General Election 2010

[Guest alex]

How could anyone vote for that forehead?

Edited May 6, 2010 by alex

[Toonpack 9294]

BTW, I'm getting a sinking feeling that we'll see Cameron stood on the steps of no.10 tomorrow morning...

 

Hope you're right

[BigAl 0]

I voted Lib/Dem living in the Devon East constituency it is a nailed on Tory seat.

[ChezGiven 0]

Not that it will be changing anyone's mind now but this article for me sums everything up nicely.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/20...ral-progressive

 

In 1997, following Tony Blair's first landslide victory, New Labour had an opportunity to remake British politics. It can be hard to recall just how exciting the first 100 days of that government were. Energetic and purposeful, restless for power, the first New Labour administration began a revolutionary transformation of the fractured British state. The Freedom of Information Act, independence for the Bank of England, devolution, the explicit mission to abolish child poverty, the aspiration to have an ethical foreign policy (swiftly renounced): those were heady times.

 

But somewhere along the way, the revolution was postponed. The ideals of New Labour were inevitably compromised by the pragmatism of power. The al-Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington, DC on 11 September 2001 created an international emergency, after which Mr Blair emerged as one of the chief exponents of the global "war on terror", with disastrous consequences for himself and for Britain's place in the world. Mr Blair's wars, notably Iraq, led to many of the Labour Party's core supporters abandoning it in despair. They have never returned.

 

In 1997, Labour had the chance to realign centre-left politics for ever, in alliance with the Liberal Democrats. Central to a common programme would have been constitutional reform, the abolition of the House of Lords and the introduction of proportional representation in order to free us from the tyranny of our two-party system. First-past-the-post, which leaves millions of people - when they can be bothered to cast their vote at all - feeling disenfranchised, is the embodiment of all that has gone wrong with our outdated and dysfunctional model of government.

 

But Labour tribalists scuppered an opportunity for genuine progressive renewal - a reminder that the paladins of reactionary "Labourism" were every bit as committed to the old ways of Westminster and Whitehall as the most traditionalist Tory.

 

Then there is the deeply infantilising way we do politics in this country. The political-media nexus is all-pervasive and our politicians have become ever more robotic, timid and fearful. Gordon Brown's encounter with Gillian Duffy, the pensioner from Rochdale, was significant for many reasons, but most significant of all was how it exposed his terror of media humiliation. He thought the encounter was "disastrous" because, as he said from inside his car, "they would go with that" - "they" being the media. It is this terror that led Labour to court the Murdoch family and then to feel betrayed when Mr Murdoch's British newspapers, as well as Sky television, turned against it. One can only be grateful that we have the BBC.

 

Yet this election, which takes place in the shadow of the first great crisis of globalisation and in the aftermath of the MPs' expenses scandal, presents an opportunity. At every election since 1945, the combined Labour and Liberal/ SDP-Liberal Alliance/Liberal Democrat vote has outstripped that of the Conservatives. However, because of the vagaries of an unfair voting system, this "progressive majority" has never received proper expression in the distribution of seats in the House of Commons. But that might, at last, be about to change. We have argued for some time that a hung parliament - the likelihood of which remains real, despite the modest uptick in the Tories' vote share in the opinion polls since the last leaders' debate - offers the possibility of a realignment of progressive forces in British politics, and with it the political and economic transformation this country so desperately needs.

 

It should be remembered that the constitutional reforms that the Liberal Democrats would rightly demand as a condition of entering into a coalition with Labour are a necessary but not sufficient condition of the kind of thorough-going change we are calling for. A fairer voting system is desirable not only on grounds of fairness, but also because, as international evidence shows, proportional electoral systems tend to be more successful in delivering the egalitarian ends that this magazine has always regarded (and continues to regard) as a sine qua non of social-democratic politics. The past 13 years show how first-past-the-post awards grotes­quely disproportionate influence to middle-class voters in a small number of marginal constituencies, with the result that Labour has consistently tacked rightwards.

 

We saw one consequence of this in the final leaders' debate on the economy, when the Prime Minister was frustratingly unwilling to trumpet Labour's achievements in tackling inequality and social injustice. Wage and income inequalities have risen slightly under Labour since 1997. However, as research by the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics has shown, inequality would have been much worse without Labour's efforts to redistribute income. Indeed, the party's record in government is too easily taken for granted: increased investment in public services, the revival of Britain's cities and the introduction of the minimum wage are just three of a number of notable achievements.

 

We agree with Lord Adonis when he argues that what unites Labour and the Liberal Democrats is more important than what divides them. But, all the same, there remain significant philosophical differences between liberalism and social democracy - on the size of the state, the role of the market and the nature of equality. Indeed, members of the influential Orange Book faction inside the Lib Dems display a classical liberal suspicion of the state, and have flirted with the idea of dismantling the National Health Service and reversing the increase in public spending seen under Labour.

 

It is also the case that the Liberal Democrats, an overwhelmingly white and middle-class party, are less concerned with redistributing wealth to the poorest than Labour. An analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies of the party's tax plans shows that they would favour those on middle, not low, incomes. Only £1bn of the £17bn cost of raising the income-tax threshold to £10,000 would go on taking the lowest earners out of tax. Elsewhere, the Lib Dems have pledged to reduce the deficit through spending cuts alone, a position that puts them to the right of the Conservatives. By contrast, Labour favours a ratio of 67 per cent spending to 33 per cent tax rises, with the Tories opting for a 80:20 split. The age of austerity promised by George Osborne would be even more austere should Vince Cable make it to the Treasury.

 

Mr Brown has struggled as Prime Minister, unable to command the unity of his cabinet and incapable of connecting or communicating successfully with the wider electorate. He has equivocated and dithered. He has raged and apologised. Yet when it mattered most his response to the economic crisis was correct and decisive: the recapitalisation of the banks to prevent systemic collapse and then hyper-Keynesian fiscal and monetary stimulus to prevent recession becoming depression. That will be his legacy, as he acknowledges in his interview with Jason Cowley on page 10.

 

David Cameron's lacklustre campaign deserves to fail. His early positioning was undoubtedly impressive. He spoke a different kind of language from his immediate predecessors: the language of so-called compassionate conservatism. We recognise that he is, as he says, a genuine liberal on a range of social issues, from civil partnerships to race relations.

 

Yet he and his small clique of advisers also cling to a small-government, state-slashing, pro-market, pro-rich neoliberal ideology which is as dangerous as it is discredited. The economic recovery is too fragile to be entrusted to Mr Cameron and his shadow chancellor, George Osborne. They are wedded to immediate and ideological cuts in public spending, in defiance of advice from the IMF and the OECD, among others.

 

In addition, their policy proposals are contradictory and inconsistent. They claim to oppose the "nanny state", but have pledged to use the tax system to bolster marriage. They suspend homophobic candidates at home, but ally with homophobic parties abroad. They proclaim "we are all in this together" while offering an inheritance-tax cut to the richest 3,000 estates in the land. They have spent the past year demanding that the government take action to cut the deficit but have pledged to spend any future "efficiency savings" on cutting National Insurance.

 

Mr Cameron may have appropriated Barack Obama's "Vote for change" slogan, but his party remains committed to preserving the status quo on a host of issues, from electoral reform to financial regulation. For four and a half years, the Tory leader has presented himself to the electorate as the agent of change, claiming to be a "progressive conservative". But behind the spin and the rhetoric, he remains simply a conservative, not a progressive.

 

A tactical vote on Thursday 6 May will help to prevent a Conservative victory. It will also, in this most volatile and unpredictable of elections, be a vote for the genuine change that, in its current state, Labour cannot deliver on its own. Consequently, in constituencies where the Lib Dems stand the best chance of defeating the Conservatives, voters should offer their support to Nick Clegg's party. And in those seats where Labour remains in first or second place, we encourage our readers to cast a positive vote for it. That way lies our best chance of seizing this progressive moment.

[Meenzer 15429]

Got some Tory stuff through the door last night. I only glanced at it but it contained an absolutely blatant lie, showing the results of the last General Election in the form of a bar chart. It showed Labour winning in 2005 with the Tories close behind and the Lib/Dems others miles behind. Since Labour got about 62% of the vote 5 years ago, the Tories would've needed to get about 55-60% with the others getting about 10%. The Tories actually got about 22% (Lib Dems 3rd with about 17%). Surprised they can get away with that sort of thing. Perhaps they're hoping no one will notice.

 

Are you talking about your own constiutency or nationally Alex? According to the BBC, the national 2005 vote share was:

 

Labour: 36.1%

Tory: 33.2%

Lib Dem: 22.6%

Others: 8%

The leaflet was specifically on about the constituency result in 2005, as were the actual figures I mention. I mean, I appreciate there'll be propanganda in these things but it's bit beyond that imo.

 

Aye, the Lib Dems are the masters of playing the "only we can beat X here!" card by using figures from whatever recent election/council seat breakdown suits their argument - but at least they do use the actual figures.

[ChezGiven 0]

Luminous socks!!!

Had to be odd ones as well.

Whatever happened to Terry Toweling?

[trophyshy 7073]

 

 

same old tories

 

he has a face like melted cheese.

[Gemmill 44491]

So in the event of a hung parliament, what is the likelihood of Clegg and GoBro ( ) coming to some sort of arrangement. Cos am I right in thinking that the only alternative to that (assuming Cameron won't agree to Clegg's demands on electoral reform) is a minority Tory govt followed by another election in 6 month or so?

[Meenzer 15429]

I think it could be a minority government for as long as it wants to be, as long as enough opposition MPs are voting in favour of what they're after. So you could end up with, say, the Lib Dems not in an official coalition but agreeing to vote for most of the Tories' plans. Can't really see it surviving for long, though, which is why everyone assumes there'd be another election in that case.

[Guest alex]

Parliament hung like a Chinese mouse.

[Gemmill 44491]

[Christmas Tree 4709]

BTW, I'm getting a sinking feeling that we'll see Cameron stood on the steps of no.10 tomorrow morning...

 

 

Didnt convert you then

[Renton 21392]

Hands up anyone who has been converted by anything on this thread.

[Meenzer 15429]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How did we have election campaigns before the internet?

[Renton 21392]

Fourth one down is my favourite.

[trophyshy 7073]

from the beeb.. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ele...010/8661984.stm

 

I'VE BEEN IN THE PUB AND FEEL DRUNK. CAN I VOTE?

 

Yes. Polling station staff cannot refuse a voter simply because they are drunk or under the influence of drugs. However, if the presiding officer suspects you are incapable of voting you will be asked a series of questions to determine whether you are up to the task of casting your ballot. If the voter cannot answer satisfactorily they will be told to come back when they've sobered up.

 

I'll be voting about 9.55 tonight, hammered.

Edited May 6, 2010 by trophyshy

[peasepud 59]

[Guest Barrack Road]

Fourth one down is my favourite.

I laughed so hard at it I sounded like Bungle off Rainbow for about a good 20 seconds.

[NJS 4375]

However, if the presiding officer suspects you are incapable of voting you will be asked a series of questions to determine whether you are up to the task of casting your ballot

 

Good idea for everyone based on those classic polls where people don't know who the leaders are etc, etc.

[Brock Manson 0]

Even though I don't vote conservative, I'm right pissed off with all these anti-conservative groups on facebook. The latest one is calling for a riot should Cameron be voted in.

 

Pathetic.

[Nyff 0]

Can't believe the Sun. Well, I can...Probably been posted somewhere in the last 70 pages, but it really is an absolute con. Cameron will drop Ofcom, meaning Sky will be able to charge a higher price for Sky Sports again, meaning Murdoch will get bigger profits (which he doesn't even pay tax on, I believe). So of course the Murdoch owned papers are going to put their allegiances with the Tories. I just hope people aren't stupid enough to think that there is any other reason for doing it.

[NJS 4375]

Another thing to look forward to if Cameron does win is his immigration quota being filled before the end of August and watching how they'll engineer a get out clause for footballers.

[Ketsbaia 0]

Even though I don't vote conservative, I'm right pissed off with all these anti-conservative groups on facebook. The latest one is calling for a riot should Cameron be voted in.

 

Pathetic.

 

Tory Governments and riots seem to go hand in hand. May as well get it out of the way early rather than waiting a few years until the full effects of their policies are being felt.

[Guest alex]

Even though I don't vote conservative, I'm right pissed off with all these anti-conservative groups on facebook. The latest one is calling for a riot should Cameron be voted in.

 

Pathetic.

Facebook?

[Park Life 71]

Even though I don't vote conservative, I'm right pissed off with all these anti-conservative groups on facebook. The latest one is calling for a riot should Cameron be voted in.

 

Pathetic.

 

Tory Governments and riots seem to go hand in hand. May as well get it out of the way early rather than waiting a few years until the full effects of their policies are being felt.

 

It's all ganna get fahked up.