General Election 2015

[MrBen]

Maxxi. You could solve that dilemma by booking a Ryanair flight to France departing at 8am on Thursday 7th May..... whilst simultaneously realising you've missed the deadline for a proxy vote.

[david_carnell]

Wow - Lou couldn't stay away long.

And spouting more nonsense than ever before.

A Stalinist before communism came into being

What? That doesn't even make logical sense. Is he deporting Labour rebels to gulags? Does he have a 5 year plan for tractor production? Then stop making ridiculous analogies. You'd be hard pressed to even describe him as a traditional socialist let alone anything more extreme.

He lacks every quality in the book

Such as? Honesty? Integrity? Principles? I'd say he has all of those. You might not agree with his policies but compared to the PR-man-cum-PM Cameron he's got many more statesmanlike qualities.

the right wing press will anihilate him

You mean like they've been doing for five years already? To little effect? Who knew that when you challenged vested interests (like monopoly ownership in the media or non-dom tax like most media barons have) then you get criticised for it. You underestimate the intelligence of the British public Lou, if you think they can't see through this stuff.

He will damage the Labour Party more than its ever been damaged before.

Actually he's saved the party. Predicitions of how it would tear itself apart post Blair/Brown and the schisms that would cost the party victory for a generation have proved unfounded. He's been a unifying force with little internal dissent.

This isn't an election to knowingly win, it's one to knowingly lose

So is he meant to be PM or not? Is he meant to lose deliberately? This whole thing smacks of someone who's read one or two half-baked opinion columns in the Telegraph and then attempted to regurgitate it as their own a day later.

[Jeremy]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You'd be hard pressed

> to even describe him as a traditional socialist

> let alone anything more extreme.

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. He actually comes across as fairly moderate to me.. more like a pragmatic centre leftist promoting social justice within the framework of a market economy. Yes his father was a marxist... doesn't mean he is (assuming L was confusing marx and stalin)

[DaveR]

Every Labour voter should remember every time they spit out the word 'Blair' as if it's somehow poisonous that he was the first Labour leader to get a majority of English seats since Clement Attlee in 1946. TB made the modern Labour party electable, and they've never forgiven him for it. There's only really one outcome for this election that will make a difference, and that's if Labour + SNP > 325 seats. That would put Milliband in an impossible position and, I suspect, lead to open warfare between the left and the centre in the Labour movement, if not in the parliamentary party. If we end up with a Lab/SNP coalition then God help us all.

[david_carnell]

Oh come on Dave.....don't be so dramatic.

Firstly, the party loathe Blair for who he became and for Iraq. If you can't dislike a war criminal, who can you dislike.

Plus a whole swathe of the Progress-wing of the party still subscribe to Blairism and a centrist doctrine of ideoligically vacant populism - win at all costs.

I also fail to see why an "arrangement" between two progressive parties should be any more difficult than the current coalition arrangement. There will be lines drawn and complex negotiations but there are few issues that genuine vehment disagreement is to be found. Trident will be punted into the long grass with a five-year review and let the next lot sort it out.

God help us all? Well I suppose you could vote Tory and then it would just be god help you if you are poor, sick, young, unemployed or disabled.

[Loz]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I also fail to see why an "arrangement" between two progressive parties

Why do the left wing use the term 'progressive' now. Has 'left wing' become too toxic a brand?

[david_carnell]

Because it's the opposite of "conservative".

You can call me either Loz - I won't take offence. I'll take "liberal" too.

Left-of-centre/progressive/left-wing/liberal - I've no idea what the preferred nomenclature is tbh, each to their own.

[miga]

.

[Jeremy]

Well although those on the left are not necessarily liberal (and vice versa)... surely in reality, any political party campaigning under the "liberal" banner are in favour of addressing social inequality to varying degrees..

[DaveR]

"Why do the left wing use the term 'progressive' now. Has 'left wing' become too toxic a brand?"

Yes, is the short answer. The interesting answer (see my post above) is that in the majority of the UK it always has been. You will also hear reference to there being a 'natural majority' in favour of 'progressive politics'. When progressive is given its real meaning in this context, the natural majority is every bit as illusory as the 'conservative' or 'traditionalist' majority confidently claimed by UKIP and the right wing of the Tory party. It's all horseshit - the British electorate (or at least the UK electorate without the urban Scots) are firmly rooted in the centre, and have followed (or alternatively driven) that centre as it has moved to the right economically and to the left socially (although left/right tags are becoming meaningless as a consequence). The majority of the UK electorate is pragmatic and these days that means, for example, not keen on unions but OK with gay marriage. That's why ideologically driven lefties are forced to be rude about them:

"a centrist doctrine of ideoligically vacant populism"

[uncleglen]

Most people left or right are in favour of addressing social inequality but only the well off can afford to live a decent life under the left. Dulwich village is a prime example...Labour posters in doctor's windows and all their kids go to public school- they will not be affected by Labour policies of uncontrolled immigration (they already have their ?1,000,000 houses and second homes) , increasing benefits, higher taxes, positive discrimination in social housing and public sector jobs (although the latter 2 policies are local)

[miga]

s

[Louisa]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Wow - Lou couldn't stay away long.

>

> And spouting more nonsense than ever before.

>

Oh come on David_carnell is that really the best you can come up with? You're better than that. I can't remember the last time I needed to read a newspaper article to have a genuine opinion on politics and politicians so thanks for the insinuation but I'm exactly the kind of person Miliband and co should be trying to woo, and have so far failed miserably to do, this election cycle.

Mr Miliband is indeed a rebel without a cause, he is trying to appeal to the core vote with a classic middle of the road agenda, it's half baked. This nonsense is why the Labour Party are sinking in Scotland and are now only solid in English and Welsh heartlands and about 1/3 of the marginals nationwide. Labour is far from united, lots of people within its rank have had their doubts about Miliband from day one. This election outcome will turn out to be their nightmare scenario, a minority government (probably without the most the seats or popular vote) propped up by the very nationalists who will more than likely wipe them out north of the border, anyone who suggests they are not heading for a very rocky five year term is living in dreamland. The British electorate are historically a lot less forgiving of the Labour Party in turmoil than the Conservatives, remember the 1970s? The right wing press predictably is against him, but it's bigger than that, business arent keen, much of his core vote would rather he wasn't there (including myself) and even if you discount losses in Scotland he is not performing well in the polls. I stick by what I said, this election is not one to win, no one will come out of this as a winner, and a party with no mandate to govern, without the most seats, with informal support from Socialist (or that patronising word progressive) parties, the main one being one that wants to break up the country it intends to govern will result in one outcome. The Labour movement sent back into the wilderness for another decade or more.

For the life of me I cannot understand the drivel some people speak when it comes to politics. Yes the Tories are in trouble, but Labour are in far worse position. They will lose The trust of Scotland and they've not won back the support of Middle England. They're want to appeal to the core vote and yet their policies are all over the place?

Louisa.

[titch juicy]

miga Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Surely left is about socialism, the labour

> movement, workers' rights etc. on a continuum that

> harks back to early industrial era. Liberal is

> more about personal freedoms - often while being

> very much in favour of the free market.

> Progressive is when you need three lorries just

> for the drum kit.

Haha!

[Otta]

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

This election outcome will turn out to be their nightmare scenario, a minority government (probably without the most the seats or popular vote) propped up by the very nationalists who will more than likely wipe them out north of the border, anyone who suggests they are not heading for a very rocky five year term is living in dreamland.

Perhaps a rocky 5 years is what is needed to shake things up a bit.

[aquarius moon]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> God help us all? Well I suppose you could vote

> Tory and then it would just be god help you if you

> are poor, sick, young, unemployed or disabled.

Does anyone have any views on this? Who would people that fall into any of the above categories vote for?

And do Tory fans think those people will get a good deal if they vote to keep them in?

[DaveR]

> God help us all? Well I suppose you could vote

> Tory and then it would just be god help you if you

> are poor, sick, young, unemployed or disabled.

Does anyone have any views on this? Who would people that fall into any of the above categories vote for?

And do Tory fans think those people will get a good deal if they vote to keep them in?

I have a view. Firstly, everybody in the country has an interest in good economic management, because every penny govt spends is ultimately derived from private sector profit, and that requires stability, above all. Secondly, if you are poor or unemployed but you really don't want to be, your best chance rests with a healthy private economy. Thirdly, if you're disabled you are more empowered as a consumer that as a state number. Finally, if you are young you are currently being f**cked by all of the main parties equally.

It is a perfectly valid choice for anyone to vote Tory, which is not to say that everyone will want to. But again, left-wing ideologues will tell you that the Tories are not just wrong but wicked. Coming from an ex-miner in South Wales that might be understandable, though still wrong. Coming from a pampered Home Counties boy like Carnell it's laughable.

Edited to add:

This article pretty much says it all:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/e61ce174-ea94-11e4-96ec-00144feab7de.html#axzz3YoMgHxnC

[Louisa]

100% correct DaveR. I see no difference between the Mail, Telegraph et al condemning Miliband as some extreme Socialist as I do the left wing press peddling the idea of the nasty tory party - neither are correct, and I prefer someone having a valid reason (such as your South Wales miner example) for being ideologically opposed to a political party rather than a half baked wishy washy gripe. This is why Labour has lost touch with its people, and why neither party will outright win this election.

Louisa.

[miga]

.

[Jeremy]

A few posters - past and present - have been openly Tory. Given that they got the most votes in the last election, it really shouldn't be considered even vaguely controversial...

If the Tories had done a better job in their main aim of managing the defecit/debt, I might have even considered voting for them this time. But they seem to have screwed it up a bit... and are now talking about deeper austerity measures coupled with lowering taxes... don't see how anyone can buy that.

[Henry_17]

Miga,

On talk having been greater than delivery, in my view undisbutably true, even if the links you were going to supply were from Krugman or Wren-Lewis whose blogs / media articles should obviously not be considered objective. However, it doesn't follow from that that it hasn't been more effective to have had the Tories in instead of Labour, becuause confidence and perceived stability are the most important factor in the market where the UK has to flog the substantial debt required to keep the place running, more important than actual spending reductions, and it's highly doubtfull the last government had sufficient credibility to instill the necessary confidence.

On actual cuts having hurt the recovery much harder to say. Both sides will be able to cherry pick statistics to demonstrate each side of the argument, but these are almost gaurenteed to be myopic. But again if considering the recovery in aggregate the main question is which party had the best chance of installing confidence following the huge shock the economy was subject to which is unknowable, but in my view a new party with a fiscally conservative reputation (deserved or not) had a much better chance.

I want to stress that I'm only referring to the recovery as defined as an independent increase in GDP. I don't doubt that many if not most people will regard the negative impacts of cuts on some sections of society as much more important than the growth of aggregate GDP.

[aquarius moon]

No relevant views then.

And don't you have to use a Financial Times password to access that link DaveR?

Funnily enough I don't have one.

[aquarius moon]

Oh, and isn't it strange that so many people here have so many opinions about things that don't really concern them?

Obviously nobody in ED is poor, sick, young, unemployed or disabled, so live on a different planet to those that are.

If there are only two choices (which there are), would it be Labour or Conservative?

And then there's the fox hunting ban........

[Henry_17]

Aqua,

Why do you say that no one in ED is poor sick young unemployed or disabled and that therefore they live on a different planet to those that are?

[miga]

.