UK Elections

[Albie]

As you most likely will be aware, the UK votes in the General Election next week and it has been touted as the most hotly contested elections for a long while. The main reason for this is the surge in popularity of the Lib Dems as people have taken to Nick Clegg since the first live TV Prime Ministerial debate. Before the election started, the Tories had a substantial lead in the polls over Labour and the Lib Dems in third. Clegg mania took hold after this and suddenly Labour have found themselves third in the polls - and it has pretty much stayed like that since.

It is also possibly one election that deep down no-one really wants to win as the amount this country is in debt is on par with Greece - the amount of cuts in public spending, etc. that will have to be made is going to make the whoever takes power very, very unpopular. But this debt needs to be resolved, or at least brought under control, as we simply can't go the way of Greece. That said, the UK is classed a AAA-rated economy and can cope better with this debt than Greece, but it will still need a lot of serious cuts.

As I made a statement about it in the 100k thread, I thought I would respond to those subsequent replies here:

You'll be having a hung parliament, mate. Your PM won't change but the way your government works will, especially if they forge a coalition with the Liberal Democrats.

Nick Clegg has not as yet told the electorate with whom he will form an alliance - and I think he probably does know but just won't say. Personally, I feel we should know as it will determine how people will vote. We have a lot of people who are "anyone but the Tories" as well as "anyone but Labour", so if Clegg was to say who he would ally with, these "anyone but.." folk will vote accordingly - if you see what I mean. But we could have a situation whereby Labour finish with less votes than the Tories and perhaps even the Lib Dems and still have the Prime Minister.

The bargaining tool that Clegg will use is that he wants to scrap the "first past the post" voting system in favour of "proportional representation". Give him that, and he will forge an alliance with them. The Conservatives are vehemently opposed to that but Labour do want to change the voting system by using the "alternative vote". Neither really want PR.

I like Brown much more than Blair, thus I'll be happy if he's elected. He's a serious man, I find

Gordon Brown is becoming increasingly less popular as he just does not warm to people. He gives this whole attitude of "agree with me or else" and it's not pleasant. If you have an opinion that he does not like, he gets too aggressive - for example, the comment he made the other day about a life long Labour supporter - she told him that immigration is a taboo subject and needed to be addressed, he just gave a false grin, got in his car with his mic still switched on and ranted about her calling her a bigot. Before this election campaign, he was reported to have bullied his staff and frequently lost his temper - from seeing this, you can possibly conclude there was something in this.

It is also worth noting that the Labour machine has tried to steer him clear of anything but safe seats so he faces people that love him. Sometimes, this spin does not work. Both Clegg and Cameron are reported almost every other day to be confronted by a voter (Cameron more so) on their respective manifestos - at least they have both had the courage to face these people.




Personally, I'm not swayed by this so called "Nick Clegg" effect, but I do feel we need a change at the top. Possibly a Tory/Lib Dem alliance, but I think Mr Brown has had his day. I'm sort of OKish with Cameron, but I'm not at all convinced by what could be the next Chancellor under a Tory Government - George Osbourne. I'm also not convinced by the Lib Dems we have in our local area - they can be very spiteful people and are just plain whingers.

I also think that we need to sort out this "West Lothian Question" where it is said that when Westminster debates on matters that pertain to England alone, non-English MP's are actually allowed to have their say and vote on it. That is so wrong and needs to be stopped. Scotland has its own Parliament, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own assemblies and each have powers to make decisions without any English MP having any influence. So either they give the English their own Parliament, or the non-English MP's should stay out of it.





Footnote: Shame on you Alex Salmond for wasting £50k on a legal bid to force the BBC to give you a part in the TV debate - and also, no doubt, wasted legal fees the BBC will of had to incur because of this at a time when public spending needs to be tightened. I mean, what part of "Prime Ministerial" debate do you not understand?

 

[Forostar]

I have seen some uncomfortable footage about the quick increase of support for the British National Party who are spreading the most idiotic lies. It was in Barnsley. Most people out there are white English people. Not even 1 or 2 percent of the population consists out of "foreigners".

We have Wilders yes, so this is not an English thing. But the rapid speed of people switching to them should be taken account with.

I also think that we need to sort out this "West Lothian Question" where it is said that when Westminster debates on matters that pertain to England alone, non-English MP's are actually allowed to have their say and vote on it. That is so wrong and needs to be stopped.

That's part of your country's history I'm afraid. Some things that happened in e.g. Scotland or Northern Ireland in the past were also not appreciated out there.

I'd say: Go for the dissolution of the United Kingdom. That leads to some or all of the constituent countries—England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales—becoming independent sovereign states.

As I made a statement about it in the 100k thread, I thought I would respond to those subsequent replies here:
Nick Clegg has not as yet told the electorate with whom he will form an alliance...

Well, I find it more important to vote for a party I agree with (the most). What does a party stand for? What measures does it want to take? Of course the party has to collaborate with other parties, but that comes second.

The following may sound contradictionary (and probably is): We're having elections too, on June the 9th. And some parties have stated that they will not make a coalition with Wilders' party. I find it comfortable to know which party is not planning to work with this madman. Because he is someone with dangerous, hateseeding ideas. Brown might not be likeble (or even capable) but I doubt if he can divide the masses as much as e.g. the BNP.

 

[Perun]

What policy are the respective parties proposing to face the crisis? I assume the Lib Dems will say the same thing as everywhere, i.e. proposing tax cuts and pushing privatisation of public sectors, but what about the Tories and Labour?

 

[LooseCannon]

The BBC has an excellent summary of their positions:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/poli ... ol3=libdem

You can just sort via category at the top.

Albie, if I recall correctly the Liberal Democrat plan for electoral reform is a bit more complex than just switching to PR. I believe they want the House of Lords to be directly elected via PR, but switch to instant runoff voting (there's a different term for it in the UK) for Parliament. I tend to favour this plan, and there's no surprise that the LD's like it -it'd increase their vote share exponentially.

Foro: dissolving the United Kingdom is not something that can be easily done, nor is it really desireable. England would end up as the weakest state of the four, given the debt burden it would be saddled with. What would you do with the Royal Navy and other armed forces, international policy, etc. It seems to be that it is quite unfeasible. Albie's probably right - it's time for England to get its own legislature, and have parliament act ONLY on behalf of the UK.

The difference between the BNP and the Freedom Party is that the BNP has less than 10% support in the UK (probably significantly less, the BNP is lumped into "other", with local groups and parties like Sinn Fein), whereas the Freedom Party could possibly win a plurality in the Netherlands.

 

[Jonszat]

I'm just over the voting age (18 a couple of months ago) so I've been pretty excited by the election. I haven't made my decision yet but I'm getting an idea where I'm gonna go.

One of the major BNP areas is right close to where I live (Stoke-on-Trent). Fortunately I'm not in that constituency so even if they do get in, my MP won't be a BNP member. I've seen people who I used to go to school with who've posted pictures of them standing in front of Union Jacks with a swasticka on the middle which is just sickening really.

As for the 3 leaders, I think I like Clegg best. Brown's and Cameron's personalities don't sit easily with me. I feel that both of them (and the 2 major parties) spend as much time bullying the Lib Dems and slagging off the other one than actually supporting there own cause. Sure, it's propaganda but I'm not happy with that whole attitude.

But yeah, I'm looking forward to next Thursday.

 

[LooseCannon]

But yeah, I'm looking forward to next Thursday.

I'm glad to hear you're so excited! I love voting, it's a great feeling to have that sort of power.

 

[Forostar]

Foro: dissolving the United Kingdom is not something that can be easily done, nor is it really desireable.

I agree it won't be easy, but it would be good to take a step back to be honest. It's a huge process, a long reorganisation. I don't expect it will start happening in the next 50 years though.

The difference between the BNP and the Freedom Party is that the BNP has less than 10% support in the UK (probably significantly less, the BNP is lumped into "other", with local groups and parties like Sinn Fein), whereas the Freedom Party could possibly win a plurality in the Netherlands.

We'll see. It looks like the Freedom Party is getting a bit less popular since the economic crisis. The anti-Islam talk doesn't fit in with the real problems of these days.

I'll be eager to follow the General Elections. Albie, Jonszat, and others: keep us updated.  

 

[LooseCannon]

My point is that the BNP represents a much smaller percentage than similar reactionist movements in places like the Netherlands and the USA. It's not really a problem in the UK at all.

And why dissolve the UK? It's far more likely the UK will be absorbed into the EU within 50 years - dissolving the UK would take gigantic steps backwards. The EU is the future.

 

[Albie]

Foro: dissolving the United Kingdom is not something that can be easily done, nor is it really desireable. England would end up as the weakest state of the four, given the debt burden it would be saddled with. What would you do with the Royal Navy and other armed forces, international policy, etc. It seems to be that it is quite unfeasible. Albie's probably right - it's time for England to get its own legislature, and have parliament act ONLY on behalf of the UK.

That is what would be an ideal situation, but no party wants to commit to this - the best they can offr is Labour and the Lib Dems wanting to give us regional assemblies. A few years back in the North East, they had a referendum on a regional assembly and if successful it would have been rolled out to the rest of England. The good people of the North East overwhelmingly rejected this. And complete dissolution of the country would not work for reasons you gave.

As for the Electoral reform the Lib Dems want, your right - they do want a "Single transferable vote" for Parliament. I can really see their point as they had something like 22% of the votes and 18% of seats in the last election.

But Electoral reform is pretty useless when only somewhere in the region of 40% of people bother to vote.


@Foro: The biggest reason for the rise of BNP supporters can be described in two ways: on the whole, we in the UK are pretty much centre-left when it comes to politics, but quite a few are centre-right. Both Labour and the Tories have veered from the left and right respectively and moved more to the centre. The traditional Labour supporters that were hard left now feel that Labour has disowned them and the working class Tory voter does not like the "posh Liberal" David Cameron. So these people have switched to BNP. The BNP are also scaring people with massive and ridiculous exaggerations of what problems we have with regards to immigration. Yes it is an issue, but nowhere near as bad as they make out - and we certainly cannot deal with it with how they propose.

 

[Invader]

And why dissolve the UK? It's far more likely the UK will be absorbed into the EU within 50 years - dissolving the UK would take gigantic steps backwards. The EU is the future.

A bit off topic, but... you see the EU being a single state in 50 years?  I could almost predict the opposite; the breaking up of the EU within those 50 years.  60 years ago, Europe was in a state of total war, and though it's come a long way since then, I don't see all its members being absorbed into one single super-state.

Buit back to the topic, I have not really followed the political situation in Britain lately, nor do I know much about British politics; so I won't embarass myself by commenting on it.  I do agree with LC, though, it is a good feeling to vote.  I won't have a chance until next year...

 

[LooseCannon]

If you want a good parallel for the development of the EU, I suggest you look at the formation of the United States. The only thing the EU is missing is an event to drive coalition - like the Revolutionary War. There's already a common government that has little power (such as the Continental Congress) but could wield it if needed or pushed. The economic ties are going to be almost impossible to undo. I don't know if "single state" is the appropriate word, because the UN would need to be restructured.

What we're seeing now are birthing pains.

 

[Perun]

The only thing the EU is missing is an event to drive coalition - like the Revolutionary War.

You mean, like the Afghanistan War or the Euro crisis?

 

[national acrobat]

My application for a proxy vote arrived one day too late, so this time I'll be unable to vote for any of the liberal lefty pansies on offer.

 

[LooseCannon]

You mean, like the Afghanistan War or the Euro crisis?

As you well know, they don't have the same zing.

 

[Forostar]

And why dissolve the UK? It's far more likely the UK will be absorbed into the EU within 50 years - dissolving the UK would take gigantic steps backwards. The EU is the future.

The development of the EU can be seen as independent from what's happening in/with the UK.
I can imagine that there are some negative consequences of dissolving the UK but I doubt their importance when I look at the positive side of it (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales—becoming independent sovereign states).

 

[Invader]

If you want a good parallel for the development of the EU, I suggest you look at the formation of the United States. The only thing the EU is missing is an event to drive coalition - like the Revolutionary War. There's already a common government that has little power (such as the Continental Congress) but could wield it if needed or pushed. The economic ties are going to be almost impossible to undo. I don't know if "single state" is the appropriate word, because the UN would need to be restructured.

What we're seeing now are birthing pains.

I'll admit that I don't know very much about that period of history, but I still see some crucial differences:
- the population for the Americas mostly came from Europe (barring native Americans, who were mostly suppressed anyway) in the space of a few centuries
- Europe has a long history of states with different languages and cultures, whereas this was not the case for America
- while most states of Europe have been ruled over at some point by one of the other states, the United States were ruled over by mostly one: Britain, which was also an "external" power from another continent
- Europe has a comparatively long history of nationalism, and while its role is decreasing, it nonetheless still has considerable influence over most countries and their people: the idea of national sovereignty is still going strong
- not to mention, almost all European states are democracies, though to be honest I don't know what form of state the original American states used.

I would especially consider the lack of a common history and language as a major obstacle.

 

[Forostar]

In that light, the Irish, the Welsh, the Scots... they all have their own history and culture.

 

[____no5]

[...]as we simply can't go the way of Greece. That said, the UK is classed a AAA-rated economy and can cope better with this debt than Greece, but it will still need a lot of serious cuts.

This is impossible. Greece gone that way due to complete wrong organization during more than 30 years.
The only country which might be a similar case is Italy. Situation might get worse for southern countries due to profiteers attacks, after Greece incident,
but I don't believe there is such a country like Greece, at least among the Euro zone countries.

Gordon Brown is becoming increasingly less popular as he just does not warm to people. He gives this whole attitude of "agree with me or else" and it's not pleasant. If you have an opinion that he does not like, he gets too aggressive - for example, the comment he made the other day about a life long Labour supporter - she told him that immigration is a taboo subject and needed to be addressed, he just gave a false grin, got in his car with his mic still switched on and ranted about her calling her a bigot. Before this election campaign, he was reported to have bullied his staff and frequently lost his temper - from seeing this, you can possibly conclude there was something in this.

Yeah, I read this. For sure Brown isn't as charismatic as Blair was, regarding his public image and communicative tricks.
And that's quite a pity, because he is a really serious person, and economics' connoisseur.
Unfortunately our times require from a politician to be rather a star than a wise and Brown he's not a star.

 

[Albie]

Yeah, I read this. For sure Brown isn't as charismatic as Blair was, regarding his public image and communicative tricks.
And that's quite a pity, because he is a really serious person, and economics' connoisseur.
Unfortunately our times require from a politician to be rather a star than a wise and Brown he's not a star.

Yes, I agree that people tend to go for character over policies (view the surge in Lib Dem support that has gathered after Nick Clegg's show in the first Prime Ministerial debate), but although Brown has had some good ideas (handing the responsibility to the Bank of England to control the interest rates was a good move), he has made some real whoppers of misjudgement. Ten years ago, despite being strongly advised not to, he sold half of the UK's gold reserve for not a great deal - when the country economy was good. With the price of gold today, he could take a sizeable chunk out the UK's debt by selling it today. He has long insisted on borrowing to fund this and that and, lately, to keep the country out of further recession - why? He claims to have spent more on the NHS than anyone else, yet this was largely to increase the size of the NHS management. I reckon two or three nurses could be employed instead of one manager. He claims that more people are in university than ever before, yet each student will be crippled with the debt of having to pay for tuition fees that Labour decided to burden students with - and to say that more women are in university is positive, is totally ignoring the fact that boys continue to struggle at school. Fair for all, he says.

 

[____no5]

I didn't know that story about UK's gold...
Back to Brown and the elections: it seems that (more and more lately) in politics,
we are obliged to choose between the 'less harmful solution' and when I see what the other two candidates are... 
-even if IMO Brown is a good solution, especially during this period of recession-

What is bad for him, is that if he loose now, he will never get another chance; all people seem to dislike him, even his own party!