Approaching decision time

Why a hung parliament might be good for Britain
One of the biggest arguments that the Tories have brought to bear in their campaign is the fear of a hung parliament.
“'If the British do not decide to put in a government with a working majority and the market thinks that we can't tackle our debt and deficit problems ourselves then the IMF will have to do it for us.” So said the Conservatives’ business spokesman, and general big beast, Ken Clarke two weeks ago.
The most obvious question that Mr Clarke leaves unanswered is why – given that opinion polls have increasingly pointed to a hung parliament for weeks – have the markets not reacted? Why is the pound not already falling in anticipation of post-election chaos?
It is certainly an important issue Mr Clarke has raised. Because one thing that is true is that Britain’s next government – of whatever stripe – will face a formidable task after the election: a budget deficit of £167bn, around 11%-12% of GDP, comparable with Greece’s.
As the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out last week, none of the parties have come anywhere near to explaining where all the tax rises and spending cuts will come from in order to carry out what is likely to be the biggest government austerity programme since the Second World War.
The Conservatives’ manifesto identifies less than 20% of the necessary savings, according to the IFS’s findings. The Liberal Democrats were seemingly most honest, but even they only specified 25% of measures needed to cut the structural deficit.
The IFS says the deficit is the biggest issue facing voters. But what does it actually mean for the election outcome?
Firstly, whoever wins power, is likely to become very unpopular very quickly, as the full extent of the fiscal pain being meted out by the next chancellor becomes obvious to an electorate, who – quite rightly – may complain that they were misled.
Bank of England Governor Mervyn King has predicted that whoever wins the election may become so unpopular, that they will be thrown out of government for a generation.
Secondly, because the parties’ manifestos have been so light on detail, many of the decisions about where the fiscal pain will be felt will have to be made by the next chancellor after the election. So an important question for voters is, who do they trust to get these decisions right?
In order for the fiscal austerity to be acceptable to the public – and to avoid it being turned by the opposition into a rod to beat the government’s back with – it will be very important that the decisions made by the next chancellor are perceived to be fair.
This may prove difficult for a Tory government, whose chancellor – George Osborne – is widely perceived as an aloof scion of the aristocracy, and is certainly not as liked as David Cameron.
Moreover, the Liberal Democrats and Labour claim that the Tories will be lenient on the big corporate and banking groups that have bankrolled their election campaign (which by implication means they will have to be less lenient on everyone else).
If after the election, the parties manage to get this charge to stick in the public’s mind, it could lead to a general public backlash against the entire austerity programme.
Thirdly, the fiscal tightening will last a long time – certainly the entirety of the next parliament, and well beyond the next election of 2014/15. That means that whoever wins power will need to hold their nerve to the very end, even in the face of the next election. Failure to do so could seriously dent the country’s credibility with markets.
So what kind of government is best placed to tackle this deficit?
Two things are likely to be very important: a commanding majority in the House of Commons, and a strong mandate from the electorate.
Unfortunately, the narrow win (or even, minority government) that David Cameron now targets is unlikely to deliver either of those.
Instead it may produce a government dependent on ad hoc support from the opposition (the SNP? Plaid Cymru?) in order to pass key legislation.
Moreover, as polls stand, the Tories seem likely to win well under 40% of the vote – possibly the smallest vote for a new government ever recorded. That is hardly a ringing public endorsement for the party’s planned emergency budget to begin austerity this year.
Indeed, the reality of a Tory “win” may be something more akin to the days of John Major than those of Margaret Thatcher – a government with a wafer thin majority, continually under threat from defections by supposed allies or by their own internal factions.
To be sure, a coalition government would require close cooperation between erstwhile rival parties. And producing such a government could take days, if not weeks, of post-election negotiations.
But a coalition government would also enjoy a comfortable majority in parliament, and would probably have received the backing of over 60% of the electorate.
Part of the public’s fear over a hung parliament is the fear of the unknown. Apart from a brief stint in the mid-70s, the UK has not had coalition governments since the inter-war period.
But although a hung parliament may be a novelty in the UK, in many other countries it is the norm. What does the international evidence indicate?
Perhaps one of the most interesting observations is that Greece, to whom many Tories would like to compare the UK’s likely fate under a hung parliament, does not have coalition politics.
Greece has a two-party system. And its current fiscal crisis is a problem that has been allowed to grow up under successive majority governments, just the same as the hole in the UK’s public finances.
Ironically, Germany – the country whose support is critical for the financial rescue of Greece – has a proportional electoral system that always delivers a hung parliament.
Coalition governments are the norm in Germany – indeed, the last government was formed by a coalition of Germany’s equivalents of the Labour and Conservative parties.
And yet Germany is held up by many as a model of fiscal restraint.
Looking more broadly, at the whole of the OECD, it is interesting to note that of all the countries with a double-digit fiscal deficit, only Iceland has coalition governments.
All of the others (the UK, Greece, Ireland, the USA, Spain) have two-party political systems that produce majority governments.
One of Nick Clegg’s most popular refrains during the leadership debates was that he would like an economic council, including all three political parties, to work together on solving the budget deficit.
The idea of a “government of all the talents” remains attractive. Voters generally like David Cameron, but do not like George Osborne. They like some Labour ministers, but are tired of Gordon Brown. And although Nick Clegg and Vince Cable are appealing, the Lib Dems seem too new, unfamiliar and untested.
Yet most voters would express scepticism at the idea of politicians cooperating.
Why is it that British politicians seem so happy to bicker and attack each other, when German politicians seem able to work together?
Probably the most obvious explanation is the electoral system. Under the UK’s first past the post system, the “winning” party (which means getting more than 40%, but always less than 50% of the vote) is delivered a handsome majority in parliament.
Under such a system, there is no incentive to cooperate.
The opposition is completely cut out of government until the next election, and its only power is the power to criticise the government at every opportunity.
So perhaps the biggest argument in favour of a coalition government is that it will deliver electoral reform – a key requirement of the Lib Dems for any coalition deal.
Not only would some measure of proportional representation be fairer, but – based on the international evidence – it would deliver governments better able to tackle the enormous fiscal challenges ahead.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

Taxi for Brown!

I saw a suggestion on a previous discussion which I quite liked....

People should be allowed to vote 'none of the above' both in the election and in the opinion polls.

One comment I keep hearing, both on the TV and in real life, is voters actually saying that they don't like or trust ANY of them.

'Labour on the up' _ you're having a laugh Nick ! Dead and buried and taking their glorious leader with them ! The flags are out - Gordon's gone and Scotland is welcome to him. What an advert for their country !

- INTERNATIONALLY-HIGH-PROFILE, CONSTRUCTIVE NATIONAL OBJECTIVES NEEDED -

A higher priority than balancing the country's budget and eliminating its debt- for whatever party gets elected to form govt- ought to be setting several internationally high-profile, mega-project-type national-objectives or programmes...

Objectives/projects intended to instill pride and purpose within the electorate & businesses 'in return' for their economizing and 'putting up with' cut-backs in certain areas of govt expenditure and paying higher taxes...

1) 'Made in the UK' high-speed train lines on a mega-scale through the whole of the UK- starting with an expedited line or lines from London to N Ireland and on to Dublin via an undersea tunnel linking N England or Scotland with N Ireland;

2) Development of a world-class high-speed and urban-rail transport research centre in the UK in which successful international companies with expertise in high-speed and urban rail as well as other types of commuter & business-goods transport are participants;

3) World-beating high-speed Internet connections to every home and business in the UK;

4) an Internet router, storage and broadband data-delivery research centre- in which successful international high-technology companies participate and play integral roles;

5) A Royal Navy with 'legitimate' aircraft carriers- instead of the grievously under-equipped, devoid of ship self-defence weapons & dangerously economized ones Labour has directed the construction of;

6) Upgrading the Royal Navy's capabilities to a functionally responsible level* by actioning a compressed build programme for operationally-sufficient numbers of new 'FULLY EQUIPPED', surface and subsurface combatants as well as support vessels for the RN and RFA…
======================

* IE: the objective- a Royal Navy that is capable of projecting constructive British presence world-wide and with capacities to deal with known and to-be-expected threats from both state and non-state actors...

"Argentina gets first Russian defense deal", 26_04-2010:

https://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2010/04/26/Argentina-gets-first-Russian-defense-deal/UPI-64361272276060/

"The deal also comes amid designs by Russia and Argentina to bolster relations in nuclear power development...

"... and share use of the Russian Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS)...

(in case the US ever cuts off Argentina access to the GPS system?????)

"ARGENTINA ABANDONED A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM DURING THE 1990's.... (my emphasis- rvl)

(Can the UK's politicians say with certainty that Argentina's nuclear weapons programme will NEVER be re-started??)

“Medvedev's visit to Argentina: more than 10 agreements signed", 15_04-2020:

https://en.rian.ru/world/20100415/158586719.html

https://www.deagel.com/news/Argentina-and-Russia-Sign-Nuclear-Power-Generation-and-GLONASS-Agreements-and-Sale-of-Two-Mi-171E-Helicopters_n000007291.aspx

Russian company Novator's Anti-ship Cruise Missile (ASCM) products are being marketed at international arms expos as store-able, transportable and launch-able from converted standard-sized shipping-containers, aircraft, subs and small coastal patrol boats...

https://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Defence-Weekly-2010/Concealed-carriage-Club-K-changes-cruise-missile-rules.html

"Russia's Novator Experimental Design Bureau has developed a containerized version of its Club family of anti-ship and land-attack cruise missiles.

"...The new variant, the Club-K Container Missile System (CMS), is perhaps the ultimate concealed weapon as the entire system is housed, transported and fired using a standard 40 ft shipping container...

"Soviet/Russian Cruise Missiles":
https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-Cruise-Missiles.html
https://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/delivry/novator.htm

"The Cruise Missile Challenge: Designing a Defense Against Asymmetric Threats", May-2007:

https://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=522

"Falklands' war tested modernized Super Etendard in Argentine Navy's agenda", 21_02-2010:

https://en.mercopress.com/2010/02/21/falklands-war-tested-modernized-super-etendard-in-argentine-navy-s-agenda

"... The possible transfer to Argentina of a refurbished model of the French manufactured fighter-bomber Super Etendard, which had an outstanding performance during the 1982 Falkland Islands conflict, is under consideration by the French Ministry of Defence..".
==========================

Add the Russia trade agreements with Argentina of the last 2-weeks to requests by Argentina to France from late February-2010 for the sale of advanced-capabilities fighter aircraft (currently being considered by France) and what does this demand from the UK after the coming election- total ignorance and the continued gutting and weakening of the RN- or prudent upgrading of RN capabilities???


_____________________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada

PhoneyDave has every right to be worried. The Tories hate their leaders that fail. If the latest BBC poll is correct he is going to be 70 seats short of an overall majority. If a main opposition party is in that position after 13 years, it is, to say the least a pathetic performance.
Perhaps it was not a good idea to elect a failed spin doctor and Ashcroft puppet as leader.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Nick, while your attention is drawn to the three, perhaps the biggest story in the election aftermath will be a record instance of postal ballot fraud.

With such a finely balanced election, the prospect of a significant proportion of over 5,000 new registrations in Tower Hamlets being fraudulent (to say nothing of eleven other London constituencies and others around the country), our electoral process could be undermined - the "hanging chads" of our democracy?

We've already had the case of a candidate in Bristol aware of the initial count, while various issues have arisen over identification in Glamorgan.

The three party leaders doing their best to whip up a storm amongst their supporters is an interesting side-line, but surely today the real story is whether tomorrow's election has been compromised already?

1#

Nice and short and to the point then..... :-(

Why do the media never intervene when politicians LIE?
I really dont understand it. Not a single member of the MSm has asked Gordon Brown why he is lying by stating that the poor would lose Tax Credits!

Its just not British to lie your way into Downing Street, really shameful.

For me the choice has always been between voting Lib Dem or Tory, with the option of a protest vote.

This current government, I believe, are the only government in history to go to court in order to prove that the pledges made in their manifesto meant nothing. This sums up the attitude of the New Labour experiment which has been nothing but a disastrous failure throughout.

I disagree with many of the Tory and Lib Dem policies, and may still yet go for one of the minor parties or independents instead. Given that I live in a Labour heartland though, no-one's really bothered campaigning locally so I've no idea what anyone stands for, and the vote is pretty meaningless anyway as a Labour victory is all but guaranteed round here.

I've told before of the story I remember from the last election, when I went to the polling station and saw a guy there bringing his teenage son for what was obviously his first exercise in democracy of the ballot box. He was showing him how to vote by pointing at the ballot paper and explaining "You put an X next to here where it says Labour." Such is the mentality of our constituency - not even Labour have bothered wasting their time campaigning here. It's a sure thing.

Cameron doesn't have all the answers, nor does Clegg (if anything, I think his sudden surge in popularity caught the Lib Dems off-guard).

Anyone who votes based on a historical predjudice sickens me really, but unfortunately that seems to be the majority of voters. Those who vote Tory because of what Labour did in the 70's are just as stupid as those who vote Labour because of what the Tories did in the 80's.

Judge the people, judge the performance, judge the delivery. Fairlyopenmind has been making that final point in this blog for years now.

Spending does not equal delivery. All the arguments based around the cuts/investment malarkey are just semantics. Yes, Labour have spent a lot, but they've spent it very very badly. They've done some good, granted, but on the whole, it's been a dreadful exercise in inefficiency, waste, and self-interest.

This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

My husband is still undecided. Trouble is, if he does not come to a decision by tomorrow, he won't trouble to go to the polling station at all.

Meanwhile as safeguarding governor for a primary school that's used as a polling station I'm scampering around organising extra fencing so that site security is not compromised by having voters wandering around. Not the best time to have the OFSTED in, is it?

"It's clear that a man who's seen many Tory defeats can't believe that the country wants another five years of Gordon Brown but fears that he may not have done enough to avoid it"

This is pretty on the nose, and a pity.

In the TV debates I just wanted some glimmer that they could talk 'non poltically' (i.e. could break beyond that style and character that all politicians share). All Cameron, Clegg and Brown could do was bicker between themselves.

Despite the constant politic naysayers and multitudes of media types saying it would be a disaster, I still am baffled as to why a coalition Government is so resented - in fact the way it is resented speaks volumes about the nature of our politicians, which in turn feeds my cynicism about them.

If you had three managers of a company that was chronically failing in the private sector that behaved in this way in the board room, the rest of the board would kick them out before you could say proportional representation

My personal expectation of this election is for the Conservatives to be propped up by the Dems. But a re-election to be called again within the year as its impossible to get anything done. Coming out of that second election I think the Conservatives will become the outright leader without Cameron, the Dems will be second but only just with Labour fighting it out with them for the next few years.

I don't understand though why the isn't a option on the ballot for NOTA. Apart from the fact if that was the case there would probably never be anyone elected.

4. At 11:03am on 05 May 2010, riosso wrote:
'Labour on the up' _ you're having a laugh Nick ! Dead and buried and taking their glorious leader with them ! The flags are out - Gordon's gone and Scotland is welcome to him. What an advert for their country !

Not at. Labour bottomed out on Thursday and Friday and the latest polls have indicated a bounce; 'on the up' is a fairly accurate description. I suspect they will get around 29% of the popular vote but how that translates to seats is fairly uncertain. I'm still predicting C-40.

for evidence of hung parliaments just look to ITALY, they do not work.

The long the day of recogning is put off, just like in 74 the worse the
situation will become, it took another 5 years before the country woke
up and smelt the coffee and then about 15 years to put is right.

I for see history repeating itself and Cleeggeee making a wrong call like thorpe which will detroy the Libs again along with labour but most importantly the UK for a long time 25 years maybe

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

BIGOT

Brown
Is
Gone
On
Thursday

Well, right now, I count myself among those who have not made up their mind which way to vote.

I thought I'd decided to vote LibDem. But having emailed my LibDem candidate over the weekend to ask a question and not yet having had a reply, I'm beginning to have second thoughts. Call me old fashioned, but I don't want an MP who ignores emails from constituents. If she doesn't reply when there's an election campaign going on, what chance would there be of ever hearing from her for the next 5 years?

"IPGABP1 wrote:
PhoneyDave has every right to be worried. The Tories hate their leaders that fail. If the latest BBC poll is correct he is going to be 70 seats short of an overall majority. If a main opposition party is in that position after 13 years, it is, to say the least a pathetic performance.
Perhaps it was not a good idea to elect a failed spin doctor and Ashcroft puppet as leader."

Actually considering the size of the swing needed for the Tories to win a majority it would have required a massive turnaround for the Tories to win.

Based on the lack of balance in our current political system the Tories need to be about 9 or 10% ahead in the polls to just win a majority. Labour could win a majority if the polls were tied. And could even be the largest party after coming in third.

If anything this election has shown just how far the scales are tipped in Labour's favour.

"Anand wrote:
Why do the media never intervene when politicians LIE?
I really dont understand it. Not a single member of the MSm has asked Gordon Brown why he is lying by stating that the poor would lose Tax Credits!"

If the MSM had to run a story everytime a politician lied there wouldn't be any time for any other news.

Everybody knows Brown lies, the problem is that the people who are still willing to vote Labour are those who believe his lies.

gerry @ 9

at least it's a lot more readable than most posts ;-)

You seem to be pushing the old narratives here which are starting to sound worn out.

"The signs are that millions of voters are agonising, weighing up in their minds…." Millions? Voter intentions have been hardening by the day. But it suits a media to whip up the 'everything to play for' excitement.

Planting "Cameron" and "don't risk it" in the mind is an old attack line now way past its sell-by date.

"Labour are the ones on the up" Really? So why were some flouting party rules and urging tactical voting?

"All three leaders …." compounds the Westminster-centric view of the election of which Clegg is a part.

You are correct on one point. The election "will determine their future and yours" So isn't it time for some reality checks?

https://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/best-campaign-ad-ever.html

PLEASE - stop these Labour lies!!!!!

It is the worst kind of bullying - preying on the vulnerable end of the electorate in a shabby attempt to frighten them into giving Brown's Labour even MORE power! Please God that no sensible, intelligent people fall for such negative bullying - just vote for either of the other main two parties, they are both trying to do an honest job! People should to whatever it takes to ensure that Brown isn't still holed-up in Downing Street on Friday, attempting to bribe the LibDems, ScotNats and anyone else he can find that might sustain him in power. Such "deals in smoke-filled rooms" will be made at the taxpayers' expense, either directly (pork-barrel politics for the Scots etc) or indirectly in the form of a "fixed" electoral process.

Voters really shouldn't stand for it!

6. At 11:06am on 05 May 2010, IPGABP1 wrote:

PhoneyDave has every right to be worried. The Tories hate their leaders that fail. If the latest BBC poll is correct he is going to be 70 seats short of an overall majority. If a main opposition party is in that position after 13 years, it is, to say the least a pathetic performance.
Perhaps it was not a good idea to elect a failed spin doctor and Ashcroft puppet as leader.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed Sout, New Labour love their dear leader so much that there has been three attempted coups against him. LOL!!

Perhaps it wasnt such a good idea to let the psychologically damaged megalomaniac who thought he was born to the job stand unopposed, eh?

Please, please, please stop talking about if labour come third in the election. This is election is a first past the post election and labour will come second or first. The 'popular vote' is close to meaningless under this system for the follwoing reasons:
1. In the safe seats many voters will not bother to vote. If you have lived all your voting life in a safe seat then disengagement is a likelihood.
2. The parties have not campaigned much in the safe seats to turn out this vote
3. Some people will vote tactically

If we had a PR system where every vote counted the popular vote would be very different, including much higher numbers for smaller parties.

I was amazed that the bbc's iontelligent journalists have, along with Nick Clegg, talked about the prospect of Labour coming 'third' when it is clear, using the bbbc seat calculator, that that is an impossibility.
Nick Clegg saying it would be preposterous to have Gordon Brown in no.10 if Labour came third in popular vote has no intellectual legitimacy whatsoever given my points above. It's a bit like staging a 100m race and then telling the contestants afterwards that it was the number of strides taken that mattered not the finishing order.
I do think PR should be brought in but this elections results cannot be interpreted that way. I hope I don't feel like throwing something at the telly on election night because more twaddle is being talked about the popular vote. To me it is such an obvious fallcy that it must be brought up by the bbc today and on election night. So far, apart from Nick Robinson, I have heard it from Jeremy Paxman, Michael Crick, the Today programme, Eddie Mair, Robin Lustig and Nicky Campbell with no critical comments to balance it. Very disappointing.
Nick you are the political editor...so over to you.
(PS I have no link with any party. I am a labour supporter who will vote tactically for the Lib Dems!)

12#

Oh for christs sakes Nicky, will you give your chops a rest about the Reich??

Its becoming boring in the extreme!!

23 I didnt say that it wasnt :-)

Pity that man did not meet Gordon Brown - he would certainly voted for him!

@19 IR35_SURVIVOR

Perhaps we should rename the notorious IR35 the "Silicon Tax" as an epitaph for the man who introduced it?

(Only a silly...)

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Sad thing is, the electoral system is so stacked against the Tories, that they have to be stupidly successful (often 40% polls) in order to win outright...Whereas Labour can trot in with 35% of the vote and still have a working majority. Plus, I am also saddened that the UK public appear to have lost some of their independence of thought, and critical analytical skills...They are duped by negative campaigning and outright lies (well, he hasn't threatened Cameron with court after being accused of lying on national TV, so I think I am safe to use the word) into believing Gordon.

Well I'd just like to congratulate the Labour campaign team -

We have a government that is over-spending by £7,000 on behalf of EVERY household in the UK EVERY year, and any party that has even mentioned this has been caned in the opinion polls

The achievement is all the more spectacular because at the same time we are witnessing the civil collapse of a near neighbour that is only two or three years further down the line on debt than the UK.

This government addiction to credit has to stop but nowhere are we being given the option to stop it racking up vast amounts of debt in our name.

The other problem is I'll be voting in less that 24 hours, and I can think of at least three reasons not to vote for any of the main parties. And there aren't any good fringe parties or joke parties standing in my area to make a protest vote to. Who do I hate the least?

I posted a few months ago that the election would be decided by a few billion quids worth of tax credits and about a million illegal votes ...

Well let's wait and see although:

'The signs are that millions of voters are agonising, weighing up in their minds the two most powerful messages in politics - time for a change and don't risk it.'

Really!

What about millions of voters who have already sent in their postal votes and the remainder now thinking that my vote will not count for much in a hung parliament and will now not be bothered to get bums of sofas and go and vote and will instead head for the biscuit barrel and will put the kettle on and watch John Snow or their BBC equivalent leaping around in front of a big election sign screen saying what is likely to happen but we 'still don't know'?

DisgustedofMitcham2:- Your experience is similar to mine. I had been pondering whether to vote Conservative or LibDem, but I too have had no response to an email to my LibDem candidate. I wonder why he put his email address on his letter to me? Nor have we had any LibDem canvassers calling at homes in our road.
Re Mr Robinson's point, about Labour 'feeling on the up' on this final bend:- Well, it isn't the case round this way. The Labour supporters seem glum, as if resigned to their fate.

This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Something to cheer you all on the way to the Polling Station tomorrow. (Not original from me - do not know the author - but assume Moderators would not allow a link or paste and I am posting from memory)

An MP, out canvassing for the General Election, has a heart attack and dies. As his soul floats away it is met by an Angel. "The rules have been changed, I am afraid. No personal judgement by God. You will now spend a day in heaven and a day in hell and then choose where you spend eternity." The MP, disappointed, elects to try hell first, pretty sure that it is heaven that he wants.

He goes down in a lift to hell. The doors open and he is met by the Devil outside a beautiful golf club, with lots of friendly, well-dressed people. He plays the most perfect round of golf on the best course that he has ever played and in glorious weather. Afterwards he dines on a sumptuous banquet and is entertained by wonderful singers, musicians and comedians. After the best night's sleep in the most comfortable of beds, he is woken and shown, reluctantly, to the lift.

He ascends to heaven. For a day he spends time in the clouds, viewing the universe, hearing harps and angels sing. He finds it pleasant enough and sleeps peacefully. His sleep is terminated by the Angel shaking him awake.

"It is now morning. You have to make your choice for eternity. What is it to be?" The MP thinks carefully, heaven was good but he still has lingering memories of the day before that at the golf club. He always wanted to go to heaven and thought it would be better than hell. He thinks carefully for some time, then the Angel presses him for a decision. "Well, although heaven was great, I am amazed to hearing myself say this - I want to chose hell." The angel sadly shows him to the lift, the MP enters and it descends to hell.

As the doors open, the MP is shocked by the sight of a foul, smelly rubbish tip, swept by cold, drizzly rain and sleet. On the rubbish heap, hungry people, covered in scabs and sores, are fighting each other as they try to pick through the rubbish or escape the tip.

The MP is horrified. "What's this place? This isn't hell. I want to go to the place where I was two days ago! It's not fair. How has this happened?"

As he screams and looks for help, he spies the Devil. The Devil comes over and puts a welcoming, comforting arm around his shoulder. "Welcome, what's wrong my friend? Are you not pleased to be here?" "But, protests the MP, this isn't the hell I visited before. Where is the golf club? The nice people? I don't want this!"


"Ah, says the Devil, two days ago WE were campaigning"




"This morning, YOU voted."

Could any Lib Dem fans here, please confirm that they think the party, in their attempt to clean up politics, should keep the £2.4M of stolen money, and not return it to the people it was stolen from

So far, no response, so that just proves that from from honesty, the Lib Dems are the most dishonest of all parties, as their party and election have been funded by stolen money

It is a disgrace

I have a pint of milk which will last longer than Gordon Brown's political career

It also has more culture than New Labour

summarised version:

- the tories say a hung parliament would lead to a greek-style financial meltdown in the uk.
- but the polls have pointed to a hung parliament for weeks, so if financial markets are so scared of a hung parliament, why is the pound not falling already?
- the next government will have to carry out spending cuts / tax rises that go way beyond what is in any of the parties' manifestos. the cuts will have to last many years - up to and beyond the next election.
- the big risk is that the public will lose faith in the austerity because (a) it is a lot more than what they expect, and (b) it is perceived as unfair (e.g. too lenient on the wealthy or banks / big business)
- if 1-2 years in, the public turns against the austerity programme, and the government loses its nerve, then there is a real risk of financial markets losing confidence in the uk.
- if the tories "win" the election, it will be with less than 40% of the vote - hardly a mandate for the kind of painful austerity that is needed.
- moreover, cameron hopes to win only a minority or at best a wafer thin commons majority. this will leave him at continual risk of defection by supposed allies and by factions within his party, just like john major in 1992-97.
- a coalition government, in contrast, would have 60%+ of the vote and a big commons majority.
- it would probably also remove from government some of the individuals that voters distrust or dislike - notably george osborne and gordon brown.
- coalition politics is normal elsewhere in the world, and the international evidence suggests coalition governments are better at handling the public finances.
- for example, greece, which is on the point of collapse, does NOT have coalition governments. germany, which is about to rescue greece, DOES. go figure.
- in a hung parliament, lib dems will insist on electoral reform. this will deliver a political system more like germany's and less like greece's. this would be a GOOD THING.

Dripfed@33 wrote:
Plus, I am also saddened that the UK public appear to have lost some of their independence of thought, and critical analytical skills...>>

>>

That's good news for Cameron then, who has Sky News and most of the high circulation papers on his side. Surprising that they aren't pulling further ahead.

All of my 12 votes are going to the Lib-Dems!

I learnt a lot whilst compiling the Parliamentary Constituencies of England and I hope that some of you who cared to take a look, did too.

For example, I had not previously known that there was a Christian Party and they have put up candidates across England for this General Election.

Another thing I noticed was that Cornwall has its very own political party, Mebyon Kernow (Sons of Cornwall) - good for them!

Also, it became evident to this blogger that some constituencies have serious political issues, namely those places where the BNP and the National Front were both putting up candidates.

On a lighter note, in other places, such as Cambridge, the parties and independents standing pointed to a very healthy political environment.

There will always be an England, no matter what happens in the future.

Please tell me why this Labour government has been paying tax credits to families earning over £50,000 per year? I am all for helping those people who genuinely face hardship but £50,000 in my book is hardly poor. And Gordon Brown keeps banging on about the fact the Conservatives would take away tax credits - yes, but only in cases where a family income is more than £40,000 per year. £50,000 a year and getting tax credits? About as bad as the average retirement age in Greece having been 53.

Millions of voters are said to be yet to make up their minds as to which way to vote...

I am not one of these millions and have made my mind up
Head over heart - the reasons why I am not voting Lib Dem are as follows:

Lib Dems say they will add VAT (Value Added Tax) to “new builds” – this will hit first time house buyers and hurt the housing market at the worst possible time when it is already on its knees

Lib Dems are strong backers of the EURO – if the EURO was adopted we would lose control over our monetary policy and the flexibility to deal with economic crises potentially hitting future employment – especially if the EURO is overvalued and we have no control over its value

Lib Dems say that they want a kind of amnesty (although they are not comfortable with this description) for illegal immigrants – if illegal immigrants are given rights to live in the UK this could amount to 0.6 million new citizens and with their partners up to 1.2 million new citizens – this would place a massive extra strain on public services at a time when Government is completely cash strapped

Lib Dems want 50% CGT (capital gains tax) – this potentially discourages saving which in turn potentially adversely impacts investment, the bedrock of a successful growing economy – also potentially discourages entrepreneurs who are the wealth creators

The Lib Dems support the Jobs Tax / rise in NI contributions. By contrast the Conservatives and 1,100 business leaders oppose this and would prefer Government waste to be cut now to avoid the jobs tax which could potentially adversely affect future wealth creation and employment.

A recent Goldman Sachs report reviewed fiscal retrenchment (i.e. the paying down of Govt deficits) by 24 countries over the last 35 years. The empirical evidence is that an “expenditure-led” approach by Government, where the public sector deficit is reduced primarily through public sector spending cuts, led to a much stronger recovery and much higher economic growth than a “tax-led” approach where the fiscal deficit was plugged mainly by putting up taxes. The Conservatives’ approach is the most "expenditure-led". They want to reduce the UK’s fiscal deficit on the ratio of 80% expenditure cuts and 20% tax rises; Labour based on a ratio of two thirds expenditure cuts versus one third tax rises; and the Lib Dems (source Institute of Fiscal Studies) a ratio of 2½:1 (circa 70%:30%).

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I just don't think a full PR system is good, I agree that it would remove the ability to boot out a Government and would remove that vital link between a constituency and it's local MP. We would under full PR just be voting for a party, so let's get this right.. you vote for that party based on their manifesto but then you have no way of knowing which parts of it will actually happen. We will be voting on individual bills next, think through these implications. To me is just doesn't make sense in our UK politics - that is not to say that the current system can't be improved, it clearly can. I think some of what Cameron has suggested goes some way, we do need better ways of holding the local MP more accoutanble, a fixed term is a good idea. Let's consider devolving more power to local councils, let's perhaps consider a full elected chamber with some sort of PR type system where those currently seated can campaign together with new prospective.

21. At 11:24am on 05 May 2010, Mark_WE wrote:

"Based on the lack of balance in our current political system the Tories need to be about 9 or 10% ahead in the polls to just win a majority. Labour could win a majority if the polls were tied. And could even be the largest party after coming in third.

If anything this election has shown just how far the scales are tipped in Labour's favour."

Simply not true. The boundaries do currently favour Labour but the main factor that accounts for the difference between popular vote and seats for Labour and the tories is voter turnout in the safe seats.

Nick,

I like you a lot. I respect you and enjoy your commentaries both on the TV and your blog.

But at times you reveal your Red tendancies and are clearly biased towards Labour.

This does you no credit I'm afraid. But so typical of the left wing BBC.

17, IR35_SURVIVOR:

"for evidence of hung parliaments just look to ITALY, they do not work."

Or alternatively look at Germany, which seems to be doing OK with a history of hung parliaments.

But personally, I'd prefer to look at the UK, which rarely has hung parliaments, and is in a bit of a mess.

43

Will you still be saying this when the German coalition falls apart in the next 2 months?

he the EU starts to collapse inwardly?

Doubt it

The last thing we need is a hung parliament

Nick - "They believe that Gordon Brown's warnings about the impact of Tory cuts and, in particular, cuts to tax credits...

...David Cameron's attack on what he calls Gordon Brown's lies, his attempts to reassure and his talk of fighting for the poor are proof that the Tories share this analysis.'

Should that not be 'They believe that Gordon Brown's warning about Labour's interpretation of the impact of Tory cuts...'?

In the interests of impartiality?

Labour are continuing in the dying minutes to do what they have done for the last 13 years and that is to manipulate other peoples views, facts and statistics to fit their own agenda.

What he calls Gordon Brown's lies are in fact Gordon Brown's lies!

They are going to cut pensions (because it wasn't in their manifesto!)
They are going to cut child tax credits for the poor (well people earning over £40k but we won't mention that point)
They are going to cut inheritance tax for the rich (Well only those with houses worth up to a million, with house prices increasing it could be considerably more people very soon indeed, again we won't mention that)

But I suppose a party like Labour that is built on lies, devious stratagies and misinformation can't change its habits this close to an election.

I hope that this underhand, insidious and devious party of liars and misanthropes get their just desserts on Thursday. Sadly once a Labour supporter always a disengenious, success hating, gullible liar supporter.

#37, MWO:

"DisgustedofMitcham2:- Your experience is similar to mine. I had been pondering whether to vote Conservative or LibDem, but I too have had no response to an email to my LibDem candidate. I wonder why he put his email address on his letter to me?"

You actually got his email address on his letter? My, you are doing well. The letter from my candidate had the address of her blog and said "contact me via my blog". There was a nice obvious "contact me" link on her blog, which was broken. Eventually I found a way to contact her via the local LibDem party website, but I had to hunt for it.

So given all that, I'm not prepared to believe the reason for the lack of response is that she is swamped with thousands of emails from potential voters.

I think it's a shame the Liberal Democrat bubble seems to have burst, and I think it has. I like and support many of their policies, enough to vote for them even though I am vehemently opposed to some of their other policies, but as much as parties like to ridicule opinion polls as meaningless(when they aren't in their favour naturally), they have been significantly down from where they have been consistently, in the high 20's, and after sustaining that for some time, when it does fall it would seem important.

As it is, it looks like they may get no more than their pre election heights of the mid 20's. Unless Labour has an even more catastropic loss of support or low turnout, which I think they will avoid as so many people seem genuinely fearful of a Tory government and weeks of 'Vote Clegg get Cameron' seems to have worked (I'd vote Tory before Labour personally - Labour's record on Civil Liberties alone dampens my enthusiasm for even the good things they have done - and even Cameron admitted they have done some good in the first deabte), then it looks like it will end as it started: a two horse race for popular votes, not just seats.

Clegg might in fact end up overseeing a, slight, increase in seats and hold off Tory efforts in the West Country - which would be as much as they would have hoped for beforehand I think - but it is a shame it looks like the chance to shake things up and a truly interesting result no longer looks likely.

Conservatives to win, just short of a majority, lib dems a maximum of 80 seats and a good 5 points below Labour. I don't count myself as a party supporter of any stripe really, they all have policies I agree with and disagree with so I look at each policy in turn, but it seems a shame that after so much hope and enthusiam at the start, the not so subtle disdain of the two main parties for the Lib dems (almost to the point of suggesting they barely count as a 'real' party, with no genuine, credible ideas and as much hope of effecting change as the Communist Party or Christian Party) will likely increase because of hopeful lib dems talking up their chances and then being dashed as the usual order reasserts itself.
-------
24
'Planting "Cameron" and "don't risk it" in the mind is an old attack line now way past its sell-by date'.
-------------
If only. I think it works very well unfortunately, as far as restoring loyalty in old labour supporters go, and old attack lines for both seem very much in evidence and lapped up by the party faithful. I hope I am just cynical though. They might not think well of this Labour government, but the image of the Tories in Labour heartlands seems resistant to change; it might be enough to make them toe the line, or maybe just not vote, and Cameron needs more than Labour supporters just staying at home to win.

I've said before though that Brown's whole argument about not risking a change in government doesn't seem right to me. By Labour's logic at this election you should not change hands in a time of crisis because you need experience at the helm (whether or not you believe that helmsman caused the mess or was just unlucky to be caught in it is another matter), but presumably if things are going well, they would say there is no need to change. We'd never change governments by their argument!

It seems that people are waking up to the reality of having David Cameron and his Bullingdon Club chums lording it over us, quite literally. Brown hasn't had a good campaign but it says it all about Cameron that, despite this, the voters are not warming to him. Much has been made of "Bigotgate", but Brown has held his own and stuck to his message and for that he deserves respect. There will be a twist in this story yet.

What has been most difficult for electors is the total lack of a coherent synthesis for change which must be around this central question:

'Now we are not an Empire and are a mid-sized nation, what fundamental changes in our national psyche, national workplace attitudes, regional and global relations with our partners and competitors are necessary to create our new post-imperial reality?'

The message 'change' means nothing unless he highlight the blocks to progress and how you will alter it.

For all that I search for it, I see la plus ca change written all through this campaign.........

Perhaps it will be the next one when people realise that rhetoric isn't the same as action?

Or is it just that the British people are expected to get married as political jungfraus, trusting the nice man after a 3 week courtship?

We'll find out next week, I guess......

46

I take it you don't live in Cambridge to make a comment like that

I heard Gordon Brown go on about the majority of the country being anti-Tory. Congratulations on your maths Mr Brown! At the last election, Labour and perma-tan Tony secured 1 in 5 votes from the electorate (36% of the people that actually voted plus non-voters). What a terrific endorsement which secured Labour a huge majority.

I believe that this was the lowest share of the vote ever by the winning party. If the Tories secure 36% of the vote they won't be so lucky due to the anachronistic electoral system.

E V E R Y O N E R E A D T H I S

The "progressive" Tory mask hasn't just slipped; it's dropped to the floor and smashed. Behind it, the true face of Cameron's party is coming sharply into focus. It's a face distorted with hatred, religious fervour and old-fashioned prejudice.


Last weekend The Observer revealed that Philippa Stroud, the head of a thinktank set up by former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith (the Centre for Social Justice), and the Conservative candidate for Sutton and Cheam, has been trying to drive demons out of lesbians, gay men and transsexuals.


"She wanted me to know all my thinking was wrong, I was wrong and the so-called demons inside me were wrong," said "Abi", one of her victims, according to the Observer. "The session ended with her and others praying over me, calling out the demons. She really believed things like homosexuality, transsexualism and addiction could be fixed just by prayer."


When Cameron was asked on the BBC Asian Network whether he thought that like Stroud he believed homosexuality could be cured, he replied: "I don't believe that, and she [Stroud]'s actually put out a very clear statement to say she was completely misreported; she believes in gay equality." This is an unequivocal misrepresentation of Stroud's statement, which simply says she doesn't believe homosexuality is an illness.


But then the reaction to the story raises many sinister questions.


Question one: Why hasn't Cameron asked for Stroud to be deselected and distanced himself from her thinktank?


Last week, the Tory leader said that he decided to suspend Philip Lardner, the Conservative candidate for North Ayrshire and Arra, "within minutes" for writing on his website that he thought homosexuality was "not normal". Lardner also opined that "most people" consider homosexuality to be "somewhere between unfortunate and simply wrong". A hate-soaked, erroneous diatribe, but compared to Stroud he looks like Peter Tatchell. Why the discrepancy? How can abusing young people with extremist religious practices be less incriminating than words?


It's not just me asking. A Facebook group, a mere three days old, called "If Cameron cares an ounce about LGBT people, he'll sack Philippa Stroud" already has over 2,600 members. Cameron: we, the non-religious, liberal majority deserve an answer and Stroud, the fundamentalist exorcist deserves to be ex-communicated from your party.


But wait a minute, on closer inspection there appears to be precedent here. When Chris Grayling said that he sympathised with Christian B&B owners who don't want gay people in their establishments, he was not sacked, suspended or de-selected. And last December when Boris Johnson attended a carol service of the Redeemed Christian Church of God, which admits to performing exorcisms on gay people, his knuckles were not rapped.


What is it that unites the stories about Stroud, Grayling and Johnson? In all three cases religion "justified" the homophobia. Cameron might pretend to love gay people. But it seems he loves Christians more.


Question two: Why won't Stroud answer the allegations?


Philippa Stroud "declined to comment" directly on the Observer's story. Instead she issued a statement saying: "I make no apology for being a committed Christian. However it is categorically untrue that I believe homosexuality to be an illness and I am deeply offended that the Observer has suggested otherwise."

When Pink News, Europe's largest gay news website, asked her to comment on the Observer's actual allegation, which was that Stroud believes gay people have demons inside them, her spokesman replied: "We will not be adding to or subtracting to [sic] the statement."


Why not? Does Stroud think her statement is sufficient explanation of her position? Thousand of gay and transgender people in her constituency deserve a full and proper explanation, before 6 May. "Abi", the brave woman who spoke out deserves an answer too.


Question three: Why hasn't the press picked up on the story?


As soon as I read the Observer piece, I turned on the BBC News channel. There was no mention of the story. I switched to CNN. Nothing. I did a Google news search of the story. No newspaper had reported on the scandal. Only the Independent followed it up the next day. In these heightened last days before the election, every single gaffe is poured over by the press. But this isn't a "bigot-gate" style mishap. This is abuse.


The sad reality is that the press frequently deems homophobia a fringe issue. But given that by any rigorous application of logic, it is just as vile as racism, the reaction to this story by Cameron and the press isn't just illogical; it's professionally negligent.

#40, Up2snuff:

ROFLMAO!

I had heard it before, but it definitely bears repeating at a time like this. Thanks for brightening up my day.

I agree Nick - Labour have recovered well to be even in the game at this point.

I'm guessing several Labour supporters and strategists would have given their right arm to be in this position given where we were 6 months ago.

Mr Cameron is rightly concerned that he may have missed the best chance in a generation to put a Tory back into No. 10. He has simply not been able to persuade enough people that he has the economic answers or the skills to implement them.

I feel he has been badly let down by his campaign team and I think he knows it. Ho could he blow this chance?

It's the world cup final. It's 89 minutes and 0-0. Rooney has the ball and hits it towards an open goal. However, the goalkeeper (from the Kingdon of Fife) is about to make a world class save....

This made me laugh!!!!

HE IS A TORY!!! WAKE UP!

Jeff Crewdson wrote:
"Nick,

I like you a lot. I respect you and enjoy your commentaries both on the TV and your blog.

But at times you reveal your Red tendancies and are clearly biased towards Labour.

This does you no credit I'm afraid. But so typical of the left wing BBC."

Thirteen years of 'smoke and mirrors' economic policy from a bad Chancellor and then the worst Prime Minister this country has ever had to endure has bankrupted this country.

All the 'achievements' listed by Labour have been brought about by massive over-borrowing resulting in unsustainable debt- a considerable amount of which is hidden hidden by the rise in PFI.

Is a 1% rise in NI really to going to fund all the promises just made by Brown in Bradford AND start to pay back the national debt?

It is just putting off the inevitable for another 12 months. We need austerity from Friday or 'look out Greece, here we come'.

"KMBayes wrote:

Simply not true. The boundaries do currently favour Labour but the main factor that accounts for the difference between popular vote and seats for Labour and the tories is voter turnout in the safe seats."

As you said the boundaries do favour Labour - areas which are traditionally more likely to return Labour candidates have fewer voters than seats traditionally more likely to return Lib Dem or Tory candidates. Wouldn't you consider this to be unbalanced?

---------
27.In the safe seats many voters will not bother to vote. If you have lived all your voting life in a safe seat then disengagement is a likelihood.
-------------
I don't know the statistics on this, and I'd have thought the same, but I live in a very safe Tory seat in a very Tory county - my constituency has not changed hands in more than 80 years, and that was a blip of about 2 years only - and apparently voter turnout has been very high, well above the national average for the past few elections. I am fascinated by whether that is a trend across the country; I suspect not, if only because most seats are safe, and if voter turnout was good in them the overall vote would not have been so low. As 51. says though, it would account for why the Tories were onyl just behind in popualr vote but so far behind in seats last time.
--------------
41. Could any Lib Dem fans here, please confirm that they think the party, in their attempt to clean up politics, should keep the £2.4M of stolen money, and not return it to the people it was stolen from

So far, no response, so that just proves that from from honesty, the Lib Dems are the most dishonest of all parties, as their party and election have been funded by stolen money

It is a disgrace
---------
I have voted lib dem in the past, although I would not call myself a fan exactly (I flit between the parties depending on the area of policy being addressed), but I shall try. They certainly are no better than other parties when it comes to funding. I just don't think any other party would do any differently unless forced, be it by court or by worrying the negative impact would kick them out of government/damage their chances of getting into government. Neither of which has happened.

Still, they have proposed a cap on all political donations, I believe, which would prevent any party, including themselves, doing such a thing again.

Km Bayes

As a Lib Dem supporter, do you endorse my campaign to return the £2.4M of stolen money that your party has to those it was stolen from?

If you wish to clean up politics, returning stolen money would be a pretty good idea...

---------------
35. The other problem is I'll be voting in less that 24 hours, and I can think of at least three reasons not to vote for any of the main parties. And there aren't any good fringe parties or joke parties standing in my area to make a protest vote to. Who do I hate the least?
------------
Now that is a shame. Everybody should have the chance to vote for a joke party. I was most disappointed in the last election (the first I was eligible to vote in) that only the three main were standing. This time we have UKIP and an independent as well, but the neighbouring constituencies have Greens, BNP, Jury Team, English Democrats, Monster Raving Loony, Christian Party and more. Really unfair, especially as all but one of the neighbouring seats are safe as well.

PR voting systems work if you vote for a party and don't care who your candidate is.

I do - I have looked at each party and each candidate locally and will give my vote to the one who has more interest in promoting the local vote regardless of the party whip.

Only one has answered my questions personally and only one candidate seems sincere and is not spouting the usual party line.

If we move to PR we will lose that individual accountability.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

12. At 11:16am on 05 May 2010, Nicky wrote:
"...Of course Messrs A Hitler, J Goebbels, D Cameron and G Osborne must all be laughing saying "Why do you care if we in effect incinerate 97% of your votes? We love your Britishers First Past the Vote system as it means we have the pretence of democracy and yet still run the country as absolute rulers on just 35% of the vote!""

Nicky, I have said this to you before. You do yourself no favours by your invective, smear and innuendo. You just look like a person who has lost perspective and is trying to be hurtful in a most unsophisticated way.
You influence nobody on BBC Editor blogsites.
If you really believe your Fascist allegations etc., go out on the street and rail to the public at large; you may win a floating voter, but you risk getting your due desserts.

"make_your_mind_up wrote:

Lib Dems say they will add VAT (Value Added Tax) to “new builds” – this will hit first time house buyers and hurt the housing market at the worst possible time when it is already on its knees"

This wouldn't just effect first time buyers, it will effect any house buyer looking to buy a new house. It would have a very interesting effect on the housing market as existing houses would be quite a bit cheaper than new houses.

The result is that either the prices of new houses will have to come down (reducing the money earned by the builders) OR the price of existing houses will go up.

Personally, I think a Labour / Lib Dem govt is the best for this country right now. Gordon Brown makes a lot of sense in realtion to the economy and the positioning of the UK in the global marketplace. Nick Clegg / Vince Cable speak alot of sense and make a lot of valid points, succintly and without resorting to personal jibes of their opposite numbers.

Anyone who thinks that we can simply close our borders and turn our back on the world fails to appreciate the global nature of our world.

Whatever happens on Thursday, what is clear is that less than 1 in 3 people want one party to rule.

That is why I believe that a forging of ideas, a combination of the best talent is what this country needs right now. In terms of policy, I see Labour / Lib Dem as the closest and, in my honest opinion, most valid proposals for taking our country forward safely in the uncertain times we now face.

11. At 11:15am on 05 May 2010, djlazarus wrote:
For me the choice has always been between voting Lib Dem or Tory, with the option of a protest vote.

This current government, I believe, are the only government in history to go to court in order to prove that the pledges made in their manifesto meant nothing.
===============================

That unfortunately is a distortion - the Government were taken to court by a UKIP supporter (a former Labour candidate no less) who wished to use our legal system to make a political point.

The case was brought for breach of contract - what the defence was and which prevailed is that a manifesto is not a contract therefore what it contains cannot be used as the basis for a breach of contract suit.
Therefore what you state is the paraphrasing - it is why the main parties do not parrot it - since they know the perils if they do - at some point they hope to be in power - and then they will fail to deliver something in their manifestos and be open to the charge of hypocracy.

After all David Cameron was offering a referendum on Nice as a guarantee - right up to the point it was finally signed by the last EU member, then he dropped it - why becuase it was no longer relevant (not that is was when he offered it since most nations had already signed it (including the UK), but it played well politically).

I had decided I wasn't going to vote again following the expenses scandal. In reality though we have to elect a government-that's our responsibilty having got the right to vote. So I am putting my anger to one side.
Brown says he will keep spending and I think this is just pandering to voters who want to keep things as they are - those who can't/won't face tackling what we are borrowing and what we owe.
The Lib Dems, won't be able to form a government and may or may not have influence in any administration. My thoughts are Labour will stab them in the back as effortlessly as any of their opponents once they have got what they want. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.
The Tories, will I think, try to reduce the amount we are borrowing and what we already we owe. It won't be easy, in fact I think it is going to mean considerable sacrifices from everyone, but I hold them to their promise they will protect the NHS. I will be voting Conservative for the first time on Thursday.

Post 1 quite right well said.
I have said it before and I will say it once more. Time has come for our politicians to grow up. Yoyo politics has seen us degenerate into a mess. I spent some of my career working in pensions and the problem that has been created by political pendulums is something that will last for generations. Running a country needs a long term view.
I love the way people who do not like PR keep quoting Italy. Let’s be balanced – Germany has PR. I do not see endless changes of Government and uncertainty there. Personally I would be happy if we could have the economic record of Germany. It is time for our politicians to start to govern through agreement. I want the best people to do the best jobs they can because they believe in making the country a better place to live.
The real irony of all of this is that the widest disagreements of all are often within parties. Who saw John Prescott and Tony Blair as being a team that would get on? In reality this is not about ideology but about power. If I am the leader of a party and I have a majority I have absolute power. We all know what absolute power does – it corrupts absolutely. If I lead a coalition then I do not have absolute power. I cannot call my whips to bring people into line I have to win the arguments, persuade, compromise, listen and agree.
I know that is hard work and probably more taxing. But, in the end taking wider views, debating them openly and coming to an agreed outcome will tend to get you a better result, understood and accepted more widely.
One encouraging thing I have seen today. David Cameron saying that the Conservatives will act responsibly if there is a balanced parliament. Some of their scaremongering over the last few weeks has, in my view, gone much too far. Politicians work for us. If we tell them that none of them have enough support to govern on their own then they should do what we want. Not seek to provoke financial panic just to try and scare people to vote in a way they do not believe is right.

#18 Nicky

As opposed to listening into one of Gordon Brown's conversation where someone raises questions he doesn't like is called a bigot!

Can I just ask for ABL (Anyone But Labour)? I think my best-case scenario would be for Cameron to be installed at No.10 with a single-digit majority and enough MPs with backbone who are prepared to vote conscience over party if necessary to curtail any bad stuff that might be proposed as legislation. I'd like to see Clegg as Leader of the Opposition, giving the LibDem front-bench team experience of the sharp end, rather than being 'the other lot' who get to speak in debates, and both he and Cameron to approach their jobs in a cooperative rather than combative manner.

rjaggar @ 59

You say that now we are not an Empire and are a mid-sized nation, what fundamental changes in our national psyche, national workplace attitudes, regional and global relations with our partners and competitors are necessary to create our new post-imperial reality?

I have attempted to answer that exactly that question through various blog entries on this forum.

Gradually in England, political entities are forming that will shape England and our place in the post-imperial world.

It has taken a very long time, mainly due to the massive amount of inertia in the political system in England plus of course, the vested interests/forces of conservatism who fight to maintain the status quo but political change is coming to England, one way or another.

The people living in England are finally waking from a deep political slumber.

32

Nicky

Your comments are incorrect, and make you look utterly hollow, other than bile and spite

Have a nice day

By the way, do you think the Lib Dems should return the £2.4M of stolen money to those it was stolen from?

Michael Brown, convicted in absentia

Or do you think keeping stolen money is ok?

62

Yawn

64

I think Brown is up to the standard of most Scottish Goalkeepers

1-0 to England it is then

"tricky567 wrote:


This made me laugh!!!!

HE IS A TORY!!! WAKE UP!"

What makes you say that? Did you consult the runes? Or did you look up on Wikipedia and saw that when he was at University he was a Tory?

If that is your only basis for thinking that Nick is a Tory you will have to ask yourself why the Tory party are trying so hard to get rid of Ed Balls (who was also a member of the Conservative Association at University)

Personally I wouldn't know which way to call Nick's political leanings, some of his blogs have read like New Labour press releases while others have suggested his political support lies elsewhere (either by supporting other party leaders or being negative towards Brown).

This posting is one that I would say is possibly more supportive of Labour than of the other parties but I think it is fairly well balanced

Comments like "David Cameron's attack on what he calls Gordon Brown's lies" could have been written (just as correctly) by removing the phrase "what he calls" - because Gordon Brown and the Labour party have been lying about the exact nature of the Child Tax Credits cut (I have a Labour party leaflet where the same lie is told)

However phrasing the line differently would be supportive of Cameron rather than more neutral - it doesn't back either side.

tricky

Tell me you want all societies where membership is built on race or colour or sexual preference, then I will take you seriously

That will be a no then?

#62
Have you considered the possibility that this might actually be a 'non-story'?

You are having a laugh Nick. Your colleague John Sopel said last night that when you join the BBC you are a neutrality chip is fired into your brain. As much as I like John Sopel, whatever you and your journalist fraternity believe - you are only human, the BBC's coverage on TV and radio has been biased. Gordon Brown complains he can't his message over through the media, nonsense! this is a smoke screen to try and persuade us all that the BBC is unbiased. At some point next week there will be a right to reply program addressing viewers complaints about this and some news editor will defend at all costs the BBC coverage - I suspect however that up until the last moment the BBC will increasingly become more transparent about who it prefers in Government.

I don't want the BBC to disappear, I cannot for one moment imagine why Ben Bradshaw would want to top slice the BBC income in the future if re-elected. The BBC has proved to be proved to be a significant asset of government not the British People, report the facts not what you think you see in David Camerons eyes, you are after all a senior journalist not a psychologist!

#53 that because of the type of people that have been running the
country ie GB+co of ZaNU_Liebour

At last - Ive decided who to vote for and it is ... Mr and Mrs Strict Financial Discipline.

Now I've just got to figure out which political party is not full of serial spendaholics - Can anyone help me out here?

Is this OK moderators ... with election rules etc?

Kieran

You sure are sat on that fence with the £2.4M, although I respect the fact you answered the question

I believe Union funding of political parties should cease, and donations from non-doms

When the Conservatives propsed a cap on donations, which would have included ending the block union donations, Labour and the Lib Dems blocked it

There is no way of knowing, yet I doubt that either Labour or the Conservatives would keep the money

The Lib Dems are being monstrous in their constant whining about the old parties, when they are older than Labour, and cleaning up politics whilst they keep this money

54. At 12:07pm on 05 May 2010, Kevinb wrote:
43 Will you still be saying this when the German coalition falls apart in the next 2 months?
he the EU starts to collapse inwardly?

MY REPLY: Kevin your powers of prediction are truly amazing? Tee hee, what a blogger!

Far better that the Tories have an absolute majority on 35% of the vote...Does that mean Kevin you and Cameron will pass the Enabling Act without needing the support of any other party.

Democracy...absolute majority based upon 35% of the vote...what on EARTH do you believe in? Did you not have any brothers and sisters and so weren't taught to share?

Oh and Kevin, how much do you think Cameron will slash the NHS for you? With a massive black hole double the Lib Dems much more responsible costed manifesto, that's going to cut an awful lot of services. Indeed the black hole is half the annual cost of the NHS.

Trust you like the idea of much longer NHS waiting times? Or hows about slashing the Old Age Pension by 30%? All while your trustafarian heroes and newspaper proprietors get to see their Inheritance taxes slashed and pay no tax?

"Reap what you sow..."

And what about that promise to Tommy, your grandfathers who fought in the Great War on the basis of all those now broken promises...

...Indeed what do Tories care about those promises to today's Tommy and his war widow, Kevin? What indignity are they to pay to give your hero trustafarians more money to waste on champagne and unrelenting hedonism?

69. At 12:21pm on 05 May 2010, Kevinb wrote:
Km Bayes

"As a Lib Dem supporter, do you endorse my campaign to return the £2.4M of stolen money that your party has to those it was stolen from?

If you wish to clean up politics, returning stolen money would be a pretty good idea..."


Yes they should but it's by no means the only grubby donation made to any of the parties. Will you finally rest on this, it's getting boring. To clarify I'm not a loyal and blinkered supporter of any party; this is the first time I've cast a vote for the Lib Dems.


Would you care to give a balanced comment on Philippa Stroud rather than resorting to further mis-direction and propoganda?

Nick

those who are undecided should take a look on Guido's blog and run

'Labour The Disaster Movie'

Its worth the watch.

@20

You emailed a candidate, over the last weekend of a general election and are surprised/disappointed you haven't had a reply ...like he/she has got over things to do!!!???

With the future of this country in the balance, quite literally you must vote Lib Dem or we will be lost to a second 10 year long era of Thatcherism.

Yes, the contest is almost over, and the nation anxiously waits to hear:

- which BBC commentator has gained the prize for overblown portentous grandstanding (sorry, Nick - thus far, Naughtie has the edge);

- which commenter on a BBC blog has posted the longest and most tedious rant.

Bated breath.

#62 But the ZaNu_Liebour party HATE with vengance REAL FATHERS.

72. At 12:25pm on 05 May 2010, Nicky wrote:

Or that when you go to vote tomorrow, your vote is likely to make absolutely no difference WHATSOEVER and that according to the New Economics Foundation that occurs to 97% of us. I said 95% so I was pretty accurate.

==============
No Nicky - this is your personal interpretation on what they say, not what they actually say. You don't seem to understand the differnence. Please don't bother replying, just prove me wrong by posting the relevent words and location of these words so that we can all see that what you keep spouting is indeed fact and not made up nonsense.

Marvellous, David Cameron for Prime Minister! Conservatives will honour the people of Great Britain.

No more scaremongering, half truths, and dodgy election speeches!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.