Whether you agree or disagree with their policies it is a fact that UKIP came second to the Conservatives in the recent European Union elections, defeating both Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
If these debates were genuinely supposed to enhance democracy then UKIP should have been represented too.
As things stand the media would have you believe that there is only one package to vote for. All we are arguing about is whether the wrapping paper should be red, yellow or blue.
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]Whether you agree or disagree with their policies it is a fact that UKIP came second to the Conservatives in the recent European elections defeating both Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
If these debates were genuinely supposed to enhance democracy then UKIP should have been represented too.
As things stand the media would have you believe that there is only one package to vote for. All we are arguing about is whether the packaging should be red, yellow or blue.
UKIP? You mean the lot that are led by this bloke?
"I haven't come here to deal with minutae (bank regulation)."
How anyone can argue that Clegg (scrapping Trident, closer EU ties) is close to either Brown or Cameron is beyond me.
I don't know Clegg from a bar of soap but it seems he has struck a chord with a lot of folks as a "third-way" and something new and different - and worth a try.
Labour are out of steam - and they know it - there is no enthusiasm at all for the chinless wonders to come back into power which leaves a bloody great hole for Clegg which he looks like exploiting quite nicely.
He's no Barack Obama but he has learnt the lessons well.
[quote][cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]Whether you agree or disagree with their policies it is a fact that UKIP came second to the Conservatives in the recent European Union elections, defeating both Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
If these debates were genuinely supposed to enhance democracy then UKIP should have been represented too.
As things stand the media would have you believe that there is only one package to vote for. All we are arguing about is whether the wrapping paper should be red, yellow or blue.[/quote]
UKIP are indeed a different kettle of fish, a single issue stop cock device for disaffected Tories to let off steam, at the moment it's a general election and unfortunately for UKIP and indeed the Greens they havent been a significant factor previously. Maybe with a fair voting system and returning some MPs they might get a platform next time, I hope so.
Problem is that if they let UKIP's leader in, then they'd have to let every political party's leader in, and then you'd end up with about 20 people on the stage!
I think the BBC claimed it was only for the 3 men most likely to be Prime Minister, or at least that's what they claimed to Plaid Cymru and the SNP. I could go on and on about how ridiculous their arguments for being in it were, but I imagine the majority agree with me!
I know for a fact that the journalist that broke the smear checked with the Electoral Commission whether any rules had been broken, was told that there had not been and then published regardless. It's very poor really. I dislike Clegg, but journalists should bring their trade out of the gutter.
[cite]Posted By: Mortimerician[/cite]I know for a fact that the journalist that broke the smear checked with the Electoral Commission whether any rules had been broken, was told that there had not been and then published regardless. It's very poor really. I dislike Clegg, but journalists should bring their trade out of the gutter.
I really hope it back fires on the Tories. Frankly they were desperate. They saw a possible Clegg tidal wave sweeping all before him, so on the eve of the second debate, set your biggest attack dogs on Clegg, and hope like mad that Cameron can win the debate.
What worries me also is the potential impartiality of some of the pollsters like YouGov(for the Sun). When they called for an instant verdict at the end of last nights debate, those votes were cast between 9.27pm and 9.29pm. Clegg didn't start his final summing up until 9.29pm, hence those who voted would not have done so having heard his extremely powerful summing up. This is very dodgy. There you have Murdoch's Sky TV, a poll for Murdoch's Sun, getting a result they wanted.
If you then add to that the completely unscripted biased question that Murdoch's employee Boulton directed to Clegg regarding his expenses which I cannot believe was allowed by the rules. The way the camera director refused to settle on Clegg talking to camera for more than a few seconds, but positively fixed on Cameron when he was doing it, it was very, very dodgy. I remarked to my mate about it as we watched the debate live, and I see that others also have picked up on it.
If you add to this the suppressing of a YouGov survey for Murdoch's Sun which showed that if people thought the Lib Dems were going to be likely winners, the % who said they would vote for them rose to 49%.
I know this is the stuff of politics but it is extremely worrying. Murdoch has gone for a Tory win. He wants to be assured of backing the winner. The election result has been blown wide open and Murdoch is pulling every stunt he can to ensure a victory. If it is still close come the start of the final week, god knows what will be in store - presumably Clegg being accused of the slaughter of the first born.
[cite]Posted By: Mortimerician[/cite]I know for a fact that the journalist that broke the smear checked with the Electoral Commission whether any rules had been broken, was told that there had not been and then published regardless. It's very poor really. I dislike Clegg, but journalists should bring their trade out of the gutter.
I really hope it back fires on the Tories. Frankly they were desperate. They saw a possible Clegg tidal wave sweeping all before him, so on the eve of the second debate, set your biggest attack dogs on Clegg, and hope like mad that Cameron can win the debate.
What worries me also is the potential impartiality of some of the pollsters like YouGov(for the Sun). When they called for an instant verdict at the end of last nights debate, those votes were cast between 9.27pm and 9.29pm. Clegg didn't start his final summing up until 9.29pm, hence those who voted would not have done so having heard his extremely powerful summing up. This is very dodgy. There you have Murdoch's Sky TV, a poll for Murdoch's Sun, getting a result they wanted.
If you then add to that the completely unscripted biased question that Murdoch's employee Boulton directed to Clegg regarding his expenses which I cannot believe was allowed by the rules. The way the camera director refused to settle on Clegg talking to camera for more than a few seconds, but positively fixed on Cameron when he was doing it, it was very, very dodgy. I remarked to my mate about it as we watched the debate live, and I see that others also have picked up on it.
If you add to this the suppressing of a YouGov survey for Murdoch's Sun which showed that if people thought the Lib Dems were going to be likely winners, the % who said they would vote for them rose to 49%.
I know this is the stuff of politics but it is extremely worrying. Murdoch has gone for a Tory win. He wants to be assured of backing the winner. The election result has been blown wide open and Murdoch is pulling every stunt he can to ensure a victory. If it is still close come the start of the final week, god knows what will be in store - presumably Clegg being accused of the slaughter of the first born.
Agreed, the coverage in The Sun is simply laughable! Its like Tory Party HQ have taken over the place and are running it like a propaganda machine, their coverage of Clegg since the first debate has been sick.
The really interesting thing is that the dear old Daily Mail, while still virulently anti-Labour, has not really embraced Cameron with any enthusiasm, he is far too liberal for their liking and their distaste is quite clear.
I’m not going to champion a particular party or tell people who they should or should not vote for but I would like to explain why, in my view (with which you are welcome to disagree), there are serious risks of a Sterling crash and a sharp rise in gilt yields (which would have serious consequences for all – not just a few financial institutions) if the Lib Dems hold the balance of power after 6 May.
It is said that it doesn’t matter to the City whether there is a coalition since all 3 parties have broadly similar plans for debt-reduction (£6bn being neither here nor there at the end of the day). The problem, however, is that they may be talking similarly but none of their current plans are likely to be sufficient in the eyes of the ratings agencies or foreign investors – whose opinions are, at the very least, important to the value of £ and level of UK long term interest rates. So what are the chances of achieving a stable coalition that, in the national interest, might impose tougher medicine? Not good.
Given that (for reasons only of historical emnity rather than policy, on which they are arguably the closest pairing of the possible permutations) the Labour and Conservative Parties will not countenance forming a coalition together, it will likely (as expected) fall to one or other to do a deal with the Lib Dems.
If Labour do so, they will have to jettison Brown. Clegg has made this clear and if Labour finishes 3rd in the popular vote, not only will the Lib Dems not dare to prop him up but the internal Labour opposition to Brown will finally have its day. But who would replace him? Clegg has hinted that he could work with David Miliband but a purge of Labour MPs at the polls would do most damage to Blairite numbers and, with Unite bankrolling the party, Clegg may find himself negotiating with a new left-wing leader. That might please Labour (and Lib Dem) grassroots but would hardly bode well for the robust deficit-reduction plan that the markets are looking for.
What about the Tories, since Cameron now appears to be contemplating the concession of a vote on electoral reform to win Clegg’s support (and which Clegg is smart enough to demand as non-negotiable)? There is little doubt that failure to win a convincing majority when the exiting Govt is as unpopular as this one would alone be sufficient to undermine Cameron in the Conservative Party. He has been tolerated by many rather than supported with conviction. If he were to agree a referendum on electoral reform he would run the grave risk of splitting his party and you could quite plausibly see a rapid significant transfer of support (among Tory MPs and constituencies) to a right-wing breakaway party or to UKIP.
All of which bodes for a highly unstable period at Westminster, with one or both of the Labour and Conservative parties fractured and whichever one agreeing a pact with the Lib Dems being unable to enforce the whip. A second general election within a year would be likely.
Many on this board may welcome that but, if it were to pan out like this, expect a run on an already weak £, meltdown in the gilt market and sharply higher (imported) inflation and unemployment. Remember the name Dominique Strauss-Kahn. He’s the current head of the IMF and he might be running the country for a while.
I am not recommending to anyone that they vote or do not vote for any particular party but simply to beware the Law of Unintended Consequences: “Any intervention in a complex system may or may not have the intended result, but will inevitably create unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes [Wikipedia]”.
The Lib Dem candidate has said that if you are in your 50's they are not going to make you work an extra year before you get your pension (the tories are going to ). He gets my vote.
[cite]Posted By: Addickted[/cite]
And I think unilaterally removing our Nuclear deterrant is unwise.
Good job they're multilateralists then. What they are actually proposing is that we get rid of an ICBM deterrent and have a deterrent that delivers the package in a different form. They're not saying we should give up our nuclear stockpile.
Feedback I'm getting from exporters/importers and bankers in the various asian countries that I'm visiting is that they don't expect UK to come out of this very well whatever the election outcome.
Singapore paper today is urging everyone to plan a UK holiday in the summer because sterling will be so weak and they will come out winners in spending power.
[cite]Posted By: stonemuse[/cite]Feedback I'm getting from exporters/importers and bankers in the various asian countries that I'm visiting is that they don't expect UK to come out of this very well whatever the election outcome.
Singapore paper today is urging everyone to plan a UK holiday in the summer because sterling will be so weak and they will come out winners in spending power.
I get the same vibes from contacts overseas Stonemuse.
Maybe this is a slow-motion crash and there's not much that can be done to avoid a lot of carnage. I don't think that the full potential for political instability is anywhere near fully discounted in the markets at the moment - there are so many possible permutations that they will react to each new development.
Maybe its best to just accept that sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better (a bit like our descent to League 1) and if, as a result of the rejection of both Labour and Conservative parties, they are forced to make themselves distinguishable again that would be welcome both by grassroots supporters of both parties and by the electorate.
Its the herding onto the middle ground over the last 10 years and sheer cowardice of party leaderships (prompted by the pernicious influence of an over-bearing media [including the champagne-socialist Oxbridge graduates of the BBC aswell as the "Tory Press"]) that insults everyone's intelligence and means that some of the biggest of issues facing us are simply not addressed rationally (e.g. what the country truly wants from membership of the EU, the role of an independent nuclear deterrent, reform of the welfare state and public sector pensions, some new and constructive thinking on crime and drugs' policies). It is tempting to think that a Lib Dem influenced coalition in itself might bring about a rational tackling of these issues - I hope so but I don't expect so.
If it shakes both the Labour and Conservative Parties out of their complacency and facilitates some real choice in future, that will do for me. In that sense, bring it on.
[cite]Posted By: Addickted[/cite]
And I think unilaterally removing our Nuclear deterrant is unwise.
Good job they're multilateralists then. What they are actually proposing is that we get rid of an ICBM deterrent and have a deterrent that delivers the package in a different form. They're not saying we should give up our nuclear stockpile.
That's all well and good, Peanuts, but a hung parliament has been on the cards for nearly a month now and the sterling hasn't taken a big hit. Coalitions are the norm in many European countries, and they get by OK. It could also be argued that having a coalition government means the necessary cuts will be made by a government with popular support. A small majority government runs the risk of instability when unpopular cuts have to be made - MPs may be worried about their seats even early into government. And if a coalition involving the Lib Dems worries you, the idea of a government depending on Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish parties for support should terrify you.
Largely agree with the sentiments above. It really is time to fix your mortgage for as long as possible and try to find inflation protected investments for your nest eggs.
There could well be some fall-out from the Greek situation coming our way, courtesy of the IMF, although (in theory!!) the countries who have actually adopted the Euro should bear the brunt.
However the UK Government (red, blue or yelllow) like to be seen as "good Europeans" so it is a pretty safe bet the UK taxpayers will end up forking out one way or the other!
Cheers IA.
It’s all a matter of opinion of course. You may well be right.
If you consider the spread-betting market, a hung parliament only became a probability in the market's eyes after the first Presidential [sic] debate, 9 days ago. It is such a new and fluid situation that I don’t believe the market is yet fully discounting the real possibilities of either a left-wing Labour & Lib Dem coalition or a split-Tory & Lib Dem coalition.
Neither may come to pass but either most certainly could and an indication that one or other might happen would, in my view, weaken sterling and unnerve the gilt market.
You can make whatever argument you like about successful coalitions in Europe but Italy's had more governments than Christmases since the war and it is a fact that, in some circumstances, the tail can wag the dog. It’s a perfectly plausible scenario that the Scots, Welsh or N.Irish get thrown a bone or two for their support even in the context of a Lib-Dem influenced coalition, if its partner can't command the support of all of its MPs.
I'm not worried about a Lib Dem coalition per se (there are potentially some benefits for the longer term, as I said in my second comment). I am just saying be careful what you wish for.
[cite]Posted By: Bournemouth Addick[/cite]I still waiting for whichever party is brave enough to come out and bin (or even delay) the Climate Change Act. Right at this moment in time can we afford to spend £10's billions every year for the next 40 years on something that will have a minimal effect globally other than to give Milliband a smug expression on his face at the next summit? That's a lot of dough saved during a recession when we are talking about massive cuts to the NHS, defence, etc. Ain't going to hapen though :-(
Steady BA, you're getting into religion - nontheless you're quite right - another subject where the public is effectively denied a voice.
[cite]Posted By: Bournemouth Addick[/cite]I still waiting for whichever party is brave enough to come out and bin (or even delay) the Climate Change Act. Right at this moment in time can we afford to spend £10's billions every year for the next 40 years on something that will have a minimal effect globally other than to give Milliband a smug expression on his face at the next summit? That's a lot of dough saved during a recession when we are talking about massive cuts to the NHS, defence, etc. Ain't going to hapen though :-(
Isn't going to happen when the 'nasty party' is so compassionate it won't even cut overseas aid. Politics in this country is surreal.
[cite]Posted By: bigstemarra[/cite]Yeah, saving mankind is such a waste of money.
Glug, glug.
reason I didn't respond to Bournemouth Addick is because I knew it would turn into a climate change argument ... and that's not what this thread is about ... and lo and behold, it's gonna happen ... pity
[cite]Posted By: bigstemarra[/cite]Yeah, saving mankind is such a waste of money.
Glug, glug.
reason I didn't respond to Bournemouth Addick is because I knew it would turn into a climate change argument ... and that's not what this thread is about ... and lo and behold, it's gonna happen ... pity
Sorry. Thought it was about the election and this is something that matters to me and is relevant when the Tories are banging on abouth the £6b savings they've identified yet this is 3 times more than that, per annum, for the next 4 decades, using the Govt's own figures.
However for the sake of the thread please ignore my post everyone and carry on.
[cite]Posted By: PeanutsMolloy[/cite]I’m not going to champion a particular party or tell people who they should or should not vote for but I would like to explain why, in my view (with which you are welcome to disagree), there are serious risks of a Sterling crash and a sharp rise in gilt yields (which would have serious consequences for all – not just a few financial institutions) if the Lib Dems hold the balance of power after 6 May.
It is said that it doesn’t matter to the City whether there is a coalition since all 3 parties have broadly similar plans for debt-reduction (£6bn being neither here nor there at the end of the day). The problem, however, is that they may be talking similarly but none of their current plans are likely to be sufficient in the eyes of the ratings agencies or foreign investors – whose opinions are, at the very least, important to the value of £ and level of UK long term interest rates. So what are the chances of achieving a stable coalition that, in the national interest, might impose tougher medicine? Not good.
Given that (for reasons only of historical emnity rather than policy, on which they are arguably the closest pairing of the possible permutations) the Labour and Conservative Parties will not countenance forming a coalition together, it will likely (as expected) fall to one or other to do a deal with the Lib Dems.
If Labour do so, they will have to jettison Brown. Clegg has made this clear and if Labour finishes 3rd in the popular vote, not only will the Lib Dems not dare to prop him up but the internal Labour opposition to Brown will finally have its day. But who would replace him? Clegg has hinted that he could work with David Miliband but a purge of Labour MPs at the polls would do most damage to Blairite numbers and, with Unite bankrolling the party, Clegg may find himself negotiating with a new left-wing leader. That might please Labour (and Lib Dem) grassroots but would hardly bode well for the robust deficit-reduction plan that the markets are looking for.
What about the Tories, since Cameron now appears to be contemplating the concession of a vote on electoral reform to win Clegg’s support (and which Clegg is smart enough to demand as non-negotiable)? There is little doubt that failure to win a convincing majority when the exiting Govt is as unpopular as this one would alone be sufficient to undermine Cameron in the Conservative Party. He has been tolerated by many rather than supported with conviction. If he were to agree a referendum on electoral reform he would run the grave risk of splitting his party and you could quite plausibly see a rapid significant transfer of support (among Tory MPs and constituencies) to a right-wing breakaway party or to UKIP.
All of which bodes for a highly unstable period at Westminster, with one or both of the Labour and Conservative parties fractured and whichever one agreeing a pact with the Lib Dems being unable to enforce the whip. A second general election within a year would be likely.
Many on this board may welcome that but, if it were to pan out like this, expect a run on an already weak £, meltdown in the gilt market and sharply higher (imported) inflation and unemployment. Remember the name Dominique Strauss-Kahn. He’s the current head of the IMF and he might be running the country for a while.
I am not recommending to anyone that they vote or do not vote for any particular party but simply to beware the Law of Unintended Consequences: “Any intervention in a complex system may or may not have the intended result, but will inevitably create unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes [Wikipedia]”.
You say you are not advocating a vote for any particular party but you are trotting out the same scaremongering that the Tory press always peddle out in the last days before election day in a last minute attempt to deter as many people as possible from voting Labour i.e. ‘don’t vote Labour because international bankers won’t like it and will sell the pound, cause interest rates to rise and short term damage to the economy.’ These things often do happen when a Labour government gets elected (and will again if Labour get elected or we have a hung parliament) but it is always short term. I hope the people in this country are never fooled into thinking they have to take into consideration what international markets and international bankers (the very people responsible for 100% of the economic woes currently being experienced by the western economies) think when deciding who to vote for.
Personally, I think the sooner we join the euro the better because then our economy will not be so vulnerable to attacks from profiteering scum bags like Soros and his ilk.
I think the Tories will win this election (I think the best I can hope for is a hung parliament). But I take comfort from the fact that in President Obama (and comparing Clegg to Obama is like comparing Millwall to Barcelona) we have a leader of the western world who is committed to tackling and destroying the cancer that the big investment banks have become to both the world’s developed and developing economies. I hope that Goldman Sachs is the first of many cancerous growths that are removed from our midst in the coming years.
Comments
If these debates were genuinely supposed to enhance democracy then UKIP should have been represented too.
As things stand the media would have you believe that there is only one package to vote for. All we are arguing about is whether the wrapping paper should be red, yellow or blue.
UKIP? You mean the lot that are led by this bloke?
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/04/lord-pearson-sopel-ukip
"I haven't come here to deal with minutae (bank regulation)."
How anyone can argue that Clegg (scrapping Trident, closer EU ties) is close to either Brown or Cameron is beyond me.
I don't know Clegg from a bar of soap but it seems he has struck a chord with a lot of folks as a "third-way" and something new and different - and worth a try.
Labour are out of steam - and they know it - there is no enthusiasm at all for the chinless wonders to come back into power which leaves a bloody great hole for Clegg which he looks like exploiting quite nicely.
He's no Barack Obama but he has learnt the lessons well.
If these debates were genuinely supposed to enhance democracy then UKIP should have been represented too.
As things stand the media would have you believe that there is only one package to vote for. All we are arguing about is whether the wrapping paper should be red, yellow or blue.[/quote]
UKIP are indeed a different kettle of fish, a single issue stop cock device for disaffected Tories to let off steam, at the moment it's a general election and unfortunately for UKIP and indeed the Greens they havent been a significant factor previously. Maybe with a fair voting system and returning some MPs they might get a platform next time, I hope so.
I think the BBC claimed it was only for the 3 men most likely to be Prime Minister, or at least that's what they claimed to Plaid Cymru and the SNP. I could go on and on about how ridiculous their arguments for being in it were, but I imagine the majority agree with me!
Check out the above link. Clegg is exhonerated over money paid into his account. Other Stories orchestrated from Cameron's campaign team
I really hope it back fires on the Tories. Frankly they were desperate. They saw a possible Clegg tidal wave sweeping all before him, so on the eve of the second debate, set your biggest attack dogs on Clegg, and hope like mad that Cameron can win the debate.
What worries me also is the potential impartiality of some of the pollsters like YouGov(for the Sun). When they called for an instant verdict at the end of last nights debate, those votes were cast between 9.27pm and 9.29pm. Clegg didn't start his final summing up until 9.29pm, hence those who voted would not have done so having heard his extremely powerful summing up. This is very dodgy. There you have Murdoch's Sky TV, a poll for Murdoch's Sun, getting a result they wanted.
If you then add to that the completely unscripted biased question that Murdoch's employee Boulton directed to Clegg regarding his expenses which I cannot believe was allowed by the rules. The way the camera director refused to settle on Clegg talking to camera for more than a few seconds, but positively fixed on Cameron when he was doing it, it was very, very dodgy. I remarked to my mate about it as we watched the debate live, and I see that others also have picked up on it.
If you add to this the suppressing of a YouGov survey for Murdoch's Sun which showed that if people thought the Lib Dems were going to be likely winners, the % who said they would vote for them rose to 49%.
I know this is the stuff of politics but it is extremely worrying. Murdoch has gone for a Tory win. He wants to be assured of backing the winner. The election result has been blown wide open and Murdoch is pulling every stunt he can to ensure a victory. If it is still close come the start of the final week, god knows what will be in store - presumably Clegg being accused of the slaughter of the first born.
Agreed, the coverage in The Sun is simply laughable! Its like Tory Party HQ have taken over the place and are running it like a propaganda machine, their coverage of Clegg since the first debate has been sick.
The really interesting thing is that the dear old Daily Mail, while still virulently anti-Labour, has not really embraced Cameron with any enthusiasm, he is far too liberal for their liking and their distaste is quite clear.
It is said that it doesn’t matter to the City whether there is a coalition since all 3 parties have broadly similar plans for debt-reduction (£6bn being neither here nor there at the end of the day). The problem, however, is that they may be talking similarly but none of their current plans are likely to be sufficient in the eyes of the ratings agencies or foreign investors – whose opinions are, at the very least, important to the value of £ and level of UK long term interest rates. So what are the chances of achieving a stable coalition that, in the national interest, might impose tougher medicine? Not good.
Given that (for reasons only of historical emnity rather than policy, on which they are arguably the closest pairing of the possible permutations) the Labour and Conservative Parties will not countenance forming a coalition together, it will likely (as expected) fall to one or other to do a deal with the Lib Dems.
If Labour do so, they will have to jettison Brown. Clegg has made this clear and if Labour finishes 3rd in the popular vote, not only will the Lib Dems not dare to prop him up but the internal Labour opposition to Brown will finally have its day. But who would replace him? Clegg has hinted that he could work with David Miliband but a purge of Labour MPs at the polls would do most damage to Blairite numbers and, with Unite bankrolling the party, Clegg may find himself negotiating with a new left-wing leader. That might please Labour (and Lib Dem) grassroots but would hardly bode well for the robust deficit-reduction plan that the markets are looking for.
What about the Tories, since Cameron now appears to be contemplating the concession of a vote on electoral reform to win Clegg’s support (and which Clegg is smart enough to demand as non-negotiable)? There is little doubt that failure to win a convincing majority when the exiting Govt is as unpopular as this one would alone be sufficient to undermine Cameron in the Conservative Party. He has been tolerated by many rather than supported with conviction. If he were to agree a referendum on electoral reform he would run the grave risk of splitting his party and you could quite plausibly see a rapid significant transfer of support (among Tory MPs and constituencies) to a right-wing breakaway party or to UKIP.
All of which bodes for a highly unstable period at Westminster, with one or both of the Labour and Conservative parties fractured and whichever one agreeing a pact with the Lib Dems being unable to enforce the whip. A second general election within a year would be likely.
Many on this board may welcome that but, if it were to pan out like this, expect a run on an already weak £, meltdown in the gilt market and sharply higher (imported) inflation and unemployment. Remember the name Dominique Strauss-Kahn. He’s the current head of the IMF and he might be running the country for a while.
I am not recommending to anyone that they vote or do not vote for any particular party but simply to beware the Law of Unintended Consequences: “Any intervention in a complex system may or may not have the intended result, but will inevitably create unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes [Wikipedia]”.
Been doing some reading on the IMF and I was staggered how often the UK took loans from them (under both parties) post Breton woods.
Good job they're multilateralists then. What they are actually proposing is that we get rid of an ICBM deterrent and have a deterrent that delivers the package in a different form. They're not saying we should give up our nuclear stockpile.
Singapore paper today is urging everyone to plan a UK holiday in the summer because sterling will be so weak and they will come out winners in spending power.
I get the same vibes from contacts overseas Stonemuse.
Maybe this is a slow-motion crash and there's not much that can be done to avoid a lot of carnage. I don't think that the full potential for political instability is anywhere near fully discounted in the markets at the moment - there are so many possible permutations that they will react to each new development.
Maybe its best to just accept that sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better (a bit like our descent to League 1) and if, as a result of the rejection of both Labour and Conservative parties, they are forced to make themselves distinguishable again that would be welcome both by grassroots supporters of both parties and by the electorate.
Its the herding onto the middle ground over the last 10 years and sheer cowardice of party leaderships (prompted by the pernicious influence of an over-bearing media [including the champagne-socialist Oxbridge graduates of the BBC aswell as the "Tory Press"]) that insults everyone's intelligence and means that some of the biggest of issues facing us are simply not addressed rationally (e.g. what the country truly wants from membership of the EU, the role of an independent nuclear deterrent, reform of the welfare state and public sector pensions, some new and constructive thinking on crime and drugs' policies). It is tempting to think that a Lib Dem influenced coalition in itself might bring about a rational tackling of these issues - I hope so but I don't expect so.
If it shakes both the Labour and Conservative Parties out of their complacency and facilitates some real choice in future, that will do for me. In that sense, bring it on.
Excellent news.
We obviously don't need ICBMs anymore :-)
You can get Polaris in Lidl.
There could well be some fall-out from the Greek situation coming our way, courtesy of the IMF, although (in theory!!) the countries who have actually adopted the Euro should bear the brunt.
However the UK Government (red, blue or yelllow) like to be seen as "good Europeans" so it is a pretty safe bet the UK taxpayers will end up forking out one way or the other!
It’s all a matter of opinion of course. You may well be right.
If you consider the spread-betting market, a hung parliament only became a probability in the market's eyes after the first Presidential [sic] debate, 9 days ago. It is such a new and fluid situation that I don’t believe the market is yet fully discounting the real possibilities of either a left-wing Labour & Lib Dem coalition or a split-Tory & Lib Dem coalition.
Neither may come to pass but either most certainly could and an indication that one or other might happen would, in my view, weaken sterling and unnerve the gilt market.
You can make whatever argument you like about successful coalitions in Europe but Italy's had more governments than Christmases since the war and it is a fact that, in some circumstances, the tail can wag the dog. It’s a perfectly plausible scenario that the Scots, Welsh or N.Irish get thrown a bone or two for their support even in the context of a Lib-Dem influenced coalition, if its partner can't command the support of all of its MPs.
I'm not worried about a Lib Dem coalition per se (there are potentially some benefits for the longer term, as I said in my second comment). I am just saying be careful what you wish for.
Steady BA, you're getting into religion - nontheless you're quite right - another subject where the public is effectively denied a voice.
Isn't going to happen when the 'nasty party' is so compassionate it won't even cut overseas aid. Politics in this country is surreal.
Glug, glug.
reason I didn't respond to Bournemouth Addick is because I knew it would turn into a climate change argument ... and that's not what this thread is about ... and lo and behold, it's gonna happen ... pity
Sorry. Thought it was about the election and this is something that matters to me and is relevant when the Tories are banging on abouth the £6b savings they've identified yet this is 3 times more than that, per annum, for the next 4 decades, using the Govt's own figures.
However for the sake of the thread please ignore my post everyone and carry on.
You say you are not advocating a vote for any particular party but you are trotting out the same scaremongering that the Tory press always peddle out in the last days before election day in a last minute attempt to deter as many people as possible from voting Labour i.e. ‘don’t vote Labour because international bankers won’t like it and will sell the pound, cause interest rates to rise and short term damage to the economy.’ These things often do happen when a Labour government gets elected (and will again if Labour get elected or we have a hung parliament) but it is always short term. I hope the people in this country are never fooled into thinking they have to take into consideration what international markets and international bankers (the very people responsible for 100% of the economic woes currently being experienced by the western economies) think when deciding who to vote for.
Personally, I think the sooner we join the euro the better because then our economy will not be so vulnerable to attacks from profiteering scum bags like Soros and his ilk.
I think the Tories will win this election (I think the best I can hope for is a hung parliament). But I take comfort from the fact that in President Obama (and comparing Clegg to Obama is like comparing Millwall to Barcelona) we have a leader of the western world who is committed to tackling and destroying the cancer that the big investment banks have become to both the world’s developed and developing economies. I hope that Goldman Sachs is the first of many cancerous growths that are removed from our midst in the coming years.