I went to bed at about 0530 this morning, and I write this at 1030. That five hour nap really didn't make a huge difference, it was a mess when I went to sleep, it is still a mess now that I've woken up.
I'm currently watching Harridan Harperson trying to justify why Brown has the right to form a government, whilst Ed Vaizey is doing a sterling job of whining 'it's not fair, it's our turn'. David Steel is resigned to the fact that the Lib Dems reached saturation point in the 2005 election.
There's arguments over the system of electing people, arguments over the method in which the Prime Minister gets that title, arguments over how a Prime Minister would, could and should form a government.
The fault is not in the system. First Past The Post is always held up as a panacea for electing strong, stable governments, PR is nasty, goes the warning, it ends up with the Nazis in Germany and about 27,000 governments in post-war Italy. The problem is, we are being told, that on this occasion FTP has not delivered a strong, stable government.
This is obviously the fault of the system. At least, it is today. Tomorrow it will be my fault and your fault for not voting properly, we'll be told off for not doing it as we should have done.
Well, mea fucking culpa.
The reason we have the result we have is not because of us cheeky scampish voters playing silly buggers, it is not because the system is corrupt and unrepresentative (which it is), it is because the 3 main political parties have failed. Their policies are hated, their leaders untrusted, their campaigning spiteful and hateful.
This result is a landslide victory for 'fuck you'.
How long will it take for the leaders to realise the problem isn't the electorate or the system, but them and the way they go about doing their job? They'd better figure it out quick, before their membership figure it out on their behalf.
Cameron, Clegg and Brown all stand this morning as discredited figures, unfit to govern their own parties, let alone the nation.
Britain's political parties have failed. They no longer stand for anything, they are not different from each other. This result will be replicated time and time again unless they undergo major internal revolutions.
If I were to put my tin-foil hat on for a moment, I would probably make a point about a tri-party coalition which would render all future elections meaningless and probably declared a waste of time and public money . . .
Showing posts with label General Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label General Election. Show all posts
Friday, 7 May 2010
Tuesday, 4 May 2010
The One That Has His Card. . .
No, not my polling card (although I have one of those as well) but this, my 'Bugger Off Bingo' card:
In an ideal world, come the end of the evening's entertainment on Thursday, I'll be able to shout 'HOUSE!'. In reality, it ain't going to happen, but I can dream. I'll settle for a third of the people on here losing their seats, even less if Bercow, Smith and Balls are amongst them.
I was going to blog about Labour's increasing desperation as the big day draws near and the cracks really begin to show, but it's so fucking obvious, isn't it? What's Gordon going to do tomorrow? Threaten to hold his breath until he goes blue, or to scweam and scweam and scweam until he's sick if we don't vote Labour?
He's run out of threats now, all he has is pathetic pleading. Well, that and good old fraud.Tough shit, Gordon, if people in your party can't stand you, how do you think the rest of us feel?
Anyhow, I have a selection of fine Kentish and Normandie cider in stock, and a carton of smokes lovingly purchased in Calais this afternoon and I'm ready. I'll be spending the night wearing khaki drill and a pith helmet, setting off my blunderbuss every time one of them falls in what will hopefully descend into an elephant hunt.
And critics reckon that Libertarians are nihilistic. Nihilistic? Moi? Not a bit of it.
Coming on May 7th. . . how the hell do we get rid of this arseclown Cameron?
In an ideal world, come the end of the evening's entertainment on Thursday, I'll be able to shout 'HOUSE!'. In reality, it ain't going to happen, but I can dream. I'll settle for a third of the people on here losing their seats, even less if Bercow, Smith and Balls are amongst them.
I was going to blog about Labour's increasing desperation as the big day draws near and the cracks really begin to show, but it's so fucking obvious, isn't it? What's Gordon going to do tomorrow? Threaten to hold his breath until he goes blue, or to scweam and scweam and scweam until he's sick if we don't vote Labour?
He's run out of threats now, all he has is pathetic pleading. Well, that and good old fraud.Tough shit, Gordon, if people in your party can't stand you, how do you think the rest of us feel?
Anyhow, I have a selection of fine Kentish and Normandie cider in stock, and a carton of smokes lovingly purchased in Calais this afternoon and I'm ready. I'll be spending the night wearing khaki drill and a pith helmet, setting off my blunderbuss every time one of them falls in what will hopefully descend into an elephant hunt.
And critics reckon that Libertarians are nihilistic. Nihilistic? Moi? Not a bit of it.
Coming on May 7th. . . how the hell do we get rid of this arseclown Cameron?
Friday, 30 April 2010
Wednesday, 28 April 2010
The One That Is Disgusted. . .
No long polemic. None of my usual poor analysis.
If you want to watch it, go over to Constantly Furious' place.
I'm talking about Labour's party election broadcast last night.
Yes, that's the one, the one that suggests if you don't vote Labour, you'll die of cancer. It's the leaflets and cards. Again.
I don't believe that Brown is not behind it. He's proved he'll do anything to get power, so it follows logically that he will do anything to hold on to it.
What makes me most angry is that even after pulling a stunt like this, people will still vote for them. Although I'm not sure if that says more about the Tories and Lib Dems, or more about the electorate.
Still a week to go. There's probably more to come. Are they going to accuse Clegg of being a nonce, perhaps?
If you want to watch it, go over to Constantly Furious' place.
I'm talking about Labour's party election broadcast last night.
Yes, that's the one, the one that suggests if you don't vote Labour, you'll die of cancer. It's the leaflets and cards. Again.
I don't believe that Brown is not behind it. He's proved he'll do anything to get power, so it follows logically that he will do anything to hold on to it.
What makes me most angry is that even after pulling a stunt like this, people will still vote for them. Although I'm not sure if that says more about the Tories and Lib Dems, or more about the electorate.
Still a week to go. There's probably more to come. Are they going to accuse Clegg of being a nonce, perhaps?
Saturday, 24 April 2010
The One That Is Blah Blah Blah . . .
The idea of a hung parliament really is scaring Labour and the Tories now. So much so that Gordon Brown has decided to do something about it.
Yep. That'll do it. Get Gordon out more, that'll solve the problem once and for all, the Tories will waltz into a majority then.
The Tories are going to do something about this as well. This can never happen again.
I've not gone into too much detail, but I believe that the Tories have cast their gaze over to Europe and have decided to follow the lead set in Switzerland by UEFA. Seats picked up from Labour will now count double.
Is that not it? Oh well, who cares?
What? Like you've done since Brown took over?
And that counts as reform does it? Give me strength.
Now, I'm no lover of the Lib Dems, but one thing this election campaign is demonstrating is the rotten system of first past the post. Sky News have been showing off their graphic design department's work this morning. Their poll of polls shows Labour and Lib Dem with an equal share of the vote and yet Labour being returned with more than a hundred seats over the Lib Dems. How that is an advert for democracy, I'll never know. I'd rather the Lib Dems didn't get anywhere near the levers of power, but if the population vote for them, I'll just have to accept it. To have a system which is so heavily weighted in favour of the Tories and Labour is a bloody disgrace, and this needs to change, preferably before the next general election.
Despite all this madness, there is an island of sanity and pure clarity. Suprisingly, it comes from the Mail. Unsurprisingly it comes from a bunch of children. A section of society that in my experience are the most adept at looking at bullshit and calling it just that. The whole article is a delight, the highlights are shamelessly stolen and reproduced here:
Certainly more incisive political commentators than I'll ever be.
Gordon Brown will become a more visible presence and meet more ordinary voters as he seeks to "up the tempo" of Labour's general election campaign.
Yep. That'll do it. Get Gordon out more, that'll solve the problem once and for all, the Tories will waltz into a majority then.
What? A party leader, speaking to the electorate? Instead of talking to their own party members? About policy? Well, that's all well and good, but I can see a problem with that, what if Joe Soap stands up and says something like 'That's all well and good Mr. Brown, but with the greatest respect I disagree with your policy and feel that I am most likely to vote for someone else'? How will the goons resist the urge to bundle him to the ground, stamp repeatedly on his head and dump his body in the canal whilst the spin doctors brief against the poor sod and decry him as a BNP supporter?Mr Brown will be prepared to meet more ordinary voters rather than party supporters, following the criticisms from rank-and-file members, Iain Watson says.
He will also take more questions and answers on Labour Party policy from undecided voters in various locations around country.
The Tories are going to do something about this as well. This can never happen again.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives are set to announce policies on electoral reform.
I've not gone into too much detail, but I believe that the Tories have cast their gaze over to Europe and have decided to follow the lead set in Switzerland by UEFA. Seats picked up from Labour will now count double.
Is that not it? Oh well, who cares?
Their policy would force a new prime minister without a mandate to hold a general election.
What? Like you've done since Brown took over?
He will also outline plans to select parliamentary candidates through postal primaries.
And that counts as reform does it? Give me strength.
Now, I'm no lover of the Lib Dems, but one thing this election campaign is demonstrating is the rotten system of first past the post. Sky News have been showing off their graphic design department's work this morning. Their poll of polls shows Labour and Lib Dem with an equal share of the vote and yet Labour being returned with more than a hundred seats over the Lib Dems. How that is an advert for democracy, I'll never know. I'd rather the Lib Dems didn't get anywhere near the levers of power, but if the population vote for them, I'll just have to accept it. To have a system which is so heavily weighted in favour of the Tories and Labour is a bloody disgrace, and this needs to change, preferably before the next general election.
Despite all this madness, there is an island of sanity and pure clarity. Suprisingly, it comes from the Mail. Unsurprisingly it comes from a bunch of children. A section of society that in my experience are the most adept at looking at bullshit and calling it just that. The whole article is a delight, the highlights are shamelessly stolen and reproduced here:
WHAT IS A POLITICAL PARTY?
NIAMH: It’s a group of people who are all trying to be your friend.
WHO ARE THE PARTY LEADERS?
SAM: I know their names and what their parties are called, but it’s hard to tell them apart because they all look quite alike.
WHAT ARE THEIR STRENGTHS ?
JAMES HOPKINS: [. . .] I can see Gordon Brown being a good drummer. I can see him randomly banging drums with the faces of the other leaders on the front.
WHO DO YOU LIKE BEST?
SAM: I just don’t know. I watched the programme (the debate) last night and I found it very hard to understand, because they all gave random answers to the same question. They only talked about what they think is interesting, which is quite rude really.
WHICH LEADER IS MOST HONEST?
JAMES HOPKINS: I think they should have to do lie detector tests, like on the Jeremy Kyle show.
WHO ARE THE LEADERS’ WIVES?
ABBY: I don’t know their names, but I do think it’s a bit strange that the politicians are taking their wives to work with them. My dad wouldn’t take my mum to work with him, and she wouldn’t want to go even if he asked her because she’s got her own job to do.
Certainly more incisive political commentators than I'll ever be.
Thursday, 22 April 2010
The One That Is Drowning In A Sea Of Paper. . .
I’m slightly confused. In the papers and on TV and radio there’s talk of an election in the offing. Well, if there is, they’re doing a bloody good job of hiding it in the constituency in which I live.
A fortnight to go until the big day (Oh, Jesus, is it really a fortnight? It’s been going on for 4 years) and there’s precious little to indicate there’s anything going on down here.
I appear to be drowning in a sea of paper candidates, and even then the paper is in short supply. We have the usual suspects standing here, Con, Lib, Lab, UKIP, Green and then the very earnest Monetary Reform Party.
Visits received? Nil.
Literature received? Three. One from the Tories showing the sitting MP in a very unusual and contrived pose, comb-over plastered down on to his pate and a pair of very fetching cords. I live in Canterbury, quite a rural constituency, so the Tory seems to have gone for country gent gone to town for the day. Which as far as I can make out is a fairly accurate representation.
One from UKIP trotting out what you’d expect, promoting the fact that their man is a local businessman who does something in Whitstable. And one from the aforementioned Monetary Reform Party, who seems to be a one woman band.
Of the Greens, Labour and Lib-Dems, nothing. Silence. That’s just bloody lazy, the Royal Mail will deliver leaflets free of charge for you. Nobody seems to care about winning this seat. Why is that? Let’s look at the numbers shall we?
2005 General Election.
1st - Conservative – Julian Brazier – 21,113 votes, taking 44.4% of the turnout. +2.9%
2nd – Labour – Alex Hilton – 13,642 votes, taking 28.7% of the turnout. -8.2%
3rd – Lib Dems – Jenny Barnard-Langston – 10,059 votes, taking 21.1% of the turnout. +3.3%
4th – Green – Geoffrey Meaden – 1,521 votes, taking 3.2% of the turnout. +1.2%
5th – UKIP – John Moore – 926 votes, taking 1.9% of the turnout. +0.1%
6th – Legalise Cannabis – Rocky van der Benderskum (Where is he this year? Best name in history.) – 326 votes, taking 0.7% of the turnout. +0.7
Turnout: 66.1%
So of a constituency of 72,000 people, 21,113 of them, less than a third, actually voted for the bloke that won. What led to almost 40% of the electorate staying at home? 24,000 people could have turned this from a ‘safe’ Conservative seat into something completely different.
No doubt UKIP, the party towards whom I am most sympathetic from the choices on offer, were very disappointed with their share of the pie. I would expect them to have a significant improvement this time round. I would also expect the Tory share of the vote to go up, but I also have a sneaking suspicion that the turnout will go down in Canterbury. Not least because the candidates are so hopelessly anonymous.
If I were UKIP, I’d be looking at the lists from 2005, at those who didn’t vote, I’d be bombarding them with material and doing radical things like knocking on their doors and talking to them. But none of the parties really seem interested.
Those 24,000 people who stayed at home could have had a huge say in the way the seat went. Many would have been Tories who knew the result was a foregone conclusion. A few would have been Labour and Lib Dem supporters who knew the same. The majority would have been the don’t knows and don’t cares.
I would never support the idea of compulsory voting, it is your vote and you should be free to do whatever you wish with it. I do not hold with the opinion that those who stay at home have no right to voice an opinion. Why should you turn out to vote when those who are standing don’t really seem that bothered if you vote for them or not?
However I do believe that a vote is the most fantastic thing. There are people living in Myanmar, Saudi, China, a whole host of countries around the world who would look upon a vote that is largely fair as thing of wonder. What really annoys me is the message from the established parties and media that a vote for anyone other than the big 3 (and even including the Lib Dems in that is a stretch) is a wasted one. Don’t believe them. What they are telling you is that your opinion does not count, it is irrelevant. That’s a bloody insult to your intelligence and your worth. The only wasted vote is the one that isn’t used. Even a spoiled ballot is worth something.
24,000 people wasting their votes. Replicated in every seat across the country, indeed I believe the turnout in Canterbury was well above the national average in 2005. What those hundreds of thousands of people could achieve.
Well, I will not be wasting my vote. I’ll not be wasting it on a party that can’t be bothered to campaign for it. You just sit there, expecting me to file through like a good little drone and vote for you when you can’t be arsed to do anything for it? You can’t even be bothered to knock on front door and at least make the pretence that you care about my opinion and support? Well, fuck you.
Speaking with a friend of mine last night, he revealed that he voted BNP in the Europeans last year. I was surprised to hear that, aware of his views of their policies. He explained to me that he did it because they were the only ones who had the decency to knock on his door and actually ask for his vote.
Well, I’m going to cut Anne Belsey of the Monetary Reform Party some slack. I suspect her support network is almost nil, I don’t expect her to knock on my door, there’s only one of her. There’s hundreds of the other fuckers, and if they can’t be bothered with me, then why the hell should I be bothered with them?
Chalk up one for the Monetary Reform Party. I’m betting Ms. Belsey has conviction and genuine belief in what she espouses. That’ll do for me, I’ll vote for the person who believes in something beyond the established parties’ belief in their God given right to my vote.
A fortnight to go until the big day (Oh, Jesus, is it really a fortnight? It’s been going on for 4 years) and there’s precious little to indicate there’s anything going on down here.
I appear to be drowning in a sea of paper candidates, and even then the paper is in short supply. We have the usual suspects standing here, Con, Lib, Lab, UKIP, Green and then the very earnest Monetary Reform Party.
Visits received? Nil.
Literature received? Three. One from the Tories showing the sitting MP in a very unusual and contrived pose, comb-over plastered down on to his pate and a pair of very fetching cords. I live in Canterbury, quite a rural constituency, so the Tory seems to have gone for country gent gone to town for the day. Which as far as I can make out is a fairly accurate representation.
One from UKIP trotting out what you’d expect, promoting the fact that their man is a local businessman who does something in Whitstable. And one from the aforementioned Monetary Reform Party, who seems to be a one woman band.
Of the Greens, Labour and Lib-Dems, nothing. Silence. That’s just bloody lazy, the Royal Mail will deliver leaflets free of charge for you. Nobody seems to care about winning this seat. Why is that? Let’s look at the numbers shall we?
2005 General Election.
1st - Conservative – Julian Brazier – 21,113 votes, taking 44.4% of the turnout. +2.9%
2nd – Labour – Alex Hilton – 13,642 votes, taking 28.7% of the turnout. -8.2%
3rd – Lib Dems – Jenny Barnard-Langston – 10,059 votes, taking 21.1% of the turnout. +3.3%
4th – Green – Geoffrey Meaden – 1,521 votes, taking 3.2% of the turnout. +1.2%
5th – UKIP – John Moore – 926 votes, taking 1.9% of the turnout. +0.1%
6th – Legalise Cannabis – Rocky van der Benderskum (Where is he this year? Best name in history.) – 326 votes, taking 0.7% of the turnout. +0.7
Turnout: 66.1%
So of a constituency of 72,000 people, 21,113 of them, less than a third, actually voted for the bloke that won. What led to almost 40% of the electorate staying at home? 24,000 people could have turned this from a ‘safe’ Conservative seat into something completely different.
No doubt UKIP, the party towards whom I am most sympathetic from the choices on offer, were very disappointed with their share of the pie. I would expect them to have a significant improvement this time round. I would also expect the Tory share of the vote to go up, but I also have a sneaking suspicion that the turnout will go down in Canterbury. Not least because the candidates are so hopelessly anonymous.
If I were UKIP, I’d be looking at the lists from 2005, at those who didn’t vote, I’d be bombarding them with material and doing radical things like knocking on their doors and talking to them. But none of the parties really seem interested.
Those 24,000 people who stayed at home could have had a huge say in the way the seat went. Many would have been Tories who knew the result was a foregone conclusion. A few would have been Labour and Lib Dem supporters who knew the same. The majority would have been the don’t knows and don’t cares.
I would never support the idea of compulsory voting, it is your vote and you should be free to do whatever you wish with it. I do not hold with the opinion that those who stay at home have no right to voice an opinion. Why should you turn out to vote when those who are standing don’t really seem that bothered if you vote for them or not?
However I do believe that a vote is the most fantastic thing. There are people living in Myanmar, Saudi, China, a whole host of countries around the world who would look upon a vote that is largely fair as thing of wonder. What really annoys me is the message from the established parties and media that a vote for anyone other than the big 3 (and even including the Lib Dems in that is a stretch) is a wasted one. Don’t believe them. What they are telling you is that your opinion does not count, it is irrelevant. That’s a bloody insult to your intelligence and your worth. The only wasted vote is the one that isn’t used. Even a spoiled ballot is worth something.
24,000 people wasting their votes. Replicated in every seat across the country, indeed I believe the turnout in Canterbury was well above the national average in 2005. What those hundreds of thousands of people could achieve.
Well, I will not be wasting my vote. I’ll not be wasting it on a party that can’t be bothered to campaign for it. You just sit there, expecting me to file through like a good little drone and vote for you when you can’t be arsed to do anything for it? You can’t even be bothered to knock on front door and at least make the pretence that you care about my opinion and support? Well, fuck you.
Speaking with a friend of mine last night, he revealed that he voted BNP in the Europeans last year. I was surprised to hear that, aware of his views of their policies. He explained to me that he did it because they were the only ones who had the decency to knock on his door and actually ask for his vote.
Well, I’m going to cut Anne Belsey of the Monetary Reform Party some slack. I suspect her support network is almost nil, I don’t expect her to knock on my door, there’s only one of her. There’s hundreds of the other fuckers, and if they can’t be bothered with me, then why the hell should I be bothered with them?
Chalk up one for the Monetary Reform Party. I’m betting Ms. Belsey has conviction and genuine belief in what she espouses. That’ll do for me, I’ll vote for the person who believes in something beyond the established parties’ belief in their God given right to my vote.
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
The One That Thinks He's Playing The Long Game. . .
So perhaps Brown's 'I agree with Nick' mantra hasn't had quite the effect that he thought it would.
It would seem that in the (likely) event of a hung parliament that Clegg has no intention of doing business with Gordon. Assuming that is, that Clegg is telling the truth, never a given when you consider the big three.
Clegg has good reason to distance himself from Brown and Labour. He may be flying high in the polls at the moment, but you can be sure that support will melt away pretty smartish if the media continue to show graphics of the number of Tory seats expected on May 7th against those of Labour when combined with the Lib Dems. Few floating voters are going to vote Lib Dem if they think that vote is going to default to Labour.
So what is a poor Lib Dem boy to do? What is obvious is that the Lib Dems really want power, a prospect that I find slightly more scary than another five years of Labour, to be honest. Many Lib Dems would be bouncing around with anticipation at the idea of one of their's being Home Sec in a coalition, but it's not the same as actually having power. It's like being sat in the front of the car with your dad when he lets you change gear. You're sort of contributing, but your dad still has control of the throttle, brake, clutch and the steering. It's exciting for a little while, but you really want to drive.
In a coalition, the chances of Vince getting the keys to number 11 are slim to none. Blinky Balls bagsied that role a long time ago. Lib Dem Foreign Sec? Unlikely. Home Sec? That's a poisoned chalice, you can bet that Nick would be thrown that particular bone, and it would eventually cause him to choke.
Brown would make grand promises of involvement and electoral reform and this and that, but none of it would come to pass and the Lib Dems would be left looking rather silly and marginalised. When the coalition came apart at the seams (and it would) you can bet that the blame would be dumped squarely in front of the Lib Dem's door. Then there would be the inevitable scrapping between Labour's traditionalists and their Social Democrats, and the scrapping between the Lib Dem's Social Democrats and the traditional Liberals, oh Jeez that would be messy.
If Clegg went in to a coalition with Labour he'd be damaged beyond repair and the Lib Dems wouldn't be much better, endangering their chances of ever picking up a comparitive share of the percentage of the vote they seem to this time, again. The Lib Dems have now only really started to recover from the Jeremy Thorpe affair and a stint as a junior partner in a coalition could set them back another thirty years. Is it really worth five minutes in the sun for that?
This still remains a good election to lose, and I believe a hung parliament really is the best option for the country, and I say this honestly with the best interests of all three main parties in mind. It's best for Labour (if they finish 2nd) because they can then have the civil war that party desperately needs to decide what they are, and where they want to go. It's best for the Conservatives (if they finish 2nd) as they can then dispense with Cameron who simply cannot connect with the public and, if I read the situation right, is at best dischordant with the views of the party membership. It's best for the Lib Dems (if they stay out of any coalition) as they can then use this as a platform for the next election and not be damaged by a collapsing coalition, although their civil war is moving up the agenda as well.
The problem with both Labour and the Lib Dems is that they both have a large section of Social Democrats who are at odds with the rest of their respective parties. This could lead to some very interesting rows, bust-ups, power struggles and general arseing about in the next few years, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a party, like ooooooh, perhaps the SDP emerging from the wreckage of Labour and Lib Dem civil wars. There's also a high probability of a night of the long knives in the Tory party between the top table and the membership, I fully expect Boris to be at the helm before long.
I just get the impression that everyone is on their best behaviour, but struggling to keep it together, like an alcoholic parent at a school play. Win, lose or draw, the fall out from this election could prove to be spectacular, I'm looking forward to fireworks after the election more than I'm looking forward to polling day itself.
It would seem that in the (likely) event of a hung parliament that Clegg has no intention of doing business with Gordon. Assuming that is, that Clegg is telling the truth, never a given when you consider the big three.
Clegg has good reason to distance himself from Brown and Labour. He may be flying high in the polls at the moment, but you can be sure that support will melt away pretty smartish if the media continue to show graphics of the number of Tory seats expected on May 7th against those of Labour when combined with the Lib Dems. Few floating voters are going to vote Lib Dem if they think that vote is going to default to Labour.
So what is a poor Lib Dem boy to do? What is obvious is that the Lib Dems really want power, a prospect that I find slightly more scary than another five years of Labour, to be honest. Many Lib Dems would be bouncing around with anticipation at the idea of one of their's being Home Sec in a coalition, but it's not the same as actually having power. It's like being sat in the front of the car with your dad when he lets you change gear. You're sort of contributing, but your dad still has control of the throttle, brake, clutch and the steering. It's exciting for a little while, but you really want to drive.
In a coalition, the chances of Vince getting the keys to number 11 are slim to none. Blinky Balls bagsied that role a long time ago. Lib Dem Foreign Sec? Unlikely. Home Sec? That's a poisoned chalice, you can bet that Nick would be thrown that particular bone, and it would eventually cause him to choke.
Brown would make grand promises of involvement and electoral reform and this and that, but none of it would come to pass and the Lib Dems would be left looking rather silly and marginalised. When the coalition came apart at the seams (and it would) you can bet that the blame would be dumped squarely in front of the Lib Dem's door. Then there would be the inevitable scrapping between Labour's traditionalists and their Social Democrats, and the scrapping between the Lib Dem's Social Democrats and the traditional Liberals, oh Jeez that would be messy.
If Clegg went in to a coalition with Labour he'd be damaged beyond repair and the Lib Dems wouldn't be much better, endangering their chances of ever picking up a comparitive share of the percentage of the vote they seem to this time, again. The Lib Dems have now only really started to recover from the Jeremy Thorpe affair and a stint as a junior partner in a coalition could set them back another thirty years. Is it really worth five minutes in the sun for that?
This still remains a good election to lose, and I believe a hung parliament really is the best option for the country, and I say this honestly with the best interests of all three main parties in mind. It's best for Labour (if they finish 2nd) because they can then have the civil war that party desperately needs to decide what they are, and where they want to go. It's best for the Conservatives (if they finish 2nd) as they can then dispense with Cameron who simply cannot connect with the public and, if I read the situation right, is at best dischordant with the views of the party membership. It's best for the Lib Dems (if they stay out of any coalition) as they can then use this as a platform for the next election and not be damaged by a collapsing coalition, although their civil war is moving up the agenda as well.
The problem with both Labour and the Lib Dems is that they both have a large section of Social Democrats who are at odds with the rest of their respective parties. This could lead to some very interesting rows, bust-ups, power struggles and general arseing about in the next few years, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a party, like ooooooh, perhaps the SDP emerging from the wreckage of Labour and Lib Dem civil wars. There's also a high probability of a night of the long knives in the Tory party between the top table and the membership, I fully expect Boris to be at the helm before long.
I just get the impression that everyone is on their best behaviour, but struggling to keep it together, like an alcoholic parent at a school play. Win, lose or draw, the fall out from this election could prove to be spectacular, I'm looking forward to fireworks after the election more than I'm looking forward to polling day itself.
Sunday, 11 April 2010
The One That Is Struggling. . .
I don't know how many posts I've tried to write this week. They've all been abandoned half way through. I get the feeling this one may suffer the same fate.
It feels similar to a fifteenth birthday, this election. You've been looking forward to it for ages but when the big day arrives you realise that you're too old for jelly, ice-cream and pass the parcel, but not old enough for a responsibly imbibed half pint of weak bitter shandy in a smoke and discrimination free licensed environment.
A week in to the 'vote for me, the other people are really nasty' process and I'm starting to lose the will to live. Every post I've drafted has been so obvious that it doesn't need saying and can't be said in any more than ten words, or have turned into polemics that would take an hour to read. It's like the Eurovision song contest, GET ON WITH IT, I don't care about the shitty songs, let's get to the shamlessly partisan voting, shall we?
I've written about the NI row, and binned it. Why is cutting a shit load of inefficient no-nothing civil servants and not taking more of my money a bad thing? I'd have thought it was obvious. Labour have expanded the civil service to gargatuan levels, it was big enough when Major sat in the big chair. We don't need them all, and I say that as one of them.
I've written about and scrapped an item on the frankly bizarre situation of a government of any colour deciding that they are going to inflate the price of fuel, tobacco and alcohol. Two or three times a year. And people just grumble. Why? What input do the government have on the production of this stuff? Would people wear it if it was applied to other aspects of consumer goods? A 3p increase on the duty on trousers and teddy bears? And then, and then, they make a big fucking show about it because they deign to spread it over the course of a year in smaller increases. Yeah, cheers. £1.20 a litre of petrol. And they bang on about not wanting to harm the recovery? Give me strength.
I was going to write this morning about Caroline Lucas' appearance on Andrew Marr's show this morning, where she made a great virtue of the Green's plan to steal even more of our money than Labour and piss even more of it up the wall. Ye gods. What more is there to say?
I was also going to write about the balls up in the organ donor register, and how this displays that presumed consent is a very bad thing. I don't care personally, when I'm dead you can do what you like to my body. If anyone needs a part of it, they're welcome to it, I'm happy to help. Indeed once they've stripped out the spare parts I'm tempted to leave what is left to medical research. It'd certainly save on the costs of a funeral. No-one has the right to presume anything over someone's most personal possession. Presumed consent is only a step or two removed from you ceasing to belong to you, and you belonging to the state. It must be resisted at every turn.
Some people believe their body must be complete at the point of disposal, and that's fine and dandy, it's their body and continues to be so after their death. As far as I'm concerned, it's just a shell, but it's MY shell.
Again, what more can I say?
Yes, just like a teenage birthday. You still have those childlike expectations that the day is going to be like a dream. What you want is a PS3 with a copy of 'Stealing cars, shooting cops and running over prostitutes 4' and a house party with booze, fags and slutty girls. What you actually get is double geography, a nagging at lunch because you had chips and a jumper of questionable sartorial taste. Let's get it over with, shall we?
Perhaps this is my eternal curse. I'll get all keyed up once every five years, only to realise that the anticipation, the hope, is more satisfying than the actual event. Or maybe, I'll be pleasantly surprised and the Church of the Militant Elvis will be swept into power on the back of an era-defining landslide.
It feels similar to a fifteenth birthday, this election. You've been looking forward to it for ages but when the big day arrives you realise that you're too old for jelly, ice-cream and pass the parcel, but not old enough for a responsibly imbibed half pint of weak bitter shandy in a smoke and discrimination free licensed environment.
A week in to the 'vote for me, the other people are really nasty' process and I'm starting to lose the will to live. Every post I've drafted has been so obvious that it doesn't need saying and can't be said in any more than ten words, or have turned into polemics that would take an hour to read. It's like the Eurovision song contest, GET ON WITH IT, I don't care about the shitty songs, let's get to the shamlessly partisan voting, shall we?
I've written about the NI row, and binned it. Why is cutting a shit load of inefficient no-nothing civil servants and not taking more of my money a bad thing? I'd have thought it was obvious. Labour have expanded the civil service to gargatuan levels, it was big enough when Major sat in the big chair. We don't need them all, and I say that as one of them.
I've written about and scrapped an item on the frankly bizarre situation of a government of any colour deciding that they are going to inflate the price of fuel, tobacco and alcohol. Two or three times a year. And people just grumble. Why? What input do the government have on the production of this stuff? Would people wear it if it was applied to other aspects of consumer goods? A 3p increase on the duty on trousers and teddy bears? And then, and then, they make a big fucking show about it because they deign to spread it over the course of a year in smaller increases. Yeah, cheers. £1.20 a litre of petrol. And they bang on about not wanting to harm the recovery? Give me strength.
I was going to write this morning about Caroline Lucas' appearance on Andrew Marr's show this morning, where she made a great virtue of the Green's plan to steal even more of our money than Labour and piss even more of it up the wall. Ye gods. What more is there to say?
I was also going to write about the balls up in the organ donor register, and how this displays that presumed consent is a very bad thing. I don't care personally, when I'm dead you can do what you like to my body. If anyone needs a part of it, they're welcome to it, I'm happy to help. Indeed once they've stripped out the spare parts I'm tempted to leave what is left to medical research. It'd certainly save on the costs of a funeral. No-one has the right to presume anything over someone's most personal possession. Presumed consent is only a step or two removed from you ceasing to belong to you, and you belonging to the state. It must be resisted at every turn.
Some people believe their body must be complete at the point of disposal, and that's fine and dandy, it's their body and continues to be so after their death. As far as I'm concerned, it's just a shell, but it's MY shell.
Again, what more can I say?
Yes, just like a teenage birthday. You still have those childlike expectations that the day is going to be like a dream. What you want is a PS3 with a copy of 'Stealing cars, shooting cops and running over prostitutes 4' and a house party with booze, fags and slutty girls. What you actually get is double geography, a nagging at lunch because you had chips and a jumper of questionable sartorial taste. Let's get it over with, shall we?
Perhaps this is my eternal curse. I'll get all keyed up once every five years, only to realise that the anticipation, the hope, is more satisfying than the actual event. Or maybe, I'll be pleasantly surprised and the Church of the Militant Elvis will be swept into power on the back of an era-defining landslide.
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
The One That Might Have Been Wrong. . .
Now the priest has his body bowed over the death bed of this rotten parliament and is giving the last rites I've been asking myself what the single most important issue surrounding this election is.
For some it will be immigration, for others it will be education, or Europe, or the expenses scandal, or the erosion of civil liberties in the face of an ever more pervasive state. Without doubt these are all hugely important issues, but I think the stand out one for most people will be the economy. It really does all come down to the bottom line, and it was ever thus in the dying days of a Labour administration.
Normally most people will look to the Tories to effect some kind of rescue, and to give the Tories their due, normally they are not afraid to take the action, however unpopular, to remedy the situation. Thatcher is an easy hate figure and is a demonic visage conjured up with alarming regularity by Labour. But she couldn't have been all bad, she did after all win all those elections.
The big difference this time round is that the Tories do not have anyone who embodies her traits. Cameron is as close to being like Thatcher as I am to being like Barbara Cartland. The electorate look at the Tories and do not see any radical difference between Cameron and Blair.
What is beyond doubt is that Brown is despised. A more unpopular leader in the history of this country I struggle to think of. Perhaps King John? I don't know. But it is painfully obvious that the public just have not taken to Cameron. It could be him as a person, it could be his policies, but I think it really boils down to people having no faith that he will be much better than Brown.
I do have faith that Cameron would be better than Brown. But that is akin to selecting death by stoning over death by crucifixion. I'd rather not have either, but if I absolutely have to have one, then let's go with the rocks, eh?
The Lib Dems of course have a complete non-entity at the helm, I'm not convinced even his wife can remember his name. We can discount them getting any serious gains in this election.
Or can we?
I've been very harsh on the Lib Dems. And with good reason. They are neither Liberal nor Democratic and are wrong, wrong, wrong on pretty much every subject you care to name. And they simper. If it is one thing I cannot stand, it is simpering. Wossisname's pep-talk to the troops on Sky News this morning was cringe inducing. He has all the charisma of an over laundered vest.
But the Lib Dems have a significant ace in the hole.
Let's look at the right hand men, shall we? If the election is to be all about the economy, then the guys who have designs on being the Chancellor come May 7th are going to play a huge part in this election.
Darling is done, spent. He and Brown have overseen a disastrous spell in charge of the bank account. Even if you don't trust the Tories, only a madman would consider that Labour have done a good job with the finances.
Osborne, just doesn't have that zing. Labour will play very strongly on the toff angle. It's lazy but I think they're punches that will connect, and to be honest, there is a slight hint of truth about it. Osborne just doesn't seem like the normal bloke on the street. He's another Tory character that it is difficult to warm to. He doesn't inspire confidence, and I think what people expect to hear from the Tories, what they want to hear is that the Tories would stop taking so much of your cash, and stop spending so much of your cash. We ain't going to hear that from this lot. Not this time.
And so we finish with Vince Cable. I don't think he's got a great deal to offer, although it's hard to tell. The Lib Dems specialise in 'blue sky thinking', trotting out plans and policies they know will never come to pass, and so it doesn't really matter, it doesn't have to add up. But, and here's the big but, Vince Cable has a certain cache, he is widely respected by the media and the public. He looks like the sort of person who has a shovel purse. He manages to be avuncular and parsimonius at the same time, the sort of chap who, when his grandson asks him for 50p for sweets, would open his shovel purse, examine the contents, ruffle the youngster's hair and then give him 30p. In short, he projects the sort of image you'd want a Chancellor of the Exchequer to have and his credibility is far, far ahead of Darling and Osborne. I expect him to be very busy indeed over the next month, and the Lib Dems, if they've any sense will give him a lot of airtime flying solo, rather than just standing behind, errrrm, no, his name's gone, that bloke that leads the Lib Dems, his shoulder.
They won't win. They won't even come close. But with a late and well planned attack with Vince at the front, they could actually make some impressive gains as the economy forces its way up the agenda. Quite who will suffer the most damage as a result of this is anyone's guess.
I really think we're in for a very interesting time indeed.
For some it will be immigration, for others it will be education, or Europe, or the expenses scandal, or the erosion of civil liberties in the face of an ever more pervasive state. Without doubt these are all hugely important issues, but I think the stand out one for most people will be the economy. It really does all come down to the bottom line, and it was ever thus in the dying days of a Labour administration.
Normally most people will look to the Tories to effect some kind of rescue, and to give the Tories their due, normally they are not afraid to take the action, however unpopular, to remedy the situation. Thatcher is an easy hate figure and is a demonic visage conjured up with alarming regularity by Labour. But she couldn't have been all bad, she did after all win all those elections.
The big difference this time round is that the Tories do not have anyone who embodies her traits. Cameron is as close to being like Thatcher as I am to being like Barbara Cartland. The electorate look at the Tories and do not see any radical difference between Cameron and Blair.
What is beyond doubt is that Brown is despised. A more unpopular leader in the history of this country I struggle to think of. Perhaps King John? I don't know. But it is painfully obvious that the public just have not taken to Cameron. It could be him as a person, it could be his policies, but I think it really boils down to people having no faith that he will be much better than Brown.
I do have faith that Cameron would be better than Brown. But that is akin to selecting death by stoning over death by crucifixion. I'd rather not have either, but if I absolutely have to have one, then let's go with the rocks, eh?
The Lib Dems of course have a complete non-entity at the helm, I'm not convinced even his wife can remember his name. We can discount them getting any serious gains in this election.
Or can we?
I've been very harsh on the Lib Dems. And with good reason. They are neither Liberal nor Democratic and are wrong, wrong, wrong on pretty much every subject you care to name. And they simper. If it is one thing I cannot stand, it is simpering. Wossisname's pep-talk to the troops on Sky News this morning was cringe inducing. He has all the charisma of an over laundered vest.
But the Lib Dems have a significant ace in the hole.
Let's look at the right hand men, shall we? If the election is to be all about the economy, then the guys who have designs on being the Chancellor come May 7th are going to play a huge part in this election.
Darling is done, spent. He and Brown have overseen a disastrous spell in charge of the bank account. Even if you don't trust the Tories, only a madman would consider that Labour have done a good job with the finances.
Osborne, just doesn't have that zing. Labour will play very strongly on the toff angle. It's lazy but I think they're punches that will connect, and to be honest, there is a slight hint of truth about it. Osborne just doesn't seem like the normal bloke on the street. He's another Tory character that it is difficult to warm to. He doesn't inspire confidence, and I think what people expect to hear from the Tories, what they want to hear is that the Tories would stop taking so much of your cash, and stop spending so much of your cash. We ain't going to hear that from this lot. Not this time.
And so we finish with Vince Cable. I don't think he's got a great deal to offer, although it's hard to tell. The Lib Dems specialise in 'blue sky thinking', trotting out plans and policies they know will never come to pass, and so it doesn't really matter, it doesn't have to add up. But, and here's the big but, Vince Cable has a certain cache, he is widely respected by the media and the public. He looks like the sort of person who has a shovel purse. He manages to be avuncular and parsimonius at the same time, the sort of chap who, when his grandson asks him for 50p for sweets, would open his shovel purse, examine the contents, ruffle the youngster's hair and then give him 30p. In short, he projects the sort of image you'd want a Chancellor of the Exchequer to have and his credibility is far, far ahead of Darling and Osborne. I expect him to be very busy indeed over the next month, and the Lib Dems, if they've any sense will give him a lot of airtime flying solo, rather than just standing behind, errrrm, no, his name's gone, that bloke that leads the Lib Dems, his shoulder.
They won't win. They won't even come close. But with a late and well planned attack with Vince at the front, they could actually make some impressive gains as the economy forces its way up the agenda. Quite who will suffer the most damage as a result of this is anyone's guess.
I really think we're in for a very interesting time indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)