General Election 2015 - Thoughts/Predictions/Results

[Oswyntail]

Yes and you'll love it!

Oh yeh? How's the Scottish NHS doing? (For instance)

 

[northwichcat]

Oh yeh? How's the Scottish NHS doing? (For instance)

Obviously very short of funds if they can offer free prescriptions and eye tests for everyone.

 

[ExRes]

I disagree.

The Lib Dems really are in between the Tories and Labour when it comes to policy. Backing Labour could regain support they lost from backing the Tories. The Lib Dems did talk to Labour after the last election but Gordon Brown told them he wanted their backing but he wanted to implement the Labour manifesto in full with no room for revision to suit the Lib Dems. On the other hand the Tories agreed to implement part of the Lib Dem manifesto and to not implement a couple of the plans the Lib Dems didn't like. Hence they formed a Coalition with the Conservatives.

I have to say that I disagree with your disagreement .........

As far as I'm concerned the Lib Dems would be behaving like some tart who will sleep with the highest paying customer without shame and that is most certainly not the type who should be entrusted with the slightest little piece of power, hopefully Clegg will soon be just like Sturgeon, a party leader who can't even sit in Parliament

 

[table38]

I find the argument "Labour should have forseen the crash" as a bizarre argument, given that the main reason for the crash (according to the Tories) was poor regulation of the finance sector. The fact the Tories were constantly haranguing Labour for "too much red tape" in the finance sector, and that there needs to be less regulation in the sector, appears to have been quietly forgotten, in much the same way negative comments on Wikipedia about Grant Schapps/Michael Green get quietly forgotten.

What has been quietly forgotten was that Gordon Brown had created a curious three-way responsibility for financial regulation, split between the FSA, the Bank of England and the Treasury.

Unfortunately none of the three parties knew which bit of regulation they were actually responsible for, so all three sat on their hands and did nothing.

So what we ended up with under Labour wasn't "less regulation" but actually "no regulation at all".

 

[radamfi]

Obviously very short of funds if they can offer free prescriptions and eye tests for everyone.

Does it really cost that much compared to England? In England you can get unlimited prescriptions for £104 a year. Most people in England pay less than that, and indeed a lot of people pay nothing. I would guess a lot of people get free eye tests through work and opticians regularly have free eye test offers.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I have to say that I disagree with your disagreement .........

As far as I'm concerned the Lib Dems would be behaving like some tart who will sleep with the highest paying customer without shame and that is most certainly not the type who should be entrusted with the slightest little piece of power, hopefully Clegg will soon be just like Sturgeon, a party leader who can't even sit in Parliament

But that's how coalitions work... Acting like it's a bad thing because they want to influence public policy is just contrarian.

Do you think parties don't want to either strengthen a friendly partner or weaken an opposing one?

 

[ExRes]

But that's how coalitions work... Acting like it's a bad thing because they want to influence public policy is just contrarian.

Do you think parties don't want to either strengthen a friendly partner or weaken an opposing one?

Just which 'partner' does Clegg want to strengthen or weaken ?, he'd have you believe he's the mortal enemy and friendliest comrade of both the Conservatives and Labour so how can anyone vote for a party that will prostitute it's beliefs, whatever they are, for a fingernail grip on some power, he's most certainly not in a coalition with Cameron for the good of the electorate, he's in it for the good of Clegg

 

[TheKnightWho]

Just which 'partner' does Clegg want to strengthen or weaken ?, he'd have you believe he's the mortal enemy and friendliest comrade of both the Conservatives and Labour so how can anyone vote for a party that will prostitute it's beliefs, whatever they are, for a fingernail grip on some power, he's most certainly not in a coalition with Cameron for the good of the electorate, he's in it for the good of Clegg

But you're assuming your own conclusion and using it as proof.

The point is that any party will want to be part of any coalition, because it always strengthens their position in government, even if they can't get all of what they want. Calling them a prostitute completely misunderstands how coalition government works - they don't just automatically take on all the policies of the other partner, but influence them such as to get some of what they want through compromise. Not being in government gives them very little of that leverage.

It's a sad state of affairs that this country is so used to one-party governments where one party gets all of its own way that there's talk of smaller parties tarting themselves out, or that one-party governments are "strong" (i.e. bullies everyone else) etc. when in most European countries compromise and discussion over policy is much, much more common and indeed desirable. Cameron's shot himself in the foot by sealing into law fixed-term parliaments: it was for his own benefit this last term, but it now means the papers can't scaremonger anywhere near as much about coalition governments, and as such gives smaller parties much more power. This can only be a good thing for the country, but probably not for the parties that traditionally did very well out of it.

 

[Oswyntail]

Everyone is at some risk of bankruptcy. The point is that it wasn't likely.

The Government could have taken steps to keep going, true (see also Dennis Healey). But the country was very close to requiring those steps, and the Government appeared unable to contemplate the "change your spending behaviour" option

I find the argument "Labour should have forseen the crash" as a bizarre argument, given that the main reason for the crash (according to the Tories) was poor regulation of the finance sector. The fact the Tories were constantly haranguing Labour for "too much red tape" in the finance sector, and that there needs to be less regulation in the sector, appears to have been quietly forgotten

Light regulation, if well designed, can be the most effective. Confusingly ill-specified regulation is a recipe for disaster, as was proved. And, whatever the level of regulation, one would expect any Government to have its finger on the pulse to have at least some idea of what was coming.

in much the same way negative comments on Wikipedia about Grant Schapps/Michael Green get quietly forgotten.

Are you quietly trying to change the subject?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

... Cameron's shot himself in the foot by sealing into law fixed-term parliaments:... This can only be a good thing for the country, but probably not for the parties that traditionally did very well out of it.

It is just possible that the PM realised this benefit and pushed through the reform despite potential party damage. Not everything has to be cynical.

 

[northwichcat]

Does it really cost that much compared to England? In England you can get unlimited prescriptions for £104 a year. Most people in England pay less than that, and indeed a lot of people pay nothing. I would guess a lot of people get free eye tests through work and opticians regularly have free eye test offers.

Difference is working age people in England pay for both. With eye tests if you work in certain roles your employer has to pay for an eye test every 2 years. You usually have to pay and get your employer to reimburse you.

 

[ExRes]

But you're assuming your own conclusion and using it as proof.

The point is that any party will want to be part of any coalition, because it always strengthens their position in government, even if they can't get all of what they want. Calling them a prostitute completely misunderstands how coalition government works - they don't just automatically take on all the policies of the other partner, but influence them such as to get some of what they want through compromise. Not being in government gives them very little of that leverage.

It's a sad state of affairs that this country is so used to one-party governments where one party gets all of its own way that there's talk of smaller parties tarting themselves out, or that one-party governments are "strong" (i.e. bullies everyone else) etc. when in most European countries compromise and discussion over policy is much, much more common and indeed desirable. Cameron's shot himself in the foot by sealing into law fixed-term parliaments: it was for his own benefit this last term, but it now means the papers can't scaremonger anywhere near as much about coalition governments, and as such gives smaller parties much more power. This can only be a good thing for the country, but probably not for the parties that traditionally did very well out of it.

I agree, I most certainly am assuming my own conclusion, which I believe is my democratic right and that you would fully concur with that, I'm not using it for proof of anything other than for my own choice, you and anyone else can disagree to your hearts content as others can, likewise, disagree with your views

I have no problem with any party aligning themselves to a larger and more popular party in order to bring limited influence for their beliefs, I have a very big problem with one which will change its allegiance at the drop of a hat and work with those it professes to despise against the one it just pretended to despise a little less, my thoughts on a potential SNP/Labour coalition are no different

 

[TheKnightWho]

It is just possible that the PM realised this benefit and pushed through the reform despite potential party damage. Not everything has to be cynical.

I'm sceptical that Cameron would intentionally cripple his own party's chances of ever getting a majority again, especially when he killed off AV for exactly that reason.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree, I most certainly am assuming my own conclusion, which I believe is my democratic right and that you would fully concur with that, I'm not using it for proof of anything other than for my own choice, you and anyone else can disagree to your hearts content as others can, likewise, disagree with your views

I have no problem with any party aligning themselves to a larger and more popular party in order to bring limited influence for their beliefs, I have a very big problem with one which will change its allegiance at the drop of a hat and work with those it professes to despise against the one it just pretended to despise a little less, my thoughts on a potential SNP/Labour coalition are no different

It's fine to think whatever you like, but in an argument you can't assert something (assume something) and then use that very same thing to try and strengthen your argument (prove it). It's not a free speech issue, it's a quality of argument issue. It's not fair to think anyone arguing with you is trying to silence you and to claim it's just your opinion - opinions can be better and worse than others. It doesn't mean you can't have one - it's inviting you to look at what you've said and to question whether it's any good. It is possible to change your opinion, you know...

And you're assuming that parties don't change and vary their allegiances all the time based on what's politically expedient. If the choice for the Lib Dems is Labour or nothing, they're going to pick Labour, just as any other party in their position would. Not because of a "sniff of power", but but because it strengthens their influence within government. This talk of grabs at power and whoring out is indicative of a one-party government system, where we're too used to parties having everything or nothing. It just doesn't work like that anymore.

 

[DarloRich]

So what we ended up with under Labour wasn't "less regulation" but actually "no regulation at all".

Which must be the the ultimate dream of Conservatives

 

[Tetchytyke]

The Government could have taken steps to keep going, true (see also Dennis Healey). But the country was very close to requiring those steps, and the Government appeared unable to contemplate the "change your spending behaviour" option

Much of the debt was borrowed to bail out the banks. It wasn't day-to-day expenditure.

As an aside, the Tories have been in for five years and haven't managed to cut expenditure to any meaningful degree. "Austerity" has been used to drive through ideological changes to the welfare benefits system for working-age adults, even though working-age benefits make up a tiny fraction of the total welfare bill. The real cost- pensions- haven't been touched for current pensioners.

Light regulation, if well designed, can be the most effective. Confusingly ill-specified regulation is a recipe for disaster, as was proved. And, whatever the level of regulation, one would expect any Government to have its finger on the pulse to have at least some idea of what was coming.

The Government did know what was coming, but were powerless to change the course. Effectively they were left with two choices: bail out the banks or let them go bust. They chose bailing them out as the lesser of two evils, just as they did in the early 2000s with the gold*.

As I've said before, Government has to trust the experts sometimes. And the experts were giving the sub-prime bonds that caused the problems a AAA rating. It's a brave government that goes against Moody's opinion, and I mean brave in the Sir Humphrey sense.

I also don't agree that the regulatory responsibility was particularly confusing, at least not in commercial banking. The lines of responsibility were reasonably clear cut.

There were issues with personal banking regulation being split between the FSA and the OFT, I'll give you that. And putting personal consumer finance in the new FCA has generally been a good thing, although not without issue for those of us running non-profit debt advice services.

Are you quietly trying to change the subject?

Nope, I just couldn't resist a cheap jibe

*it's funny how there's a lot of publicity about Brown selling the gold "cheaply", but not very much about the fact he only did it because a major US bank would have gone bust if he hadn't. Goldman Sachs put pressure on him to make the sale. The head of commodities at the time, Gavyn Davies, then went on to work for the "communist" BBC, and happened to be married to Brown's private secretary

 

[northwichcat]

As far as I'm concerned the Lib Dems would be behaving like some tart who will sleep with the highest paying customer without shame and that is most certainly not the type who should be entrusted with the slightest little piece of power, hopefully Clegg will soon be just like Sturgeon, a party leader who can't even sit in Parliament

If Nick Clegg loses his seat I think the Lib Dems will choose a new leader.

When the Coalition was formed a lot of people were calling for the experienced highly qualified Vince Cable to be Chancellor opposed to the inexperienced George Osborne with friends high up which led him being given a safe seat to fight and then the Shadow Chancellor's job followed by the actual Chancellor's job. If the best person was picked for the Chancellor's job it would have likely meant Nick Clegg would have been given a less senior role in government and probably been given less blame for things not going in their favour.

 

[Tetchytyke]

So what we ended up with under Labour wasn't "less regulation" but actually "no regulation at all".

...yet the Tories spent most of the 2005-10 parliament whining that there was too much regulation, not too little.

Just fancy that!

 

[northwichcat]

But that's how coalitions work... Acting like it's a bad thing because they want to influence public policy is just contrarian.

Some commentators also said responsibility for forming a parliament when there's no majority falls first to the current Prime Minister, so if correct Brown had a responsibility to talk to anyone he thought might be able to work with Labour.

 

[DarloRich]

There I think you are wrong, and sadly misled by the torrent of propaganda that has stood in place of opposition for the last five years. But different views are allowed - I wouldn't wish to be thought intolerant

Thanks

I just don't see the level of paternalism associated with one nation conservatives displayed very often by those within the parliamentary Conservative party. Surely a central ethos of one nationism is the emphasis on the paternalistic obligation of the upper classes to those classes below them, the so called noblesse oblige. Further one-nation conservatism should take a pragmatic and non-ideological approach to politics and espouse flexible policies with a view to creating a stable consensus.

And whilst all this sounds very 19th century ( which it is) the central beliefs still apply. Who, in the Conservative party, stands for those policies in government?

 

[table38]

...yet the Tories spent most of the 2005-10 parliament whining that there was too much regulation, not too little.

Just fancy that!

Maybe because they realised we'd have been better off with one regulator rather than three

 

[Tetchytyke]

Maybe because they realised we'd have been better off with one regulator rather than three

We still don't have one regulator...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Some commentators also said responsibility for forming a parliament when there's no majority falls first to the current Prime Minister, so if correct Brown had a responsibility to talk to anyone he thought might be able to work with Labour.

Yep. Tradition dictates that the incumbent gets first opportunity to form a Government, so Brown was entirely correct to talk with other parties about forming a coalition.

The Lib Dems had made it pretty clear they weren't going to lend legitimacy to Brown after he had lost the election, so it was a fairly brief discussion.

They could well use the same justification again if David Cameron loses this election.

 

[radamfi]

It's a sad state of affairs that this country is so used to one-party governments where one party gets all of its own way that there's talk of smaller parties tarting themselves out, or that one-party governments are "strong" (i.e. bullies everyone else) etc. when in most European countries compromise and discussion over policy is much, much more common and indeed desirable. Cameron's shot himself in the foot by sealing into law fixed-term parliaments: it was for his own benefit this last term, but it now means the papers can't scaremonger anywhere near as much about coalition governments, and as such gives smaller parties much more power. This can only be a good thing for the country, but probably not for the parties that traditionally did very well out of it.

I couldn't agree more. Anyone should be able to be in coalition with anyone else. That includes Labour and the Conservatives together if they want. That may seem fanciful, but in Germany they have a 'grand coalition' between the CDU/CSU and SPD.

 

[Butts]

Ah well, I've just voted.

Am I the first ?

Ironically The Scottish Conservative Candidate is the only one that actually lives in Falkirk - the home addresses apart from UKIP are still on the Ballot Paper. I thought they were removing them, or perhaps it is optional.

 

[northwichcat]

Ironically The Scottish Conservative Candidate is the only one that actually lives in Falkirk - the home addresses apart from UKIP are still on the Ballot Paper. I thought they were removing them, or perhaps it is optional.

For Tatton it shows

HUTTON Stuart Alex
(address in the Crewe and Nantwich Constituency)
UK Independence Party (UKIP)

OSBORNE George
(address in the Cities of London and Westminster Constituency)
The Conservative Party Candidate

PINTO-DUSCHINSKY David Jonathan
(address in the Islington North Constituency)
Labour Party

ROTHERY Tina Louise
61a Bolton Street, Blackpool, FY1 6AA
Green Party

WILSON Gareth George
5 Bucklow Avenue, Mobberley, Cheshire, WA16 7ET
Liberal Democrats

So sounds like it's optional whether they have the full address displayed but they have to give a locality if they don't give a full address.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Thanks

I just don't see the level of paternalism associated with one nation conservatives displayed very often by those within the parliamentary Conservative party. Surely a central ethos of one nationism is the emphasis on the paternalistic obligation of the upper classes to those classes below them, the so called noblesse oblige. Further one-nation conservatism should take a pragmatic and non-ideological approach to politics and espouse flexible policies with a view to creating a stable consensus.

And whilst all this sounds very 19th century ( which it is) the central beliefs still apply. Who, in the Conservative party, stands for those policies in government?

If the Tory party still espoused such views - albeit without the horrible classism - I could very much get behind it. The fact is that they're throwing conservatism with a small 'c' (gradual, moderated change based on informed consensus, precedent and looking at what works as opposed to radicalism) in favour of populist crap that appeals to social reactionaries, whose sole consistent ideology seems to be entirely hypocritical: don't tell me what to do, but let me tell everyone else what to do. This equally applies to their economic policy which merely rewards those doing well in society, instead of helping those who genuinely need it; this is then supported by bringing up extreme examples of welfare fraud.

 

[Senex]

I couldn't agree more. Anyone should be able to be in coalition with anyone else. That includes Labour and the Conservatives together if they want. That may seem fanciful, but in Germany they have a 'grand coalition' between the CDU/CSU and SPD.

I too agree. And which country has been better and more successfully governed over the last fifty years, Germany or Britain?

 

[Oswyntail]

....
And whilst all this sounds very 19th century ( which it is) the central beliefs still apply. Who, in the Conservative party, stands for those policies in government?

Leaving aside the emotional aspects of "paternalism", I do like the idea of "noblesse oblige" - the idea that the more fortunate, whatever stratum of society they occupy, should help those less fortunate. It has been a characteristic of Britain from its inception up until the end of WW1, which produced a weary cynicism that dealt it a fatal blow. But I digress.
Now the cue for hollow laughter, mixed in with gasps of horror. If you look dispassionately at some of the policies of the last five years you will see a thread of "one nation" running through them. So, to answer your question, I would name: Cameron, Hague, Gove, Lansley(for a while) and, yes, Duncan-Smith. Other players like May, Hammond and Grayling not so. To my mind, it is no coincidence that the ones I named are the ones most vilified. In a world where, to be honest, the two main parties agree on the main thrust of policy, the only possible opposition, if that is felt necessary, is to attack the personalities.
I don't ask you necessarily to agree, but simply to look at the policies in these areas and see if you can find the one-nation thread in them.

 

[DarloRich]

Leaving aside the emotional aspects of "paternalism", I do like the idea of "noblesse oblige" - the idea that the more fortunate, whatever stratum of society they occupy, should help those less fortunate. It has been a characteristic of Britain from its inception up until the end of WW1, which produced a weary cynicism that dealt it a fatal blow. But I digress.
Now the cue for hollow laughter, mixed in with gasps of horror. If you look dispassionately at some of the policies of the last five years you will see a thread of "one nation" running through them. So, to answer your question, I would name: Cameron, Hague, Gove, Lansley(for a while) and, yes, Duncan-Smith. Other players like May, Hammond and Grayling not so. To my mind, it is no coincidence that the ones I named are the ones most vilified. In a world where, to be honest, the two main parties agree on the main thrust of policy, the only possible opposition, if that is felt necessary, is to attack the personalities.
I don't ask you necessarily to agree, but simply to look at the policies in these areas and see if you can find the one-nation thread in them.

We shall have to agree to disagree then. How, for instance, does the bedroom tax build one nation? Where, for instance, is the obligation on the rich to pay their tax?

Conservatives used to be about giving people the tools to better themselves, their lot and the lives of their families. Now it seems to be about using those tools to batter people and steal their wallet!

EDIT it is VERY difficult to look dispassionately at Tory policy when you see the human results on a regular basis. I have an elderly relative who has been fined for "refusing" to move to a new smaller house, when no suitable housing is available! The answer seems to be for a person with no transport to move to a rural location they don't know and be completely cut off from their support network. Very paternalist that!

EDIT 2: The reason the likes of Duncan Smith are being vilified is because they have introduced polices that to many seem designed to punish them for being poor or falling on hard times.

 

[Oswyntail]

We shall have to agree to disagree then. How, for instance, does the bedroom tax build one nation? Where, for instance, is the obligation on the rich to pay their tax?

Conservatives used to be about giving people the tools to better themselves, their lot and the lives of their families. Now it seems to be about using those tools to batter people and steal their wallet!

EDIT it is VERY difficult to look dispassionately at Tory policy when you see the human results on a regular basis. I have an elderly relative who has been fined for "refusing" to move to a new smaller house, when no suitable housing is available! The answer seems to be for a person with no transport to move to a rural location they don't know and be completely cut off from their support network. Very paternalist that!

EDIT 2: The reason the likes of Duncan Smith are being vilified is because they have introduced polices that to many seemed designed to punish them for being poor or falling on hard times.

This government has been steadily tightening up on tax collection, and "the rich" generally do pay their tax. (Making multi-nationals pay more tax locally will inevitably take longer, as it involves international law) The "tools to better themselves" have been coming through education policy at all levels - and people are benefiting.
Social policy is more difficult, chiefly because the implementation has been patchy across the country. Any case like that of your relative is appalling, but I am also sure it is down to crass individuals more than Government policy. The actual policy thrust has been to focus welfare provision best on those who need it most. In every public service there are those who do everything right, those who do everything wrong, and a great muddle in between. Individual cases do not prove that the policy itself is wrong - or not "one nation".

 

[WelshBluebird]

The actual policy thrust has been to focus welfare provision best on those who need it most.

No, the focus has been to reduce welfare provision as much as possible regardless of consequence.

Hence why we have seen disabled and seriously ill people being as passed fit to work, why we have people who have a heart attack in a disability assessment being sanctioned because they did not complete the assessment, why we have the bedroom tax (you say the situation DarloRich's relative is in being down to "crass individuals", but the whole point of the bedroom tax is to target people like that who are living in houses or flats too big for their "needs"), why we have seen the benefits cap that totally ignores the fact that much of what you see as "thousands being claimed by benefits claimants" in reality goes direct to rich landlords in the form of housing benefit, why we have seen jobs centres sanctioning people for missing an appointment because they have a job interview, etc etc.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Ah well, I've just voted.

Am I the first ?

On the forum, maybe, but outside the forum our CEO tweeted yesterday that he had already sent in his postal vote.