WE ALL KNOW ITS COMING, the Guardian Says so, the 2007 General Election throwdown

Also, what are the odds as william Hague as next Tory Leader?

Low. He's favourite. He said yesterday, pretty categorically, that he wouldn't run.

There should've been a 'but' in there. Scans as a bit of a non-sequiter as it stands.

Q11 Looking ahead to the next General Election, which, if any, of these issues do you think will be very important to you in helping you decide which party to vote for?
Base: 988 British adults 18+

Crime and anti-social behaviour 56
Health care 47
Asylum and immigration 46
Education 39
Pensions 27
Iraq 26
Managing the economy 24
Taxation 23
Housing 22
Protecting the natural environment 20
Unemployment 20
Defence 16
Public transport 14
Europe 11
Animal welfare 7
Constitution / Devolution 6

Also, I've just moved. Does anyone know if I can get on the electoral roll in time for Nov 1st? Luckily, I doubt there's a safer Labour seat than this one, but I'd still feel like a bad citizen if I didn't vote.

xpost. I bet when it comes down to it, the economy matters *way* more then people say in those surveys.

The Liberals are a joke

So, very different to the other parties then.

As long as you get your name in 11 days before the election you can vote according to the man on the radio this morning (who was also predicting electoral chaos)

Cool, ta.

The Liberals are a joke from the point of view of getting elected or even retaining any seats.

Better?

CURRENT SPREAD BET SEAT PREDICTIONS:

Labour: 333
Conservative: 236
Lib Dem: 48

i'm not on the electoral thingy. could give a fuck.

Joke or no, they'll be massively squeezed this time out. Bad luck Minger.

Agreed on the economy. pocket-book voting isn't sexy but it weighs far heavier on people's satisfaction (or lack thereof) with the government than they/we think it does.

xxxxpost

Yeah but not entirely accurate I suspect. There are still plenty of disaffected Labour voters and dead-eyed tactical Tory voters out there to suck up. I don't think they're going to have a disaster.

The same MORI poll shows that the one thing the public trust Labour with above all else is the economy. Europe comes last.

Of course, whether anything short of gaining 20 odd seats is seen as a disaster in the more idealistic sections of the party is another question.

In spite of myself the more I see and hear from Cameron the more I like him. Still would never vote for the cutn though.

Correction: the more I see and hear from Cameron the more less I dislike him

I'm not even going to begin trying to understand the above two posts. I think the spread betting figures for the Lib Dems are about what I'd expect. Maybe a bit lower than 48, but not much.

let's all vote BNP, it's time for a change.

ban ^

I understand yr irony there. (xpost)

Of course the big unanswered question is: Will the Daily Express find any room for any election coverage in between the ongoing Madeleine McCann investigation and the diana Inquest?

i've never voted. i probably would have voted for blair in '97 if i was old enough. not voting this time, anyway.

Thanks for that.

I don't want an election right now. I really don't know who to vote for. I'd feel bad abt not voting but, really, I don't think much of any of them. This is the first General Election that I've been elegible to vote where I've felt this way.

Part of the problem is that I don't only feel dienfranchised coz I don't much like any of the parties but I feel alienated from the opinions of most of the electorate too.

BRING BACK HANGING

AND THE BIRCH

NEVER DID ME ANY HARM

AND THE BIRCH

I really must pay more attention. I thought it was the elm which had gone.

You forgot AND NATIONAL SERVICE.

AND ROUTEMASTER BUSES

AND MIXMASTER MORRIS

AND ROUTEMASTER BUSES

Boris Johnson actually wants to do this!

Fish Dances for new Tory them tune.

YOU COULD LEAVE YOUR FRONT DOOR OPEN

BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T OWN ANYTHING WORTH STEALING

Once the Lib-Dems do get wiped out can they please please PLEASE replace Ming with Lembit Opik?? Because that would be the best fun ever.

Probably voting lab. I really don't want Cameron in power. It's pretty bad when you find yourself voting against the most objectionable candidate rather than voting for someone who you want in power, but it's been like that since nu-lab got in in the first place. I'm depressed by this election.

aren't you in a pretty safe labour seat, pash? NE stronghold and all that.

"I'm depressed by this election."

when was the last election you felt optimistic about?

It's pretty bad when you find yourself voting against the most objectionable candidate rather than voting for someone who you want in power, but it's been like that since nu-lab got in in the first placethe early 1950s.

Fixed.

The one where the rights of the general public were up for grabs, should they want it. The one just after the war when Churchill was voted out. They don't talk much about THAT one thesedays though.

(Although, strictly speaking, I was not alive for that one)

The Liberals are a joke and will surely loose seats

why is this exactly? Is it primarily coz they made the mistake of making an old codger their leader or are there other reasons why they have seemed to have disappeared off the map? Has Lembit Opik swapping a Weather Girl for a Cheeky Girl made any discernible difference to their fortunes? There does seem to be a bias against them in the media in terms of ignoring them rather than any outright hostility.

Can we be so sure that it hasn't *always* been the case that ppl have had to vote against the most objectionable candidate rather than voting for someone ppl want in power, since the introduction of universal suffrage? Dom cites the 1950s, but maybe this is only coz this is the earliest period he knows about.

aren't you in a pretty safe labour seat, pash? NE stronghold and all that.

Yeah, the labour party could run a horse as a candidate and they'd still win, the next village along is still known among older locals as "little moscow". I used to vote for the green candidate just so they wouldn't lose their deposit, but I quit doing that after their candidate groped my wife on the bus (true!)

It wasn't depressing when nu-lab first got into power. Admittedly it got depressing pretty quickly when blair started sucking rothermere and murdoch's cocks, but for a very short while, it was pretty great.

The fortunes of the Green Party in my ward will be pretty interesting - 22% of the vote in the last election.

Brighton?

the Greens do well here in the local elections....there are 3 or 4 Oxford Green councillors iirc.

Brown and Hillary Clinton are gonna look awkward together

Yeah Dom, Brighton.

I moved a couple of months so probably not on the electoral role either, can't remember.

I suspect Waltham Forest is probably a fairly safe Labour area though.

is it? it includes Chingford amirite?

Nah I checked and the constituency is just Walthamstow not Waltham Forest. 8000 majority - any good?

"The Liberals are a joke and will surely loose seats"

why is this exactly? Is it primarily coz they made the mistake of making an old codger their leader or are there other reasons why they have seemed to have disappeared off the map? Has Lembit Opik swapping a Weather Girl for a Cheeky Girl made any discernible difference to their fortunes? There does seem to be a bias against them in the media in terms of ignoring them rather than any outright hostility.

no-one has a clue what they stand for. they get in the news for paying people to shit on them.

Can we be so sure that it hasn't *always* been the case that ppl have had to vote against the most objectionable candidate rather than voting for someone ppl want in power, since the introduction of universal suffrage?

1900-1910: welfare y/n [+ rise of labour power]
1910-1914: rise of labour power
1915-1918: coalition
1918-1924: bye-bye liberals, hello labour
1924-1931: labour is domesticated
1931-1945: coalition [?]
1945-1951: welfare
1951-1964: collapse of empire & industry
1964-1979: repercussions
1979-1997: lol
1997-2007: zomg hoodies

no-one has a clue what they stand for.

people bemoaned Cameron for this for 2 years also

What does Nu-Labour stand for?

In all seriousness, because it strikes me that they're more of a feeling than a coherent political programme.

it implies that many people are all 'well i would vote for the Lib Dems if i had a better understanding of their policies' - seems a traditional/well established perception but how true has it really been esp. since the Iraq war?

xposts

that seems to be about right. They seem to be the safe pair of hands/better the devil you know choice. No one else stands for anything so might as well vote for the party who have done us all quite well for the last 10 years.

a coherent political programme.

maybe a lot of people have a hard time squaring coherence with centralism? this would affect Lib Dems (and has done traditionally?) as well as Diet Neo Labour Extra Plus

What does Nu-Labour stand for?

-- Noodle Vague, Wednesday, October 3, 2007 11:31 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

choice in education and health
locking up yobbos
spreading peace and democracy
a healthy financial sector
aspiration
owner-occupancy
moral panics

xpost to Ed

"us all" being the tiny minority of the electorate who actually swing the election, right?

us all - the middle classes

the tories provide no alternative to labour and vice versa. most tory grassroots types would like at least some nod in the direction of lower taxes, but that isn't in the interests of westminster in any party. the liberals used to be about raising taxes; now they aren't. or are they?

Thread needs some zings aimed at Respect. Like "George Galloway is an enormous cunt"

There's nothing new about the Lib Dems' amorphousness here tho. Precisely because of the way the electoral system works they've had to be two different parties depending on whether they're contesting a Labour or a Tory seat since their inception. Nu Labour probly do this too but a bit more quietly, since they have enough thick lapdog supporters who'll continue to vote for them right up to the point where they change their name to The Conservatives.

xpost ^^^^Dom

All of Labour's mistakes/unpopular decisions since Blair have felt like quite Conservative ones (as in they would've done the same things) - with the exception of asylum and immigration control perhaps (far too lenient for right-wingers). Is that a reasonable perception?

Iraq, yes. Tax rises, not so much.

the liberals used to be about raising taxes; now they aren't. or are they?

Ming said a few months he'd raise them for 'the rich' in tandem with lowering them for 'the poor' supposedly with the green tax offset to balance books. this didn't go down well with the left of the left (but then why should it?) - but even if this policy appealed and worked their voice/image seems too weak for it to make any real difference.

Isn't the LibDems' problem, partly at least, the media's refusal to take them seriously even when they have serious things to say about policy, except to say: "Ming. Lol."

They have so few seats because of this "what's the point in listening to them/voting for them" attitude. I know that people here are inherently more politically aware than the population as a whole but isn't that the general perception?

vicious circle really. the public and media cynicism towards the LDs affects their confidence which increases cynicism/confidence in them and so on. they really need the balls of UKIP 4 years ago and to shout at least that loud and clear but don't suppose it will happen.

Well it worked for UKIP.

it's interesting that it didn't work!

remember Veritas?

i think he's at Coventry now

To what extent are recently redrawn constituency boundaries expected to change the three parties' share of the vote? I was under the impression this could exacerbate even a moderate swing from Labour to the Tories.

My hunch is the days of landslide election victories for either side are (for now anyway) a thing of the past. What with all three major parties (at the moment) saying they're about this wondrous centre ground and standing on a pinhead as it is, a small victory for either Labour or the Tories is likely to give them even less wiggle room to distinguish themselves while in govermnent. If they're the slightest bit interested in doing so.

calling an early election is a sign of weakness, right? it's almost like saying "fuuuuuck, tories are going to prove themselves to be amazing/we are going to fuck up bigtime next year so let's stay in while we still can" and it makes me think fuck seriously do i want to vote for this weak shit?

isn't it just taking advantage of the tories' weakness? which is still fairly cuntish but dat's politics innit.

I dunno, it'l be the first time an election has been called early to exploit the 'weakness' of the opposition / the 'good feeling' of the people towards a 'new' leader...

certainly it's a product of weighed up political pros n cons though right? november 1st is a guaranteed decent win, whereas to wait til May 2008/9 would be more of a gamble. tories could just as easily be less of a threat then as more.

it just seems silly for an extra two years and a bit? or are they really expecting to win loads more seat in this election?

xpost

i'm just naive really in wanted to see an election being won through merit rather than gamesmanship.

presumably part of the equation for labour is: long-term, if this cameron, who else will the tories put up? they fucked!

^^^ this is 100% what this election is about. If Brown has anything above a 50 seat majority, the Tories aren't getting into power until at least 2015

calling an early election is a sign of weakness, right?

Depends how you look at it. When he took over everyone said he needed to go to the people for a mandate (ignoring the fact that we don't actually vote for Prime Ministers). Failing to take that challenge could be perceived as a weakness.

Choosing the best strategy/time to call an election is a perfectly acceptable tactic in my view. The whole point is to win/keep power - I have no objection to any party attempting to do so.

Europe 11
Constitution / Devolution 6

This is interesting considering how much of a song and dance the media are making of us giving up our sovereignty to teh Geermans/Frogs without a referendum.

Also frankly Brown has been trailing the prospect of an election for some time now and will look like an untrustworthy pricktease if he doesn't call one.

If anything this is the biggest shift, Blair and Cameron had this odd kind of mutual respect and admiration going on. With Brown its the opposite, he wants to completely destroy Cameron as a major political player and I doubt Cameron's too fond of the PM either.

This is interesting considering how much of a song and dance the media are making of us giving up our sovereignty to teh Geermans/Frogs without a referendum.

but-but-but-BUT: The Sun's readers (ie, roughly ten percent of the UK populace) are a definite floating voter block.

but how many of them are in marginal seats?

page 3 battle between Sarah Brown and Samantha Cameron on the cards.

Also frankly Brown has been trailing the prospect of an election for some time now and will look like an untrustworthy pricktease if he doesn't call one.

If anything this is the biggest shift, Blair and Cameron had this odd kind of mutual respect and admiration going on. With Brown its the opposite, he wants to completely destroy Cameron as a major political player and I doubt Cameron's too fond of the PM either.

-- Matt DC, Wednesday, October 3, 2007 12:27 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

well exactly re the first bit. "snap" election my arse.

i don't think mutual respect between the two parties is even that odd, to be honest. especially when there's so much agreement between parties. a lot of the moaning in the right-wing press about brown is not that he's a wrong 'un, but that he steals tory policies.

i wonder if the tory right is 'right' about the electorate. if cameron has fucked up by bringing in flakey people like zac goldsmith while brown presses ahead looking authoritative. a davis vs brown election... shudder.

A hefty proportion of Sun readers would either vote Labour regardless, vote UKIP or not vote at all though. Those who'd vote Tory based on their stance on Europe alone are a tiny minority.

Also the issue has been pretty much neutralised for now. The UK isn't going to be joining the Euro any time soon and voters don't feel the impact of the rest and consequently don't really give a shit however much the right wing press harps on about it. Certainly in relation to violent crime, the NHS, the economy etc etc.

Also NRQ the right wing press (Mail especially) is as likely to turn on Cameron as Brown. What Brown has over Blair in this regard is this sort of Presbyterian authoritarian air (scrapping super-casinos, reviewing 24-hr drinking, no relaxation of drugs laws) that plays well with the Mail. Certainly more so than Cameron and his coke buddies.

http://www.b3ta.cr3ation.co.uk/data/jpg/bjdc.jpg

hahaha.

Boris is the worst move the tories could make in a post-Blair world.

Brown's got to get it over with soon, cos the economy will be shot by May.

gordon brown's been wearing a shitload of make up recently, perhaps that's an indication.

Also NRQ the right wing press (Mail especially) is as likely to turn on Cameron as Brown. What Brown has over Blair in this regard is this sort of Presbyterian authoritarian air (scrapping super-casinos, reviewing 24-hr drinking, no relaxation of drugs laws) that plays well with the Mail. Certainly more so than Cameron and his coke buddies.

-- Matt DC, Wednesday, October 3, 2007 12:39 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

yeah i agree -- i think this is what the right-wing press means by brown stealing the tories' policies. cf straw's pro-vigilante bit this weekend. didn't even tebbit say brown was okay by him?

scrapping super-casinos, reviewing 24-hr drinking

sigh

Blair and Cameron had this odd kind of mutual respect and admiration going on

Cameron might have thought so - but he'd be wrong.

Yeah, can y'all stop reminding me how depressing the prospect of a Brown government is so I can go back to enjoying the prospect of watching the Tories tear themselves up one more time?

do you think thatcher knew that after her policies, the uk couldn't become a socialist country again? that changes like privatisation were irreversible and labour would have to accept the centre ground shifting to the right?

"again"

What does Nu-Labour stand for?

Right now: getting your head down and running the economy competently, not being drawn into celeb politics, showing humility in general in serving public office.

"again"

well, i guess this is debatable, it depends on your definition of socialism... the 70s were a lot more economically left wing, obvs

or, playing the game, yes, obviously. that was the plan.

if brown has the destruction of the tories in sight, though, what is his big vision? what is he making the country safe for/from?

what is his big vision?

Prime Minister for longer than Tony Blair.

pepsi making the country safe from the horrors of coke.

Tory blog meltdown over the realisation they're fucked is pure lulz this morning. Apparently Brown is OPPORTUNISTIC for announcing new policies before calling an election.

silly rabbit, politics isn't about vision any more.

xpost

let's have some tory blog action

it was for blair. choice in education... all that stuff i mentioned upthread. the 'respect agenda'.

xpost

Blair was vision without conviction, Brown is conviction without Vision

I thought the Tories complaining about Brown's visit to Iraq was pretty desperate and laughable in a "Objection! We haven't prepared for this surprise witness" kinda way.

Right now: getting your head down and running the economy competently, not being drawn into celeb politics, showing humility in general in serving public office.

The fact that anybody thinks this is what the Labour party is for makes me cry. The fact that after 10 years in office this is the extent of their ambition makes me laugh hysterically.

that's what all parties should stand for - it's a given.

I don't think I've heard equality or 'Social Justice' once this conference season.

"Change!"

I don't think I've heard equality or 'Social Justice' once this conference season.

-- Ed, Wednesday, 3 October 2007

yeah, but middle england can get sniffy about this. they prefer the "get on your bike" approach.

Well, it's the sort of "not having loads of showbiz chums round" change of emphasis that people wouldn't necessarily choose upfront, but they suddenly find,hey they like that better.

i'd like a super casino better

i was just watching cam'ron's conference speech. thought it was pretty weak. switched off when he started talking about facebook groups.

wait what

i'm not kidding.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/10/david_camerons_speech_live.html

He's on to Facebook now and says that there is a group called "David Cameron is a hottie". When the laughter dies down, he delivers the punchline: it only has 74 members apparently.

Another group called "Am I the only person who doesn't like David Cameron?" has over 300 members, he says.

Ban David Cameron

Then he plugged his blog.

Next Tory leader:

Jeremy Clarkson 11/10

Could someone unplug his blog? Or his mic?

Cameron: "I'll ban lol Britpop zing culture"

What I've seen of his speech so far has been pretty incopreshensible. He somehow managed to draw a link between Facebook and the EU treaty. What that link is, only he knows.

he should introduce a harsh regime of lol nu-metal zing culture.

cameron "i'm in ur confrenz, plugin mai bloggz"

Ha. Going for the Peep Show Conservatives?

He tries so hard to be 'in touch', but he should just face it, he's never going to be cool no matter how many pairs of Converse trainers he wears.

there are loads of right wing knobs on facebook btw.

i even have some libertarian chums that are voting tory.

MIND...BLOWN...

the big 'hook' is: 'look foax, no autocue!'

or http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00006RIO8.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

and it started saying: thatcher freed eastern europe from soviet tyranny. this bit came very close to saying labour britain = communist russia.

and then: look at all the women and asians we have now!

and then there was a bit about keeping things tidy.

and then he tied the war on terror to fighting global warming.

and then he said myspace was like a big country...

seriously i think the era for lolcatz political posters begins now

it's cool to be a tory now, it's like the ultimate "fuck you" to hippies.

I think I'm going to go and stab a Conservative voter on my way home from work tonight

in 1979

the only good lolcat was the cheezeburger one.

it's cool to be a tory now, it's like the ultimate "fuck you" to hippies.

-- max r, Wednesday, October 3, 2007 2:40 PM (9 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

are you elvis costello?

Elvis Costello was good once.

take your word for it.

Shurely you are mistaking him for Paul Weller here anyway?

i'm not cool enough to be a young conservative.

oh yeah. old white guys with guitar -- what can i say?

xpost

http://www.conservatives.com/UploadedFiles/GRAPHIC/STDIMAGE/joinus2.jpg

Nice union jack cans.

http://www.rockdetector.com/assets/resized/img/covers/202866-0-300-0-300.jpg

I thought it said Join U.S.

http://www.wirralwestconservativefuture.co.uk/Photos/canv2.jpg

http://www.wirralwestconservativefuture.co.uk/Photos/canv2.jpg

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/new_line_cinema/the_evil_dead/evildead1.jpg

"JOINNNNNNNNN........USSSSSSSSS......."

my cousin lives on the wirral. you from round there?

It makes me smile how Torykids look exactly the same as they did when I was a teenager.

yeah that's britishness at its best

erm xxxxpost re: cans

http://wwcf.co.uk/cutenews/data/upimages/cfandbaldwin.jpg

Dude on the right of the first group is a future Shadow Home Secretary. Then a slightly-more-future sex scandal.

xp - no, these are my locals...
http://www.rogerhelmer.com/gallery/rutlandmelton.JPG

I hope those kids get bullied a lot.

http://www.gileschichestermep.org.uk/WorkAlbum/PartyActivities/young-conservatives.jpg

tory popstars:

gary numan
phil collins
ian curtis

MOAR?

Lallen

a vote for the Conservative Party is clearly a vote for diversity. some of those people have brown hair!

http://www.owenmeredith.co.uk/images/DC.JPG

Brian Ferry.

mark e. smith

who fucking cares

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/50000/images/_50178_younghague1.jpg

mark e. smith

-- That one guy that hit it and quit it, Wednesday, 3 October 2007

really? i thought he was more of the "stuff the lot" persuasion.

tories have better suits, btw

http://www.pendleconservatives.com/getfile.php?selectid=11&type=local

http://www.owenmeredith.co.uk/blue%20hair.JPG

http://www.pendleconservatives.com/getfile.php?selectid=11&type=local

I would have sex with all this racist girls

^^^^ this

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-Diana_Mosley+Unity-Sept1937.png

So gonna happen

stylish

http://www.britmovie.co.uk/studios/elstree/filmography/1970/1972/images/003a.jpg

Of course some of us may remember the old Federation of Conservative Students...
http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/images/hang_nm.jpg
...presumably they are all MPs by now?

mandela's dead, guys

I know from old "Diary" columns in newspapers there's at least one Tory frontbencher who was up for some "let's lynch Mandela" style japes at university, buggered if I can remember which one though

The fellow on the left with blue hair has a great slogan...
http://www.owenmeredith.co.uk/

Is he a milkman?

conservatism is just another point of view

How the fuck is it that you guys get to call elections whenever?

we like the unpredictability of unfixed terms

The Royal Perogative

xposts

It's either that or we chop the monarch's head off again.

lol at "new threats, like terrorism"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=485358&in_page_id=1770

democratic politics = bribery

Popular with hardline Islamist voters, that policy?

From the Mail:

What is he going to give the hard working women who decide not to have children? Cameron has got this obsession about families because he happens to have one. I am sure this extra money would be better spent by giving it to pensioners whose allowance has fell damatically under Brown.

- Les Morgan, Shrewsbury

The value of a stay at home mum under a Tory government £20 per week! For an average 40 hour week that equals 50 pence an hour. I know the Tories are opposed to the minimum wage but this is ridiculous! To say nothing of the obvious contempt for mothers!

- Jo, Kent

Dude CANNOT connect with his base at all. At least trade unionists got that little poem about beer and tea from Blair.

we get to have elections whenever because our elections aren't 4 years long

I wouldn't mind copying the two term limit from the US (and everywhere else that uses it).

Labour one month, Tories the next. piece of piss. Lib Dems play-off with winners of Greens vs CONCACAF for Bank Holidays.

"we have term limits: they're called E-lections"

dded: Wednesday, 3 October, 2007, 14:51 GMT 15:51 UK

Now that's how to give a speech.

With Conservative backs against the wall at the start of the week, they came out fighting as one. He looked like a PM in waiting and spoke like one.

Well done Mr. Cameron, you did good.

You have my vote.

Mike Thomas, London, United Kingdom

Recommended by 5 people

Sign in to recommend comments

Alert a Moderator

Added: Wednesday, 3 October, 2007, 14:50 GMT 15:50 UK

What an intelligent and thoughtful analysis of the problems Britain faces today, with a clear sense of how the Conservatives would change things. What a welcome contrast to the bombast and bloated rhetoric of Gordon Brown.

Jane, London

Recommended by 1 person

Sign in to recommend comments

Alert a Moderator

Added: Wednesday, 3 October, 2007, 14:50 GMT 15:50 UK

To be honest I'd nearly written Dave off - then he comes up with this speech and restores my faith in why I've been voting Tory all my life. He's a man with a plan. Bring it on!

Howard Clemmow, Southwell, United Kingdom

Recommended by 2 people

Sign in to recommend comments

Alert a Moderator

Added: Wednesday, 3 October, 2007, 14:50 GMT 15:50 UK

Bring on a election, yet more PR stunts from Gordon Brown in Iraq yesterday. The conversvatives would make an excellent government a much welcomed change to new labour, any longer with this current lot there will be nothing left

charlie, newcastle

Recommended by 2 people

Sign in to recommend comments

Alert a Moderator

Added: Wednesday, 3 October, 2007, 14:50 GMT 15:50 UK

At last the Brown bubble has been punctured by the Tories who have learned the hard way that division and disloyalty are a turn off to voters.

David Cameron made the speech of his life today and not only has he secured his own position as leader, but he sounded like a PM in waiting.

He could have said more about 99 tax rises under Labour, more about the destruction of the pension system, but what he said was measured and thoughtful.

It should silence people like Norman Tebbit at last.

Andrew Beale

Recommended by 2 people

They have an avenue team, it seems.

99 tax rises but oh i can't be bothered

They have an avenue team, it seems.

lol

It should silence people like Norman Tebbit at last.

every cloud...

Cricket bat to the fucking teeth test

I've signed into the BBC so I can "recommend" all the anti-Cameron posts. I really need to find more meaningful ways to avoid work.

The thing that has struck me most about watching coverage of the Tory party conference is the utter uselessness of their marquee names.

"Yes, we're very pleased with this. It was put together by [pause, proud smile] John Gummer and Zac Goldsmith!"

"Well, I think you'll find it's a very good report. Iain Duncan Smith wrote it [nods head as if to say 'and I'll hear no more from you on this Mr Andrew Neil'].

DREAM TICKET

http://www.stringfellows.co.uk/club/media2/celebrities/xmixaa-027.jpg

Worst looking lapdancer ever.

She really looks like a man now.

onimo don't go there - it took me weeks to get over any kind of interaction with HYS. I'm still in recovery. One day at a time.

it is the logical next step

From the bbc in 2001...

Labour celebrity backers
# Chris Evans
# Neil Tennant
# Eddie Izzard
# Ben Elton
# Peter Gabriel
# Jeremy Irons
# Geri Halliwell
# Richard Wilson
# Stephen Fry
# Gabrielle
# Kevin Whately

Tory celebrity backers
# Jim Davidson
# Paul Daniels
# Peter Stringfellow
# Anthony Worrall-Thompson
# Frank Bruno
# Mike Read
# Lord Andrew Lloyd Webber
# Bill Roache
# Roger Moore
# Bob Monkhouse
# Tim Rice

Lib Dem celebrity backers
# Matthew Kelly
# John Cleese
# Barry Norman
# Barry Took
# Andy Kershaw
# Dave Allen
# Nicholas Parsons
# Edward Woodward
# Ludovic Kennedy

Obviously some of these are no longer available...

yeah, Andy Kershaw's in a bit of bov.

Vote Labour, don't be a dead stand-up comedian?

all knobs except john cleese and dave allen. guess i'm voting lib dem.

vote for the right constituent, not the party.

(In 2004, in my home borough, this meant Lib Dem, but it was a purely tactical decision (nearest challenger to a Blair lackey, who hadn't voted once against one of his policies).)

*2005

There is a network on Facebook called 'David Cameron is a hottie' (laughter and applause) - it's got 74 members. And I looked a little further and there's another network called 'Am I the only person who doesn't like David Cameron?' and it's got 379 members...

Make that 380

75 for the former, mmmm mmmmm!!!

The AITOOWDLDC group is now up to 675 members.

Ooops that should be AITOPWDLDC obv.

The hottie one is up to 173.

Incidentally did George Osborne really claim yesterday that the UK economy under a Tory government would be like "the way Google works, the way Facebook works, the way MySpace works, we Conservatives instinctively understand this new economy."

If so a) HILARIOUS b) surely MySpace and Facebook don't actually make any money, therefore worst economy ever?

i think it means they're planning to make a quick-exit startup out of the UK economy then sell it to a major overseas corporation for a pretty penny.

andpl online tax returns will now feature an embedded mp3 player and display a list of taxpayers with similar discrepancies to yours

the uk just makes money off ad revenue?

Cameron really can't lose with this 'call election now Brown you pansy, do it, DO IT NOOOOW' approach. Unless Brown actually does call it.

yeah but if brown does call it and the inevitable happens, all this will be a footnote in history. i suppose it might be good for a rory bremner joke. but if cameron loses the election he's fucked so may as well try and butch it out.

Is it inevitable? I'm 90% sure Labour will win if they call an election now, simply because things aren't bad enough for the country to reject them with any force. I mean, the Tories still managed to cause a recession plus the poll tax riots and we still couldn't get rid of them in 92 and that pwns New Labour's record on raising public hatred.

Two recessions, actually.

Isn't this the first election since the 70s that's had two party leaders who could, feasibly, win at an election at some point in their life? As opposed to 1992, which was between two guys who couldn't.

You've confused me.

The AITOPWDLDC group is now up to 804 members.

What did Dave mean by...

The Gobi desert expanding by 4,000 miles every year

If that's a verbatim quote, then dude got his units wrong but this is what's up with the Gobi (from Wikipedia):

Currently, the Gobi desert is expanding at an impressive rate, in a process known as desertification. The expansion is particularly rapid on the southern edge into China, which has seen 3,600 km² (1,390 sq mi) of grassland overtaken every year by the Gobi Desert. This loss of farmland has caused an estimated $50 billion in losses each year for China's economy. Dust storms, which were once a rarity, are springing up all over China, and could cause even further damage to China's agriculture economy.

The expansion of the Gobi is contributed mostly to human activities, notably deforestation, overgrazing, overconsumption of water resources, and global warming. China has made various plans to try and slow the expansion of the desert, which have met with some small degrees of success, but usually have no major impacts. The most recent plan involves the planting of the Green Wall of China, a huge ring of newly-planted forests that the Chinese government hopes will act as a buffer against further expansion.

It'll be interesting to see how environmental issues play out during the election, how daring the parties will be in their proposals and how willing the public are to take them up them. If it is a November election, then the major UN climate talks in Bali will be right on it's heels the following month, and these talks will likely involve bashing out the way forward post-Kyoto. I'd certainly hope that whoever we're sending there will have a strong mandate to argue for some sort of meaningful action.

that just haaaaaappens

Am I the only person who thinks the environment isn't anywhere near as big an election issue as it's made out to be?

In any case it's a red herring - the British public are fine taking weekly trips to the bottle bank but I bet most voters will balk as soon as they're required to actually, like, make some sacrifices.

as far as i can make out the only real difference between the parties going into this supposed imminent radiohead album i mean election is blummin' tax breaks

that just haaaaaappens

:-) beat me to it

Isn't this the first election since the 70s that's had two party leaders who could, feasibly, win at an election at some point in their life? As opposed to 1992, which was between two guys who couldn't.

Cannot parse

Am I the only person who thinks the environment isn't anywhere near as big an election issue as it's made out to be?

In any case it's a red herring - the British public are fine taking weekly trips to the bottle bank but I bet most voters will balk as soon as they're required to actually, like, make some sacrifices.

-- Matt DC, Wednesday, October 3, 2007 10:44 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

i think a lot of voters actively *resent* the push toward recycling/shipping rubbish off to china. it's the sort of thing people probably pay lip service to in focus groups, i would imagine, though. the idea of radically reducing the amount of power we use is still un-face-able.

i think the current meme in the press is that the environment thing is being used as an excuse to raise more tax revenue. zac goldsmith actually did suggest people pay to park at supermarkets and george osborne had to deny it. he also argued against airport expansion, but most front bench tories are all for it.

Am I the only person who thinks the environment isn't anywhere near as big an election issue as it's made out to be?

What's bigger? You're talking crazy talk.

Isn't this the first election since the 70s that's had two party leaders who could, feasibly, win at an election at some point in their life? As opposed to 1992, which was between two guys who couldn't.

Cameron? Really? I've gotta say, I'd back William Hague more strongly than DC, were he Conservative leader at this moment in time. Still wouldn't vote for him, mind.

It annoys me that all this general election chatter is taking attention away from all the important governmental work that is being done day in day out at a national and local level.

What's bigger? You're talking crazy talk.

it's a massive social issue but the parties aren't particularly divided on how to deal are they? it doesn't seem to be one of the issues votes actually hinge on.

The Environment = Massive Social Issue as bloody retribution on somebody else. But not me. Because I put my plastic bottles in the recycle bin. So I done my bit. I need the car. Oh shit apocalypse.

What's bigger? You're talking crazy talk.

Erm, the NHS? Crime? Education? The economy?

BRING BACK SLAVERY

AND WISPA GOLD

Erm, the NHS? Crime? Education? The economy?

Erm, I think the point Mark C was making was if we all starve to death or drown in a massive flood as a result of climate change, then none of those things will be important anymore.

Yes but I said important as an election issue and drowning in a massive flood* or starving to death in a UK-wide famine isn't going to be forefront in many people's concerns when they choose who to vote for.

*Maybe more than a year or so ago, admittedly, but "why haven't you sorted our fucking flood defences?" is going to be the main question people ask of the government.

one thing I think is needed on the NHS: a deal for nurses similar to what has been done for teaching. Wage increases, golden hellos, an innovative recruitment campaign, a revised pay structure. some of those things may have already been done / are already planned (if so I haven't heard about em). Labour are far more likely to deliver this than the Tories, obv.

What I hate about both major parties' health and education policies is there appears to be tinkering to score cheap political points...both of these public services seem to have had changes to their management structure which give the impression, real or imagined, of being change for the sake of change rather than to achieve anything useful.

I think this article from earlier this year suggests Matt DC is very much right:

Climate change: Why We Don't Believe It, Published 23 April 2007, We reveal an unreported gulf between the pronouncements of campaigners and politicians and British public opinion.

Twats in right-wing media saying 'no need to do anything' are much more preferable to people urging wholesale change to modern consumer society.

The failure of politicians here is to lead; Cameron looked at it, and realised the folks are selfish twunts, and backed off. brown doesn't understand the environment (like George galloway, when shown a picture of a Dundonian sky murky with factory smoke, saying 'i don't see pollution, I see jobs') and the Liberals do, but aren't going to make an impact. I think it's the most pressing issue of all, and that's why I'm joining the Green Party innit.

See also: dieting - is there a way for me to eat lots of calorific processed stodge and not be a lard-arse?

Burn more calories than you consume?

I was ranting to Mrs Vague yesterday that climate change shows the gaping flaws in the democratic process as it stands. No party is going to win votes by promising to introduce the kind of measures that are probably necessary to create a sustainable economy. So as a nation, as a planet, we're gonna continue to mouse around taking petty, ineffective action until it's too late and we're past the point of utterly fucked.

Gaping flaws in the 21st century democratic process. Democracy used to be about politicians leading the people (for the greater good or their own venal ends) now it is about pandering to the petty desires of a few swing voters in marginal seats.

Well yeah, that's why I said "as it stands". We have a system where most of the voting power is in the hands of less than half a million people, and most of them sure do love their cars.

I would hope that international community pressure and targets based on scientific analysis will solely determine if not enforce the requirement of all parties to sing from the same recycled hymn sheet as far as environmental policy goes. Can there really be much room to differ on this?

i bet none of you cocks would give up the internet or apple gadgets to save the planet

I'd happily recycle you.

Your hot air has done quite enough damage already chortle xp

lol i'm right though

my PC runs on my own sense of self-satisfaction

mine runs off his sense of self-satisfaction too

business as usual then

tho if I could convert it to run off creepy locked-in-a-darkened-room misanthropy I'll know who to turn to.

damn freeloaders

my room's quite bright actually...unlike you lol xpost

mitchy
19 April 2007

Frankly, we all deserve to die, either by fire or ice depending on the eventual outcome of our childish meddling with our (only ) home. Until we shake off our capitalist ways, our idiotic obsession with manufactured needs and wants and our egocentric attitudes (all instilled in us by capitalism, a rod for our own backs if ever there was one), then we're going to get what we deserve. Humankind as a species needs to collectively grow up if it is to have any hope of survival. We need to stop squabbling over resources, learn to live together and stop shitting where we eat, otherwise.....

no no, that's a good point, no really, i'm down with this captain planet scene

Rumours abound that tonight's yougov poll gives labour a 4% lead.

Guardian reports Cameron and Brown are now neck and neck in the polls, this could be interesting. Especially since the Tories appear to have been banking on a Cameron bounce in order to put off an election.

Revisted spreadbet seat predictions:

Labour: 321
Conservative: 244
Lib Dem: 49

Gordon should just go for it. Fuck the polls. I also want to punch smug bastard George Osbourne in the back of the head.

polls schmolls: voting-intention samples be untrustworthy, esp in mildly tumultuous/exciting times right at the end of conference season. labour dropping seven percentage points in a week (or whatever) doesn't quite strike me as credible ... there are all sorts of factors at play here, and i'd like to see the same sort of poll in a couple of weeks, when conference, er, "fever" has died down.

the tory party's own confidence seems predicated on "labour will lose a load of scottish seats to the SNP". i'd be absolutely astonished if this is the case. what happened at holyrood earlier this year was wonderful but completely unexpected. salmond has played a blinder up here and i think the SNP would romp it much more comfortably if another scottish election was called. but when we voted in may, we knew we might be able to effect some real change in a very young parliament ... voting SNP in a westminster election will make no practical difference, and people know that (indeed: a lot of people, including sometimes myself, wonder what real use the SNP MPs actually are). the default scottish-voting position is labour -- and even the slightest sense of a tory resurgence will make that doubly so.

will i vote labour? i don't think, morally, i can. but then shitty antediluvian first-past-the-post makes this a two-horse race. and -- just as in 1997 -- the FEAR might well get me on election day and i'll think, fuck, must keep tories out at all costs ...

we'll see. i don't think there'll be an election anyway.

was cameron's speech very well received? ilx reception seemed to be "lol facebook" but ilx receptions is not exactly gospel . i saw some of the speech on the news and whilst he does have a certain odious charisma his "families" schtick was just a caring, sharing take on "there's no such thing as society... only families". he just missed the first clause out. it was there though, hidden premise or something. the daily mail was describing it as THAT speech on their front cover today.

I'm just wondering if the end upshoot of the current lurch to the right, Tory base disillusionment with Cameron is going to end up with UKIP winning their first ever seat.

It was well received by the 500,000 daily mail readers who control the country all worried about a tax they don't pay until after they die.

Brown is particularly worried about inheritance tax in the marginals.

Which specific constituencies actually swing elections?

As for the Scottish seats thing, what we saw at the last Scottish Parliament election was the minority parties squeezed out by a swing to the SNP and the Labour vote actually stay pretty steady. With PR system it meant the SNP could take the Parliament with a minority govt. I agree with Grimly that the SNP would improve their vote in another Scottish Parliament election, but with a first past post style Westminster poll I genuinely can't see Labour losing that many seats here.

Which specific constituencies actually swing elections?

Suburbs.

50 most at risk Labour seats:

http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/ge05/labmaj.htm?

Annoyingly, I've just moved from number 5 on that list, to like number 6,938,343.

It was well received by the 500,000 daily mail readers who control the country all worried about a tax they don't pay until after they die.

Assuming no one they know dies and leaves money to them.

Still the dead person paying the tax.

Assuming no one they know dies and leaves money to them.

yes, of course: why on earth should the inheritor lose a cut of their FREE FUCKING MONEY? how unfair!

abolish inheritance tax? nah: abolish inheritance, that's more like it. all property and wealth passes to the state on death. that'd shut the fuckers up :)

how far is my tongue in my cheek here? probably not quite as far as you hope. does this mean i'm going to be faced with an interesting dilemma in the future? maybe so. will my principles stand up? hmm.

either way: as taxes go, inheritance tax is absolutely my favourite. if only because it really, really fucks people off.

OTM grimley, People should be encouraged to spend away their money before they die.

Old money should have a half-life. Say around every 25 years.

I had a huge drunken argument with a Tory friend about inheritance tax a few months ago - I was suggesting 100% inheritance tax, not entirely seriously at first, more like devil's advocate, but in inebriated state got really into the idea.

Some retard wrote into the Metro or one of the free London papers claiming Cameron's policy of increasing the threshold to £1m would help the working classes. Because all the working class people I know have £1m to leave their kids.

I plan to spend my kid's inheritance on booze and sexy 'nurses'.

"some retard wrote into the Metro"

NO WAI

A fair point.

Thing is the Tories are getting all smug about how cynical Brown is only aiming at the 4% of the electorate that can swing an election while they're aiming for everyone blah blah - but what percentage of the electorate has a MILLION FUCKING POUNDS waiting to drop on them?

Will the Tories also bring in legalised euthanasia so all this people with millionaire parents can get their hands on the loot?

and I realise that in London terms that's only a bedsit and a chamber pot but then hahaha you fucking idiots stop buying them then!

xpost to myself

How healthy are the parents of the Tory front bench, I think we should be told.

£1 million isn't the relevant figure here though.

As in, it's the £300,000 or whatever it is now.

How healthy wealthy are the parents of the Tory front bench, I think we should be told.

Fixed.

To be fair I'm sure all of the Tory front bench parents have had it all tax planned so whatever the limit is they won't pay any of it

xpost

Yes, but the level the Tories want to raise it to says something about the expectations/wealth of those they're aiming the policy at.

Anyway, I'm all for inheritance tax. Let your kids find their own way and all that.

xxxpost

On inheritance tax though, there has to be a relationship between it and the average house price, surely. I accept there's still a good margin between them (Inheritance Tax £300k, average house price £200k) and that Cameron's call that it benefits "the working classes" is obviously shite, but this is a decent call for middle England.

(otoh, my parents - working class as they come - bought under Right To Buy and cashed in a couple of years ago to move out to the countryside, throwing in their gratuities from when they retired. Based on what I know they paid, if the rate doesn't change and house prices continue to escalate, if they've got more than about 10k in the bank in 5 years time and both die HI DERE £120k bill.)

er, yeh, but also HI DERE large inheritance/"free gift"?

Well presumably its aimed at people whose house (generally) is valued between £300,000 and £1,000,000. I mean, that's a fuck load of people (not too many in the northern marginals though, I'd hazard a guess). I am against raising the threshold by the way.

xpost to aldo. I don't see why there should be a relationship. A house an investment just like a stock (ok, I accept there are some differences). If made a million quid capital gains on some investments it'd be seen as criminal to not pay my fair share of tax on it.

don't really see the problem with the inheritance tax thing. stamp duty thing is much more problematic.

It's probably not a fuck load of working class people, though, to be fair.

xpost

Agreed (xpost to grimly), but that's not the point I'm making. What I'm trying to say is that £300k isn't quite the preserve of the Tory Front Bench it seems to be implied here it is.

Wasn't this whole inheritance tax pledge soundly ridiculed or labelled as unworkable anyway, and not just by interested parties (ie Labour)?

In terms of balancing the books, maybe.

Agreed (xpost to grimly), but that's not the point I'm making. What I'm trying to say is that £300k isn't quite the preserve of the Tory Front Bench it seems to be implied here it is.

I was talking about raising it to a million, not keeping it in line with 'average house price + wee nest egg' - which it's already above.

Money has to come from somewhere to pay for all the shite we moan about, dead people's as good a place as any.

Wasn't this whole inheritance tax pledge soundly ridiculed or labelled as unworkable anyway, and not just by interested parties (ie Labour)?

But you have to read further than the banner headline saying '£1m tax cut for families' in the Standard to get the nuances.

I AGREE AND I'M NOT AGAINST PAYING IT. (I am not this thread's STRAWMAN)

It's still kind of important - it suggests they don't actually think they're going to win this election, which Labour can spin as 'not ready for government'. And they might be right. If Tory strategists were really confident you can bet they'd make sure any headline-grabbing pledges didn't have big holes in them.

i was talking to a guy who worked for the national audit office last night.

but anyway, to understand the tory working-class vote you have to think in terms of people aspiring to "earning" money ("seeing house value appreciate") and passing it on. isn't that kind of obvious?

xpost-Oh yeah, it's important. So, in a nutshell, to fill the hole they're charging rich foreigners £25,000 per year to live here. This would require about 150,000 of them to stump that up I think. Whether that's realistic is where the dispute lies IIRC.

the tory working-class vote

Or "Essex", as it's also known

And cab drivers.

cab driver last night said, literally, we should bomb all muslims.

Hard to target them innit. Need smarter bombs.

I don't think Brown is going to call an election now. His entire political life he's played the waiting game - didn't run against Blair for Labour leadership, then missed innumerable occasions to stab Blair in the back, and waited his turn. It's not in his nature to do something wildly preemptive unless there's almost no risk involved.

That said, I think he should call it. He'd win it. There are undoubtedly some bad economic times ahead, so the probable alternative is going to be being forced to call an election in the middle of a recession two years' hence.

He'll call it. I think calling it will give him another bounce in these pointless polls.

(Are people really that fucking simple that they swing from party on party based on who had the last speech?)

party *to* party

undoubtedly some bad economic times ahead

Well, not really.

Possible housing market crash, monstrous levels of consumer debt, credit crunch, knock-on effects of U.S. debt woes etc etc - at the very least there's a damn good chance of a recession in the next year or two

A 'good chance', being much less than 50/50 according to the most respected economist in the world. Plus debt repayment levels a *way* below those of the early 90s.

Who is the most respected economist in the world?

'Hot money exodus'

Thaksin Shinawatra

Are people really that fucking simple that they swing from party on party based on who had the last speech?

yes.

xxxpost-Well, something tells me you know who I'm talking about. I mean, he just is, regardless of what you might think of him personally.

i think he means gareth

or top cat

Heh, ok ok, I'm certainly not going to get into a quible about it. But even if you don't swallow that, the *average* prediction by analysts for UK growth next year is 2.2%.

If Tory strategists were really confident you can bet they'd make sure any headline-grabbing pledges didn't have big holes in them.

-- Matt DC, Friday, October 5, 2007 10:07 AM (31 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

Only ones that they have no intention of actually doing.

xpost
The UK economy may well grow 2.2 percent next year. But I think most economists agree that there's a housing bubble in the UK, and there are bubbles in the U.S., China and a lot of other important economies as well. Whether they'll burst now or in two years' time is anyone's guess. Everyone knew about the Internet bubble at least two years before it finally burst.

Sure, but the U.S. housing market is in the process of bursting right now and they haven't seen negative growth yet. Incidently, Greenspan puts about the same odds a US recession.

We'll see. There's often a delay between the initial crisis and the recession: stock market crash in 1987, but recession only kicks in 1990; Asian meltdown in 1998 turns into mild recession in 2000...

As for Greenspan, he is no disinterested player. He in part created the current situation, it's in his interest to talk things up.

fuck an inheritance tax (general disapproval about it from Question Time's London audience)

Chinese inflation, (comsumer prices and wages), is a far bigger threat to economic stability than house prices in the UK or US. UK house prices are less bubbly in a lot of areas because demand for housing remains strong. There will be a correction though and it will be very large and self certicfication/NINJA mortgages are going to come and bite us hard. However, China and what it does about the price of Pork is key to the global economy.

xpost-Yeah, I think we can agree there that he certainly isn't a disinterested player. And neither are the city analysts who made the 2.2% predicition. But, ya know, it's their job to sit around all day looking at the figures so it's probably better than you or I could do.

I'm not saying that the chance of a recession now or in one, two three years isn't worryingly high, and that their aren't structural problems in the UK economy which need to unwound, but that you can't claim to have a crystal ball with which to say 'undoubtedly bad economic times ahead'.

i don't like the sound of this pork price increase. maybe the government should offer a tax relief on pork? i'd vote for that.

you can't claim to have a crystal ball with which to say 'undoubtedly bad economic times ahead'.

Fair enough!

This could be the most crucial election in a generation in that whoever wins is almost certain to be in for the next 10 years. By the time next election is needed in late 2012, the effects of the housing bubble correction will be easing and unless the government and ngo's fuck up royally they'll enjoy the goodwill created by a well run and popular London 2012 Olympics.

people will vote on the basis of a fucking two-week televised boondoggle?

people vote on the basis on watching people sit in a house weekly, mate

Get Grace Out!

boondoggle

Dunno what this is, but i'd vote for it.

I looked it up. Wiki has a page.

Henry is like the Readers Digest come to life.

people will vote on the basis of a fucking two-week televised boondoggle?

People will vote on the basis of how good they feel. Harold Wilson unexpectedly lost the 1970 general election and it is almost certain that England going out of the World Cup was a small but significant factor in his losing the election.

Well, if Brown is expecting a win in Rugby World Cup...

So not gonna happen. Dunno if Lewis Hamilton becoming World Champion will carry the same level of feel-good.

Back to inheritence tax...

Isn't this about the most avoidable tax ever? You just bung your aged parents in a home and get them to sign the deeds over to yourself. I don't know what the fuss is about.

well exactly.

exactly, open a joint bank account with your parents. they die you keep the money innit

xpost

I suppose it's because rich people don't trust their children to not do this that they would like some alternative.

um 'trust' being the oeprative word.

Key election question: Do you trust David Cameron with your legacy more than you trust your kids?

I read that as Key election question: Do you trust David Cameron with your legacy more than you trust him with your kids?

This reminds me of a ridiculous bit of Cameron's speech (as reported by the Guardian):

The biggest threat facing Britain is crime, says Mr Cameron.

There's another reference to the old politics; that's definitely one of his key phrases to hammer home today.

He says he went out on the beat with the police the other day and the officer told him that a mother had complained her son was stealing cash from her.

Apparently the officer told Mr Cameron that bureaucracy prevented him doing anything.

this place is my legacy :( :( :(

We'll be happy to pay the tax when you go.

i'm taking it with me!

That mum should keep her cash stashed better.

This would be a good place to remind oursleves of just what DC got up to at university with mummy and daddy's money.
http://photos-b.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v77/58/7/523176420/n523176420_268585_7583.jpg

Number 3 thinks he's Andy Partridge.

Is number 9 the ghost of Arthur Rimbaud?

http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/actualites/celebrations2004/img/65.jpg

I might vote Conservative

xp If only that were true...

9. Harry Eastwood, 39

• Educated at Eton and Oxford.

• Worked for Storehouse before setting up Filmbox which aimed to rent videos through vending machines. In 2001 he joined Will Macdonald, an old Oxford friend, to set up TV production company Monkey Kingdom. He is also director of a film production company with Lord Wahid Alli and Rupert Murdoch's daughter, Elisabeth.

• Married Gillian in 1998 and they live in Holland Park, west London.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/14/noxford14.xml

Back to inheritence tax...

Isn't this about the most avoidable tax ever? You just bung your aged parents in a home and get them to sign the deeds over to yourself. I don't know what the fuss is about.

-- Ned Trifle II, Friday, 5 October 2007

me and my sister got this sorted out. you have to do it seven years before your folks die.

No sooner, no later.

good for you, max r.

actually i'm gonna bequeath this place to nude spock

"Ask max r" thread imperative

It's off then.

This will look bad for Brown - totally undermines 'strong leader' image he's been trying to project since becoming PM. In retrospect it was probably a mistake for him to allow election speculation to run on in the way it did.

I think it would be easy to overestimate that effect though. People are forgetful.

The Tories will run and run with it and it will have surely fucked off an unsympathetic media too.

I'm relieved. I couldn't see anything to be gained from it. If Labour had still had an 8% lead after the Tory conference, then fair enough, go for it, but with such a narrow lead what's the point? Even if the chance of actually losing is still small (say 1 in 10), the chance of a hung parliament or a smaller majority than he's already got seem pretty big.

It's definitely a short-term boost for the Tories as it will look like chickening out, but better that than becoming the shortest Prime Minister ever (not in terms of height, obviously). The whole advantage of being the government in Britain is that you get to choose when the election is. There's no point being bounced into it now. Do a John Major and just hang on until the bitter end hoping something will turn up.

i think this is probably a misstep now, if he calls it or not -- the whole thing, from putting it about that he was considering a snap election, to doing the iraq announcement and making it look it was a go, to now looking like it maybe isn't.

it's one of those things where if he'd called it a week ago it'd be seen -- as i still see it -- as a foregone conclusion. but imperceptibly somehow now it isn't. if tomorrow's NOTW has, i don't know, george orborne's biscuit game shame or whatever, then it's back on, right?

Only if enough of the public confuse George Orborne with George Osbourne.

Tactically, getting yourself a label as a complete fucking pussy is no way to start a Prime Ministerial career.

GORDON Brown will LOSE his majority and be forced to battle for control of a hung parliament if he decides to call a snap General Election according to an exclusive poll in tomorrow’s News of the World.

The ICM poll of the key marginal constituencies that will decide whether he stays in power reveals he will lose almost 50 seats.

This is the first poll that delves deep into these key seats – and it shows the Conservatives are poised to make sweeping gains – unseating 49 Labour MPs including Home Secretary Jacqui Smith and a host of other Ministers.

The poll gives the Conservatives a 6% lead over Labour in the marginals (44% versus 38%) – a substantially higher figure than recent national polls, which showed the Tories level or close behind.

That result would give Labour approximately 306 seats, with the Conservatives behind on 246. It is not possible to predict how the other parties would stand.

The poll confirms that turn-out would be a problem for Labour. When asked, 59% of Labour voters said they were certain to vote, compared to 71% of Conservatives.

The poll has been taken in the same seats being studied by Prime Minister Gordon Brown as he struggles to decide whether to call an election this week.

Pollsters ICM quizzed voters in the 83 key battlegrounds where Labour and the Tories are fighting most closely for control AFTER David Cameron’s closing speech at the Tory conference in Blackpool.

Tactically, getting yourself a label as a complete fucking pussy is no way to start a Prime Ministerial career

Yes, but it's still preferable to losing an unnecessarily-called election right at the start of your Prime Ministerial career.

He wouldn't have lost. Pussy.

I'm just pissed off because we will have to see Cameron's smug fat face on TV for at least another couple of years now.

i'm still on the fence about whether gordon brown is still on the fence.

It's a tale of two pussies, really. Cameron was desperate to avoid an election whatever he says and he appears to called it right, a Tory bounce would see Brown chicken out thus saving Cameron's skin.

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r299/crunchydog_2006/1464_1.jpg

^^^new meme?

he spelt osbourne wrong. or is it osborne?

ach, it's the right decision, for all manner of reasons. but yes, he should have made it a week ago -- at the party conference would have been good -- because he does now look like cap'n wuss the big scared get.

that said: biscuit revelations or other tory fuckwittery can surely be just round the corner, and i don't think this will do brown any harm in the long term.

it probably is the right decision but kind of annoying that it was a decision in the first place and that he let it drag on for so fucking long like blair let his departure drag on and on and fucking on and on what a cunt

makes him look like a nob

Cameron is already going "lol pussy".

Cameron really can't lose with this 'call election now Brown you pansy, do it, DO IT NOOOOW' approach. Unless Brown actually does call it.

-- blueski, Wednesday, October 3, 2007 8:00 PM (3 days ago) Bookmark Link

otm.

maybe everyone will forget about this episode -- election is presumably two years or so away now -- but this was really fucking stupid, this whole thing.

I'm glad - it would have been immoral. Whoever would have won would have done so on the lowest turnout in history, which would be appalling for democracy. Pity the whole tenor of politics is about who's hardest, who's a wimp, etc.

but to think "looks like it's possible we might not win so no election" is immoral too

it isn't like labour or brown couldn't have squashed the question of it as soon as it arose instead of going "ooooh we don't know" or "oooh not gonna say" until they found out they don't "have" a good/clear margin according to whomever

Fucked off Labour MPs are blaming Brown's young campaign team for pumping him up with testosterone and then flaking.

Diane Abbott meanwhile is not-quite-but-almost saying "thank fuck for that, bit cold and wet to be campaigning in November isn't it?"

xpost-I don't think it's immoral in the sense that every election sincer forever has been called by the incumbents on the basis of a chance of winning/length of term remaining trade off. I think Ming is right about fixed terms.

if brown were anywhere near his spinned out "no spin" character, he could have fixed it in a way that didn't make him look like a conniving wimp or a fanny effectively saying "yeah I know I'm a conniving wimp but this is how it's been sincer forever"

Presumably the Tory elements who keep prattling on about him not having a mandate were disgusted when John Major failed to call an election on taking over from Thatcher and instead sat in power right to the end of their term in the hope that his fortunes would improve at some point. And presumably the Tory elements prattling on about cowardice think that Thatcher should have called a snap election while Britain was falling to pieces in 1981 instead of waiting for the Falklands bounce.

Of course it's not immoral. It's politics as it is done under this system. Cameron can bitch about it as much as he likes but he would have done the same thing. Is he calling for fixed terms? Of course not, the tories know how to play this game better than anyone.

And of course Cammy'll go on and on and on and on about it but eventually it'll look stale and Brown can and should play the "actually I'm too busy running the country to get into these silly little games" which is all the tories can do.

ooops xp

Does anyone else really hate the way that Nick Robinson slimes his way around as if he's absolutely nothing to do with all the "speculation" he's sneering about. Christ he's irritating.

I mean, I have no memory of politics before the 80s, but from what I can remember the first Thatcher government was massively unpopular and at one stage behind not just Foot's Labour but also the SDP. But they waited until they went ahead in the polls following the Falklands and then called and won an early (i.e. with a year spare) election. The second Thatcher government was very unpopular and well behind Kinnock's Labour for quite a while, but once they managed to get ahead in the polls they called and won another early election. The third Thatcher government rapidly became massively unpopular to the extent that they had to ditch Thatcher to survive, but Major found himself bang in the middle of recession of his own making and so likely to lose an election. So he didn't call one until the last minute when he had no choice and even then everyone expected him to lose (but somehow he didn't). The next Major government soon became ludicrously unpopular and stayed that way, so he just sat there until his five years were up and then called an election because he had no choice and everyone expected him to lose (which he did in spectacular style). Then Blair took over and was safely ahead in every poll apart from about one week of fuel protest wobbles, so he called an election when he felt like it and won easily. Then he had a war and lost a lot of his support but still stayed ahead and so called another election when he felt like and won (though less easily).

Basically, for as long as I know, the government has called an election when it thinks it will win and hasn't called one when it thinks it might not unless it hasn't had any choice. I don't really see why all of a sudden there should be pressure on Brown to give the Tories a sporting chance, and the only people who are going to be whinging about it are people that would never have voted for Labour in the first place.

Amen. I think we can put that one to rest, at least here. For everyone else it's a different matter.

I don't really see why all of a sudden there should be pressure on Brown to give the Tories a sporting chance, and the only people who are going to be whinging about it are people that would never have voted for Labour in the first place.

pretty obviously it's because for the past three weeks or more brown has been hinting at calling an election. it isn't pressure to give the tories a sporting chance, just pressure to not be a dithering dick who lacks the faith in his party to call an election even with a huge majority and -- until a week ago -- good lead in the polls. i've never though he needed to call an election once in office, but he has brought the current (i am guessing, haven't even seen the nes) crowing on himself, utterly. labour really dropped the ball with this one.

if it's immoral either way i don't know. probably not as immoral as being complicit in the deaths of tens of thousands of iraqis, which they all are, but you knew that. if brown is all about 'change' as he frequently iterates, then it's hard to say holding an election is immoral.

...just pressure to not be a dithering dick who lacks the faith in his party to call an election even with a huge majority and -- until a week ago -- good lead in the polls...

Having a 'huge' majority (which isn't actually that huge) has fuck all to do with how you'll do in an election. The only thing that matters is the votes in the election - you don't get extra points for holding the seats at the start of the day. And, as you said, a week ago (immediately after the Labour conference) he had a transient boost in the polls. Sensibly he decided to wait until after the Tory conference, and whaddyaknow, the Tories have got a transient boost and that lead has evaporated. He's only been dithering in that he had to wait until after conference season to find out what the chances were of winning. As it stands they're not high enough for him to feel justified in potentially throwing away half a term for no good reason.

in that case he shouldn't have gone public re the prospect of a "snap election", shouldn't have done the iraq stunt, shouldn't have brought forward the pre-budget report.

the labour majority is pretty huge and incumbency does have its benefits. time will tell but this really looks like a big blunder because he had a chance to kill off the cameron generation and he's given them a respite.

Haha, can't believe some of the nonsense people are spouting about the non-calling of an imaginary election

i never once actually heard or read a statement from Brown about an election, only heard/read indirect speculation.

haha. yerse. it was being leaked like crazy by his team and was publicly signalled by the iraq trip, the bringing forward of the pre-budget report, etc. it was a definite project which he abandoned.

A reminder of the political minds of tory activists: Dressing up as bottles of beer outside westminster..

Didn't Callaghan spurn a chance to call an election in the autumn of '78 (though I'm not sure of the course of events; obv he could've gone to the country at any time of his choosing, perhaps it was just a storm of media speculation like this one) - I remember the phrase "cut and run" entering my 10-y-o brane for the first time - but hung on until the end of Labour term by which time we'd had the worst winter since '62/'63 and a mass of industrial action. Cue Thatch.

that rings a bell, yup.

labour's lowest point was in 1977 and it looked like they'd recovered a bit by mid-1978. and... then...

Apparently (i.e. according to the Andrew Marr book) everyone was expecting Callaghan to announce an election at the Labour conference. Rather bizarrely he decided to sing "There was I, waiting at the church, waiting at the church, waiting at the church, when I found he'd left me in the lurch, Lor, how it did upset me!" instead. Perhaps Brown can win back some respect by calling a press conference so that he can sing "Knees up Mother Brown" to the nation. (Or, perhaps, to his mother now that I think of it).

So now we know. Gordon Brown never thought a snap election was a good idea but, apparently, he was almost talked into it by Labour MPs in marginal seats who said he would win it for them.

Then, when push came to shove and after deliberately letting the issue dominate the party conference season, he considered it and "came back to my first instinct".

Of course, he took account of opinion polls and the views of those MPs, but decided it was right to give voters the chance to consider his vision for the future of the country and see some delivery of that vision.

It was never about the opinion polls and chances of victory or an attempt to wrong foot the opposition parties.

However, after a weekend he happily admitted had not been his best, he took full responsibility for the decision and was not swinging the axe at the heads of any of his advisers.

That, at least, is the explanation the prime minister gave for the first blunder of his premiership which brought his political honeymoon to a crashing end.

right way to explain it i guess

lil bit of sour grapes at the end there from media pov ("thanks a bunch G what are we going to do now with the election off and Maddie out of the headlines??")

put Maddie back in the headlines, obviously - they've managed to fill about a hundred front pages already with absolutley no story "Missing child: still missing!"

where's that absolute crock of shit -- "after deliberately letting the issue dominate the party conference season" -- from?

meanwhile The jury hearing the inquest into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed is spending the day in Paris retracing the couple's final movements.

\o_O/

deliberate as in not trying to conceal the fact that he was mulling it over (for too long) if this was actually doable?

So, probably right to not call it now then?

because of the double-sports-defeat weekend blues?

Con 37 (-3), Lab 33 (+1), Lib Dem 19 (+3)

Cameron leads Brown 44-40 on "Who would make the best PM?". Brown leads Cameron 44-39 on "Who is the strongest leader?"

Ha ha, Tories, you're gonna lose AGAIN

"Hey lads, I've had a brilliant new idea! How about we force the unemployed into jobs, and stop their benefits if they won't go?"

I have _no_ idea who the fuck Cameron is trying to win over at the moment.

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~peter/workhouse/lit/StandingAtTheWorkhouseGateCover.gif

Bring back Callaghan

http://www.movieactors.com/photos-2003/eastwood-dirtyharry.jpeg

Obama and Cameron would look _really_ weird standing next to each other.

http://www.rankinbass.com/images2/ispy.jpg

I have _no_ idea who the fuck Cameron is trying to win over at the moment.

-- Dom Passantino, Tuesday, 8 January 2008 11:14 (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

Other conservatives.

Also, it seems too often when the Democrats get in, the tories get in over here, and when the repubs get in it's labour over here.

Nick Clegg may actually save the Labour party, considering his strategy for the Lib Dems appears to be focussed on taking votes from the Tories rather than Labour.

i would only vote for this sanction if it was imposed on junkies on incapacity benefit , they still commit crime on methadone and benefit so theres no loss there.
as for foreigners id give no benefits at all , enforce sterilisation on them that do gain entry. give no council housing to them also.
make life so difficult for these parasites that they wont want to come to britain.
god save the queen.

That's pretty much Nick Clegg's manifesto for the next election, actually.

Nick Clegg may actually save the Labour party, considering his strategy for the Lib Dems appears to be focussed on taking votes from the Tories rather than Labour.

OTM. Or, strangely, the more right-wing the LibDems get, the more effort Brown is going to put in to courting them.

Lib Dems should be concentrating on taking votes from the Tories, they've got a far better chance of winning more seats that way

http://www.sarednabworldprops.com/img/bttf/009.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pPYCX-TwMrI/R7fyQxqdN-I/AAAAAAAAAkM/P6t4w_yiwHU/s400/Woulda_Coulda_Shoulda.jpg

LAST WORDS OF A FOOL

Q11 Looking ahead to the next General Election, which, if any, of these issues do you think will be very important to you in helping you decide which party to vote for?
Base: 988 British adults 18+

Crime and anti-social behaviour 56
Health care 47
Asylum and immigration 46
Education 39
Pensions 27
Iraq 26
Managing the economy 24
Taxation 23
Housing 22
Protecting the natural environment 20
Unemployment 20
Defence 16
Public transport 14
Europe 11
Animal welfare 7
Constitution / Devolution 6

Ah, happy more carefree times.