I don't necessarily see a hung parliament as a bad thing.
We all know that the deficit has to be brought under control and right now a convergence of views and the parties working together (which is what would happen under a coalition) could be the best outcome. All the coalition partners wouldn't want to be seen as the party that sabotaged the recovery so they would toe the line.
Germany had a multi-party coalition for several years and it worked fine. It can work here too...
And Red_in-SE8 is right - the stories about gilt markets crashing are cheap scaremongering.
Peanuts, for Italy there is Germany. For Belgium there is Sweden. That still leaves a load of successful European coalition governments.
Labour may have to lose Brown to go into government with the Lib Dems, but it's still Labour. The knives may come out for Cameron, but I don't think it'd be that serious. I also don't think the DUP, Plaid or SNP would have to be bought out if the Lib Dems are in government.
If results end up like the polls suggest now, the Lib Dems would be looking to build credibility for themselves as a lead government party of the future (especially if they're first or second on the popular vote), so it's not the case of the tail wagging the dog. If polls stay as they are, the Lib Dems will be a big party, even if their seat count isn't as high as the other two, and their price of government is proportional representation, so they won't be stuck in the same situation again.
[cite]Posted By: Red_in_SE8[/cite]
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.
Red_in_SE8 - Please read carefully what people actually write before getting yourself in a lather – it isn’t good for you.
[cite]Posted By: IA[/cite]Peanuts, for Italy there is Germany. For Belgium there is Sweden. That still leaves a load of successful European coalition governments.
Labour may have to lose Brown to go into government with the Lib Dems, but it's still Labour. The knives may come out for Cameron, but I don't think it'd be that serious. I also don't think the DUP, Plaid or SNP would have to be bought out if the Lib Dems are in government.
If results end up like the polls suggest now, the Lib Dems would be looking to build credibility for themselves as a lead government party of the future (especially if they're first or second on the popular vote), so it's not the case of the tail wagging the dog. If polls stay as they are, the Lib Dems will be a big party, even if their seat count isn't as high as the other two, and their price of government is proportional representation, so they won't be stuck in the same situation again.
I agree IA – there are good and bad examples of coalitions on the Continent. The UK precedents from the 1920s and 70s don’t bode well but these are strange times - who knows?
I do think that Labour under, say, Cruddas would be perceived by the markets as being quite different to one under Johnson or Miliband – certainly many Labour backbenchers and activists would sincerely hope it were. Actually I think Cruddas would be good news for Labour but in the short term the markets would assume the worst (in terms of deficit-reduction) from what it would consider to be the most left-of-centre (albeit coalition) government since the 1970s.
My point is not that a coalition cannot work (it could, depending upon how the numbers stack up) but simply that little consideration has been given to the likely weakening of the Blairite wing of the Labour Party or the potential for instability in the Conservative Party if the election results were indeed in line with current opinion polls – and, in the case of the latter, if Clegg extracted from Cameron a referendum on electoral reform as the price for coalition support. A lot of Conservatives simply would not stand for that but, of course, if the combined coalition numbers could weather Tory disaffections, it could still succeed. So, I’m not saying any of this WILL happen, merely suggesting that neither the markets (nor much of the media for that matter) have yet focussed on either of these possibilities.
As PR would not be introduced without a prior referendum, if there were a second general election this year it would likely take place under the current first-past-the-post system. It is possible that there would also be two new leaders of the “Old Parties”. If so, everything could be up in the air as regards the result. The Lib Dems might consolidate their position but there could be more radical alternatives on the left and right on offer which could materially affect voting patterns. Who knows? However, we should not count on the foreign exchange and gilt markets watching such events unfold without some serious reactions.
Nonetheless, I hope your confidence proves to be well-placed.
[cite]Posted By: PeanutsMolloy[/cite][quoteRed_in_SE8 - Please read carefully what people actually write before getting yourself in a lather – it isn’t good for you.
Curious why you think I am in a lather. I am not Leroy Ambrose!
I was merely responding to your point about the impact on our economy, gilt yields and interest rates should the markets not like the government we elect when you wrote things like
'... 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.'
and
'...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.'
These sentiments seem very similar to the headlines that will be all over the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph in the week before election date if the election is still in the balance.
Peanuts, for a different perspective on the financial impact of a hung parliament which might lead to a coalition or pact, I suggest you read todays Independent.
Firstly the major credit rating agencies are pretty relaxed about a hung parliament. In addition of the 16 major countries with AAA ratings, 10 have coalition governments.
With respect, I think that all of this stuff about weak governments is fallacious. If you actually look at our history, major financial crises have usually required some form of coalition or pact to pull them through. Often once the crisis is over, they tend to unravel but they do actually bring stability.
Given the state of our economy, there may well be a time yet, whether there is a majority government or a coalition where we have to call in the IMF. I have heard little detail from either Labour or Tory parties as to how they will tackle this huge structural deficit. To be fair the Lib Dems are also less than fully detailed but at least their manifesto has some figures in it! We may well be facing a double dip recession whoever is in power and industrial unrest is extremely likely.
So who is best to govern in those circumstances. Labour on its own with its links to the trade unions and big government? The Tories with their perceived bosses/rich people bias, the Lib Dems with their fairness agenda? Perhaps the coalition will bring in Scot an Welsh Nats? Maybe if it pans out that way, a government who has representation across the spectrum might actually help to take people with them as regards the austerity measures which are inevitably coming?
[cite]Posted By: Red_in_SE8[/cite]
What have I mis-read or mis-understood?
Red_in_SE8 – you accused me of "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.’".
Not a syllable of anything I wrote implied that people should not vote Labour in the forthcoming election.
In the context ONLY of the Lib Dems holding the balance of power, I was pointing out 2 possible factors (the potential for a future power shift in the Labour Party and for a fracture in the Tory party) which, in my view, are highly plausible but which the markets (and the media come to that) have not yet registered or discounted.
On the contrary, though many might disagree with me, I happen to think that a Brown majority government, while no doubt an unwelcome surprise to many, would not in itself be the catalyst for an immediate, material sell-off as, rightly or wrongly, it would be considered a known quantity (at least the markets would want to see whether Darling or another credible candidate [i.e. not Balls] is Chancellor).
In fact, I don’t expect the markets to react materially on 7th May unless there is a comfortable Conservative majority, in which case expect a rally in £ in the hope that Cameron will act tougher than he’s talked. The market is assuming anything except prolonged political instability, which is what I think MAY occur, as I have said [now for the last time] if the Lib Dems hold the balance of power after 6th May.
So, if you wish to vote Labour (though only God knows why anyone would want another 5 years of GoBro), go right ahead.
[cite]Posted By: Red_in_SE8[/cite]
Curious why you think I am in a lather.
Hmm………“scum bags”, “cancerous growths”...................it’s a mystery alright.
So, if you wish to vote Labour (though only God knows why anyone would want another 5 years of GoBro), go right ahead.
.............
The problem is that more I see of Cameron the less convinced I become and the OPs suggest that I'm not alone, by now Brown/Labour should be toast, but he hasn't got the killer instinct and that could let Brown back in, although in any coalition Brown won't be PM unless Labour win either the most votes or the most seats.
The Tory party/Cameron should have ditched Osborne and made Ken Clarke shadow chancellor, they'd have walked this election if they had done.
[cite]Posted By: PeanutsMolloy[/cite]in the hope that Cameron will act tougher than he’s talked
This is the nub of it. Why do you assume that Cameron is being economical with the truth, but Clegg isn't? Cameron has had enough time as the Prime Minister-in-waiting and up against such an unpopular government to be able to speak honestly and gain respect from that. And, if he is lying, with less than 40% of the popular support, tough cuts will be very difficult.
I think at this stage it's unlikely that the Conservatives will have a big majority after the election, so whether it's a majority of less than 20 or requiring coalition partners, there will be rumblings against Cameron either way. In my opinion, it's better if they have the Lib Dems behind them than requiring the support of the regional parties, either at the start of government or mid-way through their term, and for that reason, I think it serves the national interest better for the Conservatives to have the option of minority government/coalition with the DUP or Plaid taken out of their hands than for them to be close to a majority and having to throw some pork at, say, Northern Ireland or Wales.
Liked the Rawnsley article. I thought the line about Clegg being bashed by "a desperate right-wing press angry that Nick Clegg has become popular without their permission" summed up why politics is knackered in this country at the moment. We need proper change and not the sort of limp-wristed PR slogan change that Cameron witters on about at every opportunity (I think he thinks that he is being Obama-like when he does it). The public agrees we need change, but they know they have more chance of getting it with Clegg than with him. Now the two main parties are freaking out and the election has suddenly become very interesting...
I want change and I don't give a monkey's what Murdoch or the City want. They have run things for too long and screwed over the man/woman in the street. Somehow, I don't think i'm alone.
[cite]Posted By: Red_in_SE8[/cite]
What have I mis-read or mis-understood?
Red_in_SE8 – you accused me of "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.’".
Not a syllable of anything I wrote implied that people should not vote Labour in the forthcoming election.
In the context ONLY of the Lib Dems holding the balance of power, I was pointing out 2 possible factors (the potential for a future power shift in the Labour Party and for a fracture in the Tory party) which, in my view, are highly plausible but which the markets (and the media come to that) have not yet registered or discounted.
On the contrary, though many might disagree with me, I happen to think that a Brown majority government, while no doubt an unwelcome surprise to many, would not in itself be the catalyst for an immediate, material sell-off as, rightly or wrongly, it would be considered a known quantity (at least the markets would want to see whether Darling or another credible candidate [i.e. not Balls] is Chancellor).
In fact, I don’t expect the markets to react materially on 7th May unless there is a comfortable Conservative majority, in which case expect a rally in £ in the hope that Cameron will act tougher than he’s talked. The market is assuming anything except prolonged political instability, which is what I think MAY occur, as I have said [now for the last time] if the Lib Dems hold the balance of power after 6th May.
So, if you wish to vote Labour (though only God knows why anyone would want another 5 years of GoBro), go right ahead.
[cite]Posted By: Red_in_SE8[/cite]
Curious why you think I am in a lather.
Hmm………“scum bags”, “cancerous growths”...................it’s a mystery alright.
My interpretation of what you wrote was that you were warning people about the dangers of voting Lib-Dem as this may result in a hung parliament and this in turn would lead to an adverse reaction from the markets. It was clear to me you were not advising people to not vote Labour. But, I felt you were using the same scaremongering tactics used by the Tory press in the past to deter people voting Labour to deter people from voting Lib-Dem.
I take your point about the language I used with regard to the Investment Banks. Re-reading my post, particularly the phrases you have picked out, I can see how it would come across to the reader. That kind of language only detracts from my argument and adds nothing to what has been a well reasoned debate so far on this thread.
Cheers Red_in_SE8,
I accept that my argument could be interpreted as anti-Lib Dem but actually I welcome a shaking up of the status quo that Clegg is in all probability going to facilitate (painful though I think it may be in the short term) but let's agree to disagree.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]The Tory party/Cameron should have ditched Osborne and made Ken Clarke shadow chancellor, they'd have walked this election if they had done.
Not sure that they'd walk it but a small Tory majority would be far more likely than it is now. Whether you like the Tories or not it's very hard not to like Clarke and few can argue with his record as chancellor. Another 'safe' decision from a very weak leader.
It's very interesting to read some of these! This will be the first election I can vote in (cause of age not apathy) an just my luck it looks like being one of the most exciting/controversial ones for a while!
We have had an unstable minority conservative government here in Canada since the election in 2006, the minority reconfirmed in 2008 - the opposition parties can call on an election at any time they wish & it has come close to that in recent months. In that period the Canadian dollar has truly soared in value against both the US Dollar, the Euro & the UK pound.
Was impressed that he seems willing to defend unpopular policies on the basis of them being pragmatic and workable rather than some the macho stance of being "tough" or "zero tolerance" that I keep hearing from DC and GB.
The regional work permits and points systems copied from Australia and Canada seem difficult to implement but shifting more responsibility and punishment on the employers of illegal immigrants make sense IMHO.
Reading the Sunday Times I expect a tory bias but nearly every leader and columnist is having a go a Clegg. They are clearly worried about him but I think it may back fire on them. His profile is rising in part because the Tory press are feeding it.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Saw Clegg on the politics show this morning.
Was impressed that he seems willing to defend unpopular policies on the basis of them being pragmatic and workable rather than some the macho stance of being "tough" or "zero tolerance" that I keep hearing from DC and GB.
The regional work permits and points systems copied from Australia and Canada seem difficult to implement but shifting more responsibility and punishment on the employers of illegal immigrants make sense IMHO.
Reading the Sunday Times I expect a tory bias but nearly every leader and columnist is having a go a Clegg. They are clearly worried about him but I think it may back fire on them. His profile is rising in part because the Tory press are feeding it.
I think we have to be really worried about Murdoch's influence in this election. YouGov (who's CEO is standing as a Tory MP) and working for the Sun, held their instant poll before Clegg started his final speech. You have to ask why? Mori have a completely rogue poll showing in the NOTW today. You have to ask why? Murdoch is very scared that if the Lib Dems are in any power after the election that they will try to bring in legislation which will curb his influence. So the stakes are high!
All the polls are throwing up an odd one now and again, some of them even show labour in second place, these must be statistical oddities, no other reason for them. Same old labour supporters blaming the press for the labour party being unpopular.
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]All the polls are throwing up an odd one now and again, some of them even show labour in second place, these must be statistical oddities, no other reason for them. Same old labour supporters blaming the press for the labour party being unpopular.
I've read about some push-polling from YouGov. A question was phrased along the lines of "What do you fear most about the Lib Dems holding the balance of power?" with a series of doomsday scenarios as possible answers. After that, I won't be taking anything YouGov say seriously.
There's no doubt that the Labour Party are unpopular, but that News of the World poll looks a lot like a rogue poll, given the past week or so and what all other polls have been saying. It's hard to say. I'll keep an open mind on it
There was a COMRES one a few days ago that showed a conservative lead of 9% over the other two and I saw an (ICM, think it was them but not sure) yesterday also showing conservatives with a 7 point lead over labour and with lib dems back on 23, most polls show a blip now and then. It is if they are consistently out of kilter with the other polls that they start to look rogue and worth discounting.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]the polls dont always get it right as people lie and/or change their minds.
Heath won in 70 despite all the polls saying he would lose.
Kinnock was celebrating victory but then lost in 92 (?)
Labour thought they were close in 1992 but then they had their infamous party rally in Sheffield and dear old Neil went a bit OTT with the fist-punching and shouts of "We're all right!" and it went down a bomb in the press.
Post-election it was revealed in a couple of books by party insiders that a week before polling day Labour's internal polling told them that they would probably lose the election, Nigel W (or whatever his current name is) can probably confirm this.
This current election will be very, very close, it might even take a couple of days before the result is known with some constituencies having to be re-counted.
The core Tory vote will be energised as will the Lib Dem's, the crucial factor will be how many core Labour voters get out and vote - with Brown's current awful campaign I doubt there will be many.
You have to ask why? Murdoch is very scared that if the Lib Dems are in any power after the election that they will try to bring in legislation which will curb his influence. So the stakes are high!
..........
Murdoch publically supported Thatcher and that allowed him to buy the Times as well as the Sun, NoTW and start Sky. Then he switched to supporting Blair and then Cameron, although he apparently doesn't rate Cameron. Simply he's been allowed to dominate British media under Labour and the Cons and that cosy relationship looks like ending if Clegg became PM.
But it isn't just Murdoch attacking Clegg, the Telegraph for example hasn't been shy about running a few fact-lite articles with lots of smoke but few hard facts on Clegg and the Lib-Dems.
Comments
We all know that the deficit has to be brought under control and right now a convergence of views and the parties working together (which is what would happen under a coalition) could be the best outcome. All the coalition partners wouldn't want to be seen as the party that sabotaged the recovery so they would toe the line.
Germany had a multi-party coalition for several years and it worked fine. It can work here too...
And Red_in-SE8 is right - the stories about gilt markets crashing are cheap scaremongering.
Labour may have to lose Brown to go into government with the Lib Dems, but it's still Labour. The knives may come out for Cameron, but I don't think it'd be that serious. I also don't think the DUP, Plaid or SNP would have to be bought out if the Lib Dems are in government.
If results end up like the polls suggest now, the Lib Dems would be looking to build credibility for themselves as a lead government party of the future (especially if they're first or second on the popular vote), so it's not the case of the tail wagging the dog. If polls stay as they are, the Lib Dems will be a big party, even if their seat count isn't as high as the other two, and their price of government is proportional representation, so they won't be stuck in the same situation again.
Red_in_SE8 - Please read carefully what people actually write before getting yourself in a lather – it isn’t good for you.
I agree IA – there are good and bad examples of coalitions on the Continent. The UK precedents from the 1920s and 70s don’t bode well but these are strange times - who knows?
I do think that Labour under, say, Cruddas would be perceived by the markets as being quite different to one under Johnson or Miliband – certainly many Labour backbenchers and activists would sincerely hope it were. Actually I think Cruddas would be good news for Labour but in the short term the markets would assume the worst (in terms of deficit-reduction) from what it would consider to be the most left-of-centre (albeit coalition) government since the 1970s.
My point is not that a coalition cannot work (it could, depending upon how the numbers stack up) but simply that little consideration has been given to the likely weakening of the Blairite wing of the Labour Party or the potential for instability in the Conservative Party if the election results were indeed in line with current opinion polls – and, in the case of the latter, if Clegg extracted from Cameron a referendum on electoral reform as the price for coalition support. A lot of Conservatives simply would not stand for that but, of course, if the combined coalition numbers could weather Tory disaffections, it could still succeed. So, I’m not saying any of this WILL happen, merely suggesting that neither the markets (nor much of the media for that matter) have yet focussed on either of these possibilities.
As PR would not be introduced without a prior referendum, if there were a second general election this year it would likely take place under the current first-past-the-post system. It is possible that there would also be two new leaders of the “Old Parties”. If so, everything could be up in the air as regards the result. The Lib Dems might consolidate their position but there could be more radical alternatives on the left and right on offer which could materially affect voting patterns. Who knows? However, we should not count on the foreign exchange and gilt markets watching such events unfold without some serious reactions.
Nonetheless, I hope your confidence proves to be well-placed.
Curious why you think I am in a lather. I am not Leroy Ambrose!
I was merely responding to your point about the impact on our economy, gilt yields and interest rates should the markets not like the government we elect when you wrote things like
'... 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.'
and
'...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.'
These sentiments seem very similar to the headlines that will be all over the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph in the week before election date if the election is still in the balance.
What have I mis-read or mis-understood?
Firstly the major credit rating agencies are pretty relaxed about a hung parliament. In addition of the 16 major countries with AAA ratings, 10 have coalition governments.
With respect, I think that all of this stuff about weak governments is fallacious. If you actually look at our history, major financial crises have usually required some form of coalition or pact to pull them through. Often once the crisis is over, they tend to unravel but they do actually bring stability.
Given the state of our economy, there may well be a time yet, whether there is a majority government or a coalition where we have to call in the IMF. I have heard little detail from either Labour or Tory parties as to how they will tackle this huge structural deficit. To be fair the Lib Dems are also less than fully detailed but at least their manifesto has some figures in it! We may well be facing a double dip recession whoever is in power and industrial unrest is extremely likely.
So who is best to govern in those circumstances. Labour on its own with its links to the trade unions and big government? The Tories with their perceived bosses/rich people bias, the Lib Dems with their fairness agenda? Perhaps the coalition will bring in Scot an Welsh Nats? Maybe if it pans out that way, a government who has representation across the spectrum might actually help to take people with them as regards the austerity measures which are inevitably coming?
So for "hung", read "balanced"
Red_in_SE8 – you accused me of "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.’".
Not a syllable of anything I wrote implied that people should not vote Labour in the forthcoming election.
In the context ONLY of the Lib Dems holding the balance of power, I was pointing out 2 possible factors (the potential for a future power shift in the Labour Party and for a fracture in the Tory party) which, in my view, are highly plausible but which the markets (and the media come to that) have not yet registered or discounted.
On the contrary, though many might disagree with me, I happen to think that a Brown majority government, while no doubt an unwelcome surprise to many, would not in itself be the catalyst for an immediate, material sell-off as, rightly or wrongly, it would be considered a known quantity (at least the markets would want to see whether Darling or another credible candidate [i.e. not Balls] is Chancellor).
In fact, I don’t expect the markets to react materially on 7th May unless there is a comfortable Conservative majority, in which case expect a rally in £ in the hope that Cameron will act tougher than he’s talked. The market is assuming anything except prolonged political instability, which is what I think MAY occur, as I have said [now for the last time] if the Lib Dems hold the balance of power after 6th May.
So, if you wish to vote Labour (though only God knows why anyone would want another 5 years of GoBro), go right ahead.
Hmm………“scum bags”, “cancerous growths”...................it’s a mystery alright.
.............
The problem is that more I see of Cameron the less convinced I become and the OPs suggest that I'm not alone, by now Brown/Labour should be toast, but he hasn't got the killer instinct and that could let Brown back in, although in any coalition Brown won't be PM unless Labour win either the most votes or the most seats.
The Tory party/Cameron should have ditched Osborne and made Ken Clarke shadow chancellor, they'd have walked this election if they had done.
This is the nub of it. Why do you assume that Cameron is being economical with the truth, but Clegg isn't? Cameron has had enough time as the Prime Minister-in-waiting and up against such an unpopular government to be able to speak honestly and gain respect from that. And, if he is lying, with less than 40% of the popular support, tough cuts will be very difficult.
I think at this stage it's unlikely that the Conservatives will have a big majority after the election, so whether it's a majority of less than 20 or requiring coalition partners, there will be rumblings against Cameron either way. In my opinion, it's better if they have the Lib Dems behind them than requiring the support of the regional parties, either at the start of government or mid-way through their term, and for that reason, I think it serves the national interest better for the Conservatives to have the option of minority government/coalition with the DUP or Plaid taken out of their hands than for them to be close to a majority and having to throw some pork at, say, Northern Ireland or Wales.
Well worth a read
I'm not. I am saying how I think the markets are likely to react.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-claims-that-hung-parliament-would-cause-meltdown-are-dismissed-1952954.html
Spot on. Complacency, as Rawnsley says, and (in my view) herding onto the middle ground, has cost both Labour and Conservative dear.
I want change and I don't give a monkey's what Murdoch or the City want. They have run things for too long and screwed over the man/woman in the street. Somehow, I don't think i'm alone.
My interpretation of what you wrote was that you were warning people about the dangers of voting Lib-Dem as this may result in a hung parliament and this in turn would lead to an adverse reaction from the markets. It was clear to me you were not advising people to not vote Labour. But, I felt you were using the same scaremongering tactics used by the Tory press in the past to deter people voting Labour to deter people from voting Lib-Dem.
I take your point about the language I used with regard to the Investment Banks. Re-reading my post, particularly the phrases you have picked out, I can see how it would come across to the reader. That kind of language only detracts from my argument and adds nothing to what has been a well reasoned debate so far on this thread.
I accept that my argument could be interpreted as anti-Lib Dem but actually I welcome a shaking up of the status quo that Clegg is in all probability going to facilitate (painful though I think it may be in the short term) but let's agree to disagree.
Not sure that they'd walk it but a small Tory majority would be far more likely than it is now. Whether you like the Tories or not it's very hard not to like Clarke and few can argue with his record as chancellor. Another 'safe' decision from a very weak leader.
Was impressed that he seems willing to defend unpopular policies on the basis of them being pragmatic and workable rather than some the macho stance of being "tough" or "zero tolerance" that I keep hearing from DC and GB.
The regional work permits and points systems copied from Australia and Canada seem difficult to implement but shifting more responsibility and punishment on the employers of illegal immigrants make sense IMHO.
Reading the Sunday Times I expect a tory bias but nearly every leader and columnist is having a go a Clegg. They are clearly worried about him but I think it may back fire on them. His profile is rising in part because the Tory press are feeding it.
http://www.greenwich.co.uk/news/03165-profile-darryl-chamberlain-peninsula/
Good Luck to him
I think we have to be really worried about Murdoch's influence in this election. YouGov (who's CEO is standing as a Tory MP) and working for the Sun, held their instant poll before Clegg started his final speech. You have to ask why? Mori have a completely rogue poll showing in the NOTW today. You have to ask why? Murdoch is very scared that if the Lib Dems are in any power after the election that they will try to bring in legislation which will curb his influence. So the stakes are high!
I've read about some push-polling from YouGov. A question was phrased along the lines of "What do you fear most about the Lib Dems holding the balance of power?" with a series of doomsday scenarios as possible answers. After that, I won't be taking anything YouGov say seriously.
There's no doubt that the Labour Party are unpopular, but that News of the World poll looks a lot like a rogue poll, given the past week or so and what all other polls have been saying. It's hard to say. I'll keep an open mind on it
Heath won in 70 despite all the polls saying he would lose.
Kinnock was celebrating victory but then lost in 92 (?)
Labour thought they were close in 1992 but then they had their infamous party rally in Sheffield and dear old Neil went a bit OTT with the fist-punching and shouts of "We're all right!" and it went down a bomb in the press.
Post-election it was revealed in a couple of books by party insiders that a week before polling day Labour's internal polling told them that they would probably lose the election, Nigel W (or whatever his current name is) can probably confirm this.
This current election will be very, very close, it might even take a couple of days before the result is known with some constituencies having to be re-counted.
The core Tory vote will be energised as will the Lib Dem's, the crucial factor will be how many core Labour voters get out and vote - with Brown's current awful campaign I doubt there will be many.
..........
Murdoch publically supported Thatcher and that allowed him to buy the Times as well as the Sun, NoTW and start Sky. Then he switched to supporting Blair and then Cameron, although he apparently doesn't rate Cameron. Simply he's been allowed to dominate British media under Labour and the Cons and that cosy relationship looks like ending if Clegg became PM.
But it isn't just Murdoch attacking Clegg, the Telegraph for example hasn't been shy about running a few fact-lite articles with lots of smoke but few hard facts on Clegg and the Lib-Dems.