Lib Dems are an irrelevance, in my lifetime they will not hold a position of power of an sort I can confidently predict that

You mean the party which is currently running many of the major cities in England? That's a position of power in my book.

 

If you believe in democracy (and I do wonder sometimes), then surely you believe people should be able to vote for the party which best reflects their views. I hate the Tories and don't much like Labour at the moment. Therefore, I'm grateful that there's still a party I'm able to vote for, namely the Liberal Democrats.

Lib Dems are an irrelevance, in my lifetime they will not hold a position of power of an sort I can confidently predict that

 

... they will be in a very powerful position come the expected hung parliament.

Lib Dems are an irrelevance, in my lifetime they will not hold a position of power of an sort I can confidently predict that

They do up here. They run a $h!t load of councils and have co-run my council for years with Labour at first and now the SNP.

 

Because the SNP's majority in the parliament was bugger all over Labour both parties were trying to suck up to the Lib Dem's to side with them. SNP came close but the Lib Dem's refused to side with them as long as Independence remained a key policy for the SNP. :wub:

You guys are lucky to have the third party to vote for! In Australia there are only Liberal (I am a disenchanted Liberal Party member btw) and Labour, there's the Green but they are extreme bunch of environmentalists!

You guys are lucky to have the third party to vote for! In Australia there are only Liberal (I am a disenchanted Liberal Party member btw) and Labour, there's the Green but they are extreme bunch of environmentalists!

 

So which is your party of the right?

Sweet Christ Chris, your idiocy astounds me...actually, I lie, I should've expected as much.

 

You have demonstrated yourself incapable of basic logic. You do realise that for there to be a majority of 150 for the Conservatives at the next election would require a swing of around 11.5% - one of the biggest of all time? (Rivalling Labour's swing in 1945, when there was actual enthusiasm for their leadership!) The Conservatives need a swing of 7% just to have a working majority. Margaret Thatcher's swing in 1979 was about 6%, and that was WITH apparent enthusiasm for her leadership! At the moment people dislike Labour, and therefore are attracted to the Conservatives, but don't necessarily have much enthusiasm for Cameron or his policies. There will not be a massive majority for Cameron, simply because of the fact that there is nothing he can do to reverse the fact that a lot of people don't trust the Conservatives. The only way that they could get a majority along the lines of the one in 1983 (which would also be impossible as the Lib Dems are actually an electoral force these days, regardless of what Craig and Chris would like to say to themselves, and you don't necessarily have to be electable to be an electoral force) would be if Labour imploded entirely and issued a manifesto along the lines of the one Labour issued that year.

 

Whilst I'm not denying that it's likely that the Conservatives will have a majority at the next election, it's far, FAR more likely that we'll have a Conservative minority hung parliament. As the economy improves Brown's popularity will stop plummeting quite so much, and indeed polls have shown it's on its way back up. Cameron's popularity seems to have stalled and he's incapable of going past 40% (another reason why he's not going to get a majority of 150), and the Lib Dems will almost certainly make gains as well from both parties that will ensure we have a Cm hung parliament. And I don't necessarily think that the Lib Dems forming a government with either party would be the best thing, I think hung parliaments are distinctly underrated - I think the following article sums up my views quite well:

 

Let's hear it for hung parliaments. At the moment they are as fashionable as Wigan Athletic, the football team that managed to concede nine goals to Spurs at the weekend. The former Chancellor and current shadow Business Secretary, Ken Clarke, has warned that a hung parliament would be a disaster. Writing with the authority of a cabinet minister who served in the 1970s minority Labour government, Roy Hattersley warns of unpredictable, darkly comic chaos. Some of my favourite columnists who reported on that particular parliament between 1974-1979 echo Hattersley's warnings. Those who have lived through hung parliaments would not want to do so again, they write, with shaking hands. Hung parliaments have few friends.

 

They deserve a few more. The veterans from the 1970s blame the lack of a governing majority for the travails of that decade. But Ted Heath was Prime Minister for the first tempestuous three and a half years and his secure majority offered him little comfort. Heath's traumas were as great as those faced by Wilson and Callaghan, from the three-day week to incomes policies that never worked. Arguably he would have performed more effectively in a hung parliament and would still have achieved his historic act of joining the Common Market. The 1970s were doomed to be turbulent because of factors well beyond the political arithmetic in the Commons. As it is the minority Labour government managed to introduce some significant social reforms, and by May 1979 showed a few signs of getting the economy under control.

 

An argument in favour of hung parliaments now arises directly from those days of never ending parliamentary drama. The House of Commons became the centre of attention as a matter of course in the 1970s, not because of an expenses scandal or contrived reforms in an attempt to make the legislative arena more "relevant". Landslides make the Commons a place of peripheral interest because governments and the rest of us know it will win virtually every vote.

 

In the 1970s the unpredictable nature of many key votes propelled it to the centre of all attention. I remember as a young teenager visiting the Commons' public gallery and witnessing Harold Wilson lose a key vote on industrial policy. It was as gripping as watching any great theatrical drama in the West End or a football match in which the outcome is decided on penalties. I was hooked on politics from that moment on and have always had problems when reading or hearing that the Commons is a pathetic irrelevance. It does not have to be.

 

The same applies to John Major's administration after 1992. The great moments of heightened drama did not occur in a television studio, but in the knife-edge votes on the Maastricht Treaty. At a point when politics is viewed with such disdain, and the place where elected politicians are supposed to make a difference is viewed hardly at all, there could be no better time for a hung parliament to provide a focus on the make-or-break votes and debates.

 

Of greater importance of course is whether an administration can govern effectively. There is little benefit to be had marvelling at the drama in the Commons if the country is falling apart as a result of the highly charged unpredictability.

 

On this the evidence is more subjective. In my view the early landslide majorities were a curse for this government, raising expectations and leading it to form unhealthy alliances with various media moguls in the hope of sustaining wide but shallow support. It would have been a better government if parliamentary arithmetic had forced it to pay more attention to its own MPs and the Liberal Democrats, and less to Rupert Murdoch's newspapers. Such a government would have introduced the necessary social reforms and increased public spending as this one did, but it would have been more daring in its constitutional revolution and in its approach towards Europe. At the very least Tony Blair's position on Iraq would have been subjected to more internal scrutiny. Its indiscriminate approach to civil liberties, although nowhere near as sinister or threatening as some believe, would have been challenged even more effectively than it has been. (Let us not forget Tony Blair was defeated in the Commons for the first time in his attempt to introduce detention without charge for 90 days).

 

If there had been a hung parliament in 1997 a revolution of sorts would have followed. Almost certainly Blair would have introduced electoral reform if he had not won a landslide, a move that might have brought together the progressive forces in British politics in a more coherent and sustainable way than under the auspices of a single party. When William Hague was the Conservatives' leader he told me that he thought Blair had a wicked plan to destroy the Conservatives by introducing electoral reform and then he discovered to his relief that the new Prime Minister had no such cunning intention. As a counter argument Blair told me he thought it would be "quixotic" to make the change when Labour had won a big majority. He was right. But that is a case for hung parliaments and not against electoral reform.

 

What of the future? If there is a hung parliament there will almost certainly be no formal coalition government, even if Nick Clegg and Vince Cable would like to join one. Clegg is trapped by what is known as his party's "triple lock", a hidden rule that might become of vital relevance. Before entering a coalition he is bound to secure the agreement of his MPs, other national representatives and the membership. Such an assertive set of bodies is unlikely to give the go ahead to a coalition with a Labour party that had lost its overall majority, or a Conservative party in just about any circumstance.

 

There are some wild cards after the forthcoming election, the most potent being Labour's commitment to a referendum on electoral reform. In February 1974 Heath's attempt to stay in power with the Liberals was scuppered by his refusal to offer a change in the voting system. Now Gordon Brown is committed to a position in which he must state repeatedly that he wants this to be the last election to be fought under first past the post.

 

The most likely scenario would be a minority Conservative government, a more attractive proposition than one with a big majority where its mistaken policies on Europe and the economy could be pursued without any obstacles and with the support of certain influential newspapers, an ominously familiar dynamic.

 

Party leaders affect indifference to opinion polls. Whenever questioned they declare with a dismissive wave of the hand that polls come and go, implying they can hardly be bothered to read them. Nothing could be further from the truth. Polls determine the political mood in a way that is extraordinary and overwhelming.

 

A poll at the weekend, showing a significant narrowing of the Tory lead, has slightly challenged the settled mood. Another one yesterday suggesting that Labour was gaining ground in Scotland makes another nudge against the consensus that the Conservatives are marching towards a solid majority. In truth no one knows whether there will be a hung parliament. The more relevant question for now is whether such an outcome would be good or bad for the country.

 

If there were a close result there would not be the euphoria that greeted Labour's landslide in 1997, but there would be grounds for mild relief and optimism. In politics mild optimism is a safer emotion than euphoria.

 

Oh, and Chris, can you even say why you're so opposed to PR beyond a one-sentence answer that makes me want to kill the entire Sun-reading population of the country, or are you just going to sit there and type out more inane ill-informed chatter without reading any of the arguments put against you?

So which is your party of the right?

The Liberals, oddly enough :lol:

Sweet Christ Chris, your idiocy astounds me...actually, I lie, I should've expected as much.

 

You have demonstrated yourself incapable of basic logic. You do realise that for there to be a majority of 150 for the Conservatives at the next election would require a swing of around 11.5% - one of the biggest of all time? (Rivalling Labour's swing in 1945, when there was actual enthusiasm for their leadership!) The Conservatives need a swing of 7% just to have a working majority. Margaret Thatcher's swing in 1979 was about 6%, and that was WITH apparent enthusiasm for her leadership! At the moment people dislike Labour, and therefore are attracted to the Conservatives, but don't necessarily have much enthusiasm for Cameron or his policies. There will not be a massive majority for Cameron, simply because of the fact that there is nothing he can do to reverse the fact that a lot of people don't trust the Conservatives. The only way that they could get a majority along the lines of the one in 1983 (which would also be impossible as the Lib Dems are actually an electoral force these days, regardless of what Craig and Chris would like to say to themselves, and you don't necessarily have to be electable to be an electoral force) would be if Labour imploded entirely and issued a manifesto along the lines of the one Labour issued that year.

 

Whilst I'm not denying that it's likely that the Conservatives will have a majority at the next election, it's far, FAR more likely that we'll have a Conservative minority hung parliament. As the economy improves Brown's popularity will stop plummeting quite so much, and indeed polls have shown it's on its way back up. Cameron's popularity seems to have stalled and he's incapable of going past 40% (another reason why he's not going to get a majority of 150), and the Lib Dems will almost certainly make gains as well from both parties that will ensure we have a Cm hung parliament. And I don't necessarily think that the Lib Dems forming a government with either party would be the best thing, I think hung parliaments are distinctly underrated - I think the following article sums up my views quite well:

Oh, and Chris, can you even say why you're so opposed to PR beyond a one-sentence answer that makes me want to kill the entire Sun-reading population of the country, or are you just going to sit there and type out more inane ill-informed chatter without reading any of the arguments put against you?

 

A hung parliament would be a disaster for this country, I would rather see Labour get in again with a working majority than see a hung parliament and coming from a die hard tory that is saying something

 

Hung parliaments lead to instability, both political and economic, we would have back door deals in smoke filled rooms just to keep a minority in power, we would have minority groups like the Lib Dems, SNP, Ulster Unionists, Sinn Fein and quite possibly the BNP effectively able to blackmail parties into agreeing to stuff by threatening votes of no confidence

 

Major's reign was a disaster because of the EU rebels holding the tories to ransom and that was with a small working majority so imagine what a hung parliament would be like, sod that

A hung parliament would be a disaster for this country, I would rather see Labour get in again with a working majority than see a hung parliament and coming from a die hard tory that is saying something

 

Hung parliaments lead to instability, both political and economic, we would have back door deals in smoke filled rooms just to keep a minority in power, we would have minority groups like the Lib Dems, SNP, Ulster Unionists, Sinn Fein and quite possibly the BNP effectively able to blackmail parties into agreeing to stuff by threatening votes of no confidence

 

Major's reign was a disaster because of the EU rebels holding the tories to ransom and that was with a small working majority so imagine what a hung parliament would be like, sod that

Did you read the article? :lol: In any case, I was referring to a hung parliament being ideal for this country, not a coalition government being formed...hence, none of the back door deals. I'm more referring to the idea of these parties being able to neutralise the greatest excesses of a potential governing party.

Did you read the article? :lol: In any case, I was referring to a hung parliament being ideal for this country, not a coalition government being formed...hence, none of the back door deals. I'm more referring to the idea of these parties being able to neutralise the greatest excesses of a potential governing party.

 

A hung parliament would be even worse, there would be a general election a year like used to happen in Italy and almost always happens in Israel

 

The government of the day would always lose often in hung parliaments

 

The effect on business would be a disaster, suppose you were for example Steve Jobs and were looking at setting up a factory in Europe to manufacture iPod's, would you set up a factory in a country of political instability where the government might change the next month ? or would you set it up in a stable political country ? congrats France you have just got the factory and 2000 extra jobs

A hung parliament would be even worse, there would be a general election a year like used to happen in Italy and almost always happens in Israel

 

The government of the day would always lose often in hung parliaments

 

The effect on business would be a disaster, suppose you were for example Steve Jobs and were looking at setting up a factory in Europe to manufacture iPod's, would you set up a factory in a country of political instability where the government might change the next month ? or would you set it up in a stable political country ? congrats France you have just got the factory and 2000 extra jobs

Strange you don't mention Germany, they seem to do quite well in business despite having hung parliaments and the like :P

A hung parliament would be a disaster for this country, I would rather see Labour get in again with a working majority than see a hung parliament and coming from a die hard tory that is saying something

 

Hung parliaments lead to instability, both political and economic, we would have back door deals in smoke filled rooms just to keep a minority in power, we would have minority groups like the Lib Dems, SNP, Ulster Unionists, Sinn Fein and quite possibly the BNP effectively able to blackmail parties into agreeing to stuff by threatening votes of no confidence

 

Major's reign was a disaster because of the EU rebels holding the tories to ransom and that was with a small working majority so imagine what a hung parliament would be like, sod that

All parties are minority parties. The closest any party has come to getting a majority of the votes since the war was Labour in 1951. And they lost as the Tories got fewer votes but more seats.

 

And smoke-filled rooms are illegal in workplaces :lol:

The Liberals, oddly enough :lol:

 

:mellow:

Glad i'm not doing Australian politics next term...

I don't think they'll get a majority of 150 at all. B.A. said that and if you read back I said he "may be right. " I'd bet you any money that there won't be a hung parliament though. I'd say a Cameron majority of 60-80 and that's fine. He'd increase it then at the nxt election.

I'd say a Cameron majority of 60-80 and that's fine. He'd increase it then at the nxt election.

 

Maybe not Chirs, the next election after this one if the Conservatives win could be Dave vs. Dave, and Miliband will have the fresh Blair-esq thing going on. Not to mention a wavering electorate if thing's don't go well for the Tories in the next four years.

;)

Saying that, the future years could be horrendous for any government, Thatcher got her landslide in '83 mainly because of the Falklands, Cameron should hope for a war.

:P

I don't think they'll get a majority of 150 at all. B.A. said that and if you read back I said he "may be right. " I'd bet you any money that there won't be a hung parliament though. I'd say a Cameron majority of 60-80 and that's fine. He'd increase it then at the nxt election.

A majority of 60-80 still requires a 9% swing, which would still be unprecedented in the modern age...

:mellow:

Glad i'm not doing Australian politics next term...

 

What's the point of Australian politics when our system are just pretty much similar to each other except that we have Federation in Australia and you don't in the UK? :P

 

So which is your party of the right?

 

Overall I am more aligned with Liberals than with Labour. But then, the political scene in Australia is pretty interchangeable with the UK. The Liberals and The Labour are pretty much the same minus the union influence. ;)

 

Let me put this way: I am socially liberal and economic centre-right. ^_^

I don't think they'll get a majority of 150 at all. B.A. said that and if you read back I said he "may be right. " I'd bet you any money that there won't be a hung parliament though. I'd say a Cameron majority of 60-80 and that's fine. He'd increase it then at the nxt election.

 

Not necessarily... and it's very premature to say that Cameron would increase the majority.

 

In Australia, due to the Coalition (The Nationals and The Liberals) tearing itself apart, Kevin Rudd (Labour PM, Blair-esqeue) is expected to increase his majority. However, the Liberal has just elected Tony Abbott (dubbed "Mad Monk" or "Captain Catholic") as their leader and the scene has just changed.

 

A lot can happen in 3 years, let alone 5 years. :P

A hung parliament would be a disaster for this country, I would rather see Labour get in again with a working majority than see a hung parliament and coming from a die hard tory that is saying something

 

Hung parliaments lead to instability, both political and economic, we would have back door deals in smoke filled rooms just to keep a minority in power, we would have minority groups like the Lib Dems, SNP, Ulster Unionists, Sinn Fein and quite possibly the BNP effectively able to blackmail parties into agreeing to stuff by threatening votes of no confidence

 

Major's reign was a disaster because of the EU rebels holding the tories to ransom and that was with a small working majority so imagine what a hung parliament would be like, sod that

The thought of the SNP having more power is enough to give me nightmares.

 

Not necessarily... and it's very premature to say that Cameron would increase the majority.

 

In Australia, due to the Coalition (The Nationals and The Liberals) tearing itself apart, Kevin Rudd (Labour PM, Blair-esqeue) is expected to increase his majority. However, the Liberal has just elected Tony Abbott (dubbed "Mad Monk" or "Captain Catholic") as their leader and the scene has just changed.

 

A lot can happen in 3 years, let alone 5 years. :P

K Rudd = Legend.

 

You managed to dodge a big bullet by going without a recession. Your banks are also far more regulated. One of the safest banks in the UK is the NAB [:wub:] owned Clydesdale.

 

Kevin Rudd P.M. on Rove is HILARIOUS. It's one of the things i miss most about Aussie TV. Rove and Good News Week :wub:

K Rudd = Legend.

 

You managed to dodge a big bullet by going without a recession. Your banks are also far more regulated. One of the safest banks in the UK is the NAB [:wub:] owned Clydesdale.

 

Kevin Rudd P.M. on Rove is HILARIOUS. It's one of the things i miss most about Aussie TV. Rove and Good News Week :wub:

 

Really? I don't want to sound partisan here but...

 

Howard & Costello cleaned up $96 billion of Keating Labour government debt and left the government with $23 billion in surplus and a Future Fund that is designed to pay off unpaid liabilities of public servant, unlike you guys who has been accumulating debt under Blair-Brown government.

 

Howard & Costello continued de-regulating the labour market, which is a reform initiated by Hawke-Keating Labour government. When he left government, the unemployment is only 3.5% in Australia.

 

Howard & Costello introduced GST to scrap inefficient taxes and thus, income tax cut and company tax cut are allowed.

 

Howard & Costello took on the maritime union, without that, Australia would not have been exporting the amount of minerals to China that we have right now.

 

Howard & Costello established Australian Prudential Regulation Authority which regulate all the financial institutions, which is why we didn't have a sub-prime crisis like the one in the US.

 

To improve the declining fertility rate, Howard introduced baby-bonus and now the fertility rate is at replacement level.

 

By contrast, once Kevin Rudd assumed Prime Ministership:

 

He accused of Howard & Costello of being ideologicall-driven with ALL the reform agenda that I mentioned above, which now turns out to be fantastic device against the GFC.

 

He promised that if in 18 months, state government hasn't yet improved their performance on health, he would initiate a referendum to take over hospitals from the state governments. Now it's more than 24 months and he hasn't done it yet.

 

He promised to give laptop to every student in Australia, but the laptops don't have internet connection and the budget for computer blow out by 66%.

 

He promised to bring down grocery & petrol prices. Does he even think that's possible? Fuelwatch and Grocerywatch websites launched, then shut down, at massive cost to taxpayers.

 

He, within 24 months of PMship, has committed Australia to more than $250 billion of debt, despit of the fact that the economy is still in relatively good shape. Pre-election, he criticised Howard of spending too much and declared "the bucks stopped with me".

 

He forced (Yes, he forced it!) through his stimulus program by ordering what building school should build, with over-inflated prices. For example, a school needs to purchase new equipment but has been ordered to build a new assembly hall instead, which is a situation happening throughout Australia.

 

He allocated $700 million for remote indigenous housing. To this day not one house has been built. FAIL. The auditor general is investigating wasted government spending on the program.

 

He promised to take the Japanese to the international court of justice for the whale-hunting activitiy. 24 months on and no action.

 

He changed his travel plans for Copenhagen TWICE to co-incide with Obama's. He also took 3 times as many people to Copenhagen as the UK did, embarassing Australia by showboating in front of world leaders, with no result.

 

He also re-regulated the labour market, which goes beyond Hawke-Keating government reform in the early 90s.

 

Before Copenhagen the public face of Labor's climate change policy was all Krudd, and no Penny Wong. Having returned from Copenhagen a failure, Krudd hid away in Kirribilli House for days, making Penny Wong face the media. Coward.

 

He promised 100% broadband coverage before the election. After the election it's 90% and the budget now stands at $43 billion, up from $4 billion.

 

He decided to impose moral censorship on the internet. Yet report after report show that there would be unintended consequences.

 

There're probably more but I will leave it like this. I hope you enjoy it. :P