is meryvn king right that this election is a hospital ball for the winner?

[egb_hibs]

Old Merv apparently thinks that what is required would put the govt who presides over it out of power for a generation.

I think he is spot on; I can't see why anyone bar the libdems would gain from victory. The LDs would through enacting (presumably) PR. But for labour and especially for the tories it could be a disaster.

However necessary, somebody is going to find themselves established as the nasty party big time. For labour this would be compounded by having been the govt that got us to the point where it was necessary, but I think it would be even worse for the tories, as it would compound a prior reputation.

I think it's entirely possible that whoever wins will have to set about what is required, but this will cause their govt to collapse, and the other side can then swoop in to an already established scenario, and get on with it, while the first lot are vilified.

If it wasn't for personal ambitions on the part of this generation of politicians, from a party pov, no party should want to win I reckon.

Conspiracy theorists have even alleged that the tories lacklustre campaign is so lackluster for exactly this reason, but I reckon that's nonsense; Cameron, Osborne et al surely have their own destiny in mind not just that of their party.

What saith the jury?

 

[Kurt]

At long last the campaign is waking up to the only issue. Marr finally grilled Cameron on the cuts (he didn't answer fully) and this evening's debate on channel 4 with Jon Snow really strated to get to the point (although without any current politcians).

I hope its now going to get harder hitting. Big cuts and big tax rises are coming - especially the latter as they generate money straight away.

NHS and education will NOT be protected.

Cameron was full of shit on Marr.

 

[egb_hibs]

glad to hear that though i didn't see the programme.

it really is scandalous how the elephant in the room is being ignored. that said, it's our own fault; we don't want to hear it.

in this respect the media have a particular responsibility to be our proxys and push the questions we don't really want answered.

it's such a mess; the idea of osborne as chancellor is a bit terrifying. despite it all, i'd most favour alistair darling in that role as long as he was out from under brown.

i'm starting to wonder whether frank field's proposal of a national govt is such a bad idea, despite the fact that a suspension of democracy at this junction is also frightening as feck.

 

[Purple & Green]

I have wondered about the incredible gaffs in the Labour campaign, I'd swear Brown doesn't want to win, just doesn't want to lose so badly.

PR would be a disaster for labour and tory if the Lib Dems get too many votes, though surely - or is it not going to play out like that in the event of a hung parliament?

 

[Kurt]

I have wondered about the incredible gaffs in the Labour campaign, I'd swear Brown doesn't want to win, just doesn't want to lose so badly.

PR would be a disaster for labour and tory if the Lib Dems get too many votes, though surely - or is it not going to play out like that in the event of a hung parliament?

Brown's not a bad man. I think quite the contrary. Its just everything is going worng for him and his team don't provide the stabilisation he needs. labour are out of time. he should have had a plan. maybe a sign of conceit that he didn't.

 

[Daddy 'O' Hibee]

Old Merv apparently thinks that what is required would put the govt who presides over it out of power for a generation.

I think he is spot on; I can't see why anyone bar the libdems would gain from victory. The LDs would through enacting (presumably) PR. But for labour and especially for the tories it could be a disaster.

However necessary, somebody is going to find themselves established as the nasty party big time. For labour this would be compounded by having been the govt that got us to the point where it was necessary, but I think it would be even worse for the tories, as it would compound a prior reputation.

I think it's entirely possible that whoever wins will have to set about what is required, but this will cause their govt to collapse, and the other side can then swoop in to an already established scenario, and get on with it, while the first lot are vilified.

If it wasn't for personal ambitions on the part of this generation of politicians, from a party pov, no party should want to win I reckon.

Conspiracy theorists have even alleged that the tories lacklustre campaign is so lackluster for exactly this reason, but I reckon that's nonsense; Cameron, Osborne et al surely have their own destiny in mind not just that of their party.

What saith the jury?

The next govt certainly has a job on its hands, you feel that just around the corner is massive civil unrest, regardless of who wins, I'm actually shitting it for the near future.
I believe the Tories will win the election with a majority and will proceed at pace to rectify the obvious problems that exist in the UK. The outcome you explained above is a possible scenario. I just wish all the parties would come clean on how they plan to raise the necessary cash for rectifying our mounting financial crisis, where the cuts are going to hit hardest etc? Never heard so many folk stating that they still do not know who to vote for this close to an election. Scotland for me is hardest to predict. England will reject the Labour party and the Tories will do well there. Thankfully I'm mostly wrong and everything might turn out just fine. PS The Tories have always played the nasty party best.

 

[LunaCWsauzee]

I think the Tories will end up with a majority and form government.

They will be ruthless with cuts IMO and they will need to be. Unfortunately Osbourne doesn't seem like he could organise a piss up in a brewery nevermind run an economy so I fear the worst.

Also, would it not be better for the Tories to come in at the next election? Come in now and they will be seen as the bad guys for cuts that will be strong but needed, and Labour could be back in in 5 years with the Tories out unpopular as ever with another decade or 2 as opposition.

A Labour victory now would see them have to take care of their own mess and chances are it won't be pretty. Their popularity could fall to a level which could see them out of government for a very very long time or maybe for good.

 

[Jack]

I have wondered about the incredible gaffs in the Labour campaign, I'd swear Brown doesn't want to win, just doesn't want to lose so badly.

PR would be a disaster for labour and tory if the Lib Dems get too many votes, though surely - or is it not going to play out like that in the event of a hung parliament?

Hard to disagree with that. It looks to me that Labour has pulled out all the stops to avoid a victory.

 

[egb_hibs]

Hard to disagree with that. It looks to me that Labour has pulled out all the stops to avoid a victory.

there may be truth in that. labour's front rank seems divided into those whose day has emphatically gone, and people like the balls, coopers, millibands etc, who are if anything a bit young for the job now, but should labour get a pumping next time having had to address their own mess, might miss their opportunity for good.

It would be very handy for these guys to lose this one and then take their chances.

my nightmare scenario;

tory government; labour collapse into civil war in opposition. PR pushed through. pound collapses. unemployment hits 5 million (to say nothing of those otherwise not working).

election called; BNP take 70 seats (current vote base in pr elections would give them 60). what then? any permuation of fronts you like. just some examples;

1) liberalism vs socialism; Tory liberals plus libdem liberals plus newlabour sorts vs socialist labour plus left wing lib dems plus reactionary tories plus BNP

2) 'champagne socialist' alliance of libdems and most of labour plus some socially liberal tories vs 'britain first' coaliton of tories plus ukip plus bnp plus labour mps from working class constituencies

actually those are probably two ways of saying much the same thing, with slightly different emphasis.

another scenario, which though stultifying, is in comparison attractive is;

3) left / right unity government of all centrists

PR is really unpredictable right now.

Of course the most likely is no PR, and the game goes on as before, but with ever diminishing credibility.


And then 25 years from now, the public pensions and big state unsustainablity chickens really come home and then it's really game on.

 

[O'Driscoll]

All the main players want to WIN the election. It is a cynical argument that there is such a thing as a good time to be in opposition. Politicians are of a breed which has ideals and ego in equal measure and you satisfy neither in opposition. Now it is possible that (despite all the predictions) we could return in a few years to a golden economic age. It has happened before and can happen again. What it takes is simultaneous recovery in Asia, America and Europe to start a momentum, this time though, there would be more of a hem on the banks. Politicians never lose sight of the possibility that their actions can make them popular just as quickly and effectively as their gaffes can make them unpopular.

I do concur to this extent though, its one thing voting for cuts in the public sector, its quite another when they actually make them.

 

[Westside Green]

I don't know why he's getting involved, after all he's got a big game against Barney to concentrate on this week.