family's backyard.

What? Our prudent, iron chancellor isn't the golden boy of finance after all? I feel badly misled

jedster

The thing that strikes me is this:

Everyone (with more than half a brain) knows that he deficit has to be filled in time and that this will require some combination of tax rises and spending cuts.

It is also obvious that "efficiencies" and further tax rises on the well-off, even if necessary, will not be sufficient to the fill the hole.

Despite this, NONE of the parties (and that includes the Lib Dems) are actually prepared to talk realistically about these issues. The election should be about:
a) which taxes go up
b) what spending programmes get the chop

Instead Labour and the Tories debate whether £6bn (a drop in the ocean I'm afraid) of cuts should start this year or next (not a big deal). Basically because they think we are all children and can't face the real issue which is where is £70bn going to be saved ( a huge deal).

The Lib Dems (and Nick Clegg did it very effectively last night) like to say that they are being honest with us. But that is a load of cr@p.

They are proposing a tax cut (income tax allowances) of £17bn funded by other tax rises. Leaving aside of whether their tax rises would actually deliver. They are pretending that we can actually afford tax cuts. I reckon that tax rises will be needed but that the money raised will be needed to fill the deficit NOT be available for tax cuts.

Also they talk a load of old ballcocks on Trident. First their £100bn number is rubbish - £25bn would be a better number. Secondly, if you actually listen to them they are not saying that they would get rid of our nuclear deterrant just Trident. They'd replace it with something else but won't actually say what.

Ground based missiles? Hmm, it's pretty tricky getting the nimbies to accept a wind turbine in this country. What are the odds on people welcoming a missile silo at the bottom of the garden... Also we explored that in the past and decided it would be really expensive and vulnerable to attack. Perhaps we could just put nukes on our cruise missiles instead? Well yes but you'd need to be sure the subs were close to your target and you'd still have to keep a nuclear submarine fleet in operation which brings huge fixed costs (i.e. would eat loads of the mythical savings that the Lib Dems claim). Maybe we should invest in a new fleet of long range bomber aircraft - which would cost a fortune, are vulnerable and would be decades away.

If they were being honest they would say that the alternative to Trident is giving up our nuclear deterrant. They are just as slippery as the other two parties. They just have sillier ideas.

I've always voted Labour but they are a busted flush. Brown has done a decent job of managing a disaster which he is partly responsible for. He MIGHT be the best man for the next 6 months. He is clearly not the best person to lead the changes that are required over the next few years. Most of the best people in the Labour party have retired, sacked or are burnt out (just as had happened to the Tories in the early 90s).

I've got no great wish to be governed by a bunch of slightly smug ex-etonians but at least they have some energy and an idea of where they want to get the country to (and don't come up with one absurd policy a month unlike the Lib Dems). They also seem to genuinely think that Government should be more inclined to let people get on with their lives rather than controlling everything from Whitehall. I find the attitude of the Brown/Balls crewe that they know best and can improve everything by issuing directives from the centre as being utterly deluded and extremely arrogant. Good night.

Bah!

J

il_principe

jedster wrote:

The thing that strikes me is this:

long post

J

All good stuff, a big +1 from me. You've nailed the whole Trident issue, which is just a massive red herring.

DonDaddyD

Irrespective of Brown's background, what his plans are for economic recovery make more sense than what Cameron is suggesting.

Cameron's suggestion of tax breaks, more money for the NHS etc may sound appealing but really isn't sustainable or realistic.

tailwindhome

jedster wrote:

Most of the best people in the Labour party have retired, sacked or are burnt out (just as had happened to the Tories in the early 90s).

+1

It would be interesting to see how a LibLab coalition would operate under Brown's leadership and with a fresh influx of talent and energy from the Liberals.


It could also be a long term disaster for Labour if Brown were to pull off a narrow victory in an election he isn't supposed to win, just as Major did for/to the conservatives


Pity I don't have the opportunity to vote for either of the 3 major parties in my contituency.


Also just to add, I liked Brown's soundbite/ catchphrase which I predict we will hear a lot before polling day

"What David isn't telling you...."

jedster

DDD,

Irrespective of Brown's background, what his plans are for economic recovery make more sense than what Cameron is suggesting.

Cameron's suggestion of tax breaks, more money for the NHS etc may sound appealing but really isn't sustainable or realistic.

Hmm, not sure exactly what your referring to with the Tory policies but my whole point above is that NONE of the parties is proposing a plan that is remotely sustainable. All of them would have to cut spending and raise taxes if they won. Personally I think that Labour is being the LEAST honest on this topic (both the Tories and Lib Dems are actually telling us that there will be painful cuts just soft soaping on where they will be and how nasty it will feel, Brown is just stressing the budgets he will protect this year without mentioning the pain to come).

I'm surprised you've fallen for that.

J

greg66_tri_v2.0

DonDaddyD wrote:

Irrespective of Brown's background, what his plans are for economic recovery make more sense than what Cameron is suggesting.

Cameron's suggestion of tax breaks, more money for the NHS etc may sound appealing but really isn't sustainable or realistic.

A cynic might just suspect that Gordo has engineered a "blip" type recovery now, expecting to lose, and certain that after the election the recession will bite harder in the form a "w"-shaped dip. Which can be blamed on the new Govt.

That would mean playing party politics with the national economy, so we can rule that one out. Yessirree.

And +1 to Jedster, save that I don't really understand why the fact that DC went to Eton makes a difference. Would it be newsworthy if he had been to some minor public school? FWIW, an almost recent PM was a dyed-in-the-wool member of the landed gentry, whose family home is one of the most impressive country estates in the South of England, and who spent some time at Harrow. Didn't seem to impede him.

DonDaddyD

The line from work about Labour's health policy is that its the best one.

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

The line from work about Labour's health policy is that its the best one.

Best for who?

Is that an NHS policy or consensus among 'at risk' public sector workers?

bigmat

Greg66 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Irrespective of Brown's background, what his plans are for economic recovery make more sense than what Cameron is suggesting.

Cameron's suggestion of tax breaks, more money for the NHS etc may sound appealing but really isn't sustainable or realistic.

A cynic might just suspect that Gordo has engineered a "blip" type recovery now, expecting to lose, and certain that after the election the recession will bite harder in the form a "w"-shaped dip. Which can be blamed on the new Govt.

That would mean playing party politics with the national economy, so we can rule that one out. Yessirree.

And +1 to Jedster, save that I don't really understand why the fact that DC went to Eton makes a difference. Would it be newsworthy if he had been to some minor public school? FWIW, an almost recent PM was a dyed-in-the-wool member of the landed gentry, whose family home is one of the most impressive country estates in the South of England, and who spent some time at Harrow. Didn't seem to impede him.

I don't think it would be relevant if it was just DC that had gone to Eton. But when you have a potential Prime Minister, Chancellor, London Mayor (amongst others) who all went to the same school it starts to look a little like these people aren't necessarily where they are on merit but as a result of a ridiculously privileged background. If (as appears to be the case) we are about to enter a phase (if not a generation) of massive cuts in public spending, I'd rather not entrust that to a bunch of toffs who have no real appreciation of or interest in the effect of those cuts on the average person in the street. The fact that the tories are still pushing that ridiculous change in IHT policy in the midst of all of this just underlines that they will always favour the rich and privileged. To be honest, I think DC himself may be a bit better than that, but I have no doubt that if elected his party would do everything it could to drag the government back to the right.

As for New Labour's ridiculous overspend, clearly not good but lets not forget the state the coutry was in when they took power 13 years ago. Years of massive underinvestment needed to be redressed. The NHS, for example, seems to be in a far better state now - whether we can afford it in the future is debatable though.

DonDaddyD

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

The line from work about Labour's health policy is that its the best one.

Best for who?

Is that an NHS policy or consensus among 'at risk' public sector workers?

Whatever happens spending cuts have to be made. Even before the Election stuff and efficiency savings were touted in budget reports, NHS Trusts were saying that future savings would involve 'redeployment', cutting staff costs and service changes. In fact it was happening just little more covert.

Then the budget reports came in, £billion pound budget NHS savings were annouced and it certainly hit the fan.

This was when I was working in the NHS.

Now working in a Health policy focused position, the stuff Brown is spouting is the same stuff patients, focus groups and some orward thinking NHS leaders are also saying. Changes need to be made in our health services (this extends beyond the NHS) to make them better and this means a shift in how we deliver our services, where they are administered and the number of people employed to do it.

What my job involves, is to help make sure that whatever savings cuts are made (and they will be there is no avoiding it) we also don't further diminish quality (in fact the goal is to try and improve it).

It is in fact really interesting. People get annoyed about hospital closures, service cuts and job losses. (Cameron was talking about A&E closures) Fact is I know of a few A&E closures (service relocated elsewhere) where the end result saved money, reduced waiting time and was all round a better service for all.

With all these cuts in the health sector now is a great time to implement new and ionnovative healthcare services that are cheaper and better. Labour's policies reflect this.

Paul E

I think the £100 Billion is what trident will cost over it's lifetime not just the purchase of the subs and the missles and systems etc etc etc and all Brown did was ride on the wave of a economy on the up and he overheated it to a point where house price rises were not sustainable which was one of the only things propping up the economy, as soon as the housing market went down it brought everything with it.

So much for no more boom and bust and don't get me started on when he sold our countries gold reserves or what he did to peoples pensions....prudent, erm yes okay!!

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

The line from work about Labour's health policy is that its the best one.

Best for who?

Is that an NHS policy or consensus among 'at risk' public sector workers?

Whatever happens spending cuts have to be made. Even before the Election stuff and efficiency savings were touted in budget reports, NHS Trusts were saying that future savings would involve 'redeployment', cutting staff costs and service changes. In fact it was happening just little more covert.

Then the budget reports came in, £billion pound budget NHS savings were annouced and it certainly hit the fan.

This was when I was working in the NHS.

Now working in a Health policy focused position, the stuff Brown is spouting is the same stuff patients, focus groups and some orward thinking NHS leaders are also saying. Changes need to be made in our health services (this extends beyond the NHS) to make them better and this means a shoot in how we deliver our services, where they are administered and the number of people employed to do it.

What my job navigates, is to help make sure that whatever savings cuts are made (and they will be there is no avoiding it) we also don't further diminish quality (in fact the goal is to try and improve it).

It is in fact really interesting. People get annoyed about hospital closures, service cuts and job losses. (Cameron was talking about A&E closures) Fact is I nkow of a few A&E closures (service relocated elsewhere) where the end result saved money, reduced waiting time and was all round a better service for all.

With all these cuts in the health sector now is a great time to implement new and ionnovative healthcare services that are cheaper and better. Labour's policies reflect this.

Second draft read better than the first

I'm inclined to agree with you.

rhext

I usually cast my vote based on which celebrities have sworn to flee the country based on whichever party gets in. Unfortunately none of the b******ds ever keep their promises, but there's always a first time.