The General Election Thread

[Nigel Watts]

Michael Gove was superb on the today programme and John Humphries was at his worst - hugely long questions which were more ill-informed lists of things the other parties dont like about Tory educations policies, then no time for Gove to answer. Gove kept his cool, got his points across and, in a very gentlemanly way, took the BBC to task for misleading headlines reporting of the statements of the leader in Kent County Council. I think it was the fact that Gove so effectively took all the wind out Humphries's sails that so wound him up. Gove is certainly a man to watch.

 

[Gervase]

Watch how Alan Johnson is positioning himself - very pro-electoral reform over the weekend. Brown himself has said that no-one is bigger than the interests of the country, so we may see Brown taking the long walk and Johnson and David Milliband fighting it out to be Labour leader in the days following May 6th. If that happened, Clegg would back Johnson over Milliband.
As for Gove, I do wonder if we heard the same interview - I heard a bumptious pipsqueak trying to argue that black was white. The BBC had actually interviewed the leader of Kent County Council, and yet Gove tried to insist that, no, he didn't actually mean what he'd said.

 

[Penners]

Of course, a really smart move for Cameron after the election will be to offer the Libs a seat or two in a minority cabinet (say Environment and Trade) but without any formal coalition deal.

Clegg would have to refuse, but will then blow apart his image of "working together".

Thus precipitating another General Election.

 

[Nigel Watts]

As for Gove, I do wonder if we heard the same interview

The BBC changed its headline after the Gove interview, so he clearly landed some punches.

a bumptious pipsqueak

I have to admit he does have an unfortunate kind of Harry Potter/ school swat appearance. Given the increasing trend of British politics to descend into X-factor territory I can see that is a disadvantage for him. His ideas and proposals are first rate though.

Johnson and David Milliband fighting it out to be Labour leader

What about Ed Balls? I can see him appealing to the left and he is certainly bright enough and ambitious enough. If Gove fails for you at the X-faxtor level, so I'm afraid does Ed Balls for me.

 

[Moo]

If you are really against the council tax, why not blame those who introduced it. It was a response to the failed poll tax,

I seem to remember that before the "Poll Tax" we had something called "Rates", where each house was given a "Rateable Value".
What I can't remember is how that system differed from "Council Tax".

 

[Nigel Watts]

For council tax there are a fixed number of valuation bands and a fixed relationship between the bands in terms of how much tax is payable. Local councils can set the rate but cannot change the bands or the relative amount payable for each band.

Rates were calculated as a percentage of ratebale value, so the amount payable was fully variable and not banded. The main criticism of rates was that in areas dominated by council and other low income housing, many voters did not pay any tax and elected councils (often of the looney left persuasion) could impose punitive rates on the minority who were fortunate to own their own homes. Council Tax, with its banding structure, limits the ability of nutty councils to do this.

 

[Flyfisher]

Yes, you beat me to that point Moo. Basically the same system but with a different name, although I wasn't aware of the nuances that Nigel described.

The essential point, as far as I'm concerned, is the complete disconnect from the 'ability to pay' principle.

 

[Flyfisher]

Basic incompetence, honest mistake or blatent lies? - you decide

I think it sounds quite accurate "the difference you know, between us and the Conservatives is very clear, that they are going to put policing at risk and they're going to put schools at risk and they're going to put the guarantees we are giving to the Health Service at risk"

Oh dear. This is the sort of tribal politics that makes me despair. Forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you but I suspect your vote is already decided whatever discussions or debates occur. You've completely ignored my point (of Brown claiming to save 1bn from a £74m budget - something pointed out by a media correspondent who has been previously criticised for being sympathetic to Labour) while bringing in another point to support your corner. Of course, we see and hear this all the time from professional politicians so I know I shouldn't be surprised.

But that quote you've extracted did make me smile. Imagine if I decided to start living beyond my means and racked up huge debts on the blind hope that my income would, somehow, magically increase to the point where I could actually afford to sustain my new lifestyle. Now imagine that my income didn't magically increase and that my creditors decided that they actually wanted to be paid back all the money I owed them and that the banks would no longer lend me any money, or only at really punitive interest rates. Do you think it would be reasonable for me to complain that my basically-unaffordable lifestyle was being "put at risk" by their actions?

Brown is living beyond our means. We all know about our decline in manufacturing (wealth-creating) industry although it was a hole largely filled by the boom of north sea oil and gas. This is now almost spent. Meanwhile, the City was bringing in huge amounts of money but that boom is also now bust with calls to regulate it further to prevent future booms. So, we've been living the high-life on the back of these boom times and now our national income has dropped Brown has been maintaining our lifestyle by borrowing, i.e. living beyond our means. To claim that another political party will put our lifestyle at risk when we can't actually afford it anyway is a remarkable bit of self-delusion at best.

Meanwhile, Brown claims he can save £1bn from a budget of £74m. With that sort of accounting, it's not surprising he's deluding himself and the country.

I suspect the country is in for a hard time whoever wins the election. I only hope we won't be seeing Greece when we look in the UK's mirror.

 

[d49xc]

No balanced Person can argue with with the sanity of your argument D49xc. The thing that has been fashinating me is the " D49 xc", it sounds like an operational code for a government spy ( at it's best) or a new model that volvo cars has in the pipeline ( at it's worst). :wink:

'twas a randomly generated username from Keepass - a secure password manager which has within it a password/username etc generator.
I lack the imagination to produce funny/witty/engaging usernames: - well I am a professional engineer so no surprise there.
All this comparison of Eton and Westminster is most interesting - particularly as I went to Winchester.

 

[Nigel Watts]

I went to Winchester.

No Wickhamists in the cabinet, shadow cabinet or Lib Dem team as far as I am aware. I am sure you will put me right if I have got this wrong.

 

[DaveBrigg]

FF - The piece you referred to already had an explanation by Gordon Brown of the one billion saving. You just needed to read down to the bottom. Are you suggesting that someone could be as successful a chancellor as he was, and not know that 1bn can't be saved from 74 million? The fact that it was suggested that this was deliberate deception suggests a deperate need for point scoring. The Osborne example I gave could similarly be a slip of the tongue or carelessness. I wouldn't seriously question whether he actually knew that there were also schools in Scotland.

I cannot understand how cutting hospital waiting lists from 18 months to two weeks, getting rid of damp and crumbling classrooms, reducing unemployment or reducing child poverty can be described as 'the high life'. Should the majority of people in this country just accept the conditions that existed in the early nineties, shut up and be grateful? As I pointed out earlier, it was only in the last year that government debt compared to GDP beat the record set by the last Tory administration. The only difference is that Blair and Brown seem to have invested in the long term future of the country.

The 'living beyond your means' analogy doesn't work very well either, because my personal circumstances provide a very good metaphor for the country pre and post 1996. I bought a house wreck, 'at risk' with a host of problems. The previous owners had let it fall apart, and had cut corners to bodge repairs. Some defects were obvious and needed immediate work, others emerged later. I borrowed money to do this work, knowing that as long as I stayed in work I could repay the amount. Unfortunately, the repair bill was greater than I had budgeted for. I could have cut spending to a minimum; paint over rotten wood rather than repairing first, cover the damp with hardboard, ignore the garden completely, take the children out of swimming lessons, cubs and school trips, not buy birthday presents. Instead, I increased the mortgage, and now have a debt more than 200% of my GDP. In the short run we are making savings, but can still pay for what is necessary. In the long run the house will be in a much better state in the end, and my family won't have disowned me.

 

[skier-hughes]

cutting hospital waiting lists from 18 months to two weeks,

But it takes 17 months and three weeks to get on the waiting list...................

 

[Moo]

I went to Winchester.

This is all getting very interesting. What about a poll related to the sort of school people went to?

 

[Flyfisher]

FF - The piece you referred to already had an explanation by Gordon Brown of the one billion saving. You just needed to read down to the bottom.

No, the bit at the bottom was just a list of savings from vague areas such as "efficiency savings". When pressed for some actual detail he actually said:

"Let me give you an example of how it will change for people. Child benefit, child benefit will now be paid in the next few years. It will be paid over the internet. People will register for child benefit. They will not get it paid by post. They will not get it paid through a call centre. "That itself will save £1bn in the administration of child benefit.

Robinson later clarified that child benefit administration only costs £74m, so it would actually take 13.5 years to save £1bn. And, as I've already pointed out, using "the internet" (the seemingly great hope of Brown to save all sorts of costs) won't help save a penny of administering my own CB payments as they are already paid directly into my bank account, as will also be the case with millions of other families. Anyway, if there really are all this huge efficiency savings suddenly to be had, then isn't that tantamount to an admission of poor fiscal management for the last 13 years? All in all, not a very convincing performance from such a 'great chancellor'.

I realise this is just one specific point. I also freely accept there are similar examples from other parties. And that, really, is my main point. They all talk a good story until they are pushed for specific details, whereupon things start to fall apart. Am I the only one to find this rather worrying? I'm trying really hard to understand who has the best proposals for sorting out the mess we're in but the really nitty-gritty details seem hard to come by. So how do I choose how to vote? Dogma (which seems to work for most people), past performance (based on the last 13 years of nuLabour), detailed policy proposals (akin to looking for needles in haystacks), personality (which seems to be giving the LibDems a boost inthe polls :roll: ) or a more ephemeral decision based on a left-ish tax/spend/regulate instinct or a right-ish minimise-the-state/let-the-people-take-more-responsibility instinct? It's all getting close to the time when I give up and don't bother voting at all.

Are you suggesting that someone could be as successful a chancellor as he was, and not know that 1bn can't be saved from 74 million? The fact that it was suggested that this was deliberate deception suggests a deperate need for point scoring.

I was actually asking a genuine question, as was Nick Robinson. But since you're pushing me, I admit I find it hard to understand how someone in Brown's position could make such a statement. I don't really subscribe to the tabloid "all politicians are stupid and greedy" stereotype, in fact I'm sure they are all (OK, mostly) very intelligent people - which makes such statements all the more astonishing. Perhaps something happens to people when they become MPs or Ministers and they start to live in a different reality to the rest of us.

I cannot understand how cutting hospital waiting lists from 18 months to two weeks, getting rid of damp and crumbling classrooms, reducing unemployment or reducing child poverty can be described as 'the high life'. Should the majority of people in this country just accept the conditions that existed in the early nineties, shut up and be grateful?

No-one will disagree that reducing all those problems are "good things". The issue is whether we can afford them.

The 'living beyond your means' analogy doesn't work very well either, because my personal circumstances provide a very good metaphor for the country pre and post 1996. I bought a house wreck, 'at risk' with a host of problems. The previous owners had let it fall apart, and had cut corners to bodge repairs. Some defects were obvious and needed immediate work, others emerged later. I borrowed money to do this work, knowing that as long as I stayed in work I could repay the amount. Unfortunately, the repair bill was greater than I had budgeted for. I could have cut spending to a minimum; paint over rotten wood rather than repairing first, cover the damp with hardboard, ignore the garden completely, take the children out of swimming lessons, cubs and school trips, not buy birthday presents. Instead, I increased the mortgage, and now have a debt more than 200% of my GDP. In the short run we are making savings, but can still pay for what is necessary. In the long run the house will be in a much better state in the end, and my family won't have disowned me.

While I sincerely hope things work out for you, perhaps it should be considered why the house got into its poor state in the first place. Perhaps the previous owners were living beyond their means? Also, let's all hope that you don't experience a 'recession' such that you are no longer able to service the loans you have taken out. Plenty of people borrow money they can easily afford to service until their personal circumstances change and they suddenly find they can no longer afford their lifestyle. Isn't this what a recession does to economies?

Hanging on while hoping the economy will start growing again is all very well, but there will inevitably be a lot of casualties before that happens. Not just individuals and companies either - what about Greece for example? And all this is underpinned by the assumption that economies will start another boom cycle in the near future anyway. Cue Biff to mention peak oil?

 

[DaveBrigg]

So how do I choose how to vote? Dogma (which seems to work for most people), past performance (based on the last 13 years of nuLabour),

I think that one of Cameron's problems is that when the past performance of the Tories is looked at, the words that spring to many minds are recessions, unemployment and Thatcher. I heard on the radio this morning that the Conservatives were making virtually no progress in Scotland. People have still not forgiven or forgotten the Thatcher years, including using Scotland as a guinea pig for the Poll Tax. The record in Wales was little better http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHRTLp960Cg&NR=1 I'll never forget seeing what was done to Sheffield, or crunching through broken glass, past overturned and blazing cars in Regent St, amazed at how a Prime Minister could so lose touch with the people. (NB I had to work that day, so turned up late afternoon unaware of what had happened)

in fact I'm sure they are all (OK, mostly) very intelligent people - which makes such statements all the more astonishing. Perhaps something happens to people when they become MPs or Ministers and they start to live in a different reality to the rest of us.

I think it is more to do with the long hours at work and the pressure of being interviewed. These are, in effect, job interviews, though far more hostile and prolonged than for any other position. The leadership debates give them a better chance to prepare, hence the fewer slips.

No-one will disagree that reducing all those problems are "good things". The issue is whether we can afford them.

Can we afford not to maintain them. I could more readily accept the need for cuts if Cameron wasn't at the same time giving billions in tax cuts to multimillionaires and people who happen to be married. I don't share his list of priorities.

perhaps it should be considered why the house got into its poor state in the first place. Perhaps the previous owners were living beyond their means? Also, let's all hope that you don't experience a 'recession' such that you are no longer able to service the loans you have taken out.

The previous owners were quite wealthy, but they didn't live there. It was rented. The poor working farmer paid his rent, but rather than re-invest some of that back into the property the money was siphoned off into the pockets of the rich owners, who of course did not have to put up with the damp and decay. By all accounts, their own house was very nice, and since they were becoming wealthy, why should they care? My worry is not about a recession, it is about a return to interest rates of 15%, 10% inflation and a pay freeze for the public sector.

Greece is a red herring. Britain IIRC is one of only 16 countries to have a triple A credit rating, which remains unchanged, and govt borrowing is now below what was expected. Much as Ken Clarke would like a financial collapse in the next 10 days, it looks unlikely.

 

[Nigel Watts]

One minute it looks like a Lib Lab coalition in the event of a hung parliament.

Then Clegg takes what looks like a principled stand "the party with the most votes or seat has a mandate"

Now he changes he position again, saying he could ally himself with Labour, but not with Gordon at the helm.

Sounds very Lib Dem to me - inconsistent, opportunistic, unreliable.

"Vote Clegg, have no idea what you will end up with" seems to the appropriate slogan now.

 

[Schoolmarm]

There are MILLIONS of wasted votes being lost because people don't want the hunting with dogs ban repealed. DC has said in an interview that it would be repealed sharpish.

There is a massively underestimated amount of people not happy with this. If you love animals, don't vote Conservative is the feeling and slogan on other massive forums I go on.


As a "dogma" conservative voter, and feeling like voting for someone else, how many floating voters will also do it?

 

[Moo]

I, too hate animal cruelty.
But I hate some forms of cruelty much more than others - namely, when the victims are animals that have no chance of a natural life and no hope of escape.
So I'm afraid that on my list of Things That Will Affect My Vote the fate of foxes will have to take its place below things like the economy, the environment, education, health, taxation, the care of the elderly, crime, international affairs, farming subsidies, ..........

 

[Feltwell]

I think it's a fair point Schoolmarm - it does seem bizarre that "Dave" wants to repeal a law in order to please a privileged few, at the risk of alienating a much larger group of voters - because party donations will suffer perhaps? Whilst it's not near the top of everyone's priority lists, it is a very emotive subject and some will feel that morally they could not vote for a party that supports what they view as animal cruelty.

 

[JoceAndChris]

repeal a law in order to please a privileged few

I'm really not at all sure about that. I've mentioned before that poultry keeping and smallholding is enjoying a fashionable renaissance, and whilst many poultry keepers abhor the cruelty inherent in fox-hunting, and recognise it as a less than effective way of controlling fox numbers, nevertheless Mr Fox is enemy numero uno and I highly doubt that their vote would be swayed by sentiment in this matter.

Fox lovers present all sorts of facts and figures to argue against the hunt: http://www.thefoxwebsite.org/agriculture/agripoultry.html#q1

but the inescapable fact is that many of us are greeted by bold-as-brass foxes every day- in the town they are increasingly afflicted with sarcoptic mange, which can't be nice for them, and is not nice to look upon, and in the country they are an expensive nuisance if you wish to keep them away from your poultry or young livestock. The ideal situation would be a marksman in every county, paid for by the council, but that isn't going to happen and it is fraught with problems in itself as foxes live alongside people and you can't go shooting where people are. Then, if you don't get a clear shot the fox may die an agonised and prolonged death, which seems little better than fox-hunting. What would make a difference, I'm sure, is increased consumption of wild rabbit and more secure disposal of rubbish.

I suspect that many people who get very cross about fox hunting rarely stop to think about the cruelty of certain farming practices in meat production. (not you Carol). When the cattle and pigs are off loaded from the trucks they feel terror and suffer the pain of slaughter. Many haven't enjoyed a particularly nice life up until that point. Chicken from battery hens is available at reasonable prices and consequently consumed in vast quantities, a habit that is far more cruel to my mind than fox-hunting. If people kept chickens as pets and saw their intelligent patterns of behaviour and delightful ways I'd think they'd be unable to eat that stuff anymore. I don't say that one cruelty in society justifies another, but I do say that people's double standards and jumping on the band-wagon of complaining about fox-hunting is often very badly thought out.