The General Election Thread

[FamilyWiggs]

Voting Lib Dem is now the only way to change things..

But increasingly it is looking like Vote Clegg, get Brown. That's hardly "change" even if Clegg wants Brown ousted as part of the deal.

The way the seats are stacked at present, unless the Lib Dems poll (and then translate this into votes (easier said than done, remember 1983?)) well into the 40s, then the number of seats they win is relatively small. They need a huge swing against both parties before many seats fall.

It could happen, but I bet many of their candidates hope not! They've got jobs they're expected to go back to on May 7th!

As Nigel will no doubt now be discovering, victory is very dependent upon canvassing and identifying supporters and then the Get Out The Vote operation on the day. This is the Lib dems weakness at present - they don't have the members and resources of the main two parties.

I'm going to be very foolish and predict the final percentages with more than 2 weeks to go:

C 36
Lab 28 (could be 30)
Lib 28 (could be 26)

I have no idea what that level of support will translate into in seats (normal projections no longer apply) - but I still expect we will have PM Cameron on May 7th. It may not be the majority government I had hoped though.

I also predict that I will now be horrendously wrong! :roll: Anyone else care to make a prediction? Will be interesting to see how we fare...

 

[Flyfisher]

I really don't want to be richer than others. I don't want to be poorer either.

Nothing wrong with any of that . . . unless you want to start inflicting those values on others who might think differently.

The Tories have a long standing tradition of being the party that supports wealth and maintains poverty at the level at which it doesn't threaten the wealthy.

"supports wealth" sounds fair enough but "maintains poverty" sounds like it's some active crusade. Is that really true? What would be the point?

 

[Flyfisher]

Anyone else care to make a prediction? Will be interesting to see how we fare...

I've no idea really. I will predict my constituency will remain Conservative - I can't see a c.10,000 majority being overturned . . . unless everyone else is like me and assumes it's hardly worth bothering to vote.

 

[Feltwell]

Anyone else care to make a prediction? Will be interesting to see how we fare...

Well.... I predict that the members of this forum are a long, long way from being a typical cross-section of the British population! :wink:

As for resources - interesting you should mention that. I live in a marginal seat - only 900 votes between Conservative and Labour at the last election, the seat has changed hands several times in the past. So far I've heard:-

- Lots from the local Labour candidate - plenty of leaflets through the door, posters up around the town etc.
- A reasnoble amount from the Lib Dems
- Nothing from the sitting Tory MP - nothing at all. No leaflets, not seen any posters. 1 minor interview in the free paper that looked to have been done before the election was announced, that's it.

I happen to think that the Lib Dem surge in popularity is healthy - even if it is transient, the fact that it seems to have rattled the two other parties is a good thing. The Conservatives in particular come across as being rather panicked by it.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

But increasingly it is looking like Vote Clegg, get Brown.

Er, no. At least, not if everyone votes Clegg.

And there's the rub - "no-one" believes the Lib Dems will form the next government, no matter how much a fair few might want it. But if that fair few did believe, and actually voted accordingly, the Lib Dems very well might.

And that might be a very healthy thing.

 

[Nigel Watts]

At the last general election my constituency of Islington South was a Labour/Lib Dem marginal. At the subsequent mayoral and European elections the Tory vote was second to Labour. The local Lib Dem campaign is based entirely on the slogan that "only the Lib Dems can displace Labour" - an appeal to Tories to vote tactically. Extrapolate this logic to national level and in all Labour/Conservative marginals the Lib Dems should be urging their supporters to vote Tory. I wonder if they are? More likely that they are doing what they always do so well: say whatever they think will get them elected and to hell with consistency.

 

[biffvernon]

I really don't want to be richer than others. I don't want to be poorer either.

I know it's your personal view Biff, but I find this a deeply depressing picture of the possible future. Everyone the same, no reason to try hard, no reason for effort, no reason for innovation, inspiration or risk.

What utter tosh! I never said I wanted to be the same. That's impossible. Money is just a rubbish motivator. Do artists, writers, poets, musicians, and conservers of period properties do it for the money? In fact if you look back through history, just about every human achievement of of real merit has been done for reasons other than monetary gain.

 

[Gervase]

Similarly, I've never met anyone who vowed to work less hard because their tax burden increased. The 'dire warnings' about high earners leaving in droves are a complete canard, and those who do have the freedom to flit in and out of the UK's tax system are usually those who pay little tax here anyway (pace Ashcroft). It's bad enough that we still have to put up with those conservatives who promised to leave the UK last time Labour won - people like Andrew Lloyd Webber and Paul Daniels. For some unaccountable reason they're still here.

 

[Feltwell]

say whatever they think will get them elected and to hell with consistency.

Come on Nigel - you can accuse all political parties of that one, no matter what your own political leanings are.

Andrew Lloyd Webber and Paul Daniels.

Ohh no! You mean if I don't vote Tory then they might leave? How would we cope?

I agree Gervase - the argument that if tax burden increases then the rich will leave in droves, meaning that the country actually gets less income, is full of holes. Saying and Doing are not the same thing.

 

[Nigel Watts]

Eton vs Westminster?

Cameron was at Eton and Clegg at Westminster, so what's the difference? I dont think such things are relevant to how one should vote, but there are clearly some who do.

As someone who had to make a decision where to educate my sons, and who knows a number of Westminster and Eton parents and boys, I have perhaps a small insight into the difference. My wife and I, with my son's blessing, chose Westminster for my oldest son, where he is now.

The statistically insignificant sample of those we know who chose Eton over Westminster (or St Paul's, the other boys' school ambitious London parents will kill each other to get their sons into) do not have different backgrounds - one is a Harley Street surgeon, the other a first generation British Indian couple who work in banking and finance - but they do have different social ambitions. Their sons, however, can hardly be blamed for this.

Westminster is a smaller school than Eton, fiercely academic and the boys, and small number of sixth form girls, are almost all from priviledged backgrounds. The atmosphere, in spite of the grandeur of the setting and quaint old customs, is surprisingly liberal and relaxed and sport, the religion of some public schools (it certainly was at mine) seems much less important. These features appealed to me and struck me as a suitable environment for my eldest son - a rather quiet academically inclined and not very sporty boy with ambitions to save the planet from environmental catastrophe. He can also attend as a day pupil - something not possible at Eton - which was a very important consideration for my wife. A friend of his is standing as the Lib Dem candidate in their mock election and will no doubt get his vote.

I believe it is important to be able to choose a school one feels would suit one's child. Not all children are the same so a variety of schools and real choice is required. My younger son, for example is quite different, and we may choose a different school for him as a consequence, even if he is able to pass all the necessary exams. Although my wife and I both work in the public sector we are just about able to afford the fees from our income, so are in the fortunate position of being able to exercise such choice. I would like to see the possibility of real choice opened up to people who are not so fortunate financially. The Tories are the most likely to make this happen.

 

[Nigel Watts]

say whatever they think will get them elected and to hell with consistency.

Come on Nigel - you can accuse all political parties of that one, no matter what your own political leanings are.

You are right of course, but the Lib Dems, never having had to play seriously at a national level, are particularly masterfull at this. They are not just two faced but positively polycephalic (to use a Borisim).

 

[Gervase]

They are not just two faced but positively polycephalic (to use a Borisim).

Far be it from me to bandy Classics with Boris, but I would have though polyprosopontic would be more accurate. :wink:

 

[Ian Bond]

I would like to see the possibility of real choice opened up to people who are not so fortunate financially. The Tories are the most likely to make this happen.

What an utter load of bollocks.

And as for Pford75's comments about council house tenanted slobs, words fail me. You disgust me.

 

[Nigel Watts]

They are not just two faced but positively polycephalic (to use a Borisim).

Far be it from me to bandy Classics with Boris, but I would have though polyprosopontic would be more accurate. :wink:

I only went to a minor public school. One term of classical Greek was all I got. Many faced rather than many headed perhaps?

 

[LadyArowana]

bollocks

:shock:

council house tenanted slobs

:idea: ........................................ :lol:

 

[Penners]

bollocks......words fail me.

Not completely, apparently. Just polite,constructive words.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Poor Pford! You don't disgust me at all. I completely agree with you. I think all the lovely things money can buy (including our beautiful homes) is a wonderfully sufficient motivator. Not many of us have the genius to live simply filled up by painting, or music, or whatever - only a rare few.

Two terms of teaching violent ruffians in what was supposedly a nice school in Muswell Hill nearly killed me. They ate me for breakfast, and I was so nice to them, and worked so hard! I pity anyone who can't afford private fees (which I'm sure would be us so I'm rather glad I'm not in my brother's shoes- having to send his sensitive and clever lad to one of the most council house slobby schools in the UK - I think he'll move.)

 

[Gervase]

I don't know - my daughter went to a a 'council house slobby school' and received a superb education; good enough to enable her to get a First at Cambridge, where as secretary of the Union she was both amused and appalled at the arrogance, ambition and naiveté of the young hackers from public schools who thought that a safe Tory seat would be theirs by right (and some of them are, indeed, exercising that 'right' in the forthcoming election).
The attitude that writes off swathes of society and seeks to pull up the drawbridge by buying its way out of the problem rather than attempting to engage and fix it is possible one of the greatest ills this society faces. Yes, the middle classes will generally seek to go through hoops to give their children the greatest advantage, but in a society where the disparity between rich and poor is so huge and growing, we are dividing society ever further. That divide cannot be laid directly at the feet of Gordon Brown or Tony Blair; the poorest in society are materially better off than they were before 1997, and real steps have been made to tackle child poverty, What we have seen, however, is an obscene escalation in salaries at the other end of the scale. The private sector argued they could only attract the best managers by offering higher salaries, and that mindset spread to the public sector, where senior managers are - I would say - paid far more than their material worth to the organisation. As a result, pay at senior levels across both private and public sectors has rampaged away to ludicrous levels.
It's instructive to look at the John Lewis partnership, where the chief executive, Andy Street, has a salary which can be no more than 75 times that of the lowest-paid partner in the business. As a result his pay is derisory by comparison with the rest of the retail sector. Compare it, for example, with Mark Bolland's £14.8 million package as the new MD of Marks and Spencer. And yesterday we learned that the average salary for a Goldman Sachs employee for just the first three months of this year was over £100,000, while the average bonus across the company this year will be over £400,000.
I'm sorry, but something has become seriously skewed in a society which does that. Other countries seem to manage to stave off bankruptcy and barbarism with a far more equitable system - in Sweden, for example, a doctor earns between two and three times what a nurse earns.

 

[Flyfisher]

Similarly, I've never met anyone who vowed to work less hard because their tax burden increased.

I did. At 49 I was getting very weary of working 60-70 hour weeks, seemingly spending half my time on aeroplanes (OK, I exaggerate!) and frequently being away on business over weekends away from home and family. I was well paid, with good good benefits, but I had little personal time to develop an extravagant personal lifestyle with all the money I was earning. In short, the price of earning all that money, particularly when about half of it was immediately taken in taxes, became too much - so I 'retired'.

And before you ask, I don't claim any benefits and am not officially unemployed. Indeed, I'm officially self-employed - but my last stint was for about 6 weeks a year ago, which paid for some professional help with fixing our roof.

 

[Feltwell]

say whatever they think will get them elected and to hell with consistency.

Come on Nigel - you can accuse all political parties of that one, no matter what your own political leanings are.

You are right of course, but the Lib Dems, never having had to play seriously at a national level, are particularly masterfull at this. They are not just two faced but positively polycephalic (to use a Borisim).

I don't agree Nigel. I think all the parties are very adept at this particular game. As for the "Borisism" - is that something he really said? If so, he shows how desperately out of touch he is with the vast majority of the population who did no classical Greek at school.

As for Eton vs Westminster - I couldn't comment on that, but as far as the "class" distinction goes Cameron certainly comes across as being much more arrogant than Clegg - which will be interpreted by many as "posh". Similarly, Cameron's accent and manner of speaking comes across to many (especially outside of the south-east) as "posh", whereas with Clegg it isn't so blatant.

Is this important, should it matter more than the policies? No, of course not. However, like it or not, with the televised debates many people will be judging more than ever on their general impression of the candidates and being "posh" does carry a negative connotation for many.