The General Election Thread

[DaveBrigg]

As for Dave's suggestions that Cameron has 'sold out', I suspect that he couldn't have pleased you either way. If he refuses to compromise and forms a minority govt, then he's a 'typical ignorant tory, doesn't understand the public want parties to work together' and if he works with the LibDems hes 'so desperate for power he's prepared to agree to anything.

Not at all. A month or two ago some were predicting that Labour would be wiped out in the same way that the Tories were by Tony Blair. There was a promise of fox hunting, tax cuts for the rich, benefit cuts for the poor, a ridiculous handout to people who happen to be married and a government stuffed full of old Etonian Bullingdon club members (Not all Etonians are bad of course, Orwell is a hero of mine). And what did the election deliver? A poor result for Labour, but better than predicted, and a real boost in the local elections to suggest that many still keep the faith. No chance of hunting, no inheritance tax cut, tax breaks for the poor, scrapping of the married person's giveaway and a deputy PM who campaigned on policies more left-wing than Labour. The only fly in the ointment is the new chancellor, but he's got two LibDem babysitters to do the sums when the going gets tough.
A minority Tory govt would have been politically acceptable because it would have failed pretty quickly, but this would not help the continuation of the recovery. As it is, if the current arranged marriage succeeds as promised, the scope for the country to be wrecked like last time is much reduced. If it all goes pear-shaped there is only one party in opposition ready to take the reins. Cameron clearly was so desperate for power that he's sold his soul, but at least he still gets to choose the biscuits on a Wednesday. Don't think that that doesn't please me

 

[Gareth Hughes]

The major fly in the ointment is the fixed term parliament, which would be great if introduced before an election but which, now, means that (if passed as a binding vote in the next few weeks) means that, once passed, DavCam can say "thanks a lot" to Clegg and then misrule until 2015.

Unless I've missed something.

 

[DaveBrigg]

I don't see how the fixed term can work. I assume this was written in because neither side trusted the other not to split if it was politically advantageous. However, if either leader loses the confidence of their MP's, or if Clegg changes his mind, it will be impossible for the Conservatives to command a majority, at which point they would have to call another election. I assume that there is no legal basis for the coalition deal, and that either party could just claim bad faith and walk if they wished. The only thing that would be ruled out is the Tories voluntarily calling an election, perhaps after another war against some South Americans.

 

[Pford75]

some were predicting that Labour would be wiped out in the same way that the Tories were by Tony Blair

Errr......they were. This was the worst electoral result in nearly 100 years for Labour. The Conservatives fell 16,000 votes short of an overall majority (which considering the starting point was pretty impressive).

Just keep telling yourself that it wasn't that bad and maybe you'll convince yourself :wink: I found the new political age refreshing and a start on what the public has been asking for...two grown-ups behaving that way and compromising for the good of the country. Labour politician on Newsnight tonight sounded very 'old fashioned'. You just don't get it....and until the Labour party does, they will be condemned to the political wilderness.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

I presume fixed term parliaments will only work whilst the government enjoys a majority in the HoC - ie the government can't cut and run early. If it loses a confidence vote it has to call an election (once HMQ has determined that there is no alternative that commands a stable majority).

Interesting development that the new government intends to bring forward primary legislation, I understand, to make the confidence threshold in the Commons 55%+1, not the current 50%+1. On current numbers, that will make the requirement for the government not to fall to be circa 292 votes, not 326 votes. So even if the Libs were to leave the coalition, a "stable" minority of 307 Tories could carry on.

I have very mixed feelings about this. It would be politically impossible (and electoral suicide) for anyone to cling-on like this, even if technically legal.

I'm with pford on this - I think Clegg and Cameron have spotted the seismic shift in UK politics before most of the rest of us, and have utterly changed the landscape and really do mean this partnership thing - can they bring their parties with them?. If Labour don't realise this quickly, we may well have seen the last Labour PM in Brown.

 

[Moo]

... Not all Etonians are bad of course

The same could be said about the Scots.
I know some delightful ones but I've had enough of having my country governed and nearly bankrupted by them, reviled by them, milked dry by them, and cast as the villainous oppressor when they don't get their own way.

 

[Nigel Watts]

a government stuffed full of old Etonian Bullingdon club members

P = Private
S = State

Cameron P (Eton)
Clegg P (Westminster)
Osbourne P (St Paul's)
May S
Hague S
Fox S
Clarke S
Duncan Smith P? (HMS Conway)
Laws P (St George's College)
Cable S
Gove P and S
Lansley P? (Brentwood - a direct grant so could be either)
Alexander S
Huhne P (Westminster)
McLoughlin S
Pickes S
Hunt P (Charterhouse)
Warsi S
Hammond S
Spelman S
Mitchell P (Rugby)
Paterson P (Radley)
Gillan P (Cheltenham Ladies')

That's 11 and a half private and 11 and a half state (counting Gove as 50:50). A higher proportion of the Lib Dems cabinet members are from private school. Only one Etonian. Only one other member of the Bullindon as far as I know, and he didn't go to Eton.

It's so boring having to get one's facts right.

 

[Schoolmarm]

I love reading the replies by you though Nigel.

 

[DaveBrigg]

some were predicting that Labour would be wiped out in the same way that the Tories were by Tony Blair

Errr......they were.

A quick comparison between 1997 and 2010.

1997 Lab seats won - 418 ........... 2010 Con seats won - 306
1997 Lab seats gained - 147 ........ 2010 Con seats gained - 100
1997 Lab seats lost - 0............... 2010 Con seats lost - 3
1997 Con seats gained - 0 .......... 2010 Lab seats gained - 3
1997 Con seats lost - 171 ............ 2010 Lab seats lost - 94
1997 Fall in Con vote - 11.2% ........ 2010 Fall in Lab vote - 6.2%
1997 Lab vote share - 43% ........... 2010 Con vote share - 36.1%
1997 swing to Labour 8.8% .......... 2010 swing to Conservative 5%
1997 Lab vote 13.5m ................. 2010 Con vote 10.7m
1997 Lowest Tory % of popular vote since 1832 ..... 2010 Lowest Labour % of popular vote since 1983
1997 Con Secretaries of State lost 5 (Defence, foreign & commonwealth, trade & industry, Scotland and Treasury)
2010 Lab Secretaries of State lost 0

Nigel- your figures are of course correct, although you will note that my comment was about a fear early on that the Bullingdon club would dominate the cabinet. Well we've got a PM and Chancellor of the Exchequer, but Boris has been kept out. Unfortunately the Bullingdon is a little secretive about membership. I have heard rumours that Gove was also in it.

 

[Moo]

I love reading the replies by you though Nigel.

But isn't it a pity that this tedious old 'toff' issue has to be disinterred yet again.

It reminds me of a conference I attended many years ago when I felt compelled to tell the militant feminists (of both sexes) that the gender of a Gynaecologist was of much less importance to me than his/her ability. I feel the same about politicians and so, I suspect, do a lot of people.

 

[Nigel Watts]

Some delicious quotes from Matthew D'Ancona:

"Spare a thought today for Gordon Brown who, having spent 10 years getting rid of one fresh-faced English public school boy, has now been driven out by two."

"For the past couple of years, Whitehall has been like a political hospice. Suddenly, it is a gigantic honeymoon suite."

"[The Lib Dems] also knew that a carefully delivered wink in the direction of the Labour Party might galvanise the Tories into decisive action. Which it did. Flirting with another guy may not be the most honourable thing a girl can do: but it sure gets your new boyfriend's attention."

"[Nick and Dave] hold widely diverging views on Europe and proportional representation: but these are arguments about the club rules of the governing elite. They are still members of the same club."

Full article is here: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...-con-rat-pack---live-from-the-cabinet-room.do

 

[FamilyWiggs]

I'm surprised the toff-bashers haven't spotted this:

University attended by each of our elected Prime Ministers since the War:

1945 Clement Attlee University of Oxford
1950 Clement Attlee University of Oxford
1951 Winston Churchill Non graduate
1955 Anthony Eden University of Oxford
1959 Harold Macmillan University of Oxford
1964 Harold Wilson University of Oxford
1966 Harold Wilson University of Oxford
1970 Edward Heath University of Oxford
1974 Feb Harold Wilson University of Oxford
1974 Oct Harold Wilson University of Oxford
1979 Margaret Thatcher University of Oxford
1983 Margaret Thatcher University of Oxford
1987 Margaret Thatcher University of Oxford
1992 John Major Non graduate
1997 Tony Blair University of Oxford
2001 Tony Blair University of Oxford
2005 Tony Blair University of Oxford
2010 David Cameron University of Oxford

Of course we've had other PMs, but these are the ones who faced an election and by popular verdict were victorious.

It's clearly a stitch up and we should abhor the fact that our elected leaders come from such an elitist educational background. Heaven knows how they could run the country?

 

[Flyfisher]

It reminds me of a conference I attended many years ago when I felt compelled to tell the militant feminists (of both sexes) that the gender of a Gynaecologist was of much less importance to me than his/her ability. I feel the same about politicians and so, I suspect, do a lot of people.

Well said . . . er, written.

What a shame that some people instinctively denigrate anyone from a public school/Oxbridge background, especially when they (probably) wouldn't dream of doing so on the basis of their colour or creed. Wouldn't it be more productive to ponder why such institutions apparently churn out high proportions of successful people and endeavour to transfer as much as possible of whatever it is to all our educational establishments? Or has 'success' become a dirty word these days?

 

[Nigel Watts]

University of Oxford ... University of Oxford ... University of Oxford ... University of Oxford ... University of Oxford ... University of Oxford ... University of Oxford ... University of Oxford ... University of Oxford ... University of Oxford ... University of Oxford ... University of Oxford ... University of Oxford ... University of Oxford ... University of Oxford ... University of Oxford

What astonishing anti-Cambridge prejudice. Can one sue the electorate?

 

[Penners]

What a shame that some people instinctively denigrate anyone from a public school/Oxbridge background, especially when they (probably) wouldn't dream of doing so on the basis of their colour or creed. Wouldn't it be more productive to ponder why such institutions apparently churn out high proportions of successful people and endeavour to transfer as much as possible of whatever it is to all our educational establishments? Or has 'success' become a dirty word these days?

A great big neon "hear, hear".

I am sick to death of the politics of envy that manifest themselves in that tired old inverse snobbery against the privately educated.

If you're financially successful, you can buy a better house, run a fancier car, perhaps buy a holiday house in France, and for the most part the worst reaction you'll get from other people is a wink and a "you're doing all right for yourself, then".

But spend your money on buying the best education you can for your children, and the opprobrium is endless - not just for you, but also for the unfortunate child, who had no choice in the matter. The child is then identified by a section of society not by his/her character, abilities, contributions, but by one criterion only - his/her schooling.

It's a bankrupt, small-minded, pointless, stupid argument, and the sooner we put it behind us once and for all, the healthier our society will be.

And in case anyone's interested, my two kids both went to the local comprehensive school.

 

[DaveBrigg]

What a shame that some people instinctively denigrate anyone from a public school/Oxbridge background

Which people are you referring to? I think anyone with such foul and wicked beliefs should be named and shamed. Any child suffering endless opprobrium should be defended; it's bad enough having to wear a black tail-coat without being opprobriated before lessons.

However, back to the earlier issue of cabinet members and their backgrounds. A government must surely need to reflect, or at least have experience of the wide society it serves. Obviously it can't reflect all of society; it would be difficult to include the homeless, prisoners, the terminally ill etc. Regardless of their politics I want a government that is chosen on ability, and has some knowledge or experience of the aspects of the country which they seek to change. The absence of women in parliament used to be acceptable; it is less so now but there is still nothing like equal representation and no-one can justify this. There was a time when there were no non-white MP's; now it is generally accepted that for a government to legitimately serve an ethnically diverse population, that diversity should be seen in parliament too. Mention class and privilege however, and the hysterics break out.

Nineteen Prime Ministers went to Eton.
At the moment, approx 0.014% of the school population go to Eton. Annual fees are nearly £29000, £5000 more than the UK average wage before tax.
The Bullingdon Club is rather shy, but may be limited to 30 members. This would make its members representative of 0.15% of Oxford students, and 0.0016% of UK students as a whole. Membership is by invitation, and only to those who can afford the £3000 cost of fancy dress, the cost of repairing their trashed room and the cost of eating at, and damaging, expensive restaurants. Andrew Gimson, biographer of Boris Johnson, reported about the club in the 1980s: "I don't think an evening would have ended without a restaurant being trashed and being paid for in full, very often in cash. [...] A night in the cells would be regarded as being par for a Buller man and so would debagging anyone who really attracted the irritation of the Buller men."

Is it just a random coincidence that the PM, Chancellor of Exchequer, mayor of London and possibly Education Secretary happened to belong to a club for rich hooligans? Call me cynical if you like, but maybe there was more than just a consideration of who was best for the job when positions were being handed out. I imagine that there are probably other institutions 'churning out' successful people, but that they just don't seem to make it to the top as often.

 

[Nigel Watts]

Successful politicians are a highly self-selected lot - very ambitious, articulate (OK there is Prezza but he compensates in different ways), bright, hardworking.

They will never in a million years be representative of the vast bulk of the population who by comparison are set in their ways, rather dim, and a bit lazy (I would score myself quite high on two of these criteria). It would be terrifying if they were.

The most representative people in high office on this basis are probably the Royal family.

My experience of the Conservative Party at grass roots level in London is that it is embraces people of all backgrounds and progression is by merit alone.

 

[Pford75]

•Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood)
•Hugh Bayley (City of York)
•Hilary Benn (Leeds Central)
•Bob Blizzard (Waveney)
•Chris Bryant (Rhondda)
•Stephen Byers (North Tyneside)
•Charles Clarke (Norwich South)
•Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)
•Jim Cousins (Newcastle-upon-Tyne Central)
•Alistair Darling (Edinburgh South West)
•Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford)
•Louise Ellman (Liverpool Riverside)
•Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire)
•Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent Central)
•Barry Gardiner (Brent North)
•Linda Gilroy (Plymouth Sutton)
•Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East)
•Peter Hain (Neath)
•Patrick Hall (Bedford and Kempston)
•Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East)
•Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham)
•John Healey (Wentworth)
•Margaret Hodge (Barking)
•Geoff Hoon (Ashfield)
•Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley)
•Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood)
•Sally Keeble (Northampton North)
•Ruth Kelly (Bolton West)
•Jim Knight (South Dorset)
•Ivan Lewis (South Bury)
•Martin Linton (Battersea)
•Ian Lucas (Wrexham)
•Denis MacShane (Rotherham)
•Fiona Mactaggart (Slough)
•Judy Mallaber (Amber Valley)
•John Mann (Bassetlaw)
•Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West)
•Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South)
•Bob Marshall-Andrews (Medway)
•Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton)
•Chris Mole (Ipswich)
•Julie Morgan (Cardiff North)
•Doug Naysmith (Bristol North West)
•Nick Palmer (Broxtowe)
•Gordon Prentice (Pendle)
•James Purnell (Stalybridge and Hyde)
•Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich)
•Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West)
•Andrew Slaughter (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)
•John Spellar (Warley)
•Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes South West)
•Howard Stoate (Dartford)
•Gavin Strang (Edinburgh East)
•Mark Todd (South Derbyshire)
•Kitty Ussher (Burnley)
•Keith Vaz (Leicester East)
•Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North)
•Michael Wills (Swindon North)
•Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central)
•Shaun Woodward (St Helens South)

All the above Labour MP's in the last government were privately educated. I don't see this as a problem...nor do I see a significant difference between this and the Conservative party. After all...the constituents choose who they want to elect to represent them!! If schooling was such an issue, there was not a single constituency where every candidate was privately educated and they could have voted accordingly.

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that it is impossible to relate to the general public if you were privately educated or came from a privileged background. A good MP should be capable of representing a constituent, whatever the income, race, sex or sexuality.

 

[LadyArowana]

Is it just a random coincidence that the PM, Chancellor of Exchequer, mayor of London and possibly Education Secretary happened to belong to a club for rich hooligans? Call me cynical if you like, but maybe there was more than just a consideration of who was best for the job when positions were being handed out. I imagine that there are probably other institutions 'churning out' successful people, but that they just don't seem to make it to the top as often.

I don't quite understand your point, are you saying that they are out of touch because they came from well off families ? or are you saying that they are hooligans ? I would have thought getting drunk and behaving badly showed that they had a great deal in common with lads and lasses from less rarified levels of society.

 

[JoceAndChris]

I love the Bullingdon Club, and especially how it is the catalyst for Pennyfeather's adventures in Decline and Fall, which might be my favourite novel ever.

"Without trousers indeed! And at that time of night!"

:lol:

It's one of the wonderful old traditions of Oxford, without which the country (and literature) would be the poorer.