Elections in the UK

[Bluewolf]

What's with Cameron's hardon for attack copters? Does he honestly think that a handful more Tigers would've... well, what does he thing they would have done, anyways? I've never seen a leader's debate where a candidate was this insistent on a particular piece of military hardware.

He thinks we are stupid.

To be fair, I think he is riding the general issue of there not being enough copters. The public don't know much about military workings but they do know there were not enough copters so each party will talk about copters and body armor only in a way the public can understand.

[Lord Pounder]

Big thing to watch out for is the seats in Northern Ireland, the Tories have did a deal with them, so any UUP MP's elected in Northern Ireland is going to side with the Tories. Apparently the Tories have also offered the whip to the UUP guy in Fermanagh/South Tyrone (can't remember his name) and he's a cert as the DUP have agreed not to stand there while the Nationalist vote will be split because Margaret Ritchie, leader of the SDLP refused to do a similar deal woth Sinn Fein.

[Teebs]

Big thing to watch out for is the seats in Northern Ireland, the Tories have did a deal with them, so any UUP MP's elected in Northern Ireland is going to side with the Tories. Apparently the Tories have also offered the whip to the UUP guy in Fermanagh/South Tyrone (can't remember his name) and he's a cert as the DUP have agreed not to stand there while the Nationalist vote will be split because Margaret Ritchie, leader of the SDLP refused to do a similar deal woth Sinn Fein.

From an Englishman's perspective I'm not sure that it's that significant a move. They've always been considered to be pretty close to the Conservatives and up until the 1970s did work as the same group in Parliament. If it helps work towards a normalisation of Northern Irish parties though, then I'll be very pleased. The sectarian split isn't healthy and the government system there promotes it (basically many votes can be vetoed by one of the two communities and MLAs can designate themselves as members of either or as 'other' but as an 'other' you have less power).

[Dartzap]

For those strange people who want to see it again: its now available on Youtube

[Zac Naloen]

Interesting if you take a look at google trends and yahoo trends.

If no one knew who Nick Clegg was before... they certainly are trying to find out now.

[Teebs]

The latest poll today (first proper post debate poll I think) shows Conservatives 33%, Lib Dems 30% and Labour 28%. Obviously it's only one poll and not too much can be read into it, but if it's accurate then it would be a massive thing for British politics. Not only the governing party in third place but the Liberal Democrats in second... I don't think there have been any polls with the Lib Dems in second since the heady days of the Liberal/SDP Alliance in the 1980s (I could well be wrong, I'm just guessing).


This poll does show the bankruptcy of our electoral system though. If uniform national swing holds those vote shares would give Conservatives 254 seats, Labour 263 seats and Lib Dems 101 seats. So the third placed party in first place.
Source:
Electoral Calculus

If that result did actually happen I suspect uniform national swing wouldn't be an accurate prediction method, but it does illustrate my point.

[Thanas]

Electoral Calculus

WTH is wrong with this link?

[Teebs]

Electoral Calculus

WTH is wrong with this link?

My apologies it should be http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk I put .com out of absent mindedness.

[Dalton]

Modified all 3 links to the proper ones.

[Teebs]

There is something very strange going on at the moment. Today had one poll with the Lib Dems a close third (ICM), another with them in second place (ComRes and then one with them in first (BPIX).

I don't know how reliable the polls are, but they're all showing movement in the same direction and are, as far as I know, done with different methodologies.

Obviously there's a good chance this'll just fizzle out, but we could be looking at a huge change on the level of 1983, either the death of the Labour Party or a move to genuine three party politics. Either way I'm pretty excited as a long-term party member.

Edit: Thanks Dalton!

[Bluewolf]

The massive question is if Clegg can hold onto the success he has gotten himself and his party so far. The others will be gunning for him, hoping to stamp him out and Cameron is already warning of the dangers of a hung parliament. On top of that I can forsee the idea of a Labour/Lib Dem alliance as a massive put off for some voters. Many have hated the 13 years of Labour and the idea of them getting cosy with the Liberal Democrats is enough to make some people sick. It is however their only real chance to get PR. The Liberal Democrats have many problems ahead and I wonder if they can deal with them. Otherwise it's a Tory government again.

[Einzige]

As someone who is a total outsider to British politics, and doesn't really know a great deal about it, I must say that Nick Clegg impressed me tremendously, and, were I a British voter, I'd be highly inclined to go to the polls for him. Having just finished up watching the debate, he really seemed to be the only candidate even remotely interested in addressing issues head-on; for instance, in America at least, any public discussion with regards to scaling back our nuclear inventory in the name of economic practicality is strictly verboten, yet he addressed the issue forthrightly and without compromise.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Initial results from a poll commissioned for The Sunday Mirror and The Independent put the Lib Dems at 8 points over what they had a week ago. With Cameron voicing concern about the threat of a hung Parliament, I think he struck a nerve.

[Starglider]

in America at least, any public discussion with regards to scaling back our nuclear inventory in the name of economic practicality is strictly verboten,

It's strictly irrelevant. The costs of the nuclear component of America's force structure are a small fraction of the total military spend, which is itself a small fraction of government expenditure, and it is already being run down at a rapid rate (as evidenced by the cancellation of the reliable replacement warhead program). Unilateral disarmament would incur additional disposal costs anyway, so it would not save any money in the near term.

yet he addressed the issue forthrightly and without compromise.

I agree that Clegg's outstanding virtue is the eager and unambigious way in which he proves himself a fucking idiot. His vision for Britain is easy to understand; it's basically all the bad elements of French society (unlimited tax and spend, More Government Is Always The Answer) with none of the advantages (energy security through nuclear power? strong military? integration of immigrants into unified society? standing up for our own interests in Europe? can't have any of that!). For a long time the Liberals were marginally preferable to Labour, but Labour seem to have been tempered a bit by the realities of governing the country, whereas the Liberals have cheerfully descended into lunacy worthy of the Green party.

[Teebs]

I agree that Clegg's outstanding virtue is the eager and unambigious way in which he proves himself a fucking idiot. His vision for Britain is easy to understand; it's basically all the bad elements of French society (unlimited tax and spend, More Government Is Always The Answer) with none of the advantages (energy security through nuclear power? strong military? integration of immigrants into unified society? standing up for our own interests in Europe? can't have any of that!). For a long time the Liberals were marginally preferable to Labour, but Labour seem to have been tempered a bit by the realities of governing the country, whereas the Liberals have cheerfully descended into lunacy worthy of the Green party.

I was under the impression that the Lib Dems had actually proposed more cuts than either of the other two parties and I don't see where you're coming from for the 'more government is always the answer'.

I agree completely on nuclear power. I don't see where you're coming from on the military (other than nuclear weapons replacement which definitely will be expensive) or immigration. On Europe I think there's an obvious difference between thinking Britain's future lies with Europe and not standing up for British interests within the EU even if you refuse to see it.

[Bakustra]

I agree that Clegg's outstanding virtue is the eager and unambigious way in which he proves himself a fucking idiot. His vision for Britain is easy to understand; it's basically all the bad elements of French society (unlimited tax and spend, More Government Is Always The Answer) with none of the advantages (energy security through nuclear power? strong military? integration of immigrants into unified society? standing up for our own interests in Europe? can't have any of that!). For a long time the Liberals were marginally preferable to Labour, but Labour seem to have been tempered a bit by the realities of governing the country, whereas the Liberals have cheerfully descended into lunacy worthy of the Green party.

I was under the impression that the Lib Dems had actually proposed more cuts than either of the other two parties and I don't see where you're coming from for the 'more government is always the answer'.

I agree completely on nuclear power. I don't see where you're coming from on the military (other than nuclear weapons replacement which definitely will be expensive) or immigration. On Europe I think there's an obvious difference between thinking Britain's future lies with Europe and not standing up for British interests within the EU even if you refuse to see it.

I, myself, am not sure why France is to be considered as an ideal for immigrant integration, given its regular problems with rioting and violence from 1st- and 2nd-generation immigrant youths, which mainly revolves around their second-class status within French society. Perhaps if you are fond of riots, then it can be seen as something to emulate.

[Admiral Valdemar]

There are plenty of issues that neither party really adequately addresses, but I'm sick of having the same old Tories, or a new and just as inept Labour in. It's not like we can get rid of the debt or become energy independent (LOL!) in any appreciable time, if at all, so I'm willing to just see how we can go about this game in a whole new direction.

None of them are going to change shit in the grand scheme of things, so let's enjoy someone who can make the other two leaders feel sheepish on TV. And he has a great first name, which in no way is exactly like mine.

Also, the papers reacting to bad things going on won't know what hit them when they can't go down the usual blame routes.

[Einzige]

It's strictly irrelevant. The costs of the nuclear component of America's force structure are a small fraction of the total military spend, which is itself a small fraction of government expenditure, and it is already being run down at a rapid rate (as evidenced by the cancellation of the reliable replacement warhead program). Unilateral disarmament would incur additional disposal costs anyway, so it would not save any money in the near term.

And? My concern isn't with the near-term, but the long-term costs of storing obsolete weaponry which, in all likelihood, will almost certainly never be used anyway. I'm hardly saying we need total disarmament, but it does no good to maintain weaponry which was useless almost as soon as it was made.

I agree that Clegg's outstanding virtue is the eager and unambigious way in which he proves himself a fucking idiot. His vision for Britain is easy to understand; it's basically all the bad elements of French society (unlimited tax and spend, More Government Is Always The Answer) with none of the advantages (energy security through nuclear power? strong military? integration of immigrants into unified society? standing up for our own interests in Europe? can't have any of that!). For a long time the Liberals were marginally preferable to Labour, but Labour seem to have been tempered a bit by the realities of governing the country, whereas the Liberals have cheerfully descended into lunacy worthy of the Green party.

I agree completely with Teebs on this:

I was under the impression that the Lib Dems had actually proposed more cuts than either of the other two parties and I don't see where you're coming from for the 'more government is always the answer'.

As I've said, I know little about the main parties contesting this election, but based purely on what I gleaned from the debate, it seemed as if the Liberal Democrats were offering much greater budgetary cuts than either Labour or the Conservatives, particularly in education expenses. Much of his rhetoric struck me as almost pseudo-libertarian. Cameron seemed absolutely determined that the NHS would see increased funding pegged to inflation, which absolutely strikes me as a More Government Is Always The Answer sort of solution.

[Starglider]

I was under the impression that the Lib Dems had actually proposed more cuts than either of the other two parties and I don't see where you're coming from for the 'more government is always theanswer'.

The only 'significant cuts' the Liberals have proposed is in the military, but bear in mind that even the Conservatives can't actively talk about cuts in public services their manifesto. The situation is that Labour have been dumping buckets of money into various government departments with minimal and ineffective oversight for over a decade, not to mention treating all levels of government as a way to keep useless unproductive people off the unemployment rolls and as a way to bribe voters (vote for Labour or lose your cushy no-consequences-for-failure government job). It's politically impossible for the same reason that you can't openly say that you want to cut benefits.

The Liberals campaigned through the entire 1990s on the soundbyte 'a penny in the pound on income tax for (#government service)'. Usually it was 'your schools', sometimes it was 'your hospitals', but the sentiment is the same regardless (they did the same thing on a local level except that it was council tax instead of income tax). Now it was arguable that Thatcher left the public sector a little run down (unavoidably, the civil sector unions were part of the unholy union alliance that damn near killed the country), but after 15 years of Labour (stealth) tax rises, (anything but stealth) spending increases and union chumminess we have the opposite situation. Even Labour are beginning to realise they can't spend any more - merely coping with the projected debt levels and demographic issues is enough. The Liberals have been desperate to unleash a whole slew of new tax and spend for the last twenty years and they are just de-emphasising it to try and get elected.

In fact it's arguable that Labour and the Liberals have switched places, such that the major UK parties are now center-right (Conservatives), centerist (Labour) and center-left (Liberals). UKIP seem roughly at the right-wing position the Conservatives occupied in the 1980s, but of course with fair more naive politicians (the BNP is the populist racist version). The Greens seem to have occupied much of the space Labour was in; their manifesto is quite reminiscent of Labour's 1983 manifesto (aka 'the longest suicide note in history' - although the Liberals cribbed some elements from this as well). The real extremists are still marginalised; thankfully we aren't blighted by serious communist parties the way Russia and much of Europe are.

I actually voted for the Liberals in 2001. I do like some of their policies, e.g. soft drug legalisation, election reform and tax reform. This is irrelevant; I like some of UKIPs policies, but I won't be voting for them either. The way the outgoing Conservative government left the country, we could afford a term of two of Liberal rule and hopefully reap the benefits and then boot them out before they could do too much damage to the economy, the military or the UK's international position. This is not 1997, allowing the Liberals in now would continue all the problems of Labour (put them into overdrive in fact) and add numerous new ones. The Conservatives are, despite their own glaring issues, what the country needs right now. If you want a new flavour of left-wing party, by all means vote for the Liberals in another decade or so when the pendulum has swung the other way and it's time to kick the Conservatives out.

On Europe I think there's an obvious difference between thinking Britain's future lies with Europe and not standing up for British interests within the EU even if you refuse to see it.

Neither Labour nor the Conservatives are going to leave the EU, so you don't need the Liberals 'let's be the EC's bitch' policy to stay in Europe. It's bad enough for Germany, letting the EC regulate the place into insensibility while sucking money away, it would be far worse for the UK if we took the same attitude.

[Admiral Valdemar]

What about the Tories makes them a better choice for the next Cabinet, specifically?

[Teebs]

I was under the impression that the Lib Dems had actually proposed more cuts than either of the other two parties and I don't see where you're coming from for the 'more government is always theanswer'.

The only 'significant cuts' the Liberals have proposed is in the military, but bear in mind that even the Conservatives can't actively talk about cuts in public services their manifesto. The situation is that Labour have been dumping buckets of money into various government departments with minimal and ineffective oversight for over a decade, not to mention treating all levels of government as a way to keep useless unproductive people off the unemployment rolls and as a way to bribe voters (vote for Labour or lose your cushy no-consequences-for-failure government job). It's politically impossible for the same reason that you can't openly say that you want to cut benefits.

How do you define significant? They've also said they'll cut ID cards, tax credits and child trust funds. They've also been very clear that they will be making further cuts if in government with public sector pay, pensions and IT identified along with the usual waste cutting as targetted areas.

I'm not sure the Conservatives lying by omission at the very least about the cuts they'd implement is a good justification for voting for them.

The Liberals campaigned through the entire 1990s on the soundbyte 'a penny in the pound on income tax for (#government service)'. Usually it was 'your schools', sometimes it was 'your hospitals', but the sentiment is the same regardless (they did the same thing on a local level except that it was council tax instead of income tax). Now it was arguable that Thatcher left the public sector a little run down (unavoidably, the civil sector unions were part of the unholy union alliance that damn near killed the country), but after 15 years of Labour (stealth) tax rises, (anything but stealth) spending increases and union chumminess we have the opposite situation. Even Labour are beginning to realise they can't spend any more - merely coping with the projected debt levels and demographic issues is enough. The Liberals have been desperate to unleash a whole slew of new tax and spend for the last twenty years and they are just de-emphasising it to try and get elected.

The Liberal Democrats have also dropped their policies of increasing higher rate income tax or putting a penny on the pound. They campaigned for those in a very different environment to the current one. I don't see any (net) tax raising policy (except, as stated in their manifesto, as a last resort for reducing the deficit). They want to increase some taxes (flights, land) but are looking to reduce others (income).

In fact it's arguable that Labour and the Liberals have switched places, such that the major UK parties are now center-right (Conservatives), centerist (Labour) and center-left (Liberals). UKIP seem roughly at the right-wing position the Conservatives occupied in the 1980s, but of course with fair more naive politicians (the BNP is the populist racist version). The Greens seem to have occupied much of the space Labour was in; their manifesto is quite reminiscent of Labour's 1983 manifesto (aka 'the longest suicide note in history' - although the Liberals cribbed some elements from this as well). The real extremists are still marginalised; thankfully we aren't blighted by serious communist parties the way Russia and much of Europe are.

It's arguable that they have except that the Lib Dems have been the most hawkish of the parties on the budget deficit and making cuts. I think they come at things from a very different angle to Labour too, much less of the pro big state impulse.

I actually voted for the Liberals in 2001. I do like some of their policies, e.g. soft drug legalisation, election reform and tax reform. This is irrelevant; I like some of UKIPs policies, but I won't be voting for them either. The way the outgoing Conservative government left the country, we could afford a term of two of Liberal rule and hopefully reap the benefits and then boot them out before they could do too much damage to the economy, the military or the UK's international position. This is not 1997, allowing the Liberals in now would continue all the problems of Labour (put them into overdrive in fact) and add numerous new ones. The Conservatives are, despite their own glaring issues, what the country needs right now. If you want a new flavour of left-wing party, by all means vote for the Liberals in another decade or so when the pendulum has swung the other way and it's time to kick the Conservatives out.

You'll vote for whoever you vote for, I'm not particularly trying to convince you (obviously it would be nice if you did vote Lib Dem though), just make sure that Lib Dem policies are accurately represented.

Neither Labour nor the Conservatives are going to leave the EU, so you don't need the Liberals 'let's be the EC's bitch' policy to stay in Europe. It's bad enough for Germany, letting the EC regulate the place into insensibility while sucking money away, it would be far worse for the UK if we took the same attitude.

Once again, you confuse wanting greater involvement with the EU with being the EU's bitch. I could equally say that since we remain subject to EU law anyway, Labour and the Conservatives' lack of interest in involving themselves properly with Europe ensures that the UK will remain marginalised in EU decision making and so will be the EU's bitch. Ok, you disagree with further integration/involvement, fair enough, but it doesn't follow that the UK becomes everyone else's bitch if it does go down that road.

[Rye]

While the Lib Dems are officially against nuke power, I doubt they'd try to put a stop to the plants that Labour's started to build as that would be a tremendous waste of money. Investing in renewables would actually help our industry, as it's a high tech one that needs university graduates, and one people can't just outsource to India. I also don't think they're so unswayable on nuclear for the potential for policy change in that direction, backed by scientific evidence, that they won't come round.

[Admiral Valdemar]

We need nuclear. There's no two ways about it. You'd better hope that funnel of fire and ice that's hurting the airlines right now doesn't belch more ash and gas for much longer, else it will give us some harsher winter conditions next winter season than we've just had. National gas storage only just managed to keep up with demand, and stocks aren't able to build up and deal with any higher demand at peak without cutting into industry interruptible supply contracts.

Energy security is an impossible deal, but we can at least try and attempt to be less held to ransom by Russia and the free market's inability to foresee demand problems downstream (or, indeed, the fact that Labour have so fucked the pooch with respect to energy, that they deserve to be kicked out on this basis alone). Wind turbines and PV for all are cute, fuzzy ideas that make people feel good about doing their bit for the environment. Nothing more. The build out in any renewable needed to replace even just out coal powerplants alone, to say nothing of CGCC plants, is a pipedream in this economic clime.

Above all else, energy is the main priority (I'm ignoring the deficit, which, again, Labour and the Tories won't deal with effectively). Nothing else comes close. You don't have an economy, a welfare state or time to complain about immigrants if people are in energy poverty or, worse still, freezing to death.

[Darth Tanner]

I doubt they'd try to put a stop to the plants that Labour's started to build as that would be a tremendous waste of money.

They have already openly said they will cancel the new planned plants (it is even in their manifesto), and even just being publically anti-nuclear would be enough to scare off the energy companies from making such a huge investment into a hostile market that could be wiped out at a seconds notice by government legislation.

and one people can't just outsource to India.

No, China or Germany. As far as I know we just closed the last wind turbine plant in this country which moved to Germany. I assume that was for the big coastal units though. I think one of the big Lib Dems plans is to reopen closed down docks to start pumping out new units. Their even talking about the severn barrage again which is laughable seeing as 13 years of Labour big business couldn’t get that built past those precious endangered birds.

Just one question is about a potential Lib Dem government, what are the realistic implications of the UK losing its nuclear capabilities, would we lose our seat on the Security Council eventually or would our conventional forces and our willingness to throw them into American meat grinders keep us in?

[Thanas]

On Europe I think there's an obvious difference between thinking Britain's future lies with Europe and not standing up for British interests within the EU even if you refuse to see it.

Neither Labour nor the Conservatives are going to leave the EU, so you don't need the Liberals 'let's be the EC's bitch' policy to stay in Europe. It's bad enough for Germany, letting the EC regulate the place into insensibility while sucking money away, it would be far worse for the UK if we took the same attitude.

Stupid, that is what this statement is.

Ignoramus.