General Election 2015 - Thoughts/Predictions/Results

[Busaholic]

Viscount Stansgate which he was before renouncing his title to enter the Commons would have been even better

I did a summer job once delivering wine for Peter Dominic in swathes of SE London and his younger brother was one of our customers and still called himself Wedgwood Benn. My manager told me he was scathing about his brother, from such a privileged background, pretending to be a 'man of the people.'
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Nigel Farage attending a Conservative Political Action Conference in USA - a case of Fruitcake invited to the Tea Party?

 

[DownSouth]

Nigel Farage attending a Conservative Political Action Conference in USA - a case of Fruitcake invited to the Tea Party?

He might be on the fringes by UK political standards, but Nigel Farage would easily count as one of the most moderate people in the room at the CPA Conference.

 

[Busaholic]

He might be on the fringes by UK political standards, but Nigel Farage would easily count as one of the most moderate people in the room at the CPA Conference.

And possibly one of the most intelligent if Sarah Palin is any guide.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

What does everyone think of Cameron avoiding the head to head TV debate at all costs? Is he chicken or is he right to be scared?

 

[Aldaniti]

He's frit. Cameron and Milliband are both lightweight politicians so it could go either way on the night. That's the gamble as Jim Bowen used to say and it looks like its a gamble Cameron doesn't want to take. The one politician who could wipe the floor with Cameron is Farage, but as Farage would only be part of a bigger group, the threat is diminished.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Wish they'd get rid of them, they're a load of bunkum anyway. Works well if you have the American style system where you vote for the man you see and on a national basis, not over here where you vote for a party on a local basis.

 

[Butts]

What does everyone think of Cameron avoiding the head to head TV debate at all costs? Is he chicken or is he right to be scared?

As the incumbent he has the most to lose, my belief is "Wallace" would not present a credible threat to Cameron should he change his mind.

 

[Oswyntail]

What does everyone think of Cameron avoiding the head to head TV debate at all costs? Is he chicken or is he right to be scared?

Avoiding pointless gimmickry - debate is not the word to describe the previous ones.. As the other parties have so far offered little other than general raspberries, an evening of being bombarded with "You're rubbish, you are" could be much better spent. To my mind, a better idea would have been a series of live individual interviews with a good interviewer like Paxman.

 

[Tetchytyke]

What does everyone think of Cameron avoiding the head to head TV debate at all costs? Is he chicken or is he right to be scared?

I think the TV debates are pointless, they make Prime Minister's Questions look like the best in intellectual arguing.

But yes, he's scared. The last TV debate probably caused him to lose the unlosable election, and he also knows that the right-wing attacks on Miliband ("He looks like Beaker! He can't eat a bacon sandwich!") work better when people don't get to see him in action. Not that I think Miliband would come across well, as he struggles with low-wattage intellects- look how he struggled with Myleen Klass, for instance.

It's no coincidence that he's only interested in the seven-way bunfight, because nobody will have enough time in that debate to look good or bad.

 

[Busaholic]

It's extremely unlikely that any TV 'debate' will now take place. Even if you thought the 7-way stretch was feasible within the timescale dictated by Cameron (or, to be more accurate, Lynton Crosby and Oliver Letwin) the Democratic Unionists will put a spoke in the wheel if they can, and Gorgeous George, the most litigious politician of his generation, has already said he will too if he is not invited and not all of his threats are idle ones.

The 'empty chair' scenario postured by some will not happen: the BBC for one would be s***scared of perceived political bias, particularly before an election and knowing some Conservative politicians' loathing of the organisation.

The great intellectual wheeze of having this 'debate' before the party manifestoes are out is another nonsense, as is the notion that it (or they) should be held before the electioneering really gets under way, although the sceptical nay cynical among us might say that's being going on for at least a year now thanks to that wretched undemocratic fixed-term parliament gerrymandering.

All it actually says is Cameron has nothing to gain, and possibly a bit to lose, by taking part but is too scared of the bad PR by vetoing it so Grant Shapps (anyone got a nice anagram for that name?) has been sent out to handle the flak and, on 'Daily Politics' yesterday with Andrew Neil, to be publically eviscerated. I almost felt sorry for a Tory! He'd have gone back to Central Office with his tail between his legs if Neil hadn't already bitten it off.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Gorgeous George, the most litigious politician of his generation, has already said he will too if he is not invited and not all of his threats are idle ones.

Judging by the number of libel letters he's been sending out to Twitter users, none of his threats are idle.

£5000+VAT he's decided he wants from anyone who dared to criticise his stance on Israel.

The 'empty chair' scenario postured by some will not happen: the BBC for one would be s***scared of perceived political bias, particularly before an election and knowing some Conservative politicians' loathing of the organisation.

Labour won't entertain an empty chair; putting Miliband up to face a grilling alone is not very sensible.

that wretched undemocratic fixed-term parliament gerrymandering.

Why do you think it is gerrymandering?

If anything, I'd say it is the opposite: it prevents a Government from calling a snap General Election just because the wind is blowing in the right direction. It stops the sort of mess we saw in 2009 when Gordon Brown almost called an election, before bottling it. I prefer the certainty, tbh. Whether a term is fixed or not doesn't prevent a Government manipulating policy with a view for the next election, it just means that all parties know when the election will be and therefore have a level playing field.

 

[Busaholic]

Judging by the number of libel letters he's been sending out to Twitter users, none of his threats are idle.

£5000+VAT he's decided he wants from anyone who dared to criticise his stance on Israel.



Labour won't entertain an empty chair; putting Miliband up to face a grilling alone is not very sensible.



Why do you think it is gerrymandering?

If anything, I'd say it is the opposite: it prevents a Government from calling a snap General Election just because the wind is blowing in the right direction. It stops the sort of mess we saw in 2009 when Gordon Brown almost called an election, before bottling it. I prefer the certainty, tbh. Whether a term is fixed or not doesn't prevent a Government manipulating policy with a view for the next election, it just means that all parties know when the election will be and therefore have a level playing field.

You have to be very careful as to what you say about Galloway, especially if you are ascribing certain views to him. You can say he is anti-Zionist, because he says himself that he is, but if you accuse him of being anti something else he'll take action : be interesting if any such case ever came to court in this country. What you can say, of course, is that you find him loathsome. I've held this personal view since being a near neighbour of his in Blackheath in the 1980s for a few years, when he was a Labour MP for a Scottish seat.

On the issue of the empty chair, another skirmish has now broken out with the broadcasters saying they'll go ahead on that basis, but I'm sure it won't happen.

Fixed term parliaments were never in anyone's manifesto and no government has a right imo to introduce them without consent i.e. a referendum on such an important constitutional change, hence my accusation of gerrymandering.

 

[DownSouth]

Fixed term parliaments were never in anyone's manifesto and no government has a right imo to introduce them without consent i.e. a referendum on such an important constitutional change, hence my accusation of gerrymandering.

I wouldn't call that gerrymandering, primarily because gerrymandering specifically refers to the manipulation of elections by redrawing the boundaries of electoral districts. There are other types of electoral fraud as well as gerrymandering, all of which have their own descriptors.

I wouldn't suggest it is a constitutional question either, as the UK is a parliamentary monarchy and not a constitutional monarchy. When the parliament of the day could legislate to scrap the fixed election dates as soon as they feel convenient, the fixed elections are in effect only voluntarily fixed by the government of the day - not really much different to the old system where the government could advise the monarch to dissolve the parliament for an election, only in the detail of when the date gets set.

I wouldn't call it electoral fraud, because it's hard to argue that it provides an advantage to just one party or grouping of parties. If anything, it's an advantage for the opposition compared to the previous system because they can pre-select candidates more confidently and roll out policy announcements according to the schedule set out by the campaign director - which makes it even harder to accuse the government of electoral fraud when it had the effect of legislating a free kick for the opposition!

 

[yorksrob]

It's extremely unlikely that any TV 'debate' will now take place. Even if you thought the 7-way stretch was feasible within the timescale dictated by Cameron (or, to be more accurate, Lynton Crosby and Oliver Letwin) the Democratic Unionists will put a spoke in the wheel if they can, and Gorgeous George, the most litigious politician of his generation, has already said he will too if he is not invited and not all of his threats are idle ones.

The 'empty chair' scenario postured by some will not happen: the BBC for one would be s***scared of perceived political bias, particularly before an election and knowing some Conservative politicians' loathing of the organisation.

The great intellectual wheeze of having this 'debate' before the party manifestoes are out is another nonsense, as is the notion that it (or they) should be held before the electioneering really gets under way, although the sceptical nay cynical among us might say that's being going on for at least a year now thanks to that wretched undemocratic fixed-term parliament gerrymandering.
.

It's a fair point. Once you let non-UK wide nationalists in, how can you justify excluding non-UK wide unionists.

I must admit, I never understood the benefit of fixed term parliaments. Hopefully they'll be done away with.

 

[Senex]

JIf anything, I'd say it is the opposite: it prevents a Government from calling a snap General Election just because the wind is blowing in the right direction. It stops the sort of mess we saw in 2009 when Gordon Brown almost called an election, before bottling it. I prefer the certainty, tbh. Whether a term is fixed or not doesn't prevent a Government manipulating policy with a view for the next election, it just means that all parties know when the election will be and therefore have a level playing field.

I agree. But is five years perhaps too long if the term is fixed? Very few parliaments under the old system lasted the full five years if a PM saw a chance of getting out and winning after four years or so. Maybe four years, as with local councils, is right. And we are at present seeing the big down side, given the way British politicians operate, of something like four or five months of pure electioneering in all its tediousness.

 

[Oswyntail]

I think the TV debates are pointless, they make Prime Minister's Questions look like the best in intellectual arguing.....

Exactly. And what really bugs me is that the opposition party leaders are all saying they need the opportunity to hold Cameron to account for the previous five years. But that is the job of the opposition, and should be done in Parliament - that they have signally failed to attempt to do so in those five years is not the Conservatives' fault. Surely, if the "debate" is to be linked to the election, it should consist of a discussion of what the parties are hoping to do in the next five years, weighing the pros and cons of each approach. Fat chance of that, so the debates are a waste of time.

...
I must admit, I never understood the benefit of fixed term parliaments. ....

... Very few parliaments under the old system lasted the full five years if a PM saw a chance of getting out and winning after four years or so.....

That is the point. A master of timing like Wilson could manipulate the system to call an election in his high points, and buy time to ignore the low points. Taking this out of the hands of the PM (remembering that a Parliament can still be dissolved on a vote of no confidence) must be a good and sensible thing.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Exactly. And what really bugs me is that the opposition party leaders are all saying they need the opportunity to hold Cameron to account for the previous five years. But that is the job of the opposition, and should be done in Parliament - that they have signally failed to attempt to do so in those five years is not the Conservatives' fault. thing.

Back in 2010, though, David Cameron was more than happy to hold Gordon Brown to account in front of the cameras.

 

[Oswyntail]

Back in 2010, though, David Cameron was more than happy to hold Gordon Brown to account in front of the cameras.

And? IIRC, it wasn't so much a "holding to account" as trying to get him to admit he had f****d up the economy. Without that admission (and Labour still try to deny it), a sensible debate on the way ahead was impossible.
There is also a world of difference between a "debate" between three leaders who had a reasonable expectation of having an influence on the future, and those three and four others who have not a snowball in hell's chance of having their policies implemented. Complete waste of time!

 

[Senex]

And? IIRC, it wasn't so much a "holding to account" as trying to get him to admit he had f****d up the economy. Without that admission (and Labour still try to deny it), a sensible debate on the way ahead was impossible.
There is also a world of difference between a "debate" between three leaders who had a reasonable expectation of having an influence on the future, and those three and four others who have not a snowball in hell's chance of having their policies implemented. Complete waste of time!

Indeed, but can we be sure beyond Cameron and Milliband which of the other leaders may be in a position to have some influence (or even a great deal of influence)? It's even possible that the price for the co-operation of one of the smaller parties could be "not Cameron" or "not Milliband" as PM.

 

[Busaholic]

Exactly. And what really bugs me is that the opposition party leaders are all saying they need the opportunity to hold Cameron to account for the previous five years. But that is the job of the opposition, and should be done in Parliament - that they have signally failed to attempt to do so in those five years is not the Conservatives' fault. Surely, if the "debate" is to be linked to the election, it should consist of a discussion of what the parties are hoping to do in the next five years, weighing the pros and cons of each approach. Fat chance of that, so the debates are a waste of time.



That is the point. A master of timing like Wilson could manipulate the system to call an election in his high points, and buy time to ignore the low points. Taking this out of the hands of the PM (remembering that a Parliament can still be dissolved on a vote of no confidence) must be a good and sensible thing.

Harold Wilson couldn't have been such a master of timing, calling an Election in 1970 a year before necessary and losing to Heath, unexpectedly not only to Labour but the pundits. Heath returned the favour in February 1974 by going to the country more than a year early, asking the question 'who governs Britain?' to which the reply was 'not you any longer, mate'.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

And? IIRC, it wasn't so much a "holding to account" as trying to get him to admit he had f****d up the economy. Without that admission (and Labour still try to deny it), a sensible debate on the way ahead was impossible.
There is also a world of difference between a "debate" between three leaders who had a reasonable expectation of having an influence on the future, and those three and four others who have not a snowball in hell's chance of having their policies implemented. Complete waste of time!

I'll try again! David Cameron and George Osborne were in no position to criticise Brown because they hadn't made a great song and dance about Brown's handling of the economy, in fact their friends in the city were quite happy with the way things were going....until of course the great collapse of Lehman Brothers in the USA (not predicted by Cameron and Osborne). I was trying to point out that it is obviously easier for the opposition leader rather than an incumbent Prime Minister in such a debate....and Cameron is facing the same kind of situation that Brown was facing. I'm not defending Brown's record...although many would say that he did take decisive action when other world leaders dithered.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

And? IIRC, it wasn't so much a "holding to account" as trying to get him to admit he had f****d up the economy. Without that admission (and Labour still try to deny it), a sensible debate on the way ahead was impossible.

Ummm, maybe that was because, despite all the Conservatives' and LibDems' longstanding (and, sadly, often successful) attempts to confuse 'the economy' with 'the deficit' in the public eye, the two things are actually different, and Labour hadn't in fact, to use your poetic language, 'f****d up the economy', and it was therefore perfectly correct for Labour to deny that they had.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's extremely unlikely that any TV 'debate' will now take place. Even if you thought the 7-way stretch was feasible within the timescale dictated by Cameron (or, to be more accurate, Lynton Crosby and Oliver Letwin) the Democratic Unionists will put a spoke in the wheel if they can, and Gorgeous George, the most litigious politician of his generation, has already said he will too if he is not invited and not all of his threats are idle ones.

The 'empty chair' scenario postured by some will not happen:

If they invite the DUP, they have to invite Sinn Fein. Then you'll get an empty chair.

The reason the DUP are not involved is because nobody except the incredibly paranoid loyalists in Ireland give a toss about the politics in the North. It is a colonial embarrassment to Britain. A slow but steady acknowledgement that it is not an integral part of the UK leaves me delighted.

 

[Busaholic]

If they invite the DUP, they have to invite Sinn Fein. Then you'll get an empty chair.

The reason the DUP are not involved is because nobody except the incredibly paranoid loyalists in Ireland give a toss about the politics in the North. It is a colonial embarrassment to Britain. A slow but steady acknowledgement that it is not an integral part of the UK leaves me delighted.

Of course inviting the DUP would make even more of a nonsense of the process, but a couple of things said by the Tories have indicated to me that the latter suggested to the Unionists they should profess outrage if not included. Monty Python himself would disown this circus.

 

[table38]

Ummm, maybe that was because, despite all the Conservatives' and LibDems' longstanding (and, sadly, often successful) attempts to confuse 'the economy' with 'the deficit' in the public eye, the two things are actually different, and Labour hadn't in fact, to use your poetic language, 'f****d up the economy', and it was therefore perfectly correct for Labour to deny that they had.

So what word would you use to describe a situation where a government is supposed to be in charge of an economy, and their expenditures or liabilities exceed their income or assets?

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, Governments will try and manipulate non-fixed term parliaments. However, more often than not, it backfires on them. Both Gordon Brown and Jim Callaghan tried to play the system and ended up leaving it too long. It's better than having a long lame duck parliament.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

So what word would you use to describe a situation where a government is supposed to be in charge of an economy, and their expenditures or liabilities exceed their income or assets?

What a silly question! Obviously, it's meaningless to answer that without much more information.

How would you describe any person who has a mortgage (and who is therefore massively in debt)?

How would you describe a company that has borrowed massively in order to fund essential investment or its growth into a new market?

Debt and running a deficit are not necessarily a bad things - they might be in some situations, but it depends entirely on the circumstances (and arguably, it would be impossible for any modern economy to function without a significant level of debt somewhere in the economy).

Sadly, it looks from your question as if you've fallen into the trap of thinking the economy and Government deficit are the same thing. They are not! (Other, of course, than in the kindergarten-type economics that the Conservatives would have us believe). It's perfectly possible in principle to have a large Government deficit and a healthy economy, and it's equally possible in principle to have a Government running a budget surplus while the country's economy collapses. There are of course reasons why it's often desirable for a Government not to be running a large deficit, but the logic that says 'Labour ran a big deficit and therefore they screwed up the economy' is flawed. That conclusion does not follow.

 

[table38]

Sadly, it looks from your question as if you've fallen into the trap of thinking the economy and Government deficit are the same thing. They are not!

So what would you call it if not a deficit? You can start calling people names as you usually do, but it's not "kindergarten-type economics", like it or not, the two things are inextricably linked.

But as usual with a Labour government, somehow it was all someone else's fault

 

[Oswyntail]

.... That conclusion does not follow.

Perhaps. But in the years 1997-2010, the economy became dangerously reliant on the City - if you think it's the Tories who have "friends in the City", I can't imagine what the relationship with Labour is! Little attempt was made to stimulate other areas of the economy, and what efforts did occur resulted in utter failure, usually because they were entrusted to Labour-led local authorities rather than people who actually understood how business worked (eg: South Yorkshire). And the complete abandonment of effective regulation of the one sector of the economy into which all the eggs had been put meant that the effects of the banking crisis were intensified. Money was also thrown away in other public areas such as the fiasco of Doctors' contracts. Not a pretty record, all told.

 

[Tetchytyke]

For all the hindsight, the Tories and the CBI spent most of Labour's rule whining about "too much regulation", promising a "bonfire of red tape" on election. I also don't buy the idea that more regulation would have prevented anything; the likes of Moody's were signing the bank debt products off as AAA rated, and no regulator would disagree with Moody's without getting a lot of public criticism.

And that's before we consider the fact that Economics George has borrowed more in four years than Labour did in fourteen...