What Will Change If Gordon Brown Gets In?

lol may as well use this thread for the Brown/Blair handover.

lol paddy ashdown in government

lol currently watching The Thick Of It

lol emigrating

Ashdown in government is a pretty good way of killing off the Lib Dems, to be honest. A kind of "Hey, remember when this party was going somewhere? Before the pensioner and the alkie?"

Nicky Wire (in a banana suit)

lol coxhill

cocyx, morelike

Harriet Harman.

Harriet fucking Harman.

I'll send y'all a postcard from Uzbekistan.

is Harman worse than Blair/Brown?

harman > blears

i say give the little lady some support.

blears is v disgusting but harman is even worse

How Harriet Harman voted on key issues since 2001:

* Has never voted on a transparent Parliament. votes, speeches
* Moderately for introducing a smoking ban. votes, speeches
* Very strongly for introducing ID cards. votes, speeches
* Very strongly for introducing foundation hospitals. votes, speeches
* Strongly for introducing student top-up fees. votes, speeches
* Strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws. votes, speeches
* Very strongly for the Iraq war. votes, speeches
* Very strongly against investigating the Iraq war. votes, speeches
* Very strongly for replacing Trident. votes, speeches
* Very strongly for the fox hunting ban. votes, speeches
* Moderately for equal gay rights. votes, speeches

oh well!

* Very strongly for the Iraq war.
* Very strongly against investigating the Iraq war.

This makes me chuckle.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00180/harman2_180464a.jpg

IN UR GOVERNMENT, MAINTAINING YR BLAIRISM

in b4 "Never a frown with Gordon Brown!"

"b4" would haev been 1995, Estie.

i had it in mind harman was sort of left-wing. then i remembered why: a labour activist acquaintance of mind told me she was. doh!!!!!!!

Her husband was famously the Labour party treasurer that failed to notice millions flooding into the party accounts during Cash For Honours.

Does anybody know what the average rainfall is in Tashkent?

So lay me down, for a while,
Join my body with my mind,
And I cried at the common one,
For weeks aft’ he died.

xpost, less than here

Yeah I looked. And it's 33 degrees today. I just need to persuade Naomi.

Blair & Brown shaking hands in front of a big fuck off Union Jack looked not half Mosley-ish.

Samarkand's maybe even more beautiful.

you lefties should stop moaning. britain is booming. there are over one hundred branches of nando's chicken resturants now across this land. from the metropolitan hearts of finance to the hard working provinces everyone is united in peri peri chicken. we've never had it so good.

sub 696ian at best

wonder if they have ID cards in Uzbekistan.

we've never had it so good.

But isn't this actually true? When did we have it better? I'm not saying it couldn't be better, or indeed should have been.

"we"

wonder if they have krispy kreme doughnuts in uzbekistan

Ok, "most" people have never had it so good?

http://www.spectropop.com/remembers/250Mickie%20Most.jpg

http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,2110574,00.html

Other people who have a name a bit like "most":

http://www.movieactors.com/photos/producers484.jpeg
http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Mos-Def-Photograph-C12035695.jpeg

http://www.gosh.org/news/celebrity/sport/images/Sir-Stirling-Moss-lrg.jpg

Islam Karimov

Mr Karimov takes a ruthlessly authoritarian approach to all forms of opposition. The few Western observers who monitored parliamentary elections in 2004 condemned them as having failed to meet international standards and pointed out that all the candidates supported the president.

Mr Karimov has been accused of using the perceived threat of Islamic militancy to justify his style of leadership. Observers say the combination of ruthless repression and poor living standards provides fertile breeding ground for violent resistance in a volatile region.

No Harriet Harman then?

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1886010,00.html

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1763410.stm

Mr Karimov has been accused of using the perceived threat of Islamic militancy to justify his style of leadership.

way to make a point ned!

lololololololol

don't bother with this lot ned. they only want to grouse and complain. take away their waitrose and virgin media packages, they'd soon see the current situation for the golden age it is.

I knew someone was going to do that but if anyone seriously thinks that living under Karimov is better than Blair then I really do think they ought to try it.

I want to live on the Silk Road, srsly. I wasn't planning on causing no trouble. Also lol "you've never had it so good".

my mum always used to say to be "if you don't like it, move to cuba."

i should have called her on it tbh.

'be' meaning 'me' and 'it' meaning 'capitalism'.

It'd be sunnier in Cuba than it is here now.

Also, no Harriet Harman.

CON 36% (-1): LAB 39% (+4): LD 15% (-3).

Where's that from Dom? It's hardly unexpected, since Labour seem determined to stay to the right of the Nu-Conservatives.

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1886010,00.html

And this is not the case where? I'm not arguing that this is the best the government could have done, nor have I argued that the poorest are not getting poorer nor the richest getting richer. The fact is we are drifting towards electing a government who will do nothing but make the worse aspects of this government even worse. I'm no supporter of this government but I'm old enough to remember the previous ones and I don't want to go back to that.

Ipsos-Mori poll, as reported on politicalbetting.com
xp

They don't have Eat. in Cuba, Enrique.

xpost

And how does the poor getting poorer - under a Labour government - square with "we've never had it so good"? And how does anger and sarcasm and lollery at the Labour party being destroyed by right-wing scum equate with "I want the Tories back in power"? And just how evil does a Labour government have to get before we can stop supporting them "because the others are even worse"?

and how early will Brown call the next election? if he's a player he'll call as early as possible

http://politicalbetting.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/ICM%201990-1991.JPG

Major came to power in November, btw.

what did the liberals do to gain ten points in that year i wonder?

xpost

1) As I said 'most' people have never had it so good. I didn't say everybody. I also think this is a disgrace but the alternative, which I remind you is a tory government, would not have made this any better.

2) Did I say YOU want the tories back in?

3) Well, I didn't support them in the last election for just this reason. But I also knew that the tories weren't going to win. Next time I don't have that luxury.

I knew someone was going to do that but if anyone seriously thinks that living under Karimov is better than Blair then I really do think they ought to try it.

you're stupid

Eh?

Meanwhile back in the real world...if there really was an alternative I would vote for that alternative. But there isn't. Under the present system you are going to get a Labour or a Conservative government. And I still think that a Conservative one would be more evil.

Moving off the commons room discussion for a second, Harman was the #1 choice of rank and file Labour party members. What does that actually mean in real terms?

It means RIP the Labour Party.

I mean, I was depressed at the prospect of Johnson, but this is some next level deadness. My guess is she's there to safeguard Blairism under that krazy Trot Gordon Brown.

tbh i don't think this means jack. i doubt brown gives a fuck about it anyway.

In all seriousness, it's also difficult to see how a Nu-Tory government could be radically worse. Cameron's manifesto will stop them from doing anything to radical in a first term, at least.

haha this was started as a parotty thread of the "What will change if David Cameron gets in?" thread.

Shd've really left them both blank.

DEPUTY LEADER RESULT
1. Harman: 50.4%
2. Johnson: 49.6%
3. Cruddas: Out
4. Benn: Out
5. Hain: Out
6. Blears: Out
The final result comes after eliminated contestants' next preferences reallocated

Brown aim 'to reduce union power'

In all seriousness, it's also difficult to see how a Nu-Tory government could be radically worse. Cameron's manifesto will stop them from doing anything to radical in a first term, at least.

No difference between Bush and Gore, so why bother voting, right?

Question for the "never had it so good" naysayers: what period, in the past 100 years or so, has it been better in the UK?

September 18th 1971, around about 2pm.

xxpost

I cannot bring myself to vote for Labour now, sorry. It's not the same as a Presidential election really. I'm just sayin' Cameron will end up promising not to rock the boat in order to win the election. Of course, Thatcher didn't really get medieval until her second term.

Also 'Cameron's manifesto'? - he has one?

Question for the "never had it so good" naysayers: what period, in the past 100 years or so, has it been better in the UK?

-- Zelda Zonk, Monday, June 25, 2007 4:09 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

http://lloydyweb.com/vintage/1966_world_cup/_gfx/07.jpg

j/k?

what period, in the past 100 years or so, has it been better in the UK?

You do realise what a stupid question this is, right?

Of course, Thatcher didn't really get medieval until her second term.

There was that whole thing in South America...

Also 'Cameron's manifesto'? - he has one?

-- Ned Trifle II, Monday, June 25, 2007 4:11 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

this is a good thing, kind of. new labour has been hyper about "doing stuff": massive overload of new legislation, continual reorganization of the health sector, fucking dipshit ID cards, increase in tests for schoolkids, "liberal interventionism", etc.

xpost

Which I'm prepared to accept wasn't entirely of her engineering, and she used the subsequent wave of support to win her second term.

Yeah, Togtq OTM. Labour policy is mostly based on whatever scare story the Sunday papers come up with.

"That is why no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party that inflicted those bitter experiences on me. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin. They condemned millions of first-class people to semi-starvation. Now the Tories are pouring out money in propaganda of all sorts and are hoping by this organised sustained mass suggestion to eradicate from our minds all memory of what we went through. But, I warn you young men and women, do not listen to what they are saying now. Do not listen to the seductions of Lord Woolton. He is a very good salesman. If you are selling shoddy stuff you have to be a good salesman. But I warn you they have not changed, or if they have they are slightly worse than they were."

Saxon 507
+507
46.3%

Labour 84
-263
17.2%

Conservative 27
-186
19.2%

SNP
19
+13
2.6%

Lib Dem
7
-53
8.1%

Plaid Cymru
3
+1
0.7%

Green
1
+1
2.0%

Others
2
-2
3.9%

I thought Saxon was Labour.

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/siteinfo/newsround/saxon2.jpg

"five more years"

1) As I said 'most' people have never had it so good. I didn't say everybody. I also think this is a disgrace but the alternative, which I remind you is a tory government, would not have made this any better.

its like people are living in a dream. if i borrow a big bunch of cheap cash and splurge it a holiday to cuba and a new car, am i really having it so good? easy credit and pumped up money supply, funfunfun!

BTL crash happening already according to the obs.

to be fair to the govt, the credit fuelled boom has been a worldwide one, with commonalities and easy credit across most western nations, so it follows that the downswing will hit it all more or less together also

still doesnt really explain brown cutting rates just a couple months after the election last time around - would have been ideal time to try deflate things more painlessly than will now presumably occur (unless he really believes its all truly global and all the govt/boe can do is try ride the rapids)

Brown did not cut anything. MPC did.

which is why if he's a player he'll risk an earlier election and try deal with the chickens coming home to roost later on.

Brown did not cut anything. MPC did.

lol

indeed

BTL crash happening already according to the obs.

doesnt look anything like this does it?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahayes/404436750/

or maybe more like this?

http://www.lloyddevelopments.co.uk/Leeds%20St.htm

What they were saying is that rental yields have fallen below savings rates.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/viewdetails-15065900.rsp?pa_n=6&tr_t=buy

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/viewdetails-14935978.rsp?pa_n=1&tr_t=rent

even a cursory pressing of a few buttons of a calculator should have told us this

Harman was the #1 choice of rank and file Labour party members. What does that actually mean in real terms?

Not much of a mandate there; - she got 24.1% of members' first preferences votes, followed by Benn on 21.6%. What was more stunning was how the tribunes of Blairism (Blears and Johnson) only got 25% of members' first preferences, 24% of affiliates (40% of MPs).

However, 99% of Cruddas' MP/MEPs reallocations went to Harman , cancelling out the fact that Johnson, weirdly, got 92% of Cruddas' members' reallocations.

You pommy bastards should try living under over a decade of jingoistic conservative rule!!

Reported the Daily Mirror on June 9:

'ARSENAL fans got some good news on Thierry Henry last night - from the next Prime Minister.

'Gordon Brown, who takes over from Tony Blair on June 27, reckons the striker will be staying with the Gunners.

'The pair met last week and the current Chancellor last night revealed to a gathering of sports journalists at No 11 Downing Street that he thought the French star would not be moving.

'Brown was asked if Henry had said to him whether he was going to Barcelona. He replied: "I rather got the impression he would be staying at Arsenal."'

You pommy bastards should try living under over a decade of jingoistic conservative rule!!

As opposed to three decades of jingoistic conservative rule?

Frenchman in lying to British politician shocker.

xp

As opposed to three decades of jingoistic conservative rule?

Touche.

so whats the betting on a spring election?

there's an article in the daily mail about that, it could have been the express actually, the sun's going with it as well.

Is this another BB thread?

5/1 looks a good bet for a 2008 election, or you can get 16/1 on Brown being a real player and calling one in 2007.

problem with 07 election is looks to much like panicking and getting it out of way

a few months ago cameron threw down and said brown should call an election post-post-haste. if brown does it in the next few months, cameron will be eating word salad.

problem with 08 election is The Great Crash may have happened/kicked in by then.

Brown may do well to call an election either before or well after Euro 2008.

Cameron's covering himself to avoid 'backlash' likely to thrive by the time the election would otherwise be due (you ain't seen nothin yet, literally). Funnily enough it seems an early election may well suit both of them in this respect (the electorate not so much).

Brown may do well to call an election either before or well after Euro 2008.

irrelevant - neither England nor Scotland will qualify!

Labour's currently electoral strategy appears to be "we can lose votes to the Tories as long as we take them from the Lib Dems", but they appear to be attempting this without actually moving to the left. Good work guys.

god knows what's going on with the lib dems. what point of principle is ashdown defending not to take the northern ireland job?

That with the current NI situation, the job would basically entail smiling broadly at Paisley and McGuinness and nothing else.

Also, the Rachel Cooke point of principle that Ashdown isn't as HOTT as Zac Goldsmith and that's what matters.

problem with 08 election is The Great Crash may have happened/kicked in by then.

-- That one guy that quit, Monday, 25 June 2007

yes thats kind of why 07 would look like a panic (admission of choppy waters ahead). he might get lucky with an early 08 election, difficult to tell. presumably he thinks he can stave things off till then, but if the global cycle is coming to the end of an easy credit period then i dont see how much he can hold things off (guess it depends on china here and if they really are running into problems with own economy)

doesn't everyone just assume choppy waters ahead anyway? what difference would 12-18 months make anyway? how choppy are we talking anyway? and who's controlling this chopometer anyway?

price of money. is it cheap, or is it expensive?

low rates, cheap credit, markets booming, gold rush, consumer spending, incentives to borrow/invest/spend. problem with booms (and with capitalism in general) is it requires constant growth, bubbles occur and need more impetus or they.......

Labour's currently electoral strategy appears to be "we can lose votes to the Tories as long as we take them from the Lib Dems", but they appear to be attempting this without actually moving to the left. Good work guys.

Lib dems and their voters in not being to the left of labour, shocker!

what difference would 12-18 months make anyway

http://people.few.eur.nl/smant/m-economics/images/1929dow.jpg

;)

probable
___________

possible

nice dead cat bounce there.

Lib dems and their voters in not being to the left of labour, shocker!

-- Ed, Monday, 25 June 2007 14:54 (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

How's life back in 1993?

*cue Ace Of Base*

They may be more progressive, but to the left, not a chance.

We are not heading for a 1929 type crash.

I put this here so that in the future people can copy it and then put the Nelson haha gif underneath it. If they have enough electricity to power their computers.

no-one knows what they stand for. there is cross-party consensus, pretty much, on issues of taxation, public spending, and economic management. so i don't think the lib dems are significantly to the right or left of labour. but on social issues, the war -- sometimes they look a bit more left than labour.

To the "man in the street", the Lib Dems are the party of the left.

what man? what street? lib dems seem to be the student choice in my experience.

all of the students I knew at uni who were into politics were in the lib dems, but that was a long time ago (89-92).

i think dom is right there. less so under ming. remember they used to say they'd raise taxes by 1pc. for a lot of young middle-class people who don't have jobs, that'll serve for 'left-wing'.

Plus The Sun's advice to readers at the last election was "vote for anyone except the Looney Lib Dem Left"

We are not heading for a 1929 type crash.

maybe not this time, its either going to be 70s style or 1991 style (with china standing in for japan?), and im sure everyone saw the massive bubbles of those times coming didnt they? maybe cheap credit never comes to an end and we can grow for ever and ever at capitalisms golden 5% (or to put it another way double our resource usage every 15 years)

i think this will have a noughties flavour all of its own.

also if you pump an economy full of cheap money what do you think happens in the end?

peanuts come out the other end?

i think this will have a noughties flavour all of its own.

well it certainly could do with resource usage doubling every 15 years or so (shows "at current levels" platitudes for the rubbish they are). and capitalism is basically another word for growth, right?

and since when do things ever stagnate at 'the top'?

lots of fatteys with ipods?

xpost

noughties flavour:

-personal debt, not just mortgages but credit card lifestyle
-instability of resources (gas)
-compared with seventies, no alternative political vision
-the old instead of the unemployed

boom market of the 10s: homes for the elderly. transfer of wealth from young to old, hospices and care for the elderly is where all this money is headed. houses sold to pay for the care

not counting the boomers who pissed it up the wall on 2nd homes in spain, buy to lets, 2nd cars and sainsburys taste the difference goats cheese and fig pizza

was this thread you?
New Austerity Aesthetic and the decline of Conspicuous Consumption: When?

oh no it can't be

Any nu-Cabinet speculation then? I wish I'd made that £50 bet on Alistair Darling as new Chancellor two weeks ago.

that one guy that ran ID cards and is now a junior health minister will become the actual health minister.

problem with 08 election is The Great Crash may have happened/kicked in by then

Didn't stop Major winning bang in the middle of a recession that he was at least partly responsible for starting.

trudat -- but voters seem to go to the right during economic crunches.

http://politicalbetting.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/gord%20day%201%20front%20pages.JPG

Do we do the cabinet reshuffle discussion here?

What Will Happen First During Gordon Browns' Terms As Prime Minister
Bet Until : 18:30 28/06/2007


Announce Complete Withdrawal Of Troops From Iraq 6/4
Call A General Election 2/1
Raith Rovers To Win Promotion 3/1
Labour Party Lose A By - Election 5/1
Gordon Brown And His Wife To Have Another Child 20/1
Call A Referendum On Withdrawal From The Euro 20/1
Cease To Be Prime Minister 50/1
Scottish Independence 100/1
Call A Referendum On Withdrawal From The European Union 100/1

Let's imagine - it's far out but bear with me - that somehow Labour manages to win the next election, either with a fractional majority or as leaders of some kind of hilariously infighting coalition. If that were to happen, would Brown still be Prime Minister by this time next year? And whether he was or wasn't, what impact would this miracle have on the policy and direction of the Labour party?

In short I'm thinking that if I vote for them next time and somehow the unthinkable happens, will I have contributed to giving comfort and encouragement to the most inept and destructive gov in the history of the Party?

I had been coming round to the thought that they might yet pull the next election out the bag, or at least make it close. I hadn't considered this angle though, but it can't be good. How can they possibly be elected if they look like they might pull themselves apart within six months of getting in?

Who's the alternative? Darling?

How can they possibly be elected if they look like they might pull themselves apart within six months of getting in?

hey, it happened to us and we made it work!

oh, sorry, we're actually badly fucked. my bad.

I dunno, the main criticism (other than bad handwriting and "lol he's a mentalist") of Brown is usually "But we didn't elect him or his government, give us our election now". I can imagine that would continue even if he won an election every week, though.

the most inept and destructive gov in the history of the Party

really tho? it's only been about 2 years since ppl really started thinking of them as inept

i mean beyond the usual 'they are the government therefore they are inept' default level

Well we have had the worst financial crisis in 70 years over the last two years. It's kind of a big thing.

Answering the question, Brown would still be leader, it would be seen as the endorsement he's so far lacked. The only reason Labour MPs want rid of him is because they're terrified of losing and are panicking.

I'm thinking more and more that winning the next election would be an absolute disaster for the Labour Party, and those of us who desperately want a credible centre-left party that actually gives a shit about social democracy and reduction of inequality.

The economy may well get worse before it gets better. They've already committed to spending cuts. Big ones - bigger actually than those the Tories have explicitly outlined. A Labour party that's slashed public spending will lack the moral authority to argue anything when they're finally in opposition again, they won't be able to win any arguments against the Tories. There'd be strikes and unrest across the public sector. Grass roots Labour support would atrophy (lol even more than it already has). It would give the Tories another four years to get their act together and present a credible alternative vision.

In short, I think it would be the worst thing that could possibly happen for Labour. If they lose by a narrow margin this time (as will probably happen) they're more likely to keep their heads and stay in with a possibility of winning the next election. If they win, there'd be a Tory landslide in 2014 and they'd likely be out of power for a generation at least.

Also, it is far from clear what will happen to the banks on the public books, whether we'll ever get back the money that's been put into them, and what to do about the deficit.

I'm thinking more and more that winning the next election would be an absolute disaster for the Labour Party, and those of us who desperately want a credible centre-left party that actually gives a shit about social democracy and reduction of inequality.

it would be quite funny tho, Cameron's face, Have Your Say having to be scrapped due to cataclysmic meltdown etc.

^^^Frankly it would be worth it for that. Fuck anything else I want to see Cameron lose and Boris Johnson become leader in a (not necessarily) bloodless coup.

I despair, I really do.

If they lose by a narrow margin this time (as will probably happen)

Is this really so probable? I'd say the battle is to avoid losing by a landslide, not to avoid losing at all. I think the most likely outcome is a comfortable majority for the Tories, with a risk of a Blair-97 style majority. I'd agree that it's probably not in Labour's interests to win the next election, in the same way that the Tories would have been better off in Major had lost in 92.

in = if

For the Tories to win outright *at all* would require the biggest swing since the 1930s. For them to win by a landslide would make this the most unpopular government in modern history.

Doesn't mean it won't happen

where the hell are the smaller/alternative parties that should be cleaning up here? i've not heard of the lib dems since their last leader went to the priory.

tory win by default is the most depressing election outcome there could be.

In a sense they already were the least popular government of modern times when they won the next election: not so much in terms of how many people hated them (or how strongly they hated them), but in terms of how few people felt much enthusiasm for them. I'll raid wikipedia for some figures...

Doesn't mean it won't happen

True, we're in exceptional times, and Brown's government may well actually be the most unpopular in history, but I'm not sure that there's enough enthusiasm for the Tories to push them into landslide territory. I still think they'll win, but we could be in for a weak Cameron government that becomes unpopular very quickly.

Problem is, in the next parliament they could argue with some justification that it's Labour that got everyone into this mess. Conveniently ignoring that they would have done exactly the same thing.

Doh! next election = last election (obviously)

Looking at votes cast...

1979: Tories 13.7m Labour 11.5m
1983: Tories 13.0m Labour 8.5m
1987: Tories 13.8m Labour 10.0m
1992: Tories 14.1m Labour 11.6m
1997: Labour 13.5m Tories 9.6m
2001: Labour 10.7m Tories 8.4m
2005: Labour 9.6m Tories 8.8m

...what's striking is the collapse in both main parties' votes over the last 15 years. At the last election neither party was that much stronger than Michael Foot's Labour.

If we assume Labour are going to do significantly worse this time around than in 2005, then the only thing saving them from oblivion is the relative lack of enthusiasm for the Tories (compared to the past).

quick question, then- will other parties rise with that tide, or are people just not voting?

It's a curiosity that, with these figures, the 1997 and 2001 results were almost identical.

and that's w/o taking into account population increase xps

britain needs a new left-wing socialist party, preferably one that has 0 to do with the lib dems - i aim to be involved

Also John Major got more Tory votes than Thatcher did at any point. Still didn't save him. Imagine what a collapse in votes on a similar scale would do to Labour.

I don't believe new parties work in the UK's system. Better to try to work within the Labour Party to move it in a more socialist direction. Matt has kind of summed up what I've been thinking - I don't think I can go to the ballot and endorse this shower in good conscience.

I'll be endorsing the shower. I honestly think there is zero chance of Labour winning the next election (or even getting a hung parliament), so I just want to help them avoid total meltdown.

tbh I think there's precious little chance that the Party will ever be recovered from the hands of the technocrats and authoritarian Liberals running it now - let's face it, they've always been part of the mix - but if there's a chance to move away from Blair/Brown then it's now.

they should rebrand. genuinely. calling themselves 'labour' seems to be confusing them and you guys both.

They still have some need of what's left of the old working class support tho, which is why they didn't go thru with a name change in the mid-90s.

I meant the name change should be forced on them, tbh. trading standards or something. i know they'd love to be able to convince everyone from traditional labour sources to vote for them, but they're in no way prepared to actually do anything to make it happen.

Brown should change his name to 'Susan Boyle'. As long as he doesn't sing, no one will notice.

It's kind of sad come election time when the BBC drags themselves into some working mens' club and interviews some old boy of 40 years' party membership and he's still trying to kid himself that the gov is just about to inaugurate the socialist millennium.

I suspect a hung parliament, or even Labour doing a bit better than that, is likelier than most people think.

There's a fairly well established pattern of voters returning to the governing party as a general election gets close. The "cling to nurse for fear of something worse" effect. Thatcher and Major were often well behind in polls taken before elections they subsequently won.

I think Labour are particularly well-placed to benefit from this. People hate the government because of the financial crisis. When polled many will be itching to take a risk-free swipe at Brown. Even those who fear the Tories would be even worse in an economic crisis will welcome the chance to inflict pain on a government they hold responsible for the mess. In a general election, the calculation will be different. OK, Brown got us into this, and I can't stand the bugger, but being honest isn't he a safer bet to get us out of it than a couple of lightweights like Cameron/Osborne?

Even at their current 10% lead an overall Tory majority isn't guaranteed. If it shrinks even a bit we're well into hung parliament territory.

The fear for Labour is it still looks obvious they're going to lose come election day. That could precipitate a rout. For the nervous floating voter, a vote for Cameron suddenly looks risk-free - they're going to get in anyway, so I can give a V-sign to that bastard Brown without affecting the outcome anyway, and I get the satisfaction of voting for the winner. I'm pretty sure that thinking like this massively contributed to Blair's first landslide - many who'd have held their noses and voted for Major if he'd been in with a chance took the opportunity to stick it to the sleazy Tories.

^ really good analysis, I think.

I'd disagree only that the risk to the tories isn't the economic crisis, because that's more likely to work in their favour as unemployment will continue to rise - it's that they get self-indulgent and squabble to the extent that they stop looking like a government-in-waiting. Other than when the future of Brown is up for debate, there's still enough self-discipline about Labour to make them seem quite impressive as a unit.

The Lisbon thing is really damaging, I think, not because voters care about it (they don't really) but because voters see the tories caring more about it than they care about looking like a serious outfit. Ultimately that's what an opposition has to do - look more like a government than the current mob. The rest is just window-dressing.

just been hearing from the boss of ipsos about public opinion. people have more confidence in education than they have had for 20 years, more confidence in the NHS than they ever had, and even though there is lots of fear of unemployment, it's way lower than it was during previous recessions.

where people think things have got worse is crime and anti-social behaviour - as well as race - despite the fact that crime has fallen, there are more police than ever and more criminals put in prison. aside from general malaise and brown's personal unpopularity, the support for cameron on this analysis seems to be about daily mail anxieties: "broken britain" is his "education, education, education".

OK, Brown got us into this, and I can't stand the bugger, but being honest isn't he a safer bet to get us out of it than a couple of lightweights like Cameron/Osborne?

he covered this directly. the public see cameron as much more likely to be good in a crisis than brown, and that's one of the main factors associated with winning elections. (rather than honesty, for instance: people regularly vote for the candidate they say is least honest.)

I would have thought "good in a crisis" was the one thing Brown could count on. It always struck me that it was the day-to-day stuff he was shit at.

What's depressing is that there HAVE been good things under Labour and yet no-one (not even labour ministers seem to be able to put this across). I heard Tessa Jowell on the radio to-day and I was swearing like Malcolm Tucker. Hopeless. But I won't be voting for Tessa Jowell I'll be voting for my mum's free bus pass.

You'd hope that by now they'd be able to talk about a bit more than free bus passes but yeah I got your point. Tessa Jowell has been trained in that terrible NuLabour culture of "don't tell anyone what you're actually doing in case the public suddenly think you are (gasp) taxing or spending their money and they will hurl you out of office because these are vile sinful things".

What's REALLY irritating is that circa 2001 they'd won the argument in favour of higher tax and higher public spending and yet I can barely think of one new idea from the second or third terms that hasn't depressed the fuck out of me.