UK Election Tracking Thread

Sulkdodds

Sulkdodds

Companion Cube
Joined
Jul 3, 2003
Messages
18,845
Reaction score
27
The purpose of this thread is to allow British citizens (and others who might take an interest) to discuss among themselves, with relation to a hypothetical forthcoming General Election, the implications and effects of political events even as they happen. Any news and views posted here will come with the invisible but apparent question: so what would this mean if Brown called a general election this year?
 
To begin: Glasgow By-election

Here's an article I've picked not because I think it's all that great (although I, like David Cameron, am a fan of Polly Toynbee) but because I read it in the Guardian this morning. In fact I find its optimism about Labour's future pretty ridiculous, though I suppose she must be respected for not taking it lying down.

That was a cardiac arrest in Labour heartlands. Glasgow East is so deep-dyed in Labour history that there are no excuses, with an ideal candidate and voters who might be proud of their Scottish prime minister. What has Labour done for a place like this? Unemployed claimants have been halved; hundreds more have left incapacity benefit to take jobs; of 11 new schools, five are rated "excellent"; apprenticeships have soared, and tax credits make a vast difference to people's lives.

Is that enough? Of course not. Anyone looking at Glasgow's East End knows it will take a generation or more of hard investment to make progress. If Cameron wins the next election, poverty will deepen, as he warned Glaswegians to their face when he said that the poor have only themselves to blame: if only they knew right from wrong they would not be in this plight. Yet still Labour couldn't win. No party has ever come back from a grave as deep as Labour's.

"Ungrateful buggers don't know what we've done for them," a Labour minister harrumphed after canvassing all day. Quite so, because Labour has utterly failed - on purpose - to say whose side it's on or what it believes, so the message never reached every corner of every place that stands to benefit. Now Labour has spent a decade ducking political definition, so even its own people no longer recognise the party as theirs. Without fighting excess at the top, without bold political symbolism, Labour doesn't get any credit for what it has done so invisibly.

Two hundred Labour stalwarts gathered at the national policy forum yesterday after the shock of the byelection. They were briefed that Gordon Brown would have no text, and would walk and talk hands free; he needed to show that he can in extremis speak human and express feelings to an audience willing him to be the leader they yearn for. A loyal audience gave a dutiful ovation, but it was a dismally mechanical performance. If this was Gordon does Dave, the comparison was excruciating.

He could do it without notes because it was an autopilot compilation of the dullest parts of every speech he has made, mantra after clunking mantra, pacing up and down to the same old tropes. With oil and food prices rising by the day, his party in ruins, his future in jeopardy and the country about to fall to the Tories, out came the same old figures: a hundred new airports in China, a million new cars in India, globalisation, environmental technology, the manufacture of iPods. In time of economic meltdown, his boast that world-beating "Britain can be the best in the global economy" sounds not aspirational but delusional. Toe-curling homilies to "hard-working families" are as tin-eared as his politics-light paeans to "opportunity". He bypassed the by-election as if it simply hadn't happened.

Naturally, all Labour ministers hastened yesterday to say what losing politicians must - they will now "listen and learn". But learn what, exactly? How much louder need voters shout before ministers get the message? Only 24 Labour MPs would survive a swing like Glasgow East's, only two cabinet ministers. It probably wouldn't be that bad - but the party faces an obliteration from which it might never return. Ahead lie years of Conservative government.

The battle has begun for the soul of the party after defeat. The marketising wing of Milburn, Purnell and Hutton in their Progress magazine push for more extreme Blairism - as if it hadn't just failed. (Milburn even wants to take the Sure Start money to give out as childcare vouchers to all - from poorer to richer.) They tar anything that smacks of social democracy as a "return to the 1970s".

The tattered remnants of the party might not be worth fighting over - but fight they all will, and this weekend's national policy forum is only a foretaste. The multitude of radical proposals from the unions look deadlocked at the time of writing. It's the misguided legacy of the New Labour years that it cannot be seen to give in to unions who foot 90% of Labour's bills, even when some of their proposals are exactly what Labour should do. Any leader must reject secondary picketing - that totem of the 1970s - but the trap Brown has set himself obliges him to reject almost everything they propose.

The voters of Glasgow East have propelled forward the chance of a move against Brown. Given how widely and semi-openly his removal is discussed among a string of cabinet ministers, it looks more likely than not.

Here's their scenario: in early September Jack Straw, with authority as Brown's campaign manager, rallies together at least 10 cabinet members to tell him they will resign immediately unless he goes gracefully, and at once. However much some allies urge Brown to stay for fear of worse disaster, he could not survive a mass resignation and would go. An orderly leadership election would follow, the two views of the future fighting it out. The Blairite extremists would be seen off and either Alan Johnson or David Miliband would come through - whoever emerged as the stronger in open contest. Both would fight on a more radical agenda to win the party vote, and a general election would follow within months.

But never underestimate the weak will to live of this limp party. Spinelessness vies with nihilistic despair, mindless managerialism competes with fear of a total implosion. Jousting for position, none may want to follow another's lead. Some will say the public would never forgive such frivolity in mid-recession, while others counter that it is recession that makes a new leader essential: Brown of the golden rule, the 10p tax-band abolition and "no return to Tory boom and bust" can't make the necessary U-turns. So, agonising and indecisive, the party may stagger on for 22 months to its inevitable perdition.

There is no point in changing leader without changin g direction. It seems hardly worth the effort of a second defenestration just to select a better presenter of equally pallid politics. So far it's hard to detect clarity of purpose in any of the likely assassins - so it's time the serious contenders spoke out. Why not start with that windfall of the oil companies' extra profits, using that ?10bn to ease the pain of those on the lowest incomes? Let's see who dares support the bolder resolutions for the manifesto in Warwick this weekend, to put some fight back into Labour.
Click to expand...

What does it mean? What happens next? IS THIS THE END?
Discuss.
 
England will go Tory, Scotland will go SNP, labour is ****ed.
 
I wish the Lib Dems would get in.

That'd give them all a rude awakening.
 
Liberal democrats should rename themselves social democrats they are more left wing than labour.


It would be bad for labour if Brown went because all the alternatives to brown in the labour party are worse.
 
I don't know if that's possible. Brown has been useless.
 
I will be so glad when labour is gone.

Mind you, the tories may not be any better. It seems virtually all of the parties are just awful...I don't know who to vote for. Proboaly LibDems, but I come from a traditionally conservative area anyway, so...I dunno.
 
Britain's become stuck fast in the trap in which many democracies seem to get stuck - that is, where the only thing directing your vote is the desire to vote in the prospect which is 'least worst'.

Here's the quandary - New Labour are shocking. They absolutely should, and almost certainly will, lose the next election, if only to show politicians that there are consequences for having blatant contempt for the electorate as Labour have had. The Tories will assume control, but then because Labour occupy essentially the same right-inclined ground as the Tories do nowadays, we'll be replacing our shitty government with another which will probably act very similarly.

The Lib Dems certainly seem least worst, but the fact that they don't have much clout and they don't have a hope of getting into power in the near future complicates things.

If you vote for Labour you're wilfully perpetuating the current godawful state of affairs. If you vote for the Conservatives you're holding Labour to account, but only by electing a party that promises to be more of the same. If you vote for the Lib Dems you're at least using your vote as you should - to say that you want a change - but you're potentially decreasing the Tory vote which increases the (admittedly small) chance that Labour will win, and so risks sending the very damaging message to politicians that they can govern the country abysmally and count on being re-elected.

I'd probably vote for the Tories because at least they're now committed to repealing 40 Days and the ID card bill. Any deviation over that, or any other significant failing, should see them booted out pretty quickly since cynicism over the Tories is still at very high levels, despite their good chances; they at least will be under close enough scrutiny that holding them to account should be easy.
 
Aren't all three parties fairly similar, what makes the Lib Dems much different from the others?
 
Power corrupts. They haven't been in power. They are uncorrupted. Simple :p
 
Mr Stabby said:
Liberal democrats should rename themselves social democrats they are more left wing than labour.


It would be bad for labour if Brown went because all the alternatives to brown in the labour party are worse.
Click to expand...

Really? I think Jack Straw seems as honest a politician as there can be and he seems pretty down to earth. However, I fail to understand why he is defending Brown when he is quite clearly as useful as... well... a useless prime minister. A chocolate teapot would REALLY do a better job of running the country. :p

Never the less, although I've supported Labour for many years (secretly wishing for the Liberal Democrats to oust everybody else from power ;) ) I find the recent government to be unbearable. I truly don't know who are viable candidates for the position anymore. I don't know where I will place my vote, but I will likely vote for the lesser of many evils. Who I believe are the LDs.
 
I think it's ridiculous that the prime minister can decide when the elections are held. That way he can just hold them when he's popular at the moment and extend his mandate for another five year. They should come at an regularly interval, that doesn't favour any of the sides.
 
The only one of the major 3 parties to actually stand a candidate in my constituency are the Conservatives and the don't stand much of a chance at the seat. I don't think the FPTP constituency system is a particularly good idea.
 
The Monkey said:
I think it's ridiculous that the prime minister can decide when the elections are held. That way he can just hold them when he's popular at the moment and extend his mandate for another five year. They should come at an regularly interval, that doesn't favour any of the sides.
Click to expand...

The downside of scheduled elections is you get the lame duck leader effect, like what's happening with George Bush right now.
 
The main problem is who to vote for, the Tories seem to give you everything you want without telling you how they plan to do it, more money for the NHS , more prisons , more schools , how the **** can they afford all that. They claim to be able to afford all that while reducing taxes.

David Cameron is a smooth talker i give him that, but he just seems to jump on what ever issue is in the media.
I couldn't help but laugh when he said that anyone carrying a knife should be jailed, where exactly are you going to put them Cameron? our jails are full! we are letting Pedos and Rapists out early due to that.

Labour are just a shadow of themselves from when they won the election back in 1999, and i never thought i would actually miss Blair. They are arrogant and hypocrites now. I hate it when Brown says motorists are suffering while increasing Fuel Duty and road tax. Labour are overtaxing us and not giving value for those taxes, spending over ?10,000 on PS3s and 360s for prisoners and shelling billions in a dead end war.
One of the points Brown made when he became Prime Minister was to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq, distancing himself from America and not being Bush's bitch like Blair. Then what happens we get Brown going around in Bush's Golf Kart like an idiot and sending yet more troops into Afghanistan because America said so.
Labour priority are just wrong, we want more police on the streets not more CCTV and ID cards.

I'll just not bother voting this time, as i don't want either of them and there is no point in wasting my time voting Lib Dem they are never getting into Government.
 
PimpinPenguin said:
I'll just not bother voting this time, as i don't want either of them and there is no point in wasting my time voting Lib Dem they are never getting into Government.
Click to expand...

Thinking like that is the reason they haven't.
 
Eejit said:
Thinking like that is the reason they haven't.
Click to expand...

It's not really. I much as load of us do what change, there are to many out there who will only Vote Labour or Conservative. When you look at opinion polls and local results the Lib Dems are always way behind. We are stuck in a 2 party system only Labour and Conservative have any chance of getting into Government.
 
There's always a chance LibDems could get enough seats to prevent either party from getting the required majority for a government, so they have to form a coalition.
 
I have a question about this: Would it be really bad if an election was called in such an unstable time as now? Or could it be good?

Seems to me like although things aren't so good, maybe G. Brown and the government is actually doing a good job at stabilising our economy with lots of behind-the-scenes management?

Are we on a financial knife edge, and would the chaos of changing political parties upset things catastrophically?

I suppose that we changed prime minister halfway through ww2 - how did that work out (was it good that we changed)? Were Churchill and Chamberlain in the same party?

I don't know, that's why I'm asking.
 
The governments current plan to be able to keeping spending large amounts of money during a recession is to borrow it, putting Britain further into debt. Basically the same plan as America has been following for the last 8 years.
 
Dinkleberry said:
I have a question about this: Would it be really bad if an election was called in such an unstable time as now? Or could it be good?

Seems to me like although things aren't so good, maybe G. Brown and the government is actually doing a good job at stabilising our economy with lots of behind-the-scenes management?

Are we on a financial knife edge, and would the chaos of changing political parties upset things catastrophically?

I suppose that we changed prime minister halfway through ww2 - how did that work out (was it good that we changed)? Were Churchill and Chamberlain in the same party?

I don't know, that's why I'm asking.
Click to expand...

Our economy is ****ed up and is getting worse. For years we have been borrowing heavily and we are really in debt now. Darling recently gave a ?120 million tax break to cover up for the 10p tax fiasco, the only problem is that he is borrowing that 120 million when our economy is at it's most vulnerable. The Governments plan is to chuck millions of tax payers money into the economy to restore confidence. The only problem is that Banks are not buying it and there is nothing the Government can do. The issues that are really affecting the economy, rising fuel costs and foods prices could be solved by the Government. But they won't, they allow Electricity and Gas company to overcharge us, and they continue overtaxing fuel, raising food costs.
As for changing Prime minister during WW2, yes it was a great thing. Chamberlain allowed Hitler to get away with way to much and thought that a piece of paper would stop war. They both were in the Conservative party.
 
A big problem is also the public would go ape shit if the government cut spending, and the best way to help the economy would be to cut spending, stop borrowing and cut taxes.
 
Vote for the black dude!

edit: Doh, I forgot, you English don't even have black people
 
I agree with Stabby that the electoral system has serious problems.

Laivasse said:
I'd probably vote for the Tories because at least they're now committed to repealing 40 Days and the ID card bill. Any deviation over that, or any other significant failing, should see them booted out pretty quickly since cynicism over the Tories is still at very high levels, despite their good chances; they at least will be under close enough scrutiny that holding them to account should be easy.
Click to expand...
I generall agree with your analysis, but this bit just floored me. I'm sure you're aware of how horrifying it is that you are planning to vote for a political party that - well, you know its history, and its tendencies - simply because it promises to repeal two disasterous, idiotic and actually evil policies that we shouldn't have ever been committed to in the first place.

What an absolutely awful situation.
 
PimpinPenguin said:
Our economy is ****ed up and is getting worse. For years we have been borrowing heavily and we are really in debt now. Darling recently gave a ?120 million tax break to cover up for the 10p tax fiasco, the only problem is that he is borrowing that 120 million when our economy is at it's most vulnerable. The Governments plan is to chuck millions of tax payers money into the economy to restore confidence. The only problem is that Banks are not buying it and there is nothing the Government can do. The issues that are really affecting the economy, rising fuel costs and foods prices could be solved by the Government. But they won't, they allow Electricity and Gas company to overcharge us, and they continue overtaxing fuel, raising food costs.
As for changing Prime minister during WW2, yes it was a great thing. Chamberlain allowed Hitler to get away with way to much and thought that a piece of paper would stop war. They both were in the Conservative party.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh, cheers :)
 
Sulkdodds said:
I agree with Stabby that the electoral system has serious problems.

I generall agree with your analysis, but this bit just floored me. I'm sure you're aware of how horrifying it is that you are planning to vote for a political party that - well, you know its history, and its tendencies - simply because it promises to repeal two disasterous, idiotic and actually evil policies that we shouldn't have ever been committed to in the first place.

What an absolutely awful situation.
Click to expand...

Conservatism, socialism and liberalism don't really exist in British politics anymore, everyone is fighting over a very narrow bit of centre ground, so I wouldn't expect Cameroon and the Tories to be radically different from Tony Blair, Lib Dems will be similar too.

I'd say competence is more important than ideology now, since none of the major parties have distinct ideologies.
 
Boris Johnson for PM! Everything else will just fall into place.
 
No wai! Stephen Fry for PM!

Johnson can be deputy PM though.
 
Yeah OK. And Clarkson for Assistant Deputy PM.
 
Nono,

1. Stephen Fry would scare him by being a homosexual in a position of power
2. Johnson would confuse him by, well, being himself
 
Rowan Atkinson for PM, the entire cabinet should be from the cast of Blackadder.
 
Sulkdodds said:
I agree with Stabby that the electoral system has serious problems.

I generall agree with your analysis, but this bit just floored me. I'm sure you're aware of how horrifying it is that you are planning to vote for a political party that - well, you know its history, and its tendencies - simply because it promises to repeal two disasterous, idiotic and actually evil policies that we shouldn't have ever been committed to in the first place.

What an absolutely awful situation.
Click to expand...
Yeah, trust me it's not like it leaves a good taste in my mouth to say I'd vote for Cameron, that slick scrotum-on-legs who postures as a champion of civil liberties one second and then accidentally lets slip an ultra-authoritarian soundbite the next.

The biggest issue for me is the matter of civil liberty vs. growing authoritarianism. What directs my vote is that I honestly believe the climate of cynicism in Britain has come to mean that politicians aren't even remotely driven by ideology any more. Policy appears to be created more on the basis of what will spin well in The Sun and on the BBC, rather than any real notion of party tradition or right/left inclination. Labour, somehow, have spun themselves into a trap where they actually fear and despise the electorate. At any juncture where it looks like we should have freedom or choice in something, the government, terrified of the outcome, panics and snatches it away from us, then wallpapers over the outcry with scaremongering. This approach worked for a while because fear is powerful, and because Labour were being nothing if not consistent. But now it's all falling apart and it's too late for them to change direction.

In contrast, the Conservatives, in their current mode of chameleon-like opportunism, are IMO more beholden to the genuine needs of the electorate than Labour have been for a long time. Note that that's not necessarily saying the Tories will be more responsive to those needs, just that it will be more noticeable if they fail to be, as Labour have. You could argue that this was the same atmosphere that greeted Labour when they got in in 1999, but at that time it was taken as read that Labour would be a huge improvement on the Conservatives. This time round, although it looks like the Cons will get in it's still common sense not to trust a Tory farther than you can throw him.

Perhaps the Tories will get in, perform dismally, cynicism over the two main parties will be sky high, and we could see a move to a genuine 3 party system. I dunno, as you can see this is ALL half-baked speculation born out of desperation D: And although I'm saying I'd vote Tory, you can read it as 'I'll vote for what I'm most sure will be damaging to Labour.' If I could me more sure that a vote for the Lib Dems would contribute to the neutering of both Labour and the Tories, I'd vote for them.

...although I suppose I wouldn't since neither the Lib Dems nor the Tories stand a chance in my constituency (assuming I'll be back in the country at the time of the election). Last time round the only party that had a chance of ousting the Labour candidate was Respect, so I duly voted for them. They didn't get in, but they did win next door in Bethnal Green & Bow. While a government made up of George Galloways would be terrifying, a Labour majority of one less at the expense of having one George Galloway was fine by me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Sulkdodds
Engineering Dissent: The Rise of the Political Commentator
Replies
14
Views
2K
Absinthe
Absinthe
Warped
...And so the plot thickens!
Replies
4
Views
602
Raziaar
Raziaar
The Monkey
Gordon Brown becomes the new prime minister of the UK
Replies
5
Views
679
Asknoone
A
jverne
genetic manipulation...we need to come to an agreement here!
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
Danimal
Danimal
Back
Top