Why the Tories have lost the Election.

i agree and i would be gutted if the tories and slick rick won the election.

I agree with you Mike.

....Finally an intelligent response to the Cameron hyperbole as espoused by so much of the right wing press in our country....whether enough people will see past the propaganda is debateable however.

I'd love to be wrong but I reckon a hung parliment or a very small Tory majority is still the most likely election result. Interesting times lie ahead methinks!

As much as I agree I think the damage has already been done. Supported by the Scum and other papers, Mr Slime will probably do it.
If any sort of logic is applied by Mr Voter then anything is possible, but unlikely.

1. Not sure how Labour is distinguished from Tory on that

2. Your interpretation of efficiency savings is extremely narrow

3. Getting sued for breach of contract means you did not re-negotiate the contract, you just broke it.

4. I don't have my house as my nil rate band

5. Not sure he ever had much credibility, meself! But Gordon Brown is grotesque. An end to boom and bust? Prudence? Lies! The usual tax and spend / spending money is the answer to everything that labour ALWAYS delivers, dropping the country totally in the poo

6. A major gaffe, indeed

7. Not as simple as that - even in the years when the banks were contributing billions in taxes (at one point they were contributing one third of all govt revenues - which was surely always going to be unsustainable), Brown didn't fix the roof - he kept on bribing the electorate to vote labour

The tories may not be good enough, but labour are considerably worse. IMHO

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
His constant habit of calling for the most obvious solution to any problem and either calling Labour "copycats" or "indecisive" is beneath even the 4t Form Debating Society, let alone a man who wants to lead the UK.

You forgot to mention Cameron's constant droning on about calling for enquiries; seems to be his only response to situations that an astute politician would exploit rather more effectively.

Living in etc; unless you do not own a house, or its worth a good deal less than £325k your home almost certainly accounts for your Nil Rate Band.

...is just the headline I want to read the day after the General Election.

steve

Chaps

I told you the other day, the party faithful want to lose this election. That will spell the end for Cameron and then they can get a true blue back at the helm. Cameron is too far to the left for comfort. He is hated by the rank and file.

Also whoever is in power is going to be hated in 2012 when the big local authority elections come up and if the Tories are in opposition, they will almost certainly make massive gains.

Therefore in 2014 or 2015 they should win the election and have control of the councils under their belt. Also we should be coming out of the tough times, so happy days ahead. Only a fool would want to win this election.

Regards

Mick

Since Mr. Major the best leader the Party has had was Mr. Hague.

They should have taken the risk of dividing the Party and chosen Mr. Davis, if they did not want to keep Mr. Hague ...

Never mind, after twelve odd years of Brownian Prudence it is going to be one terrible mess who ever gets in, to be fair. I am no so sure that Mr. Cameron's winning would provide the necessary steel to sort anything out, so I guess that my decision will wait till the last moment unlike in previous elections. My feeling is give the Liberals a chance to affect the result as things stand.

ATB from George

Hello Mike Lacey,

Quote -

7. The state of the economy, and the Government debt, has been caused by greedy banks, not Gordon Brown. The supposed alternative implicit in the Tory polemic is that they'd have let the UK banking system collapse. This would have been economic disaster on a cliched but unprecedented scale.


Sorry but the bit about Gordon Brown is BS. He is not the sole cause, but is part of it - others being some lenders including banks, ratings agencies, and some borrowers including individuals. Government won't take any responsibility, where are the votes? Blaming individuals is another vote loser. Ratings agencies - who has heard of them? Bankers - everyone hates them, the papers will love it, it diverts from the Government and the reckless members of the public, bankers it is.

Brown's idea of investment is to throw money at the public sector hoping some of it will hit the right areas. Sort out costs first? No, money for everyone. Never mind the debt, you can have it all. This New Labour/Labour Government have had their chance and blown it, as eventually all governments do. They do not deserve another go.

Regards,
OW

I'm glad to see people here making predictions.

Returning to the original title of the thread, for all the intelligently argued points in the original post I suspect this flies over the head of the vast majority of the electorate.

My suspicion is that the majority of votes are decided by vague impressions of character and trust applied to the national leaders, a desire for change vs fear of the unknown and to a variable degree local and candidate-specific issues in particular constituencies. There may also be a vague aportioning of blame for the economic situation and the MP expenses scandal. The Sun may also have a part to play!

FWIW I think the 'natural order' after three terms of the same ruling party, economic hard times and a Prime Minister who is uninspiring at best would be a change. The fact that the result looks so close is surely testament to a failure on the part of the Tories to really convince (plus their abject failure to fight a decent campaign at the last election and eat into the majority).

I think a fair few people are wondering if a hung parliament would be such a bad idea, and are failing to come up with a reason why not.

Bruce

quote:

and a Prime Minister who is uninspiring at best

That may be the most polite thing I've ever heard!

My own personal preference would be a hung parliament with Labour forming a coalition with the Liberals and managing to steer a path through the next five years (thus getting Vince Cable into # 11). I would imagine that for their part the Liberals would require voting reform to maintain the Labour government.
In five years time then,as many here have said the economy should be in better health plus, significantly we would have got rid of the crazy 1st past the post system of government that always gives the majority the government they did not vote for ! For some of us this would also bring into Parliament some we did vote for.
If that means every government is a coalition from then on in, so be it. We would have at least ended (not for ever) government by vested (party) interests.

I must admit even as a Socialist(remember them)I could never fathom the ridiculous voting system we have. OK when there were 2 parties, but the 3 rd party getting almost half the votes of either of the "main" parties and getting 10 or 12 seats always seemed, I don't know er "undemocratic"!

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Chaps

I told you the other day, the party faithful want to lose this election. That will spell the end for Cameron and then they can get a true blue back at the helm.

Thus ensuring as great a thrashing as last time

Only 'true blue' Conservatives can see as the way forward the policies and character that got them the greatest whapping since the Great Reform Act. Reminds me of the Spitting Image Tebbitt, 'yes leader...'

quote:

Originally posted by tonym:

You forgot to mention Cameron's constant droning on about calling for enquiries; seems to be his only response

That's because it's what lawyers do. Why decide anything when you can drum up business for fellow lawyers by not deciding anything?

The country has for too long been run by lawyers for lawyers. From Bliar's no win no fee "jackpot is in the handle" culture of windfall compensation for trivia, to more sinister freedoms granted for corporate lawyers in allowing nonsense takeovers that add no value but make the lawyers rich.

Until we get away from something for nothing being celebrated and get back to rewarding things that add value - we have no choice to make. For the first time in my life I will not be voting unless I see a danger of some nutcase minority party getting in. In which case I will spoil my paper by voting Liberal.

Joe

Seems to me we are between a rock and hard place for a fail safe choice

Labour - well past sell by date that's run out of idea's
No longer credible to many of the population included previous labour voters
A list of too many mistakes, subterfuge & lies
Iraq - WMD ???
Chilcot enquiry - misleading and/or lies
On their watch for the biggest £££ crash in living memory
- didn't see it coming
- UK finances not prepared (roof not fixed during the good times)
- Deepest recession in the leading EU states & the last out.

Conservative - lacking hands on experience.
Growing public loss of confidence over unsubstantial issues such as image - airbrushed, shiny suits, clone(s) of Tony Blair
Seen to be "in the pockets" of the city, bankers & all those blamed for the recession
Politically they have a number of fall shorts
Too many sound bite statements with no real substance
No numbers (no balance sheet - only words) to show how their version of economic recovery will work.
No comparative match for their previous leaders, seen to be too soft & fuzz-focused & not showing the steel to do the deed

Liberals - absolutely no experience
No chance other than a role in a hung parliament - which I would really look forward to & see as very positive
The shining light is Vince Cable, he was heads & shoulders above the others last night
Nick Clegg has a cloned image in the same mould as the conservatives

My long held belief is that any country has to be run like a business.
This means you have to have something to trade, to buy & sell but most important to manufacture & sell
The world economies that have been hit less & recovered best from the recession have all of the above
Country owned & globally consumed car industry, machine tools, aircraft manufacture, consumer products.... etc
Read that as GB-Ltd in the early 1900's, now its Germany France USA Japan China India

I am not sure which of the choices will do this
One party promises it might do this better than the others, but airbrushed promises & no balance sheet
One has presided over a significant GB-Ltd decline in the last 13 years and a number of significant declines in the past
One has no track record, & do they really stand a chance of making any inroads with 1st past the post system
We might get more help with the flip of a coin.

Howlinhounddog - Amen to the change in voting system. I want this Government out - there is a chance the Liberals will side with Labour, I can't vote Liberal.

BigH47 - Plenty of 'Champagne Socialists' around. Doesn't the current system - boundaries - also make it easier for Labour?

Bruce Woodhouse - I despair after watching/hearing vox pops.

Mike-B - All governments do some good, but mostly screw up. Long-term governments also run out of steam, descend into corruption and take the relevant country too far in one ideological direction. The next government takes another route, hopefully hitting a period of balance as it heads for its extreme. The standard for incumbent government is to attack the opposition on experience. If that line is taken, would anyone get a job?

Cheers,
OW

I'm on record here as confessing I don't understand economics, but I'm unpersuaded by Mike's domestic and industrial metaphors. Metaphors are for pretending to explain things to people who wouldn't understand them. If we allow ourselves to be seduced into using them to think with we're well and truly stuffed.

OW,
In what ideological direction do you consider us to have been taken too far? Bland, inoffensive centrism with a mild social conscience?

David

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
1. "Look at him, he's RUBBISH" is not good enough a critique. "Trust us, we'll be OK" is not exactly a powerful or convincing message.

2. Not raising NICs sounds good, until you recall that they do not have any coherant strategy to raise the monies elsewhere. "Further efficiency savings"? That means not giving the lowest paid 2/3rds of Civil Servants a payrise - which not only penalises the (already low paid) lower grades, it by implication feathers the nest of the higher earners.

3. "We'll re-negotiate cotracts": and get sued for Breach of Contract if the result reduces the profit margins of the counterparty.

4. Increase Inheritance Tax thresholds so that c.1000 can benefit is just looking after the old boy network. Most people here, I strongly suspect, have their house as their Nil Rate Band (£325k. )

5. Cameron sounds like an overexcited school boy, and is rapidly losing credibility. His constant habit of calling for the most obvious solution to any problem and either calling Labour "copycats" or "indecisive" is beneath even the 4t Form Debating Society, let alone a man who wants to lead the UK.

6. Nobody seriously believed that Cameron welcomed the recent announcement of the domicility of his most important donor. He did it to avoid the embarrasment of an FoI disclosure. Lord Paul has been an acknowledged non Dom for many years. Its always been known.

7. The state of the economy, and the Government debt, has been caused by greedy banks, not Gordon Brown. The supposed alternative implicit in the Tory polemic is that they'd have let the UK banking system collapse. This would have been economic disaster on a cliched but unprecedented scale.

The Tories are not good enough.

Absolutely bloody spot on Mike. With your permission I am going to copy this elsewhere.

Or how about this:

Cameron Interview

I don't usually indulge in schadenfreude but I'll make an exception for Cameron.

quote:

Originally posted by David Scott?:
I'm on record here as confessing I don't understand economics, but I'm unpersuaded by Mike's domestic and industrial metaphors. Metaphors are for pretending to explain things to people who wouldn't understand them. If we allow ourselves to be seduced into using them to think with we're well and truly stuffed.

OW,
In what ideological direction do you consider us to have been taken too far? Bland, inoffensive centrism with a mild social conscience?

David

Hello David,

Sure, the gods of property, credit and celebrity, abrogation of responsibility and discipline, but all a thin layer on top of a pubic sector foundation.

Cheers,
OW

I have a friend who says he will not vote for Cameron because Cameron went to Eton College. He would never vote for anyone who went to Eton College.

Not voting for someone because they went to Eton College is as prejudiced and stupid as voting for someone because they did go to Eton College surely?