UK Election 2010

[Ben.]

Which is a very sad reflection given the appalling way he can conduct himself, especially his crass comments in the wake of the Rhys Jones killing.

Out of interest Dave were you so critical when Blair made his strident intervention following the Jamie Bulger murder “hammer blows against the sleeping conscience of the nation…”?

From what you say it seems that DC should just not say any thing that has the potential to shame or embarrass the current government, nor it seems is he entitled to propose alternative polices to those all ready being pursed by the government without you decrying the former as “low blows” and the later as “lurches to the right”.

If you honestly think that Cameron has been given a “free ride” by the media, then frankly, you’ve been living under a rock for the last six months – Cameron has had a pretty torid time since the grammer school row earlier this year. Meanwhile Brown and Labour enjoyed a media love-in from across the political spectrum that only began to unravel over the last week or so! 

[Rural Radical]

Which is a very sad reflection given the appalling way he can conduct himself, especially his crass comments in the wake of the Rhys Jones killing.

Out of interest Dave were you so critical when Blair made his strident intervention following the Jamie Bulger murder “hammer blows against the sleeping conscience of the nation…”?

From what you say it seems that DC should just not say any thing that has the potential to shame or embarrass the current government, nor it seems is he entitled to propose alternative polices to those all ready being pursed by the government without you decrying the former as “low blows” and the later as “lurches to the right”.

If you honestly think that Cameron has been given a “free ride” by the media, then frankly, you’ve been living under a rock for the last six months – Cameron has had a pretty torid time since the grammer school row earlier this year. Meanwhile Brown and Labour enjoyed a media love-in from across the political spectrum that only began to unravel over the last week or so! 

While Blair was there, Cameron had a free ride with the press.

What has happened to the Liberal Conservative?

[afleitch]

Meanwhile Brown and Labour enjoyed a media love-in from across the political spectrum that only began to unravel over the last week or so! 

Quite - Brown phoning up journo's didn't help Last week the right-wing press who had been very critical of Cameron snapped out of a malaise after hearing Brown's speech and the frightening prospect of an ever consuming statism. Brown placed himself as the centre of the conference from the very start and his speech on the Monday. It was not about Labour, but about Brown.

For the Conservatives it was, suprisingly about the Conservatives and not Cameron. Each day was about someone different discussing party policy; Hague, Osborne, IDS and rounded off with Cameron's speech drawing together everything that been discussed and debated from the main hall to the side shows.

Some people I know think Cameron is a complete twat, but the decision to be made in the years ahead is not about Cameron v Brown, but about Conservative v Labour, Proposals v Record and they know that and will vote accordingly.

For the Tory grassroots it was a great week. For me watching Labour direhards, even socialists in the blogsphere attempting to justify not taxing non-domiciles and not removing stamp duty for first time buyers and above all not critically questioning Brown's direction was rather sad to watch. Our lot may be volatile, but they are not inert.

[afleitch]

What has happened to the Liberal Conservative?

If anything we heard more liberal conservatism from Cameron; on lower taxes for low earners, drug rehab expansion, IDS on poverty etc, as Brown has chosen the path of authoritarian conservatism.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Acting in my role as Official International Elections Board Despot:

It "might" be an idea for everyone to calm down a little bit. Or the thread gets locked for a while; I'd rather this board doesn't go the way of the Congressional Elections board.

Thanks.

[Democratic Hawk]

Which is a very sad reflection given the appalling way he can conduct himself, especially his crass comments in the wake of the Rhys Jones killing.

Out of interest Dave were you so critical when Blair made his strident intervention following the Jamie Bulger murder “hammer blows against the sleeping conscience of the nation…”?

No. Blair was expressing his shock at something so horrid. He was not seeking to score political points on John Major's government. Cameron accused the government of 'being in denial' on gun crime and used this to peddle his scaremongering 'anarchy' nonsense

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've actually given kudos to the Conservative Party for coming up with their policy reviews. What I had a gutfull of, hitherto, was David Cameron thinking from the moment he became leader of the Conservative Party expecting to ride a White Swan all the way to 10 Downing Street on the back of Blair and Labour's 'failings' without offering any alternative.

And yes I do think Cameron has "lurched to the right", which is something I don't consider the least bid 'modern'. He rehabilitated that abomination John Redwood for a start. How ever did more to undermine the Conservative government of John Major? Hell, Conservatives shouldn't even be giving the man houseroom in a decent street. And after weeks of both Cameron and Osborne saying "Economic stability BEFORE tax cuts" what do we get? Tax cuts, most notably, the headline grabbing proposal of increasing the IHT threshold to £1m. Pie in the sky, frankly! I've some very sore misgivings about that one:

1) There is some dispute as to whether the proposed flat rate tax of £25,000 (the fact that it's flat is hardly fair) on non-domiciles will actually offset the full cost of increasing the IHT threshold to £1m

2) I'm not even sure if it's even a good idea to even  be taxing these non-domiciles in the first place. Has Osborne thought in his desparate bid for votes that such has the potential to have a negative impact on the wider economy? Andew Tailby-Faulkes of Ernst & Young said:

"Changes to non-domiciled tax should be carefully thought through before imposing a flat penality. These changes could have an adverse economic impact on the UK . Britain benefits significantly from the businesses, jobs and wealth that these people generate. That could easily be jeopardised."

3) Very few estates actually pay IHT as it is though the way the right wing cheerleaders were spinning it any one would have thought that every single man, woman and child would be liable. Not to mention the Diana Daily having the audacity to call it Gordon Brown's Inheritance Tax . Any one would think that he'd introduced it . Correct me if I'm wrong but, wasn't IHT introduced in its current form back in 1985? I mean remarkable as he is, I don't think Gordon was Chancellor of the Exchequer back then. I'm surprised he isn't getting the blame for it's origins back in the 19th century in those heady days of Labour governments too

4) Now assuming this tax on non-domiciles was not to offset the cost of the IHT "giveaway", who would pick up the tab? Yes you've got it. The vast majority of the population that's who, who have estates valued at less than £300,000, that's who through other taxation. We should they be subsidising the minority who have estates valued above that that but below £1m?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And justly so . Perhaps they thought him a 'fake' or a 'sell-out', I don't know. Since becoming leader of the Conservative Party, Cameron has had it cushy compared to Neil Kinnock who was persecuted relentlessly throughout his whole duration as Labour leader

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's disgusting what's happening in the media now, disgusting. So what? There will be no snap general election. Labour was elected for a third term; not Blair, not Brown. There is automatic precedent that says Brown must call an election, seek his own mandate. Major didn't. Callaghan didn't. Macmillan didn't. Eden didn't. In fact, I think the last one was Stanley Baldwin in 1923

Besides, Cameron should be happy. He's had that successful party conference he was needing , he's eroded Labour's lead in the polls. Mission accomplished!

He didn't want an election, despite all the smug and conceited bravado we have seen coming from him since Brown made his decision. There was always going to be more good reasons against a November election, largely on practical grounds. Why hold an election when there isn't any need to?

In the meantime, I'm happy with Brown and his 'civil' style of politics. Cameron can stay in the 'gutter' for all I care

The bottom-line is that don't trust the Conservatives with 1) the economy and 2) public services given their track record. Not to mention an infrastructure crumbling around our ears

You never know, Ben , I might one day see the Conservative Party in a favourable light but that is going to take them being in government  but I'm not taking any chances on them now. I never once felt socio-economically or occupationally secure during the last Conservative government. Why should I believe 'social justice', which matters profoundly to me, matter to them when many on the Right thought of it contemptuously as a euphemism for socialism?

Labour genuinely changed, it genuinely modernised but I feel that the Conservative Party still has a very long way to go. I dare say the only experienced Conservative I'd be comfortable with as PM is Ken Clarke. I don't like Cameron, personally, as you might have gathered. It's a question of high standards of personal conduct, or lack of it in his case

Dave

Al, I'm only telling it like it is

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Al, I'm only telling it like it is

On a political level I happen to agree with most of what you're saying. Not the point though; I'd rather things not degenerate into a partisan slanging-match.

[Democratic Hawk]

Al, I'm only telling it like it is

On a political level I happen to agree with most of what you're saying. Not the point though; I'd rather things not degenerate into a partisan slanging-match.

Al ,

I was just Friday night coming back from a campaign group meeting telling a colleague that never in my life have I been so-disillusioned with the state of British politics. And believe me, it's some of our own grieving me right now as well

Not a happy bunny

Dave

[afleitch]

I've went over most of this before but as always if I see something I disagree with factually them I'll challenge it
[
i]What I had a gutfull of, hitherto, was David Cameron thinking from the moment he became leader of the Conservative Party expecting to rise a White Swan all the way to 10 Downing Street on the back of Blair and Labour's 'failings' without offering any alternative.[/i]

Is that why we spent the past year undergoing a policy review that reported this summer? Is that why Conservative members were asked before last years conference to vote on Built To Last to allow the policy review to move forward with the endorsment of the party membership? We've spent the past bloody year having a policy review! Lord Forsyth's Tax Reform Commission, which formed the basis of the reforms reported last October (which then formed the basis of John Redwood's report, or rather most of it did as some proposals found their way into the Treasury...) You can disagree with policy, but don't pretend we've magiked them out of a hat or thought we could go to the country without any. People, myself included have put alot of effort into getting issues on the agenda and offering constructive ideas for policy. They've now reported and I'm pleased with the results.

[Democratic Hawk]

I've went over most of this before but as always if I see something I disagree with factually them I'll challenge it
[
i]What I had a gutfull of, hitherto, was David Cameron thinking from the moment he became leader of the Conservative Party expecting to rise a White Swan all the way to 10 Downing Street on the back of Blair and Labour's 'failings' without offering any alternative.[/i]

Is that why we spent the past year undergoing a policy review that reported this summer? Is that why Conservative members were asked before last years conference to vote on Built To Last to allow the policy review to move forward with the endorsment of the party membership? We've spent the past bloody year having a policy review! Lord Forsyth's Tax Reform Commission, which formed the basis of the reforms reported last October (which then formed the basis of John Redwood's report, or rather most of it did as some proposals found their way into the Treasury...) You can disagree with policy, but don't pretend we've magiked them out of a hat or thought we could go to the country without any. People, myself included have put alot of effort into getting issues on the agenda and offering constructive ideas for policy. They've now reported and I'm pleased with the results.

Good

[Adlai Stevenson]

The News of The World/ICM poll showed:

A 44%-38% Conservative lead.  This translated into the loss of 49 Labour MPs, including Home Secretary Jacqui Smith.  The Liberal Democrats were on 12%.  71% of Tories were sure to vote; 59% of Labour voters were sure to vote.  52% of all voters said they were sure to vote. 

[Democratic Hawk]

The News of The World/ICM poll showed:

A 44%-38% Conservative lead.  This translated into the loss of 49 Labour MPs, including Home Secretary Jacqui Smith.  The Liberal Democrats were on 12%.  71% of Tories were sure to vote; 59% of Labour voters were sure to vote.  52% of all voters said they were sure to vote. 

That's the problem. Labour voters are notoriously less energised when it comes to actually voting. I don't know if you were aware but another pollster, Ipsos-MORI, their headline figure is based on those who are "absolutely certain to vote", which has favoured Labour since Brown became leader. Pre-Brown, however, the Conservatives led Labour in the polls more or less ever since Cameron was elected leader in December 2005. However, Ipsos-MORI also ask those interviewed which party they most identify with and I think, invariably, Labour have led on that score and often quite significantly. Only once, if I'm not mistaken, has the Conservatives under Cameron bested Labour on that score

I sometimes wonder if all those who identified as Labour actually voted, would Labour be sure of a landslide every time ?

Another concern I have is that many, what I call, content people don't vote

Dave

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Message from your friendly neighbourhood tyrant; some posts have been deleted, others edited.
If you want to blow some partisan steam off, please go to politicalbetting.com or other such sites.

A set of board rules will be posted shortly has been posted; just to make everything clear.

And no, they aren't all serious.

Thanks

[Harry Hayfield]

The News of The World/ICM poll showed: A 44%-38% Conservative lead.  This translated into the loss of 49 Labour MPs, including Home Secretary Jacqui Smith.  The Liberal Democrats were on 12%.  71% of Tories were sure to vote; 59% of Labour voters were sure to vote.  52% of all voters said they were sure to vote. 

Not quite. The poll showed that in 49 Labour / Conservative marginals and in 34 Conservative / Labour marginals, the vote shares were Con 44%, Lab 38%, Lib Dem 12% and Others 6% (Changes on Notionals 2005: Con +5% Lab -1% Lib Dem -4% Others Unchanged) suggesting a swing in the marginal seats (which is always historically higher than the national average) of 3% from Lab to Con (which would have resulted in the following:

Con GAINS: Gillingham and Rainham, Crawley, York Outer, Romsey and Southampton North, Harlow, Cheltenham, Croydon Central, Portsmouth North, Battersea, Hove, Somerton and Frome, Eastleigh, Westmorland and Lonsdale, Milton Keynes North, Stroud, Dartford, South Basildon and East Thurrock, Ealing Central and Acton, City of Chester, Hereford and South Herefordshire, Colne Valley, Cardiff North, Hastings and Rye, Calder Valley, Stourbridge, Carshalton and Wallington, Milton Keynes South, Corby, Taunton Deane, Vale of Glamorgan, South Swindon, South Dorset, Northampton South, High Peak, Loughborough, Aberconwy, Watford, Birmingham, Edgbaston, Stafford, Broxtowe, Chippenham, Burton, Brighton, Kemptown, Bury North, Redditch, Rugby, Pendle, Wolverhampton South West, Carmarthen West and Pembrokeshire South, South Ribble, South Derbyshire, Bristol North West,
Dumfries and Galloway, Tamworth, Torbay, Sutton and Cheam, North Cornwall, Richmond Park, Cheadle, Portsmouth South Total Gains: 60 (44 from Labour, 16 from Lib Dem)

LAB GAINS: Manchester, Withington, Bristol West (2 from Lib Dem)

Other GAINS: Plaid Cymru GAIN Ceredigion from Lib Dem (1 from Lib Dem)

Forecast House of Commons
Labour 349 - 44 losses + 2 gains = 307 seats (-42 seats)
Conservatives 210 + 60 gains = 270 seats (+60 seats)
Liberal Democrats 62 - 19 losses = 43 seats (-19 seats)
Others 29 + 1 gain = 30 seats (+1 seat)
Labour short of an overall majority by 19 seats
Likely Outcome: Lab + Lib Dem Coalition

In other words, not what Brown wanted at all

[afleitch]

Likely Outcome: Lab + Lib Dem Coalition

In other words, not what Brown wanted at all

Quite. Pencil in a few losses to the SNP on a higher than the national aveage swing. However I would tend to agree with those who believe the Lib Dems would be reluctant to form a coalition with Labour as it would be forming a coalition with an 'outgoing' party. That is to say, the cost of being the coalition partner in a potentially unpopular govt does not outweigh the benefits. (There would be a greater benefit in being the coalition partner of an incoming government; the Tories, from the start if it was a mathematical option) Or, as in Scotland as i've mentioned before, it's the junior party that is the 'fall guy' for the failings of the major party.

[Democratic Hawk]

Try as I might I've actually been unable to ascertain when and where Gordon Brown actually said that there was definitely going to be an Autumn election. I could understand the press dancing all over him should he have said so then went back on that

I could understand people being cynical had Brown called in election during the Labour Party Conference, when Labour was riding high in the polls. I certainly would not have approved of that happening before the Conservatives, rightly, had their conference

But the bottom-line is that there was never any need for a general election so soon after May 2005

My mother got a text message in on Teletext p.326 yesterday and she was straight to the point:

Brown knows he could lose; Cameron knows he can't win. Sighs of relief all round

Never a truer thing said, mother!

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Likely Outcome: Lab + Lib Dem Coalition

Oh God, not that. The Lib Dems would likely push for PR

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't speak for Gordon, just myself

Dave

[Jens]

Likely Outcome: Lab + Lib Dem Coalition

Oh God, not that. The Lib Dems would likely push for PR

I personnally think that this would an extremely positive outcome. The current system where Labour can win a majority with a 1/3 of the votes looks more and more like the old "Rotten Boroughs" problem. (and don't worry, Dave. Minority governments can be quite stable)

[Јas]

Likely Outcome: Lab + Lib Dem Coalition

Oh God, not that. The Lib Dems would likely push for PR

Do the LibDems have a stated preference for which particular form of PR they'd like to see implemented?

[Jens]

Likely Outcome: Lab + Lib Dem Coalition

Oh God, not that. The Lib Dems would likely push for PR

Do the LibDems have a stated preference for which particular form of PR they'd like to see implemented?

According to Wikipedia they want single transferable vote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats#Proportional_representation

[Jens]

Likely Outcome: Lab + Lib Dem Coalition

Oh God, not that. The Lib Dems would likely push for PR

Do the LibDems have a stated preference for which particular form of PR they'd like to see implemented?

According to Wikipedia they want single transferable vote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats#Proportional_representation

I personally think that the German system would work well in a UK context. The conbination of a locally elected candidate while ensuring smaller party representation would make the change in electoral system easier to swallow for the more "conservative" parts of the population (all over the politial spectrum). I'm no sure that the Danish or Dutch systems would be understud (argh, can't spell) in the beginning

[Јas]

Likely Outcome: Lab + Lib Dem Coalition

Oh God, not that. The Lib Dems would likely push for PR

Do the LibDems have a stated preference for which particular form of PR they'd like to see implemented?

According to Wikipedia they want single transferable vote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats#Proportional_representation

Good on them

[afleitch]

I'm more than happy with STV; it maintains constituencies, albeit larger. That way they can be more suited to communities and counties than the current set up. A bit like the new wards in Scotland but on a larger scale. The nightmare scenario is AV on the existing constituencies; it solidifies Labour's presence and leads to a less proportional result for the Conservatives and the smaller parties (Lib Dems too in some areas). As I've said before it would need an approximate 15% lead over Labour for the Tories to gain a majority. FPTP is, by comparison preferable and more proportional.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I personnaly think that the German system would work well in a UK context.

It's been a failure in Wales; regrettably (yes, the Welsh version is less proportional than the German system, but that's not what caused the problems. It's somehow managed to combine the very worst aspects (at least as far as I'm concerned) of fptp and list systems and produced some attitudes towards politics and democracy amongst politicians that are extremely unhealthy. No one understands how it works either; and no one has ever bothered to really explain it properly...)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Likely Outcome: Lab + Lib Dem Coalition

Oh God, not that. The Lib Dems would likely push for PR

Do the LibDems have a stated preference for which particular form of PR they'd like to see implemented?

According to Wikipedia they want single transferable vote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats#Proportional_representation

Good on them

The LibDems support STV because they think that it will benefit them electorally more than any other system and not for principled reasons (o/c similar calculations lie behind the positions that other parties take on electoral systems; Labour stopped supported PR (this was back in the '20's) as soon as the party realised that it had enough support to win a majority under fptp... while the old Liberal Party only discovered electoral reform (in a serious way anyway) after its support started to freefall).
LibDem M.P's are heavily dependent upon personal votes and crossover support; the party's core vote is small and (with some exceptions) quite evenly distributed.