All purpose General Election thread

andy

By popular demand. Use this thread to knock yourselves out. Unstructured political comment on the internet is always enlivening. *Omnem dimittite spem, o vos intrantes* For specific election-related resources, here are the threads already on the site: Islington North PPCs: <http://www.stroudgreen.org/discussion/1950/general-election-islington-north-ppcs>; Tollington Ward Candidates: <http://www.stroudgreen.org/discussion/1969/council-elections-tollington-ward-candidates-announced>; Hornsey and Wood Green PPCs: <http://www.stroudgreen.org/discussion/1949>; Stroud Green Ward Candidates: <http://www.stroudgreen.org/discussion/1968/council-elections-stroud-green-ward-candidates-announced/>; Stroud Green Ward Candidate interviews (Lib Dems): <http://www.stroudgreen.org/discussion/1978/stroud-green-ward-candidate-interviews-liberal-democrats/>;

Arkady

Predictions anyone? As a Lib Dem supporter I’m excited, but nor am I tribalistic and the idea of a coalition fascinates me. I don’t for a moment buy into the argument of the nay-sayers who think that coalitions are inherently bad things. A balanced parliament seems very likely at the moment, but its composition – and that of the future government - is still anyone’s guess. The bizarre way in which votes could translate into seats could leave the party with the most votes having the least seats, and vice versa. How this would affect the composition of a potential coalition is unclear. If Labour got least votes but most seats could Clegg legitimately insist on Brown’s resignation as a condition of formal coalition? Unless the Tories manage an overall majority, which looks less and less likely, it seems that this will be the last FPTP election, which pleases me greatly. Labour and the Lib Dems agree on a lot. Not cutting too deep this year, electoral reform, Lords reform, progress towards a written constitution, etc. It could end up being quite radical from a constitutional point of view, which I would welcome. I assume that behind closed doors conversations are already underway amongst the party chiefs. A

graeme

As someone who's not greatly politically involved, I'm quite interested in what people think about when going to vote.

Do you generally think 'well, the last 5 years wasn't bad, we could vote Labour again like we always do', or something like 'Well, that was a dreadful 5 years, recessions etc. - but they say it wasn't their fault, and they'll do better next time, I'll vote Labour again'?

Or do you continue to vote the way you've always voted, and change your outlook as your party has changed (e.g. LibDems seem to have moved slightly towards the right since Charles Kennedy departed - but do you continue to vote for them as they're the closest to your ideal?)

Or pick one with a stand-out policy you like the sound of?

My general outlook on life errs towards Tory thinking, but have so far been unimpressed by anything I've seen/read from them so am pretty much undecided.

Agree that all the recent revelations on how UK politics operates has made me want to vote with whoever will give a cast-iron guarantee of some form of PR immediately after this election. Is that the LibDems? Would rather be governed by a party that most people voted for, even if I didn't myself.

Arkady

Lib Dems are advocating the Single Transferable Vote, as used in Scottish local elections and Irish national elections. It is proportional while maintaining a (multi-member) constituency link. They also want to reduce the number of MPs to 600. I don't think Labour have mentioned MP numbers. They are advocating the Alternative Vote (AV) which is often LESS proportional and gives weirder percentage-to-seat results than our current FPTP system (it would benefit Labour rather than smaller parties), but does mean that in each constituency the MP must get at least 50% of the vote. It's a con in the current climate. As for why - I'm utterly uninterested in presentation, or how long someone has been in power (as though it should logically go in turns regardless of policy!). Whichever party or parties most closely match my principles will get my vote. For the record, in rough order of priority *for this election* they go: 1)Pro-European/Cosmopolitan/Multilateralist outlook 2)Not dependent on or primarily representing capitalist interests 3)Pro constitutional reform, especially of the electoral system and House of Lords. 4)Strong green environmental policy 5)Good record on human rights policy I'm hoping for a Lib-Lab coalition. The Tories offer me nothing, and often scare the crap out of me. A

jandb

I'll be using <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/20/general-election-bucks-fizz-video">this handy video</a> to help me decide.

graeme

Wonder how they sold that to the participants - "Yeah, you'll look like a total arse singing a song your Dad dances to at weddings, no one will find it funny or entertaining, or have any idea who it's aimed at". Why any of them would want to be associated with A Campbell is anyone's guess. Weird.

jandb

Beyond weird ... and with a local participant too.

andy

that video has more than one sgr.org member in it....

markpack

@andy Indeed :-)

Arkady

Mr Pack, I've seen your blog repeatedly linked by the Guardian, you're clearly a big player!

ActionVerb

Is anyone else expecting the Lib Dems to get a massive hammering tomorrow evening? These events are clearly built on expectations and I think this is now where Clegg's might struggle.

Thoughts on tomorrow?

Clegg to dismiss the 'special relationship' with the US as something only the OLD EVIL PARTIES are intent on carrying on. Lapdog is likely to be thrown around.

Brown to make reference to Cameron's gaffe on China last week. A potential PM considering China as a nuclear threat is a bit insane.

Cameron to look into the camera. A lot.

Overall though, this election is a bit of a strange one for me. I'm generally a Lib Dem voter, but their potentially increasing influence on the outcome is making me feel a bit un-easy. Especially so if in an event of a hung(or balanced) parliament, they side with the Tories. I understand that it's more likely they will look to go for a Lib-Lab coalition and attempt to remove Brown, but I'm not going to be happy if my vote goes towards a Lib-Tory coalition with Cameron as the PM (Not that it will ultimately matter, given Corby's safety).

ActionVerb

On a side note - did anyone take the newsletter handed out by the Haringey Solidarity Group at FP this morning? I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but it's basically driving an anti-voting agenda ("The only party I'd vote for is a street party".) Iannucci would probably explode reading it.

Arkady

I’m not sure what to expect. Clegg should do well on Iraq and Afghanistan for obvious reasons. I think he can also do well on Trident if he clearly explains that he wants to maintain a nuclear deterrent but does not automatically think that sailing them round the world on £80billion worth of submarines with US-controlled targeting systems is the answer. I’m sure he will be name-dropping these generals too: <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7612615/General-Election-2010-generals-back-Nick-Clegg-on-Trident-nuclear-deterrent.html>; The tough one will be Europe. Thirty years of UK governments – even pro-European ones – pandering to parochial instinct and presenting the EU as something that needs to be defended against has badly affected public perception on this issue, and that will take generations to remedy. His best tack will be to point out that there won’t be any more institutional reform for a long time and that Tory policy is simply impossible and would involve trampling on our treaty obligations. However, Cameron has a more difficult job here than may be appreciated. If he starts banging on about Europe it will look like the same old little-Englander Toryism – no party has ever won on an anti EU agenda. And it will stir up ire amongst the Ken Clarkeites. It’s going to be interesting. I agree that expectations will now be very high. I hope Clegg has it in him to pull it off. I really don’t think you need to worry about a Lib-Dem-Tory Alliance, the Lib Dem membership would never tolerate it. It would destroy the party. Plus they have virtually no common ground on the issues that this election is being fought on. Can you see Cameron embracing electoral reform, or an elected Lords, or agreeing not to cut too deep this year, or reconsidering Trident, or… A

graeme

I could see Cameron embracing electoral reform, he seems quite flexible on some areas. Another X years of Labour having any influence to further grind individuals into the dirt while filling their boots/being influenced by gangsters (see Glasgow) really isn't an appealing prospect.

An outright Lib win or a Lib-Tory alliance would surely be the step forward to please most of the electorate.

ADGS

One of the things I like most about Clegg is that he's backed away from the party's pro-EU agenda, which in the past was what gave me most pause about voting for them. He now admits he was wrong to be pro-Euro, for instance. The problem with the EU isn't that in principle Albion should always stand serene and alone, it's that the whole thing has been a hurried fudge from day one - witness all the countries which were unfit to join the single currency but which fiddled the stats to say otherwise, with consequences we're now seeing in Greece.

Arkady

Mmm. All political constructs – including states – are ‘fudges’ to an extent. Built on compromise, evolving, adapting, improving. I’m not sure that you can call the sixty year evolution of the EU ‘hurried’.

ActionVerb

I think there are potential for a number of common ground areas between the Libs and Tories. While the Big Society idea is a load of meaningless toss attempting to hide massive cuts, underneath it, it has a number of community empowerment ideas that the Lib Dems have been associated with. Devolving control of services to a more local level with the implications of increasing individual influence is a relatively lefty idea for a conservative policy, and this talk of 'society' or community ownership of services is something that I'm a bit concerned about in terms of a general convergence of policies with the lib dems.

Ultimately though, I probably agreed that a Lib-Tory coalition is less likely given the intrinsic differences between the two parties. They keep talking about this massive flux though, so you never know!

Re: Greece - it's a shame the historic relationship with Germany has had the consequences that it has. The rescue package should have been agreed a long time ago, without people sniping about what happened during the second world war...

Arkady

@ ActionVerb I agree there are areas in common, just not ones that are big enough profile in this election. More importantly the Lib Dem top priorities are often in plain opposition tothe Tory ones. I think you're spot on about the Big Society - both that it is has elements of electoral bluff and meaningful philosophy with some positive normative implications. I really can't see the Lib Dems jumping on board with that slogan in the current climate though. I agree about Greece too. Suspect that the consequence of this disaster will be a much more robust ECB able to borrow Euros and distribute to troubled states, similar to the US. Not an original idea, but I can't recall where I read it.

nick_m

@ Arkady Looking at your top 5 above; they represent everything the Tories aren't and everything the Lib Dems are (in my opinion). I think that succinctly highlights the differences and why there won't be a Lib-Tory alliance. A reform-minded, balanced parliament would be the best solution. Then, if the electoral system were to be reformed to AV, or better STV, we might then have the chance of having stable, consensus-driven coalitions; the like of which have helped Germany prosper in the post-war era. p.s. I wonder if Goldman Sachs will ever be held to account for helping destroy the economy of Greece? With their recent profits being posted, surely Germany should be prosecuting?

Arkady

Quite right Nick. By which I mean: you agree with me. A

graeme

So what happens if there isn't an alliance between Lib and Tory?

5 years of deadlock?

Arkady

This gives insight into that question: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/21/election-2010-lib-lab-fantasy>; I don’t see why deadlock would be a concern. There’s enough common ground between Labour and the Lib Dems to have a radical constitution-reforming coalition administration. We should be talking dream cabinets: PM – Clegg Chancellor – Vince Foreign Office - David Milliband Home Office – Allan Johnson? Like him, but too discredited by Nutt and ID cards? He supports PR though… Environment – Ed Milliband Afghanistan Tsar – Paddy Ashdown CAMRA Liaison Officer – Charles Kennedy Something for Shirley Williams would be fitting too.

nick_m

Don't forget Lynne. Minister for the Olympics?

graeme

Darling's surely a better guy for Chancellor than Mr. FlipFlop Cable?

Johnson continuing as Home Sec is a real concern. He has been wholly discredited. Just because he thinks PR is a fine idea is no defence. He's been happy to crush civil liberties and ignore expert advice to satisfy the press - us as individuals with free will don't even enter into his tiny mind.

yagamuffin

@Graeme "Flipflop Cable"? As former Chief Economist at Shell Vince Cable is more qualified than any other MP to be Chancellor.

As for "5 years of deadlock" rather that than a Government getting in on a landslide and being able to force through any policy they wish.

Despite what scare-mongers in the press and politics may say a coalition government will bring us closer to truly fair and democratic government than we have ever been before. All policies would have to be properly debated in the Houses of Parliament which would hopefully lead to more openness.

All we then need to do is get rid of the whips!

Arkady

Can you give us an example of Cable ‘flip-flopping’ please? I’m not one for bandwagons, but he was a respected academic before he entered politics, as well as being very successful in the private sector. I’m forced to agree with you about Johnson though. Sad though, I’ve met him a few times socially and he seems like a top fellah. Hillary Benn, maybe.

miss annie

How about a SG dwellers cabinet. this is as far as i've got...

PM - David Tennant

Secretary for Scotland - James Mc Avoy

Media, Culture and Sport - Simon Pegg

Minister for General Niceness - Ann Marie Duff

Minister for general drunkeness - Neil Morrisey

ActionVerb

Andy Serkis deserves a seat, Shirley.

Cat

Has anybody else seen the Clegg pop art style graffiti on Parkland walk? It's just before the bridge near the play area. Is a series of black and white pics of him with Clegg written underneath. I was running so didn't stop to take a picture.

graeme

Ok, perhaps FlipFlop is harsh - maybe Vince "say whatever gets headlines today - I can always change my mind later" Cable?

I haven't read any of his academic or economic papers, so only going on what I remember from his time as economic spokesperson for LibDems.

These are some that I remember thinking "this guy doesn't care which road he takes - why follow him?"

Supported Brown's flagship 'Light Touch' financial regulation (to which he gave the Bill "broad support"), then jumped ship when it all went to pot:
“While light-touch regulation was not at the time wrong, in principle the credit crunch has made it clear that the way this regulation was carried out was entirely inadequate.”

"Not at the time wrong"? Ffs, it went a good way to allowing things to get out of control. Surely someone with some experience in finance/business (and oil!) would see that individuals in that industry would seek to take advantage of a toothless FSA (mortgage lenders for one, banks another - plenty of people so this coming).

Against any fiscal stimulus - but for tax cuts:
"It is entirely wrong for the government to assume the economy should be stimulated by yet more public spending rather than tax cuts, particularly for the low paid."
And then for fiscal stimulus - and against tax cuts:
"It was much more sensible to use capital spending in ways that supported the construction industry" - "We were consistently critical of the use of VAT cuts as a stimulus to the economy".

Quantitative Easing (i.e. printing free money):
Initially it was “the Robert Mugabe School of Economics“ (in a column in the Independent) - and then later he felt that “directly increasing the amount of money flowing into the economy is now the only clear option.”

I understand the idea of changing ones mind once the facts change or become clearer is reasonable, but to me he seems rudderless with no clear vision except for the fact that he banged on about consumer debt in 2003 I think, he was right on that about 4 years before everyone else.

Darling appears to have some gumption, and even harsh critics can see he took over after 11 years of mismanagement to try and get things into shape - and more importantly he appears to have been honest with the public ("the worst recession in 60 years" - only to have the PM and his minions "unleash hell" on him - that's pretty blunt language which I want to hear from politicians). He seems like someone who'll stick to what he believe is for the good of the country, not the good of his own image.

I'm also aware all quotes from all politicians can be easily taken out of context, and I'm pretty feeble at arguing the toss. But the idea that Cable is somehow going to be any better in power than the wishywashy way he conducts himself at the moment needs deflated for all our sakes. I am more than happy to be wrong.

edit: shit that looks like a rant - it looked much shorter in notepad!

Ali

Minority Government seems to work in Scotland. Makes them implemnet currnt laws better instead of making up new ones