UK Election: 6 May 2010

[Spawnie]

Why is it weird that Cameron might have started saying it before Obama?

No weird that, despite prevailing opinion, Cameron hasnt just nicked it from Obama. Ive seen the video clip of him using it as a slogan.

and I could name many major change policies, it is not just the rhetoric. Certainly not "meaningless tat".

Loads of what they say is meaningless tat. In a way, the economic troubles have been a godsend to people interested in this election, because its brought it back to facts and figures (potentially unrelated to reality, but whatever) and away from just personality.

Labour has the socialist belief of big government needing to do everything for the little person.
Conservatives have a belief in individuals being able to do the right thing for themselves better than the government can.

Not really, the conservatives poicies about reducing government are a long step from "small government" or letting individuals do things for themselves.

It may not be 1983 but for the first election in my adult lifetime, the major and serious policy divides (as well as philosophy divides) are there.

Actually, i was nearly set on the tories but then i read their policies on europe.

It always matters, and shock results can happen in any seat. EG Portillo in '97 should not have happened, you'd have thought before hand. His was about as solidly Tory as it could come and still fell.

Obviously ill still vote. But my vote will be pretty meaningless.

How do you know that? Because that's what he's attacked as?

Why can it not be that he is both someone with a priviledged background and a genuinely general nice guy?

He could. But why would someone like that have the interests of the common man in mind? He has no possible way to relate. People like that support class interests in the same way a plumber in East Hull supports Labour (or the BNP). Right?

If Cameron's not genuinely a nice guy, why is the only reason we have to believe he's not is what school he went to? So he went to a fancy school, so what? Where's the reports of him being an arsehole who screams in womens faces, punches his staff, throws Nokia's against the wall, pushes people off chairs etc, etc . . . no wait, that's the current PM who does all that sorry. If Cameron was even a fraction of the arsehole that Brown is, we'd here about that too.

Its almost like youre some kind of card carrying Tory, with your mind made up on the whole thing...

[Dreadnaught]

Fuck David Cameron. He's Tony Blair without the delivery, eloquence or basic personal charm.

Isn't that the case of Gordon Brown?

[Steely Glint]

No, he has his own exciting set of personality disorders.

[Timbuk2]

Its almost like youre some kind of card carrying Tory, with your mind made up on the whole thing...

Spawnie, meet Randy.

[Lor]

My vote will go to the first party that can convince me that they'll -

A) Ensure the pound isn't scrapped for the Euro.
B) Ensure that they can offer a 'Chancellor of the Exchequer' who has both eye brow hair and head hair that match in colour.

As you can see, i won't be voting Labour since they have failed one of those two.

However in all seriousness i have no idea who to vote for. I have literally no enthusiasm for voting, following the election or hearing what they have to say if i'm honest. At the end of the day, i doubt we'll see as much 'Change' as they want us to believe. Plus, none of them have any character to like, they just seem boring so you can't even vote on that! Cameron comes across as one of those Uncle types who try so hard at 'Being Cool' and making sure they do 'The in thing!'. Brown is simply a prick who no one likes and i have no idea who is running for the Lib Dems so he can't be that special.

[CitizenCain]

My vote will go to the first party that can convince me that they'll -

A) Ensure the pound isn't scrapped for the Euro.

Why is that, by the way? You Brits seem to care a lot about that, but I can't figure out why... is it a national pride thing... or something else?

[Timbuk2]

National pride thing, this being an island-nation 'n all.

Spent centuries fighting off all dem barbarian folk, be damned if we're going to use their monopoly money etc blah yadda yawn

Bring on the Euro I say. The sooner we get the royal bint's ugly mug off our monies the better.

[Lor]

Why is that, by the way? You Brits seem to care a lot about that, but I can't figure out why... is it a national pride thing... or something else?

Not a national pride thing for me personally, i couldn't care who's face is on it for that matter either. Although I'd rather like Stephen Fry on it for the novelty! If anything I just don't see the point in changing it, i don't know what it will fix or if their is anything to achieve by doing so period.

[RandBlade]

Watched the first every British debate tonight, thought it quite interesting. Thought Cameron was very subdued, wasn't attacking the other parties - was trying to present himself as Prime Ministerial I think. Personally I'd have liked to see him attack Brown more, but may have been better not to.

Clegg did quite well, but I suspect always had the most to gain, being put on a level footing with the big two party leaders.

Brown was nauseating. The way he kept saying "I agree with Nick" even got Nick Clegg to raise an eyebrow in surprise.

All three were cliched, clearly using lines prepared earlier.

Yeh but who cares about all that crap.

Can Cameron run the country. That is what people are having serious doubts and concerns about.

I hope so, he has some good ideas. Besides, can he do any worse than Labour

I am staggered by the incisive objectivity of your analysis and am interested in subscribing to your news letter.

Fuck David Cameron. He's Tony Blair without the delivery, eloquence or basic personal charm.

Because its so much intellectually better to stand for nothing at all and just abuse everyone isn't it

So you don't like anyone. That doesn't make you more morally correct.

No weird that, despite prevailing opinion, Cameron hasnt just nicked it from Obama. Ive seen the video clip of him using it as a slogan.

Errr, that was the point. He's been using it as a slogan since before Obama, so why shouldn't he?

Loads of what they say is meaningless tat. In a way, the economic troubles have been a godsend to people interested in this election, because its brought it back to facts and figures (potentially unrelated to reality, but whatever) and away from just personality.

Agreed. I actually think it has made them come up with a lot more policies than they would have otherwise.

Not really, the conservatives poicies about reducing government are a long step from "small government" or letting individuals do things for themselves.

Oh yes, there's much further to go. A start in the right direction though?

Actually, i was nearly set on the tories but then i read their policies on europe.

What policy do you object to? Its not exactly a major issue

He could. But why would someone like that have the interests of the common man in mind? He has no possible way to relate. People like that support class interests in the same way a plumber in East Hull supports Labour (or the BNP). Right?

Why not? People from that background can support any philosophy and any party. Ever heard of a 'champagne socialist'? His cousin is a Labour cabinet minister!

Its almost like youre some kind of card carrying Tory, with your mind made up on the whole thing...

I may be a Tory, but I keep an open mind. Back in 2005 I said how I detested Howard's leadership, detested the "Are you thinking what we're thinking?" election campaign and had a big argument with Loki over my saying that despite being a Tory and going to vote Tory, I thought we deserved to lose and would not object to that. I also despised IDS even more and likely would not have even voted Tory in 2005 had he still been leader. In 2001 I voted Labour, while still considering myself then a Tory. Again, I disliked Hague as leader.

Cameron is our first leader since I became an adult that I've liked. I voted for Cameron in 2005 at the leadership election, had he lost the leadership election I'd still vote Conservative come-what-may as Brown has to go, but I doubt I'd have the enthusiasm at all.

[Spawnie]

Watched the first every British debate tonight, thought it quite interesting. Thought Cameron was very subdued, wasn't attacking the other parties - was trying to present himself as Prime Ministerial I think. Personally I'd have liked to see him attack Brown more, but may have been better not to.

Clegg did quite well, but I suspect always had the most to gain, being put on a level footing with the big two party leaders.

Agree with this. Everyone is up Cleggs arse about tonight but really he had it easy. Neither of the other two were going to waste much time tearing him apart because his nice sounding policies will never have to be trialled in reality. The other two parties dont have that luxury. Reality is messy. Also Cameron got him on the one thing to do with fact that was touched on - whether the Lib Dems have paid back that £2mil donated.

Cameron was very very subdued. I think him being stuck in the middle didnt help at all, with a lot of action happening on either side. I also think he didnt want to make a misstep. Might also have thrown himself by saying "a black man" in pretty much his first sentance. I think as well he was determined to answer every one of Browns points with the (valid) "youve had 13 years to change this".

Brown was nauseating. The way he kept saying "I agree with Nick" even got Nick Clegg to raise an eyebrow in surprise.

I didnt think Brown was too bad. Hes just a very very bad public speaker. Terrible at capitalising on his strong points, terrible at attacking others. He was famous as a chancellor for his super-boring speeches. He did at least try. Came across a bit more human. He was much more "prime ministerial" as well. He was taking no shit from the moderator.

Errr, that was the point. He's been using it as a slogan since before Obama, so why shouldn't he?

Yes. That was the point. I dont think you are reading what im saying. I was saying its weird because everyone thinks he stole it. He did not. Ive seen the (pre-obama) video of him using it as a slogan.

What policy do you object to? Its not exactly a major issue

Im pretty pro-europe. I think its the way forward. Id consider it a bad thing for us to draw back from europe, as the tories want.

Actually, ive been trying to understand the issues to do with the euro recently. Was going to tap you and hazir up for any decent sources to back up your respective position. Have anything to offer me?

[RandBlade]

Yes. That was the point. I dont think you are reading what im saying. I was saying its weird because everyone thinks he stole it. He did not. Ive seen the (pre-obama) video of him using it as a slogan.

Ah, I understand.

Sorry I thought you were saying he'd nicked it, didn't realise you were saying the opposite. Yeah I agree with you.

Im pretty pro-europe. I think its the way forward. Id consider it a bad thing for us to draw back from europe, as the tories want.

I don't think the Tories really have policies to pull back though. A very vague policy to try and return some policies from Brussels back to national parliaments if it can be agreed with everyone (which it won't, so will never happen) - and a pledge to have a referendum on future transfers of powers to Brussels. Certainly nothing major about pulling out or back that I know of.

Actually, ive been trying to understand the issues to do with the euro recently. Was going to tap you and hazir up for any decent sources to back up your respective position. Have anything to offer me?

Hmm, depends what you're curious about. It was actually the subject of my Economics dissertation at uni. However that was back in 2003 when it was an issue: I'd have to say (and I think Hazir would agree) that British membership of the Euro is a non-issue now. It frankly is not going to happen. Nothing in the next decade is likely to make it an issue either, no parties are (any more) seriously proposing we join.

The boat has sailed essentially. Even the Lib-Dems, the most pro-Europe of all parties, say they can foresee no situation where Britain would join the Euro in the lifetime of the next Parliament.

The only party for whom Europe is a real issue, are those extreme nutjobs of UKIP. Not that I think they'd suit you . Or anyone more sensible than Robert Kilroy-Silk.

[CitizenCain]

Im pretty pro-europe.

I find it hard to see why.... the last decent thing to come out of Europe was the Mayflower.

[Spawnie]

Titanic

[DecoyMilk]

Rand, are you deluded? Cameron pretty much just stood there gurning for 90 minutes. I cannot recall one good thing he said. All he could do was list of a bunch of anecdotes. 'i met a black man' 'i met a woman who's couch was set on fire' 'I met a black, disabled, woman who is an illegal immigrant and sells her body for 20 quid a pop'

Like Spawnie said, he's a poor mans tony Blair. If I were you, I'd rewatch that debate, and instead of going all starry eyed and resisting the urge to furiously masturbate while your bessie mate 'Dave' spoke, actually listen to him. He's a bloody idiot.

Clegg did well because it was quite easy for him to say look at us! We're the lib dems! We've never made a mistake before because we've never been in power before! I do agree with him about the nuclear thing though.

And Brown was, not as big an idiot as I thought he was. I still won't be voting for him though.

[Timbuk2]

Didn't see the debate but various media this morning are saying Clegg "won" the debate, though with the addon that he didn't have much to lose either. It's reckoned he'll be given a harder time in next week's debate.

Thinking more and more that I can't bring myself to vote for either of the two main nitwits so will go Lib Dem. It's my default voting position anyway.

~

The new lady in my life is a Tory. Worse, a Scottish one at that.

[RandBlade]

Rand, are you deluded? Cameron pretty much just stood there gurning for 90 minutes. I cannot recall one good thing he said. All he could do was list of a bunch of anecdotes. 'i met a black man' 'i met a woman who's couch was set on fire' 'I met a black, disabled, woman who is an illegal immigrant and sells her body for 20 quid a pop'

While obviously you're exagerating with the last quote, all 3 used anecdotes. I also said that I thought he stood back in the debate, resisting the urge to go on the attack. Very different to a regular PMQs.

Like Spawnie said, he's a poor mans tony Blair. If I were you, I'd rewatch that debate, and instead of going all starry eyed and resisting the urge to furiously masturbate while your bessie mate 'Dave' spoke, actually listen to him. He's a bloody idiot.

If you think any political leader is an "idiot" then you're a fool.

Clegg did well because it was quite easy for him to say look at us! We're the lib dems! We've never made a mistake before because we've never been in power before!

Indeed, it's not difficult being populist when you have no real history to compare to, or much scrutiny over yourself as you're not actually going to take power.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if one real voting intention poll puts the LDs in second place now. An ITV/ComRes poll puts Con 36, LD 35, Lab 24 (!) - but that was a poll taken minutes after the show ended and only of people watching it and has not been politically weighted like a normal poll, so quite unrepresentative.

[Steely Glint]

Because its so much intellectually better to stand for nothing at all and just abuse everyone isn't it

I do enjoy the way you seem unable to comprehend anyone having significant issues with the platform of all three major political parties and therefor having reservations about all of them and therefore see this as "not standing for anything".

So you don't like anyone. That doesn't make you more morally correct.

No, what I dislike is mediocrity.

[RandBlade]

I do enjoy the way you seem unable to comprehend anyone having significant issues with the platform of all three major political parties and therefor having reservations about all of them and therefore see this as "not standing for anything".

I can comprehend. But there are plenty of people who are of the "pox on all your houses" mentality, it was you criticising me for actually being someone who takes a stand and says what and who he believes in, criticising me for only seeing absolutes etc . . . that is what I was responding to.

No, what I dislike is mediocrity.

We don't live in an ideal world.

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

It was nice to see tonight a poll that had Labour in third place. I'd love to see Labour go from government to third place, it'd be like seeing Man Utd relegated. But I think its a shame that given a level platform at a debate Clegg's party is getting such a boost from him simply saying "we're not you".

[Steely Glint]

I was criticizing you for your blatantly biased and dishonest (as well as painfully simplistic) characterization of the two parties and their philosophies.

We don't live in an ideal world.

That's for damn sure.

[RandBlade]

It was simplistic yes, but not dishonest. Which part was dishonest? Or wrong for that matter? Most summaries tend to be simplistic by definition.

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

It was nice to see tonight a poll that had Labour in third place. YouGov/The Sun has the parties at (changes from YouGov/The Sun yesterday pre-debate): Conservative 33% (-4), Labour 28% (-3), Lib Dem 28% (+8!)

I'd love to see Labour go from government to third place, it'd be like seeing Man Utd relegated. But I think its a shame that given a level platform at a debate Clegg's party is getting such a boost from him simply saying "we're not you". Interestingly, Clegg visited my home town of Warrington today, the first place he's visited since the debate. I'm not sure why, we have two constituencies. I live in Warrington North, a safe red Labour seat. Labour won over 50% of the vote last time and short of Labour really being eliminated down to third party status, this seat will not change hands.

Warrington South is a bellweather seat. Gone with the election winner since it was created in the 80s, but not a close marginal, its about target 100 for the Tories. IE 'need to win' to get a majority, but well what's needed to get largest party. Should go blue on current polling. It could theoretically go yellow, but the chances are very slim. Its not exactly a three-way marginal, the factors that would need to combine to have that seat turn would mean tons of others would have first too - we'd be having a very, very hung Parliament.

Perhaps that was the point of going here after last night? Being ambitious.

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

Strangely enough, tonights poll which puts Labour on a distant third, would on a Uniform National Swing actually place them as the largest party and election winners at 28%! Though I think UNS simply wouldn't work at such a paradigm shift.

[Steely Glint]

It was simplistic yes, but not dishonest. Which part was dishonest? Or wrong for that matter? Most summaries tend to be simplistic by definition.

Right, you know the part where you used words? That bit. Actually, I pretty much any argument which relies on the use of the phrase "big government" can be automatically dismissed.

I'd love to see Labour go from government to third place, it'd be like seeing Man Utd relegated.

Be careful what you wish for. Think what would happen if Labour went into third place. I do believe that the only thing that keeps the parties sane is the idea that they might actually win an election one day, and therefore there's an incentive to have a) workable policies which appeal to a significant number of non-lunatics. Without the prospect of major electoral success the order of the day becomes whatever the people passionate enough to actually get involved with a party without the prospect of power, which means moonbat land. Labour in third place would be like the Lib-Dems now, but with none of the lib-dem advantages, plus the millstone of their Trade Union association you have a recipe for a party sinking into obscurity pretty quickly. I mean, as a left winger in this country there's pretty much no good reason to vote for Labour on principle, only the fact that they've got a better chance of winning that the LDs. If labour go to third place, they'll go all the way to third place.

And that means that the left leaning vote in this country is no longer split between two parties, which I'd say is bad news for the Tories.

[RandBlade]

Right, you know the part where you used words? That bit. Actually, I pretty much any argument which relies on the use of the phrase "big government" can be automatically dismissed.

Seriously? You seriously don't think its honest to believe that Labour believes in bigger government than the Conservatives?

Be careful what you wish for. Think what would happen if Labour went into third place. I do believe that the only thing that keeps the parties sane is the idea that they might actually win an election one day, and therefore there's an incentive to have a) workable policies which appeal to a significant number of non-lunatics. Without the prospect of major electoral success the order of the day becomes whatever the people passionate enough to actually get involved with a party without the prospect of power, which means moonbat land. Labour in third place would be like the Lib-Dems now, but with none of the lib-dem advantages, plus the millstone of their Trade Union association you have a recipe for a party sinking into obscurity pretty quickly. I mean, as a left winger in this country there's pretty much no good reason to vote for Labour on principle, only the fact that they've got a better chance of winning that the LDs. If labour go to third place, they'll go all the way to third place.

And that means that the left leaning vote in this country is no longer split between two parties, which I'd say is bad news for the Tories.

I wouldn't disagree with any of that.

But I don't believe in the Tories for the sake of the Tories, but for the country. I'm realistic, I know the Conservatives could never win every election - nor would I want them to. That way lies sterility, corruption and lazyness. I would however prefer to see the left in government be the Lib-Dems, rather than Labour. To see the government not held to ransom by union paymasters would be a blessing for the nation, not a curse. Even if it meant the Conservatives losing more elections, if it meant we lost to the likes of Clegg rather than the likes of Brown so be it.

Labour in opposition even in second place is likely to go the way you suggested anyway. Unite are stacking their members into the safe seats anyway, "New" Labour is dying.

[Steely Glint]

Seriously? You seriously don't think its honest to believe that Labour believes in bigger government than the Conservatives?

Ends/means confusion.

[RandBlade]

????

Whether they believe in it as the ends, or they believe in it as the means - its the same thing; they believe in it.

[Unheard Of]

I hope so, he has some good ideas. Besides, can he do any worse than Labour

Yes, easily.

Because its so much intellectually better to stand for nothing at all and just abuse everyone isn't it

It's certainly more fun, and since none of them are particularly convincing you may as well dole out the abuse.

[RandBlade]

Yes, easily.

Brown has created the worst economic mess in this country since 1931, the UK had the longest recession in the G20, was the last country of the G20 to come out of the recession and Gordon has ensured we now have the worst budget deficit in the G20.

If Brown gets back in, it will be a matter of time before we go begging for IMF support. Possibly this year.

[Hazir]

Brown has created the worst economic mess in this country since 1931, the UK had the longest recession in the G20, was the last country of the G20 to come out of the recession and Gordon has ensured we now have the worst budget deficit in the G20.

If Brown gets back in, it will be a matter of time before we go begging for IMF support. Possibly this year.

Is this the same Randblade who in the eurodebates defended british economic and monetary policies ? I really don't seem to remember you hated Brown this much untill the crisis hit your bubble economy.

By the way I don't think the euro will never not be an issue in British politics, hoping that it isn't is very much a Conservative dream because that party has proven itself able to to tear itself apart over Europe.

[RandBlade]

When was the last time we had a great eurodebate? Yes, I didn't hate Brown in 2001, but that then it wasn't until after that which he really started mismanaging the economy. For the first couple of years, when he followed Ken Clarkes plans, he actually did a good job. Following Tory plans, giving independence to the BOE - I used to actually like Brown. That turned around years ago though. For the first few years taxes didn't go up very much and the government was running a surplus, following Clarke's plans. Over recent and not-so-recent years it was a case of every year increasing taxes and a ballooning budget deficit. I've been saying for years that running such large deficits during a boom was a bad idea as when it became a bust we'd have problems. But of course Brown was claiming to have "eliminated Tory boom and bust" which I always said was economically impossible.

[Dreadnaught]

Here's how the Amerikan papers describe all of this: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ott_ready.html

[Unheard Of]

Brown has created the worst economic mess in this country since 1931, the UK had the longest recession in the G20, was the last country of the G20 to come out of the recession and Gordon has ensured we now have the worst budget deficit in the G20.

Yes, he really should have acted to curb the excesses of the banks a long time ago. It's about time we got back to actually producing stuff, rather than the childish 'money for nothing' obsession of the rentier and the stock market gambler.

If Brown gets back in, it will be a matter of time before we go begging for IMF support. Possibly this year.

I'm mystified that anyone could see the Tories as the cure to a crisis caused by greed and weak regulation. Presumably you deal with a scald by boiling a pan of water and shoving your face in.