So the campaign is over and we have a very surprising result. A coalition of two parties that some say have very different ideologies. A liberal party and a right wing party (by European standards) joined in formal coalition.
Now you might say that the UK election is not very interesting to the rest of the world. Before you swiftly leave the thread look at this graph: As you can see the polls have been quite stable for months, showing a slight Conservative lead ,but then with just over 2 weeks to go till polling day (we are voting on the 6th of May) the Liberal party had a massive swing in the polls.
Let me briefly explain the colours: Red is the Labour Party, they form the current Government. They are a center right party, roughly similar to Obama. Led by Gordon Brown and Tony Blair before him. Blue is the Conservative Party, the current opposition. They are similar to Labour but slightly more right wing. Famously led by Margaret Thatcher. Between them the Conservatives and Labour have ruled the country for 65 years. Yellow is the Liberal Democrats a center-left party.
So what caused this massive poll swing so close to the election? On the 14th of April the UK had the first live TV debate in it's history. TV Debates have been talked about for years but never happened. Whilst Labour was ahead in the polls they refused to have a live debate. With nothing to gain and everything to lose it simply wasn't worth taking the risk. Now in the run-up to the 2010 election Labour and Mr Brown were behind in the polls. They felt Mr Cameron (Conservative) was beating them on style and so this time they agreed to have a debate in an attempt to get back in power. However, in what could turn out to be one of the biggest election blunders in history, they agreed to allow the Liberals a podium in the debate and crucially equal time to speak.
The result was incredible. Whilst Cameron and Brown argued between themselves over policy Mr Clegg (Liberal) was able to stand aside and present his message. Clegg made the others look quite stupid. While they tried to score political points off each other he simply offered "real change" and a move away from "old politics". Bear in mind this debate was watched by an estimated 9.4 Million people, almost half of which had never even heard Liberal policies. To put that into perspective, Labour won the 2005 election with 9.5 million votes.
What happens next is incredibly hard to predict. With two more debates will the Liberals policies be "found out" as the other parties claim? Is the poll bounce simply a blip or will it be sustained? Whatever happens the next two weeks will certainly be interesting.
* Secure the recovery by supporting the economy and halving the deficit by 2014 through growth, fair taxes and cuts to lower priority spending.
* Will not raise basic, higher and new top rates of tax in the next Parliament.
* No extension of VAT on food, children's clothes, books, newspapers and public transport fares.
* Realise stakes in publicly-controlled banks, introduce a global levy and reform banking rules.
* Create UK Finance for Growth, bringing £4 billion together to provide capital for growing businesses.
* Up to 70,000 advanced apprenticeships a year and Skills Accounts for workers to upgrade their skills.
* Create one million skilled jobs and modernise infrastructure with high speed rail, a green investment bank and broadband access for all.
* No stamp duty for first-time buyers on all house purchases below £250,000 for two years, paid for by a 5% rate on homes worth more than £1 million.
* Require a super-majority of two-thirds of shareholders in corporate takeovers.
* Job or training place for young people out of work for six months but benefits cut at ten months if they refuse a place. Guarantee of work for anyone unemployed for more than two years.
* National Minimum Wage to rise in line with average earnings.
* Ensure excellence is spread across public services with 1,000 schools to become part of high standard accredited schools groups, every hospital a Foundation Trust and underperforming police forces or borough commanders replaced or taken over.
* Right to recall MPs, referendum on the alternative vote for the Commons, referendum on a democratic second chamber, free vote in Parliament on reducing the voting age to 16.
* Help for parents to balance work and family life, with a "Father's Month" of flexible paid leave.
* A new Toddler Tax Credit of £4 a week from 2012 to all parents of young children.
* National Care Service to ensure free care in the home for those with the greatest care needs, cap on the costs of residential care.
* Re-establish the link between the Basic State Pension and earnings from 2012.
* An expansion of free nursery places for two-year-olds and 15 hours a week of flexible, free nursery education for three and four-year-olds.
* Give parents the power to bring in new school leadership teams, through mergers and takeovers, with up to 1,000 secondary schools part of an accredited schools group by 2015.
* Every young person guaranteed education or training until 18, with 75% going on to higher education, or completing an advanced apprenticeship or technician level training, by the age of 30. "
* Cutting taxes for millions of working people by increasing the income tax threshold to £10,000, paid for by tackling tax avoidance and by a "mansion tax" of 1% on properties worth over £2 million.
* Setting a £400 pay rise cap for all public sector workers, initially for two years, ensuring that the lowest paid are eligible for the biggest percentage rise.
* Scrapping ID cards and the next generation of biometric passports, and removing innocent people from the DNA database.
* Reforming prisons by reducing the number of short-term prison sentences. There would be a "presumption against" jail terms of less than six months, with "rigorously enforced" community sentences favoured.
* Making prisoners work and contribute from their prison wages to a compensation fund for victims.
* Immediately restoring the link between the basic state pension and earnings and giving people more flexibility by allowing them to access part of their personal pension fund early.
* No like-for-like replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent. The Eurofighter Tranche 3B would be cancelled and there would be a full defence review to establish Britain's future security.
* Introducing a banking levy so that banks pay back taxpayer support, until they can be split up in order to insulate retail banking from investment risks.
* Increasing funding for the most disadvantaged pupils, around one million children, by investing £2.5 billion in a "pupil premium". Headteachers would be free to spend this on cutting class sizes, attracting the best teachers or offering extra one-to-one tuition.
* Scrapping "unfair" university tuition fees for all students taking their first degree, including those studying part-time.
* Cutting the size of the Department of Health in half and abolishing unnecessary quangos.
* Giving a pay rise to the lower ranks of the Armed Forces so their pay is brought into line with the starting salary of the emergency services.
* Getting 3,000 more police on the beat and reducing time-wasting bureaucracy at police stations.
* In Parliament, introducing a "single transferable vote" system of proportional representation, where candidates are ranked in order of preference, and reducing the number of MPs by 150.
* Lowering the voting age to 16 and bringing in a recall system to sack MPs who have broken the rules, allowing constituents to force a by-election in cases of "serious wrongdoing".
* Capping political donations at £10,000 and limiting election spending; replacing the House of Lords with a fully-elected chamber with "considerably fewer members".
* Safeguard Britain's credit rating with a credible plan to eliminate the bulk of the structural deficit over a Parliament set out in an emergency Budget within 50 days of taking office.
* Create the conditions for higher exports, business investment and savings, while cutting youth unemployment.
* Raise productivity growth in the public sector.
* Reform the regulation and structure of the banking system.
* Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase the UK's share of global markets for low carbon technologies.
* Cut a net £6 billion of waste in departmental spending in 2010-11.
* Freeze public sector pay for one year in 2011.
* Cut ministers' pay by 5%, followed by a five-year freeze.
* Reduce the number of MPs by 10% and cap public sector pensions above £50,000.
* Reverse Labour's planned National Insurance hike for anyone earning under £35,000 next year.
* Create a single Work Programme for everyone who is unemployed.
* Boost small businesses with automatic rate relief.
* Cut the headline rate of corporation tax to 25p and the small companies' rate to 20p.
* Set an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants admitted into the UK.
* Block plans for second runways at Stansted and Gatwick, while starting work on new high speed rail network.
* Freeze council tax for two years and scrap plans for a revaluation.
* Re-link the basic state pension to earnings and protect the winter fuel payment.
* Give every patient the power to choose any healthcare provider which meets NHS standards within NHS prices.
* Stop the "forced" closure of accident and emergency wards, and commission a 24/7 urgent care service in every area of England.
* Raise standards in schools by enhancing the status of teachers and allowing state schools the freedom to offer same high quality international exams that private schools offer.
* Give parents the power to save local schools threatened by closure.
* Crack down on drink and drug-fuelled violence.
* Cut police paperwork to get more officers on the beat.
* Give voters the right to kick out MPs found guilty of serious wrongdoing.
* Publish more data so the public can hold government to account.
* Permanently raise the stamp duty threshold to £250,000 for first-time buyers.
* Scrap ID cards, cut back surveillance powers and "intrusive" powers of entry into people's homes.
* Give Parliament a vote on repeal of the Hunting Act.
* Create a new National Security Adviser and develop a National Security Strategy.
* Double the operational allowance for Armed Forces serving abroad.
* Introduce a referendum "lock" ensuring a vote on the transfer of any more powers to the EU.
Yeah I heard about this. Apparently it's also true that if the Lib Dems were to win the election right now, there'd be a problem since they'd win in the popular vote but not in the electoral college? (or the British equivalent). At least that's what I heard.
Would have liked to see UKIP represented (Or at least Daniel Hannan debate the other parties). As far as I know, all three parties above are pretty identical, at least from the few Brits I've talked to anyways.
Just curious what are the requirements in order to enter the debate? Is it ridiculously absurd like getting 15% in the previous Presidential race, or polling something like 20-25%?
Keep us updated on the happenings over in Britain.
Edit: I thought Europeans still used Liberal in the classical sense, no?
God dammit, I was going to make a huge post about the general election for ages but work's been keeping me busy . It was going to involve pokemon analogies TT
Regardless, this is an interesting election even though the parties aren't as different (for good reason) as they could be. The biggest argument is who can manage cost the best way and bring the budget deficit down the least painfully.
Each party has some good policies and a few bad, each party has some great politicians and a few bad. Hard to make up one's mind in a constituency like Brighton where Caroline Lucas holds her Green seat. Might be hi-tailing it up to Twickenham where my parents live to vote Vince Cable, seeing as I think he's a great asset to British politics.
On April 20 2010 19:45 DexterHGTourney wrote: Would have liked to see UKIP represented (Or at least Daniel Hannan debate the other parties). As far as I know, all three parties above are pretty identical, at least from the few Brits I've talked to anyways.
Lib Dems are barely considered contention (by most ignorant people). They were essentially very lucky to get equal time in this debate. Former leader Paddy Ashdown said he would have given an arm and a leg for the opportunity. UKIP is absolutely tiny by comparison. It wouldn't make any sense, unless you allowed all the fringe parties to join in. Which would give us less time to scrutinize the main parties. UKIP has some interesting policies but they are mostly old conservatism and they are shallow when compared to the bigger parties; in terms of costing and such.
On April 20 2010 19:42 Mystlord wrote: Yeah I heard about this. Apparently it's also true that if the Lib Dems were to win the election right now, there'd be a problem since they'd win in the popular vote but not in the electoral college? (or the British equivalent). At least that's what I heard.
That's right yes. We have a "first past the post" system in areas called constituencies. Each constituency win is an MP in parliament, which is one vote in parliament. There are 646 total seats in parliament so you need 324 to control a majority and govern effectively.
The system is unfair because just "pipping" a seat is just as good as winning it by miles. The Liberals will absolutely smash the vote in the south-west and probably other rural areas but the swing still isn't enough for them to take many seats from Labour heartland in the North or the Conservative strong seats in the South.
When you look at the projections assuming a uniform swing in votes, the results are ridiculous. With current figures of popular votes at 33% Conservative 30% Lib Dem and 28% Labour. Labour would gain 276 seats (the most) The Conservatives would gain 245 seats The Liberals would gain 100 seats
There would then have to be a coalition Government between either Liberal-Labour or Liberal-Conservative since you need a majority to pass laws.
On April 20 2010 19:51 Klive5ive wrote: The system is unfair
You should probably give the other side of the argument here. Although I agree with the statement, the point is that it's easier to get parliament majorities and avoid hung parliaments with first past the post.
It might also be interesting to add that now we have a great time, as always, in British politics where all of the best speakers and highest-up politicians in the parties are wheeled out to debate against each other. The Daily Politics is having a series of 45 min debates about different aspects of policy involving different members of each party, they look like they will be very interesting. Especially the eduction debate between Ed Balls, Michael Gove and David Laws.
Another interesting quirk of our country is that our interviewers are almost all cunts. While most interviewers in America are deferential, most of our interviewers make you want to slap them with how much they interrupt and how incredibly rude they are when they don't get their way (they try to force politicians to make negative sound bytes and tie them up in knots). The plus side of this gargoyle interview style is that occasionally interviewers actually have a good point, and their devil's advocacy plays an important role in seriously testing the credibility of party plans and manifesto coherency, a lot deeper than the American system.
On April 20 2010 19:42 Mystlord wrote: Yeah I heard about this. Apparently it's also true that if the Lib Dems were to win the election right now, there'd be a problem since they'd win in the popular vote but not in the electoral college? (or the British equivalent). At least that's what I heard.
Historically the Lib Dems always do much much better in the polls than they do on the election day. They are more of a protest vote and alot of people say in polls I will vote Lib Dems to try and scare the two large parties into changing things up a bit. When it comes to the election though Lib Dems will be unlikely to win alot of seats.
Labour always do a bit better in the election than they do in polls, purely because they are in government since 1997 and people will say in a poll they will vote for someone else then when it comes to election day vote Labour anyway 'because they always have'.
As for this election then I'd expect conservatives to take it as a majority government or to form a minority government and have a hung parliament.
Other parties like UKIP, BNP to the extreme right and Green, Socialist, Communist etc. to the extreme left won't get a look in a big election because people will vote for one of the 3 big parties or they won't vote. UKIP might pick up 5 or so seats but I'd be surprised if they got more than that. Would be surprised if any of the other parties got more than two seats a piece. SNP and Plaid Cymru might do 5 or so though just depends.
Lib Dems will not win the election though, would be very surprised if Lib Dems got more than 70 seats out of the 634 avaliable.
I would expect something like Conservatives 290-350, Labour 200-300, Lib Dems 50-70. Labour are a bit of a tough one to put a number on, they might do horribly but they are always behind in the polls then win anyway so I guess we will need to wait and see. Just gotta remember that most polls are only done in England and that almost everyone in Scotland/Wales votes labour.
On April 20 2010 19:45 DexterHGTourney wrote: Would have liked to see UKIP represented (Or at least Daniel Hannan debate the other parties). As far as I know, all three parties above are pretty identical, at least from the few Brits I've talked to anyways.
Just curious what are the requirements in order to enter the debate? Is it ridiculously absurd like getting 15% in the previous Presidential race, or polling something like 20-25%?
Edit: I thought Europeans still used Liberal in the classical sense, no?
Daniel Hannan is a Conservative MEP (member of european parliament). We have seperate elections for our MEPs (i.e. he's safe).
Labour and Conservative are very similar yes. They like to pretend they are different and people often think they are but many have analysed their policies and put them in an almost identical position on the center right of the political scale. The main difference is funding. Conservatives are funded mainly by the rich, Labour are funded by the working unions. Whilst Labour manages to take the moral highground on "standing up for the working class". The reality is they are just totally incompetent in government. Hence our ridiculous debt, highest of any developed country (I think it's something like 50% of GDP) and massive gap in public finances. Whoever gets in is in an awful position. They will have to raise taxes and slash public spending. The result will be more unemployment and probably high inflation too. The pound will fall against the Euro and the Dollar.. yeah the outlook isn't great.
There are no "requirements" for the debate. There has never been a debate before. They just agreed terms for the first time and the two main parties agreed to having the Liberals there too.
The last election was actually incredibly tribal interestingly. The Lib Dems drew almost all their seats from the north of Scotland, the middle of Wales and the south west of England. The conservatives were almost entirely in the south/middle of England. Labour was almost entirely middle-northern England.
On April 20 2010 20:03 Klive5ive wrote: Whilst Labour manages to take the moral highground on "standing up for the working class". The reality is they are just totally incompetent in government.
Wow ok someone's biased. And that statement wasn't just incredibly sweeping...:/
On April 20 2010 20:03 Klive5ive wrote: Hence our ridiculous debt, highest of any developed country (I think it's something like 170% of GDP) and massive gap in public finances.
Those two things aren't inexorably linked to the Labour party. They are linked mostly to the global crash and the UK's reliance on London as a financial centre, and partly to Gordon Brown's spendthrift policy in the time of plenty.
Do you honestly think the Conservatives would have left the country in a better position? Ok they spend a lot less money usually, BUT they were for more and more deregulation of the banks, and their plans of what to do when the banking crisis occurred have been universally condemned by almost all major authorities.
Whoever gets in is in an awful position. They will have to raise taxes and slash public spending. The result will be more unemployment and probably high inflation too. The pound will fall against the Euro and the Dollar.. yeah the outlook isn't great.
This is the only opinion of yours that I would pronounce as ubiquitous in this country. If pessimism isn't British, nothing is.
Its kind of a terrible situation in politics, the MP's don't actually care about their constituency once they get into power. They never actually engage with the people except at election time and there is no transparency as to what they actually do other then sit about.
Lib Dems policies sound better then the other 2 as they are willing to make changes that might stop the rotten workings of many things in politics. Hoping for the best but this is politics the people rarely win.
On April 20 2010 20:12 Adeeler wrote: Its kind of a terrible situation in politics, the MP's don't actually care about their constituency once they get into power. They never actually engage with the people except at election time and there is no transparency as to what they actually do other then sit about.
I agree that the system whereby we have to choose between local issues or national issues and make a compromise is fairly annoying. But I'd take issue with your point about MPs neglecting constituencies. Of course you get a fair share of centrally issued party cronies who couldn't give two hoots about constituencies, but most MPs work very hard for their constituencies- running surgeries, giving meetings and implementing local policy. It would be nice to see a system whereby we vote for governors of regions independently of parliament representatives of regions; but especially at this time when you want to be cutting money spent at Whitehall, it seems ludicrous to do anything of the sort.
Delicious British accents. The same debate in Australia will always have debaters pausing with umms mid sentence. So annoying. The UK politicians seems like better public speakers.
meh, I don't even care anymore. Conservative will probably win, and that'll be no better than Labour which to be honest is no better than what Lib Dem would be if anyone ever voted for them.
Whilst Labour manages to take the moral highground on "standing up for the working class". The reality is they are just totally incompetent in government. Hence our ridiculous debt, highest of any developed country (I think it's something like 170% of GDP) and massive gap in public finances.
If you are referring to government debt the figure is nowhere near that high. Nor is it particularly high by historic standards:
The hysteria over the deficit is an unfortunate distraction from more important matters such as employment levels and productivity, in my view. But it fits with a certain dominant economic ideology, which is why it is central to the mainstream discussion as framed by the media and the political establishment.
On April 20 2010 20:03 Klive5ive wrote: Whilst Labour manages to take the moral highground on "standing up for the working class". The reality is they are just totally incompetent in government.
Wow ok someone's biased. And that statement wasn't just incredibly sweeping...:/
Well my views are not without evidence. If you read the 2005 Labour manifesto they have achieved almost nothing they set out to do. I have a copy of the financial review 2005 in my office. The title reads "Brown hails new economic stability". Yet in that year he borrowed Billions of pounds to fund public sector increases. He calls this "investment" but he doesn't understand the meaning of the word. He borrowed money to pay for something we would never be able to afford. Much of the little he has achieved is down to the debt he has placed on the next generation. If that's not incompetence I don't know what is.
On April 20 2010 20:03 Klive5ive wrote: Whilst Labour manages to take the moral highground on "standing up for the working class". The reality is they are just totally incompetent in government.
Wow ok someone's biased. And that statement wasn't just incredibly sweeping...:/
Well my views are not without evidence. If you read the 2005 Labour manifesto they have achieved almost nothing they set out to do. I have a copy of the financial review 2005 in my office. The title reads "Brown hails new economic stability". Yet in that year he borrowed Billions of pounds to fund public sector increases. He calls this "investment" but he doesn't understand the meaning of the word. He borrowed money to pay for something we would never be able to afford. Much of the little he has achieved is down to the debt he has placed on the next generation. If that's not incompetence I don't know what is.
Everything you are saying here is arguable. You have to realise the difference between spreading your opinion and being informative. And don't mask one as being the other.
The banking crisis issue is complex. You're oversimplifying that and everything else. If you were honest and cognisant of the actual situation, you'd probably be fairer to Labour even if you still disapproved of them. And this is coming from a guy who is 1/3 Labour 1/3 conservative 1/3 liberal.
Whilst Labour manages to take the moral highground on "standing up for the working class". The reality is they are just totally incompetent in government. Hence our ridiculous debt, highest of any developed country (I think it's something like 170% of GDP) and massive gap in public finances.
If you are referring to government debt the figure is nowhere near that high. Nor is it particularly high by historic standards:
The hysteria over the deficit is an unfortunate distraction from more important matters such as employment levels and productivity, in my view. But it fits with a certain dominant economic ideology, which is why it is central to the mainstream discussion as framed by the media and the political establishment.
Agree with this 100% ^^
The debt is blown wildly out or proportion by the conservatives who are basically trying to frighten people into voting conservative.
50% of GDP is pretty bad but likes of Japan which is the worlds 2nd biggest economy per head has closer to 100% I believe. And Germany and France are at 75-80% or so too.
Other countries like USA, Switzerland, Netherlands, Norway, countries people might think are very successful all have greater debts or around the same debts per GDP than the UK.
UK ain't doing particularly bad by any means when compared with other countries. Yeah the recession was pretty bad here but thats only because the UK has alot of banks and because it was doing so well to begin with so it fell hardest. I would rather be in a country that was strong and went down a bit than a country that was weaker and stayed around the same. When the banks get rolling again then the UK will be up there with the best economies.
EPT![[image loading]](http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01042/Cam_Clegg_shake_28_1042267a.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/DailyPolling-190410.jpg)
. It was going to involve pokemon analogies TT
