British Election Thread

[Plissken]

So, might as well have it all here.

The story so far. Gordon Brown called the election for May 6th. Normally this sort of thing would get me and a lot of other people all excited, but to be brutally honest, the choice we are about to make is fundamentally depressing.

The runners and riders:

Labour: In power since 1997, a couple of years ago swapped a grinning, two faced arsehole for a malevolent, glowering Scot. I'm not saying Brown is dour and gloomy, just that he is dour and gloomy enough for most Scots to go "oh for crying out loud, cheer up". Happy to preside over ten years of a good economy, and ran like hell when it all went tits up - something that he has done all his political career. In his favour, has handled the downturn quite well, although is typically reluctant to praise his Chancellor for it.

Conservative: Currently 7-11% ahead in the polls, depending on which source you use. With the fresh faced ex-PR man David Cameron in charge, the Tories very much look like how New Labour did in 1997. Young, more in tune with people and happily saying and committing to nothing as Labour implode. Which is quite scary, because Cameron and co have an incredibly privileged background - he and his Shadow Chancellor, George Osbourne, were at Eton together. Worse, they were members of the Bullingdon Club, where the richest of the rich get together and trash places, because they can. Has few policies, which are all terrifying. Break up the BBC, suck up to Rupert Murdoch, sell everything to the private sector. His Shadow Cabinet contains 10 millionaires and they try and fail to have some kind of common touch. Mainly because the commoners they touch tend to be known as "the staff". Hoping to gain power through "not being Gordon Brown".

Liberal Democrats: After years of being non-entities, this election could be their chance to... no, I'm lying. The LibDems are the sort of wishy washy, wouldn't it be nice, mustn't grumble mob who would set up the Spanish Inquistion and then torture people with fluffy cushions. Not recovered from stabbing Charles Kennedy in the back for being a drunk (he was, but he hid it well). Their secret weapon is their prospective Chancellor, Vince Cable, who was the only one to repeatedly warn way in advance about the financial crisis (for which he was ridiculed), has been spectacularly right about peoples reactions (for which he was ridiculed) and then came up with proposed solutions (which were nicked by the Tories and Labour).

Minor players include:

UK Independence Party: The xenophobic wing of the Tories, basically. Would kick every immigrant out, where the Tories would employ them to clean their moats. Everything is Europes fault. Don't you know we fought a war to save these people? Will blame anything on Europe, up to and including the crap exchange rate their MEPs get went changing their Euro salary into pounds. The Tories are the party of big business, UKIP are the party of small business. If anyone has been unfortunate enough to be stuck in a taxicab and the driver starts telling you "whats wrong with this country", then likely he votes for UKIP.

British National Party: UKIP, with added racism. Utterly batshit mental. Used to have policies like "all white men over 18 should keep a gun in their homes". Leader is legally not racist. Which gives you an idea of just how shit a leader he must be.

Scottish Nationalist Party: Busy campaigning for Scottish independence on the grounds that the English stole all the oil and now there is none left. So if you get independence, how will you pay the bills? Eh?

Plaid Cymru: Welsh nationalists. Who cares, they are Welsh.

Green Party: Another bunch of batshit mentals, who would like to take us back to the Stone Age and magically uninvent everything. Have good policies on things like education and health. Except when you say awkward things like "yes, I would like clean, brand new hospitals. Now, where does the electricity to power them come from?"


I can give a breakdown of how the electoral system works if anyone wants it, but what looks like happening is that Labour will lose their majority. Whether the Tories will get to the magic number of 326 and therefore get a majority is unknown. Labour are busy aiming all their firepower at their own feet, but the feeling that Cameron is Son of Thatcher is strong. So what may happen is that the LibDems hold the balance of power. If so, expect to see Vince Cable in No 11 Downing Street tout suite.

I think this will be a negative campaign, reflecting the mood of the country at large. Already the Photoshopped posters have been flying about, as both sides find out that the Internet is not something that can be controlled. Not that that fact stopped Labour ramming through the Digital Economy Bill yesterday, which basically handed a free ride to the music and film industry in order to stamp out piracy. Good to see that the party of the common man, is happy to send an unelected Lord to a yacht in Monaco to talk to a billionaire about how the internet has ruined his life.

 

[nomix]

I'll be following this election, that's for sure. I am not crazy about the dour Scot, but the idea of breaking up the BBC, that scares the living shit out of me, the British Broadcasting Corporation has always been - and still is - the greatest machine of journalism, news, programing and good stuff, the Beeb is great, I don't want it broken up. And I'm not even flipping British!

I think there's good reasons to go with the LibDems, but they won't get a decent parliamentary count for their votes, so.. No, I couldn't live with the BBC being butchered. It's just wrong.

Crikey - I'd vote Labour! :?

 

[AiR]

Killing Top Gear and everything good about the BBC should be enough for anyone not to vote for those people. The Valomat said that I want to vote for the green party, and they did seem to have the best policys on nearly everything. Altough I'd probably vote Labour with my heart, especially with your voting system.

Your voting system feels very british. You know british as in not doing it the logical way, like everyone else does, and especially not like the french do, so instead it appears that it's just been sort of invented as you went along, making sure to differentiate yourself from the french. Kind of like tennis or snooker.

When are the elections next time? "Don't know, have to ask the Queen about that".
Why does the Queen decide? "Well she doesnt really".
Then why ask her? "Well, we thought it was a good idea at the time"
So when is the next election? "Well, it might be tomorrow, or in five years"
Okay, but when it's finally time for an election everyone gets to vote and then the seats are split according to how many votes each party recieves? "Nah, that's what everyone else does, we're so british, we made up a system that just leaves two parties."
Why did you do that? "Because it's genius!"
Genius how? "Nobody else thought of it!

 

[nomix]

And the LibDems really don't want to change it, they're hoping they'll be one of the two big ones one day, I guess..

 

[Cobol74]

All UK Politicians are shit. Possible exceptions, right I like Vince Cable like the poster but he discounts himself through being a Lib Dem so that leaves me UKIP - I Hate 'Europe', European politicians are all a bunch of lying, thieving, self serving gonads and as much as I have our Politicians to hate, I detest the European ones more - give us back our sodding Fish you bastards.

Alex Salmond (Scot Nat) is decent, I wish I could vote for him btw - OK I know he loves Europe, still he is a smart cookie.

 

[tigger]

Your voting system feels very british. You know british as in not doing it the logical way, like everyone else does, and especially not like the french do, so instead it appears that it's just been sort of invented as you went along, making sure to differentiate yourself from the french. Kind of like tennis or snooker.

It's not so different from other systems. It's really very similar to the US (single member districts, first-past-the-post wins). Or it would be, if we stripped our Senate of any meaningful power (which would be fine with me, since they're a bunch of useless, bickering assholes) and had more than 2 parties. I like looking at the results of UK elections and seeing the huge difference between the popular vote and seats awarded in Parliament. Question time with the PM is always entertaining, too.

Plus they don't start seriously talking about major elections years before they start. There are already people in the US gearing up for the 2012 presidential election. It's fucking stupid.

 

[Plissken]

seeing the huge difference between the popular vote and seats awarded in Parliament.

Blair took power with 35% of the vote. Which given the turnout was 20% of the country. Shouldn't we be getting UN Inspectors in?

 

[argatoga]

Blair took power with 35% of the vote. Which given the turnout was 20% of the country. Shouldn't we be getting UN Inspectors in?

Nah you have the EU for that. Haiku Herman will set you straight.

 

[Plissken]

Today's election update...

Johann Hari has a nice debunking of Camerons economic policies. Hari is left of centre, but usually appears in the Independent newspaper. The key facts appear in the top two paragraphs. The quote from Cameron about his wife is quite damning.

It is very hard for the British people to make a serious choice in this election without talking about one factor above all others ? class. This isn't about David Cameron's background; it's about his policies. It is a provable fact that he will redistribute wealth ? substantially ? but in a strange direction: from everyone in the big wide middle and bottom of British society, to the very top.

Here are the facts. He will give a ?1.2bn inheritance tax cut to the richest 2 per cent in Britain ? with most going to the 3,000 wealthiest estates (including his wife's). Then he promises to end the 50p top rate of tax, giving another ?2.4bn to the richest 1 per cent. Then he has pledged to cut taxes on the pensions of the richest, handing another ?3.2bn to the same 1 per cent. Then his marriage tax relief policies will give 13 times more to the rich than the poor. To pay for this, he will slash programmes for the middle and the skint, like the Child Trust Fund, SureStart and state schools.

[....]
But it is wrong to say, on this issue, there is no difference at all. The gap is real, and millions of people live in that gap. The Institute of Fiscal Studies just published a long-term study of how Labour's tax changes have affected different classes, compared to the last Tory government. It found that the richest 10 per cent have seen their incomes cut by 9 per cent, to pay for an increase in the incomes of the poorest 10 per cent. A rich man has lost on average ?25,000 a year; a poor woman has gained on average ?1,700 a year. I have seen these changes among my own family and friends: gaining ?1,700 is the difference between struggling to pay the bills, or being able to give your kids a summer holiday. Yes, there should have been much more ? but the cigarette paper between the parties is big enough to make a pretty fat roll-up.

Cameron's policies make it pretty plain: this redistribution will be slammed into reverse by him, with state cash flowing in the opposite direction. Is this due to the fact that Cameron has lived his life in a bubble of extreme privilege, and thinks it is natural that People Like Us should be the primary beneficiaries of government action? This is a question that matters ? but it needs to be answered carefully. It is idiotic to attack somebody for a decision their parents made when they were a child, or money they earned before he was conceived. There's nothing wrong with being an Etonian: George Orwell went to Eton, and went on to become the greatest left-winger this country has ever produced.

The problem isn't Cameron's extreme privilege ? it is that he has never tried to see beyond it. He keeps accidentally revealing how warped his view of Britain is, and how little of it he understands. For example, Cameron said in an interview: "The papers keep writing that [my wife, Samantha] comes from a very blue-blooded background", but "she is actually very unconventional. She went to a day school."

Read that sentence again. Now imagine how Britain looks from inside David Cameron's head, where the 97 per cent of us who went to day schools are "very unconventional". (In the Bullingdon Club, he called George Osborne "oik", because he had gone to the ?20,000-a-year St Pauls, not the ?30,000-a-year Eton.) This points to a wider mindset. The group he considers "conventional" and "normal" are the only people he has ever really mixed with, and they are the people he chooses to staff his office with today ? very rich people. Is it any surprise he makes policies that serve them, not us?

Meanwhile, the Tories attacks on Labours proposed rise in National Insurance have run into interesting opposition. Cameron has been calling it "a tax on jobs" and keeping quiet when asked about VAT rises. The head of Land Rover announced a record year and said the proposed rise in NI wouldn't affect his company. Same with the boss of Pret A Manger, who said it won't affect plans to open 25 new branches. Duncan Bannatyne, from Dragons Den and owner of several businesses has been doing the rounds saying he is more worried about VAT rises than NI.

Cameron wrote in The Guardian today which is a brave move. He promised to "review" whether public sector chiefs should have their pay limited to a multiple of the lowest paid in their organisation. An interesting policy:

Some of our most successful private sector companies operate a pay multiple, meaning that the highest paid person doesn't earn more than a certain multiple of the lowest paid. We will ask the review to consider how to introduce a pay multiple so that no public sector worker can earn over 20 times more than the lowest paid person in their organisation. There are many complex questions that the review will need to address, but I am confident it will not only help tackle unfair pay policies, it will improve cohesion and morale in the public sector too.

What he doesn't point out is the successful private sector companies with pay multiples are ones like John Lewis, which operate as a sort of workers co-operative, with everyone in the organisation getting an equal share of the profits.

Also:

But this year Labour are spending more on debt interest than on our schools. That is why we need to act fast to cut our debts.

Agreed. But if we are spending more on debt than on schools, then why are we cutting the money from schools?

On the other side of the fence, Labour's Lord Adonis took time off from heaving the world on his shoulders by saying people voting for the Lib Dems in order to keep the Tories out should vote Labour instead, because Labour have a better chance of keeping the Tories out. Right, so no reason to vote for the party in power then, just some scare tactics.

Labour also sacked a candidate in Scotland for "describing old people as "coffin dodgers", branding one woman a "boot" and joking about slavery" on his Twitter account. They really haven't got the hang of this Internet thingywotsit yet, have they?

Meanwhile, the Lib Dems revealed a major shift. Leader Nick Clegg took off his tie for the first time in the campaign. Source - genuinely - BBC News, scroll down to 1715. Clegg also is promising to campaign against unfair water rates, simplify airline ticket pricing and bring in legislation to stop banks charging high overdraft fees. Impressively local there, I have no idea what his foreign policy is, the EU policy is, but I'm pretty sure if I asked he would help me paint my shed.

In Lunatic Fringe news, the UKIP candidate for South Ribble is unable to spell the name of his own party. (The full leaflet is here, grammatically awful and apparently they care about "Uncontrolled Immigration" and "Political Correctness". No mention of education or health, then. Not important, them things.)

In similar UKIP madness,

leader Lord Pearson has told the BBC his party will not stand in up to a dozen constituencies where rival parties are fielding Eurosceptic candidates. He said his party would be "mad" to compete against the Conservative MPs Philip Davies, Douglas Carswell and Philip Hollobone, because a UKIP challenge could stop them winning. He said UKIP activists in those seats would be ask to support the Tory candidates. But Lord Pearson added that a working majority for David Cameron in the Commons would spell the "end of this country" because the Tories had backed down on a pledge to hold a referendum on the EU's Lisbon Treaty.

So they won't oppose the Tories, but if they get in, it will spell the end of the country. Right. I think I need to work that one out on a calculator.

And finally, see how much your vote really matters.

 

[nomix]

I'm sort of okay with the British system, it's undemocratic, but at least it's because they use a system of districts for a parliament. What I don't get is the US presidential election, that's just silly. It's designed to be undemocratic.

To put things into context, Reagan won 49 states with 59 % of the vote. He got 97 % of the electoral college with 59 % of the vote. He would have won anyway, but it does go to show of inacurate the system is.

Just trash it, you're voting for one wo/man, just let people vote, count the votes and give the launch codes to the guy with the most votes. Give me one reason not to.

 

[teeb]

And finally, see how much your vote really matters.

Darnit, I came here to post that.

My vote is worth 0.25 votes of an "average" vote. Joys :/

 

[Cobol74]

I am - 0.253 - damn

 

[nomix]

Does illustrate the problem with your system.

 

[jmsprovan]

I am - 0.253 - damn

beat you

0.039

\o/

 

[nomix]

Norway isn't a constituency in the UK.

 

[tigger]

Blair took power with 35% of the vote. Which given the turnout was 20% of the country. Shouldn't we be getting UN Inspectors in?

Nah, that's just the nature of having multi-party elections in a state with single member districts (and no run-off votes, iirc). In my opinion, that's why labor has hung onto power for so long. They don't need anywhere near a majority in any district to get a majority in Parliament.

What I don't get is the US presidential election, that's just silly. It's designed to be undemocratic.

It usually reflects public opinion, but as we saw in 2000 ... not always. The Electoral College is just an institutional relic (much like some of the parliamentary procedures our Senate uses). I don't know why they don't kill it. No one likes it. Obviously it seriously disenfranchises voters. Some of you are complaining that your vote only counts for a fraction of what it should. Consider this, my state always votes Republican. The state gives all electoral votes to which ever candidate gets a majority of the vote. So if I vote for a Democratic presidential candidate, my vote means exactly fuck all.

Although the one upshot I can think of about our system (at least for me, in a small state) is that i'm about 12 times as represented in the Senate as say, a Californian. Factoring in Representatives, I'm still 1.5 times as represented. Feels good, man. :lol:

 

[argatoga]

The United States consists of united states. Think about that.

If you get rid of the electoral college you lessen the importance of smaller states. Road Island and Alaska might as well not exist or be territories then.

 

[jedd_kenobi]

just checked my area and i got 0.459 which is kind of surprising since i always thought Swindon would have turned out to be one of the lowest areas with around 0.010 or something.

As for my opinions, i honestly don't know who i intend voting for although i definately won't be voting for Gordon Brown. I just can't stand the man. David Cameron, personally i do like but its everyone else. I can't stand George Osborne, Kenneth Clarke and William Hague. On the plus side, i do find the Shadow Transport Secretary Theresa Villiers to be strangely attractive. Like everyone else, the Lib Dem's biggest selling point is they have Vince Cable who is probably the only Lib Dem to actually have a set of balls and a spine.
UKIP i won't go anywhere near since Nigel Farage their former leader is nothing more than a 5 year old child waving his arms for attention or throwing insults when he doesn't get his way. BNP, i have already mentioned i will use a baseball bat on anyone who votes for this army of racist scum. The Green Party; nothing but a bunch of wishy washy timey wimey wibbly wobbly hippies.

Labour seem to have really put their foot in it this week, from Gordon Brown starting the whole National Insurance debate once again, to the sacked Labour MP for saying old age pensioners were a bunch of Coffin Dodgers on Twitter (on twitter? i mean come on? how retarded must someone be to post something inflammatory like that on Twitter and not think it'll be picked up?). On the down side, because of this it'll probably push the Tories a stronger lead over Labour.

 

[Cobol74]

Do not forget Labour dissing Joanna Lumley - you do not dis Purdy, ever! It was the old smear tactic - well wrong person to smear - near deity.

 

[teeb]

Labour seem to have really put their foot in it this week, from Gordon Brown starting the whole National Insurance debate once again, to the sacked Labour MP for saying old age pensioners were a bunch of Coffin Dodgers on Twitter (on twitter? i mean come on? how retarded must someone be to post something inflammatory like that on Twitter and not think it'll be picked up?). On the down side, because of this it'll probably push the Tories a stronger lead over Labour.

A lot of media commentators are calling it the first "social media" election, or the first "internet" election, or just talking guff.

In this case, with the twitter thing, it looks like the internet has indeed claimed the first of no doubt several scalps.

For the record, the twitterer (the twit?) called D. Cameron a "twat" and Nick Clegg a "bastard", among many other (fairly hilarious) libels.


edit - however, with 4 weeks still to go, I don't think a twitter scandal and the N.I. debate will shift the polls overall.